(11-16-2018 01:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry but I don't get any evidence of "compromised by Russia" or "consumed by hatred of our allies" from those. I get lots of speculation, almost all of it from a decidedly anti-Trump point of view, which is the same as you are providing, and to which I give little credence.
I feel like telling the left about Trump the same thing I used to tell the right about Bill Clinton, "Hey, here is a guy who is pragmatic and moderate enough to work with you, if you just drop the visceral, irrational hatred."

There's no point in even engaging with Trump. His open support of (white) nationalism, his support of profoundly anti-Gay policies and groups, his boorish treatment of women, his disastrous environmental policies, his lying, his self-dealing, and his unreliability have made pretty much everyone give up on dealing with him.
The anti-Globalists did have a shot at this. I'm not sure they do anymore. But for those who really wanted to end this order, they made the horrible decision of selecting leaders that
are anti-Muslim or tolerating/enabling those that are
are anti-Democratic or tolerating/enabling those that are
are anti-Hispanic or tolerating/enabling those that are
are anti-LGBT or tolerating/enabling those that are
are anti-Semetic or tolerating/enabling those that are
espouse economic plans to help the oligarchy
There was an opening. But anti-Globalism now to many people means being racist, homophobic, anti-Semetic, anti-voting, and pro-oligarchy. People that might have been reachable are now intractable opponents. This isn't just in the USA, but also in other countries.
BTW, I wasn't out of the country on my last hiatus from the board. I was working 16 hour days spread out among multiple campaigns. I gave money that I otherwise wouldn't have. I became a voter registrar. I sat out under a tent in a parking lot and registered voters. I block walked. I phone banked. I contacted every reachable contact I had to make sure they were registered, and that they voted. And I wasn't nearly as engaged as others. And we start back up in month for 2020. 2018 was just the ramping up.
Instead of making an economic argument, they've turned into an argument about race and gay rights. Exactly how did the GOP's fight against DACA help in any way? His comments about Charlottesville? Inviting Identity Evropa to the White House? Orban shutting down a University (where he got his degree by the way) because a Jew started it? Putin allowing a death camp in Southern Russia to be created? Trump banning Trans persons from the military? Attacks on Colin Kaepernick? The stupid Muslim ban? Trump won in 2016 because he made people believe that his movement was about economics. His, and his fellow travellers have made it crystal clear to us that its really about who WE are. And by doing so, you made it clear to millions that anti-Globalism may represent an existential threat
The face of anti-Globalism scares the bejeezus out of lots of people not already in that camp. Instead of working to allay those fears, the leaders doubled down on it and its followers dismissed those scared by it by gaslighting, calling people names, and demonizing those scared by them. Its becoming possible that this spate of anti-Globalism, as it has revealed itself to the world, could actually RENEW support for Globalism with wide swaths of the world population. Sure, there will be additional setbacks along the way, but things are turning back.
It was a huge mistake. At the precise time that movement needed people to expand the support base, they went the precise wrong way. Putin, and Trump, and Orban, and Farange, and Le Pen, and Dudej, are precisely the worst people you could put up as leaders.
Instead of anti-Globalism, what many people see is just naked nativism/racism, homophobia, and self dealing on an epic scale.
If you lose anti-Globalism, it will because you allowed it to be turned into Racism and Homophobia by those advocating for it.

I would say that his opponents turned it into a fight about race and gay rights, because they knew they couldn't win the economic argument. Trump is a populist, and one thing almost all populists seem to have is an amazing propensity for foot-in-mouth disease (my favorite, Edwin Edwards, "They've accused me of stealing $20 million. That's false. We've had the state auditors in, and they have assured me that we have not stolen more than $10 million").

I just think if you were willing to work with him, you could get a lot done. Same as I felt about republicans and Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and we sure as hell paid a dear price for that failure. Going nuts every time Trump tweets is to me pretty much conceptually the same thing as going nuts every time Clinton dropped his drawers or had some intern drop hers. He is who he is, you can cut deals with him or create havoc. I just think deals are better.

A lot of the things he gets criticized for are merely just reflecting the reality. The old model, "We will defend you and give you one-way access into our markets, if you stay on our side in the Cold War," became outmoded when the Berlin wall fell. Europe spending more to defend itself is the new reality that we should be seeking, as is a more level playing field for trade. That's just where we are in world history. At least Trump realizes it.

The guy screams about immigration, but he laid on the table the closest thing to a reasonable compromise that I have seen. I'm not fond of it, he gives away too much elsewhere to get his wall, IMO, but it's a far better starting point than anything else I've seen. But you're too busy screaming, "Racist! Xenophobic!" to give it even serious consideration.

It’s a complicated subject and I won’t try to unpack all of the plots and subplots and details.

But I do just want to address the concept that a bad/unsuccessful Brexit (however you want to define that) will push the UK back into the EU.

First, I wouldn’t be too sure that the EU is even willing to take the UK back, unless the UK is *ALL*-*IN*. That means accepting the Euro as the currency and *Everything* that goes along with it. I really doubt that the UK will accept that. They get very touchy about the £.

Leave all that aside, though. If there is anything that could possibly unite basically all the various classes and factions of British society — from the Shetlands to Cornwall and pretty much everything in between — it is the sight of German bankers/politicians (and their proxies) throwing their weight around, making this process as bitter and painful and disruptive as they can. This process didn’t have to end in British hostility towards the EU. My impression is that the British are favorably disposed to the EU, more-or-less, but just don’t want the UK to be a part of it. This process seems destined to change that disposition among the British (not just the Ukippers) for a long, long time.

(11-16-2018 02:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 01:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 12:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 09:25 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is in the German DNA to run roughshod over everyone around them. History seems to be repeating itself again. I don't trust the Germans one iota to remain peaceful if left unchecked.

How are the Germans running roughshod over anyone?

All they did is to spend Trillions of dollars investing/subsidizing other countries economies over the last decade

They did so in return for the other countries (by a vote of the people of those countries)

1) Agreeing to maintain debt to GDP ratios
2) Agreeing to abide by the ECHR treaty as it existed then, and comply with future rulings
3) Agreeing to allow the EU Parliament (one in which Germany doesn't have a majority and through which they have popularly elected representatives) to make binding decisions for them
4) They even allowed countries to have limited veto power of certain agreements, and agreed to hold themselves bound to those agreements
5) They allow countries to leave if wanted to
6) Countries in the EU must join Schengen and have harmonized migration policies and customs controls (The UK was given an exception). This is critical for the 'freedom of movement' accords.

Seems fair to me. No one made the other countries accept these accords. No one is making them stay. But yea, if you want the benefits of EU/Schengen/Eurozone membership, then its reasonable to expect everyone else to hold up their part of the deal. Can you name any cases where Germany has not held up their part of the deal? Or even the EU?

----

The far right loathes the EU. Ok, then just leave the EU. But all of the benefits of the EU end with your membership lapsing. What is unfair about that.

Greece, Italy, Hungary, and Poland want to flip the bird to the EU and defy them. It isn't 'dirty pool' for them to get expelled, suspended or have subsidies yanked if they don't comply with the agreements they signed.

So no, Orban can't stay in Europe and shut down private schools for political reasons, destroy the free press, and hold sham elections. Poland can't ban history and rig their courts and stay in the EU. Italy and Greece can't say FU to Brussels when they're already over the limits. The EU can and will thrive without them.

In one vote in the UK, a majority of the persons voting, voted to leave the EU. There's zero obligation of the EU to concede accommodations to make that easier for them to do so.

-----

So now the EU will have a military force, separate from NATO. This is probably a good move for them, with Trump openly supporting Russia. It might just be the Europeans making contingency plans in order to make a separation possible from NATO as well as building up defense industry capabilities to arm themselves without the Americans. It might be a full break if Trump stays in power.

Trump's demands for Europe paying their 'fair share' might have been helpful to American defense contractors if Trump hadn't been so compromised by Russia and consumed by hatred of our allies. Now, all its going to do is to ensure that EU countries pay more for their military, but those dollars will be used to replace potential lost US military contracts with their own suppliers and to build a competitive defense industry.

I partially agree with you about Germany. I don't agree that Trump supports Russia. The only caution I would give in flatly defending Germany is to be mindful of the difference between sentiment among the people of Germany and the policy of its present government. And if there is anything that fuels nationalism it is economic woes. As the EU goes so will these movements in Germany, France, and other locales.

Immigration is a sore subject with many of the citizens. The EU is a child of Bonn as much as it is of any other European country. Merkel is totally invested in the principle of the EU. Not all of her people are. So I buy the more benign intent of the German government. But nationalist groups are growing in the Fatherland, and have many allies in France. And if there is an unintended consequence of German policies its that bread has frequently been used to conquer instead of bullets. And conquering here is not in assimilation but rather co-opting the support of other member states. So if the economy of the EU tanks, and a new party ascends to power, the ties that are in trade and aid today, might be the nucleus for another kind alliance in the future.

It has often been considered that Germany has accomplished through trade what two World Wars failed to give them.

Do I expect another war in Europe between members of the EU and Germany? No. But is Germany buying influence? Yes. It's just that currently that influence is gained by aid & trade.

There are nationalists in Germany. I was there in October (but to be fair the only two groups I saw express that opinion openly were a Russian and Hungarian group at our table at Oktoberfest). Its easy to overstate Pegida. AfD is a (mild) concern, but know to assume that if the AfD somehow took over power, that they'd turn into a Trump ally and destroy the EU is not likely. People might say they don't like the EU, but they're complaining about features of it, not the whole system. Even the Freedom Party in Austria has had to give up whole swaths of its anti-globalist/anti-EU platform to get into a coalition.

I'm not flatly defending Germany. I'm flatly defending Merkel and the EU.

You are defending a passive aggressive tyrant and you detest that the citizens of the UK decided to regain their independence from a body of bureaucrats of which they have very little in common with. The UK will be fine without the EU as they were before it.

Precisely! And U.S. / U.K. relations will get even tighter.

Basically, the argument for leave was

1) Britain was going to be able to control its borders
2) Britain was going to be able to control its regulatory policy
3) Britain was going to be able to control its taxation policy
4) Britain was going to be able to control its fiscal policy
5) Britain would be able to enact favorable trade policies without the EU

These were popular, as the would be popular in any state in the USA

But they also argued

1) Britain would end up with virtually the same ability to trade with the EU as before. That's clearly not going to happen, unless the concede ALL of the above points
2) Britain's financial sector would not be harmed and would continue to be Europe's clear banking financial center. Its now clear that even if the UK concedes on all of the above points, that their financial sector will take a hit, and now an isolation London will have to compete with newly empowered continental financial centers going forward. And doing so within a framework that is anti-globalist in an industry that thrives on globalization
3) Britain would save money from this and that it would provide tangible benefits to buttress the National Health Service. The first claim is dubious and the second claim has turned out to be demonstrably false
4) There would be no customs borders between NI and Great Britain, and they would abide by the Good Friday agreement mandating an open border between the 6 counties and the Republic of Ireland. That isn't going to happen in any Brexit scenario (hard or soft) on the table.
5) UK industry will not be negatively harmed by this process overall. That's not clear but its looking dubious
6) The EU would work with the UK to make the exit as seemless as possible, in order to avoid disruptions. Turns out, the EU sees Brexit as an existential threat and is making it pretty painful.
7) UK's Tory regime, which put a promise of a referendum in its manifesto and then allowed it to happen, would be able to competently negotiate a Brexit in an orderly manner that would result in the UK's interests being protected. That turned out to be demonstrably false.

So, yes, there are plenty of UK citizens who feel had.

-----

And why should the Germans and the French make concessions? They hold all the cards in these negotiations (as the Remain campaign predicted). If you think that the Remainers are blaming the EU for this, you're probably mistaken. They are livid with the Torys and the Brexiteers. 6
----

Here's the three options on the table today...

60 or so Labour/LibDem Rebels break ranks and vote for May's deal, prefering a bad deal to a disastrous Brexit. That's actually the best case scenario here. Brexiteers get to claim victory, but there really wasn't one. This looks really iffy at this point. In that case, Paris, Zurich, Frankfurt, Geneva, and Dublin get some more financial firms at the UK's expense, the DUP gets screwed, but things pretty much stay as they are now. Freedom of movement ends which enrages the remain camp. And the hard core Brexiteers are enraged because they got had in the negotiation.

Britain's government falls, and a new general election is called. The LibDems/Labour/SNP reach out to the EU and ask for a 1 year extension on Brexit. In that case, Tories would most certainly lose to the coalition, a new referendum would be called, and Brexit would likely be repealed. The UKIP/BNP would have more representation in Westminister, but they and the Tories would probably be in a decided minority. Not sure that this can even be delayed for 1 year. Unless the government falls, and then there's an agreement to just accept the offered deal, while the Brexit repeal vote can be scheduled and rejoining the EU can be rescheduled.

The deal fails in Parliament, and the Tory government refuses to schedule a new vote on Brexit. As a result, a hard Brexit becomes unavoidable. The UK appears to be unprepared for the physical problems of such a break (such as border staffing, customs time, etc.), much less the overall economic costs (loss of markets, suppliers, etc.). And I'm not sure even a strongly united government could figure it out in 5 months, much less May's tottering government.

(11-16-2018 03:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 02:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 01:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 12:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  How are the Germans running roughshod over anyone?

All they did is to spend Trillions of dollars investing/subsidizing other countries economies over the last decade

They did so in return for the other countries (by a vote of the people of those countries)

1) Agreeing to maintain debt to GDP ratios
2) Agreeing to abide by the ECHR treaty as it existed then, and comply with future rulings
3) Agreeing to allow the EU Parliament (one in which Germany doesn't have a majority and through which they have popularly elected representatives) to make binding decisions for them
4) They even allowed countries to have limited veto power of certain agreements, and agreed to hold themselves bound to those agreements
5) They allow countries to leave if wanted to
6) Countries in the EU must join Schengen and have harmonized migration policies and customs controls (The UK was given an exception). This is critical for the 'freedom of movement' accords.

Seems fair to me. No one made the other countries accept these accords. No one is making them stay. But yea, if you want the benefits of EU/Schengen/Eurozone membership, then its reasonable to expect everyone else to hold up their part of the deal. Can you name any cases where Germany has not held up their part of the deal? Or even the EU?

----

The far right loathes the EU. Ok, then just leave the EU. But all of the benefits of the EU end with your membership lapsing. What is unfair about that.

Greece, Italy, Hungary, and Poland want to flip the bird to the EU and defy them. It isn't 'dirty pool' for them to get expelled, suspended or have subsidies yanked if they don't comply with the agreements they signed.

So no, Orban can't stay in Europe and shut down private schools for political reasons, destroy the free press, and hold sham elections. Poland can't ban history and rig their courts and stay in the EU. Italy and Greece can't say FU to Brussels when they're already over the limits. The EU can and will thrive without them.

In one vote in the UK, a majority of the persons voting, voted to leave the EU. There's zero obligation of the EU to concede accommodations to make that easier for them to do so.

-----

So now the EU will have a military force, separate from NATO. This is probably a good move for them, with Trump openly supporting Russia. It might just be the Europeans making contingency plans in order to make a separation possible from NATO as well as building up defense industry capabilities to arm themselves without the Americans. It might be a full break if Trump stays in power.

Trump's demands for Europe paying their 'fair share' might have been helpful to American defense contractors if Trump hadn't been so compromised by Russia and consumed by hatred of our allies. Now, all its going to do is to ensure that EU countries pay more for their military, but those dollars will be used to replace potential lost US military contracts with their own suppliers and to build a competitive defense industry.

I partially agree with you about Germany. I don't agree that Trump supports Russia. The only caution I would give in flatly defending Germany is to be mindful of the difference between sentiment among the people of Germany and the policy of its present government. And if there is anything that fuels nationalism it is economic woes. As the EU goes so will these movements in Germany, France, and other locales.

Immigration is a sore subject with many of the citizens. The EU is a child of Bonn as much as it is of any other European country. Merkel is totally invested in the principle of the EU. Not all of her people are. So I buy the more benign intent of the German government. But nationalist groups are growing in the Fatherland, and have many allies in France. And if there is an unintended consequence of German policies its that bread has frequently been used to conquer instead of bullets. And conquering here is not in assimilation but rather co-opting the support of other member states. So if the economy of the EU tanks, and a new party ascends to power, the ties that are in trade and aid today, might be the nucleus for another kind alliance in the future.

It has often been considered that Germany has accomplished through trade what two World Wars failed to give them.

Do I expect another war in Europe between members of the EU and Germany? No. But is Germany buying influence? Yes. It's just that currently that influence is gained by aid & trade.

There are nationalists in Germany. I was there in October (but to be fair the only two groups I saw express that opinion openly were a Russian and Hungarian group at our table at Oktoberfest). Its easy to overstate Pegida. AfD is a (mild) concern, but know to assume that if the AfD somehow took over power, that they'd turn into a Trump ally and destroy the EU is not likely. People might say they don't like the EU, but they're complaining about features of it, not the whole system. Even the Freedom Party in Austria has had to give up whole swaths of its anti-globalist/anti-EU platform to get into a coalition.

I'm not flatly defending Germany. I'm flatly defending Merkel and the EU.

You are defending a passive aggressive tyrant and you detest that the citizens of the UK decided to regain their independence from a body of bureaucrats of which they have very little in common with. The UK will be fine without the EU as they were before it.

Precisely! And U.S. / U.K. relations will get even tighter.

Why would they? You think Proctor and Gamble is just going to concede marketshare to a UK company in order to help protect Farange's folly? Not a chance.

You think New York's financial markets are going to help out the City ? Nope.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

----

What the US will do is the same as what the EU and everyone else will do....try to replace the EU's exports to the UK while fighting like dogs to prevent the UK's products from displacing their market share.

----

In a hard Brexit and without agreements in place, the UK will fall back onto basic WTO rules for its trade with the world. And that's not a good place to be.

----

And don't you doubt for one second that US companies won't use the UK's troubles to try to extract a benefit from it.


I'm sure Trump would try to sell out American workers to help Farange's folly, but the GOP would be very stupid to take part in it. There's no economic or geopolitical benefit for doing so. And there's a cost.

(11-16-2018 03:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 03:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 02:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 01:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 12:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I partially agree with you about Germany. I don't agree that Trump supports Russia. The only caution I would give in flatly defending Germany is to be mindful of the difference between sentiment among the people of Germany and the policy of its present government. And if there is anything that fuels nationalism it is economic woes. As the EU goes so will these movements in Germany, France, and other locales.

Immigration is a sore subject with many of the citizens. The EU is a child of Bonn as much as it is of any other European country. Merkel is totally invested in the principle of the EU. Not all of her people are. So I buy the more benign intent of the German government. But nationalist groups are growing in the Fatherland, and have many allies in France. And if there is an unintended consequence of German policies its that bread has frequently been used to conquer instead of bullets. And conquering here is not in assimilation but rather co-opting the support of other member states. So if the economy of the EU tanks, and a new party ascends to power, the ties that are in trade and aid today, might be the nucleus for another kind alliance in the future.

It has often been considered that Germany has accomplished through trade what two World Wars failed to give them.

Do I expect another war in Europe between members of the EU and Germany? No. But is Germany buying influence? Yes. It's just that currently that influence is gained by aid & trade.

There are nationalists in Germany. I was there in October (but to be fair the only two groups I saw express that opinion openly were a Russian and Hungarian group at our table at Oktoberfest). Its easy to overstate Pegida. AfD is a (mild) concern, but know to assume that if the AfD somehow took over power, that they'd turn into a Trump ally and destroy the EU is not likely. People might say they don't like the EU, but they're complaining about features of it, not the whole system. Even the Freedom Party in Austria has had to give up whole swaths of its anti-globalist/anti-EU platform to get into a coalition.

I'm not flatly defending Germany. I'm flatly defending Merkel and the EU.

You are defending a passive aggressive tyrant and you detest that the citizens of the UK decided to regain their independence from a body of bureaucrats of which they have very little in common with. The UK will be fine without the EU as they were before it.

Precisely! And U.S. / U.K. relations will get even tighter.

Why would they? You think Proctor and Gamble is just going to concede marketshare to a UK company in order to help protect Farange's folly? Not a chance.

You think New York's financial markets are going to help out the City ? Nope.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

----

What the US will do is the same as what the EU and everyone else will do....try to replace the EU's exports to the UK while fighting like dogs to prevent the UK's products from displacing their market share.

----

In a hard Brexit and without agreements in place, the UK will fall back onto basic WTO rules for its trade with the world. And that's not a good place to be.

----

And don't you doubt for one second that US companies won't use the UK's troubles to try to extract a benefit from it.


I'm sure Trump would try to sell out American workers to help Farange's folly, but the GOP would be very stupid to take part in it. There's no economic or geopolitical benefit for doing so. And there's a cost.

Straw man arguments in another shotgun spew. Foreign policy, regional cooperation, a closer military relationship, more receptivity to American products, and all because of less continental influence would be the likely outcome and of course American companies would try to fill any EU void, that's business, not some evil thing.

And you still miss the main reason Britain wants out, the Pound Sterling. They don't want their currency trashed by close association to the Euro when nations beyond their control default. They were smart to keep the Pound separate. They are smart to get out.

We get that you are seemingly a jack of all trades. I'm glad you get to travel. But you aren't the only one. Many many board members travel. Everyone has an area of expertise. The average education level of the board (determined by survey a few years back) was roughly Master's or slightly higher.

The trade issues while important will be impacted by more important points of agreement. Europe has only ever been grateful to the United States when their butts were in a jam. France wouldn't let us use their airspace for strategic purposes, Germany has constantly raised issues by nuance over our European involvement. And there is no longer anything there of great strategic value and getting concessions from them on trade has been tough. I'm glad they make Mercedes vehicles near Cottondale now. See many F150's or Suburbans on the Autobahn? We've preserved Europe in two World Wars, stood in the breach for them with regard to an expansive Soviet Union in their Prague Spring, sheltered them throughout the Cold War, and have done so at massive expense to the U.S. taxpayer. We can get all we need from the U.K. in order to maintain a presence in Europe.

Gee I wonder what kind of economic impact it would have on Germany if we removed our military bases?

My point is my heart doesn't bleed for them an Iota's worth, Germany especially. We've blanketed the EU in every service imaginable and like a shrew all they've ever done is ***** about it, try to force their policies upon us through the U.N. (which is another massive debt item we pay for), and then to have that lame ass Obama go over there and apologize for two generations of American sacrifice to save them is enough to make me hurl! It's more than any American should have to stomach.

Outside of both the US and EU having parasitic central banks trying to control their economies and deals between U.S. conglomerates and their EU counterparts, we don't have much in common at all.

But then like our major cities their's are nice places to visit with history and architecture you want to see, and fine places to eat, but I sure wouldn't want to live in any of them. Their values are not mine. Their sense of entitlement is off putting. And their very existence is subsidized continually by the PAX Americana courtesy the U.S. Armed Forces, which we pay for. And it is no longer essential to us to keep it up.

The UK will be fine. And if nothing else happens from Brexit it will make most of the European governments take a much stronger look at their immigration policies as well. And that would be good for most of them, especially since that issue is fueling their Nationalists groups. How we could watch their social policies wreak havoc on their nations and then think somehow we should adopt many of them is simply insane.

But then there is a vacuum of common sense among some factions on this board. I'm glad that some in the UK have come to their senses. Kudos to them. But they shouldn't have to sacrifice the well being of their people to prop up the losers and non producers.

But there's the rub Tom. You support the side that believes the producers here should have to sacrifice to prop up the losers and the non producers. You want rights that you haven't had to fight for, you want privileges you haven't earned, you want others to bend their belief systems and values to yours, rather than you respecting theirs and merely asking for reciprocation, and you think win at all costs for the Democratic activist wing of the party is justified when we are nation that should guard the ballot as surely as we should be guarding our borders to protect our social systems and our sovereignty. So we simply aren't going to agree and that doesn't even take in shifting targets, outdated data, moving from big picture arguments to Proctor and Gamble's concerns (a concept which is ludicrous), etc.

It is a free country, for now. And you are entitled to your opinion. I just wonder how many on the left would put their lives in the breach to defend my right to speak. Those on the right take that obligation seriously. Those on the left benefit from it, but so many are so radicalized I have to wonder if they would sacrifice my rights the way they want me to sacrifice for theirs. You are exactly like the EU that you want to see the UK bound to. You want us to do your fighting, you want us to do the paying, but then your side wants to tell us how we should live, what we can believe, and redefine what our mores should be. Is it any wonder the UK wants out and the rest of the country is sick of supporting Metro ideals? Think about it!

Nobody on the anti-Putin/Trump side trusts anyone on the other to do anything but undercut us. You're either on our side or Putin/Orban's. And there is no freedom for anyone on the other side of the fence. We all know now that to protect our freedoms, our basic liberties, and even our safety/lives, we must ALL do everything we can to stop global nativism.

And even the friggin' EU, a notoriously passive group, has awoken to that reality.

-----

Heck Americans don't prefer American products. Why the heck would Brits? Your assertion that a grateful group of UKIP/BNP fans will immediately go buy a bunch of American products 'just because' is rather dubious.

Urban America subsidizes rural America, not the other way around.

The military argument is kind of oversold, especially in a world where I have more reason to fear 'some random male with a gun and a political agenda', than ISIS. Sure, we need a military. Especially to deploy against Russian expansionism. But no, I see no reason to be in Syria under current engagement rules and no reason to be in Afghanistan at all. Or Iraq. And no, I don't have to place extra value to military service, especially since I was barred from participating in it during my military ages, solely because of who I am. Being in the military is for many people, just a job - most of the military don't face military action. Sure, Vets deserve respect, but so do NON-Vets.

(11-16-2018 05:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody on the anti-Putin/Trump side trusts anyone on the other to do anything but undercut us. You're either on our side or Putin/Orban's. And there is no freedom for anyone on the other side of the fence. We all know now that to protect our freedoms, our basic liberties, and even our safety/lives, we must ALL do everything we can to stop global nativism.

And even the friggin' EU, a notoriously passive group, has awoken to that reality.

-----

Heck Americans don't prefer American products. Why the heck would Brits? Your assertion that a grateful group of UKIP/BNP fans will immediately go buy a bunch of American products 'just because' is rather dubious.

Urban America subsidizes rural America, not the other way around.

The military argument is kind of oversold, especially in a world where I have more reason to fear 'some random male with a gun and a political agenda', than ISIS. Sure, we need a military. Especially to deploy against Russian expansionism. But no, I see no reason to be in Syria under current engagement rules and no reason to be in Afghanistan at all. Or Iraq. And no, I don't have to place extra value to military service, especially since I was barred from participating in it during my military ages, solely because of who I am. Being in the military is for many people, just a job - most of the military don't face military action. Sure, Vets deserve respect, but so do NON-Vets.

You didn't answer the question Mr. Rant & Whine. Would you die for the freedom of speech for the right as well as the left and that's assuming you would risk your life for the left? The social contract of a free nation is that we can disagree, practice our own understanding of morality within the law, read, speak and believe as we see fit, and agree to disagree, but when one's rights are threatened, the rights of all are threatened. If you won't honor that social contract then your views are alien to those of the nation. When you try to pass laws forcing a morality upon us that we don't accept, when you vote to increase public spending and force us to pay for it, when you try to legislate what we can read, say, or believe, then you are betraying the social contract that binds us together and you are the enemy of freedom. When duty calls if you don't answer you break the social contract. When you side with the political views of our military adversary then you are the traitor.

You claim to believe in many things but do you believe in defending the rights of all, or defending only your rights with the intention of forcing everyone else to acquiesce to your point of view? I get more than a strong whiff of your wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, what to believe, what we can or can't say, and giving us only your propaganda to read, and resenting anything else. That's what I get from you. And yet just like wanting the UK to stay in the EU to support those who are too inept or corrupt to support themselves your body politic on this board wants the rest of us to do the same for the inept and corrupt among us. You want to defile our sovereignty in the name of compassion when the goal is to further manipulate the vote for your agenda. If you can give me rational reasons to support irrational policies I'll listen. But so far I haven't heard one.

Either you will defend the rights of all within a diverse society or you will not? Which is it?

Tom, just take your beatdown and send JR a check for the course in geopolitical economics.

https://youtu.be/64nvb2QUXt4

You're way outclassed here

(11-16-2018 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 05:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody on the anti-Putin/Trump side trusts anyone on the other to do anything but undercut us. You're either on our side or Putin/Orban's. And there is no freedom for anyone on the other side of the fence. We all know now that to protect our freedoms, our basic liberties, and even our safety/lives, we must ALL do everything we can to stop global nativism.

And even the friggin' EU, a notoriously passive group, has awoken to that reality.

-----

Heck Americans don't prefer American products. Why the heck would Brits? Your assertion that a grateful group of UKIP/BNP fans will immediately go buy a bunch of American products 'just because' is rather dubious.

Urban America subsidizes rural America, not the other way around.

The military argument is kind of oversold, especially in a world where I have more reason to fear 'some random male with a gun and a political agenda', than ISIS. Sure, we need a military. Especially to deploy against Russian expansionism. But no, I see no reason to be in Syria under current engagement rules and no reason to be in Afghanistan at all. Or Iraq. And no, I don't have to place extra value to military service, especially since I was barred from participating in it during my military ages, solely because of who I am. Being in the military is for many people, just a job - most of the military don't face military action. Sure, Vets deserve respect, but so do NON-Vets.

You didn't answer the question Mr. Rant & Whine. Would you die for the freedom of speech for the right as well as the left and that's assuming you would risk your life for the left? The social contract of a free nation is that we can disagree, practice our own understanding of morality within the law, read, speak and believe as we see fit, and agree to disagree, but when one's rights are threatened, the rights of all are threatened. If you won't honor that social contract then your views are alien to those of the nation. When you try to pass laws forcing a morality upon us that we don't accept, when you vote to increase public spending and force us to pay for it, when you try to legislate what we can read, say, or believe, then you are betraying the social contract that binds us together and you are the enemy of freedom. When duty calls if you don't answer you break the social contract. When you side with the political views of our military adversary then you are the traitor.

You claim to believe in many things but do you believe in defending the rights of all, or defending only your rights with the intention of forcing everyone else to acquiesce to your point of view? I get more than a strong whiff of your wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, what to believe, what we can or can't say, and giving us only your propaganda to read, and resenting anything else. That's what I get from you. And yet just like wanting the UK to stay in the EU to support those who are too inept or corrupt to support themselves your body politic on this board wants the rest of us to do the same for the inept and corrupt among us. You want to defile our sovereignty in the name of compassion when the goal is to further manipulate the vote for your agenda. If you can give me rational reasons to support irrational policies I'll listen. But so far I haven't heard one.

Either you will defend the rights of all within a diverse society or you will not? Which is it?

There's a big difference between accepting that there are awful people that will use basic freedoms to promote hatred of minorities and tolerating those behaviors.

Yea, if you think that America is a white Christian straight nation where those cultural norms should be supreme, then of course, we're going to condemn that. If you think we should align with a murderous thug who has actual death camps for Gay people in his country, then of course I'm going to say that's unacceptable.

There's a difference between accepting that people are going to say offensive things and allowing people to normalize that speech.

You know who hates freedom of speech? Orban does. Putin does. Duda does. That's why we oppose those that who would forward the views of these people and help them spread that ideology. And yes, I think Farange is one of them. You know who is on the side of freedom? Merkel. Macron. The EU.

"Dime con quien andas, y te dire quien eres"

(11-16-2018 07:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 05:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody on the anti-Putin/Trump side trusts anyone on the other to do anything but undercut us. You're either on our side or Putin/Orban's. And there is no freedom for anyone on the other side of the fence. We all know now that to protect our freedoms, our basic liberties, and even our safety/lives, we must ALL do everything we can to stop global nativism.

And even the friggin' EU, a notoriously passive group, has awoken to that reality.

-----

Heck Americans don't prefer American products. Why the heck would Brits? Your assertion that a grateful group of UKIP/BNP fans will immediately go buy a bunch of American products 'just because' is rather dubious.

Urban America subsidizes rural America, not the other way around.

The military argument is kind of oversold, especially in a world where I have more reason to fear 'some random male with a gun and a political agenda', than ISIS. Sure, we need a military. Especially to deploy against Russian expansionism. But no, I see no reason to be in Syria under current engagement rules and no reason to be in Afghanistan at all. Or Iraq. And no, I don't have to place extra value to military service, especially since I was barred from participating in it during my military ages, solely because of who I am. Being in the military is for many people, just a job - most of the military don't face military action. Sure, Vets deserve respect, but so do NON-Vets.

You didn't answer the question Mr. Rant & Whine. Would you die for the freedom of speech for the right as well as the left and that's assuming you would risk your life for the left? The social contract of a free nation is that we can disagree, practice our own understanding of morality within the law, read, speak and believe as we see fit, and agree to disagree, but when one's rights are threatened, the rights of all are threatened. If you won't honor that social contract then your views are alien to those of the nation. When you try to pass laws forcing a morality upon us that we don't accept, when you vote to increase public spending and force us to pay for it, when you try to legislate what we can read, say, or believe, then you are betraying the social contract that binds us together and you are the enemy of freedom. When duty calls if you don't answer you break the social contract. When you side with the political views of our military adversary then you are the traitor.

You claim to believe in many things but do you believe in defending the rights of all, or defending only your rights with the intention of forcing everyone else to acquiesce to your point of view? I get more than a strong whiff of your wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, what to believe, what we can or can't say, and giving us only your propaganda to read, and resenting anything else. That's what I get from you. And yet just like wanting the UK to stay in the EU to support those who are too inept or corrupt to support themselves your body politic on this board wants the rest of us to do the same for the inept and corrupt among us. You want to defile our sovereignty in the name of compassion when the goal is to further manipulate the vote for your agenda. If you can give me rational reasons to support irrational policies I'll listen. But so far I haven't heard one.

Either you will defend the rights of all within a diverse society or you will not? Which is it?

There's a big difference between accepting that there are awful people that will use basic freedoms to promote hatred of minorities and tolerating those behaviors.

Yea, if you think that America is a white Christian straight nation where those cultural norms should be supreme, then of course, we're going to condemn that. If you think we should align with a murderous thug who has actual death camps for Gay people in his country, then of course I'm going to say that's unacceptable.

There's a difference between accepting that people are going to say offensive things and allowing people to normalize that speech.

Lol. Just stop.

(11-16-2018 07:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 05:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody on the anti-Putin/Trump side trusts anyone on the other to do anything but undercut us. You're either on our side or Putin/Orban's. And there is no freedom for anyone on the other side of the fence. We all know now that to protect our freedoms, our basic liberties, and even our safety/lives, we must ALL do everything we can to stop global nativism.

And even the friggin' EU, a notoriously passive group, has awoken to that reality.

-----

Heck Americans don't prefer American products. Why the heck would Brits? Your assertion that a grateful group of UKIP/BNP fans will immediately go buy a bunch of American products 'just because' is rather dubious.

Urban America subsidizes rural America, not the other way around.

The military argument is kind of oversold, especially in a world where I have more reason to fear 'some random male with a gun and a political agenda', than ISIS. Sure, we need a military. Especially to deploy against Russian expansionism. But no, I see no reason to be in Syria under current engagement rules and no reason to be in Afghanistan at all. Or Iraq. And no, I don't have to place extra value to military service, especially since I was barred from participating in it during my military ages, solely because of who I am. Being in the military is for many people, just a job - most of the military don't face military action. Sure, Vets deserve respect, but so do NON-Vets.

You didn't answer the question Mr. Rant & Whine. Would you die for the freedom of speech for the right as well as the left and that's assuming you would risk your life for the left? The social contract of a free nation is that we can disagree, practice our own understanding of morality within the law, read, speak and believe as we see fit, and agree to disagree, but when one's rights are threatened, the rights of all are threatened. If you won't honor that social contract then your views are alien to those of the nation. When you try to pass laws forcing a morality upon us that we don't accept, when you vote to increase public spending and force us to pay for it, when you try to legislate what we can read, say, or believe, then you are betraying the social contract that binds us together and you are the enemy of freedom. When duty calls if you don't answer you break the social contract. When you side with the political views of our military adversary then you are the traitor.

You claim to believe in many things but do you believe in defending the rights of all, or defending only your rights with the intention of forcing everyone else to acquiesce to your point of view? I get more than a strong whiff of your wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, what to believe, what we can or can't say, and giving us only your propaganda to read, and resenting anything else. That's what I get from you. And yet just like wanting the UK to stay in the EU to support those who are too inept or corrupt to support themselves your body politic on this board wants the rest of us to do the same for the inept and corrupt among us. You want to defile our sovereignty in the name of compassion when the goal is to further manipulate the vote for your agenda. If you can give me rational reasons to support irrational policies I'll listen. But so far I haven't heard one.

Either you will defend the rights of all within a diverse society or you will not? Which is it?

There's a big difference between accepting that there are awful people that will use basic freedoms to promote hatred of minorities and tolerating those behaviors.

Yea, if you think that America is a white Christian straight nation where those cultural norms should be supreme, then of course, we're going to condemn that. If you think we should align with a murderous thug who has actual death camps for Gay people in his country, then of course I'm going to say that's unacceptable.

There's a difference between accepting that people are going to say offensive things and allowing people to normalize that speech.

Tom, you've answered my question by condemning yourself. I am straight and by definition mostly White. I do have some Native American heritage confirmed in the family tree. I have worked on behalf of civil rights, have done some community organizing on behalf of the poor in a community where their children were going to be subjugated to pollutants hazardous to their health and as I had to point out to the health of those around them. I have employed gay people and worked on projects with others. I've taken battered women to shelters when their drunken husbands were threatening me with a gun, stopped a perp from mugging a woman in the parking lot of a mall where I was threatened with knife.

I've put life and skin on the line for those who likely wouldn't vote for who I would vote for, who would say things contrary to what I believe, but they knew where I stood on some of these issues and yet didn't flinch to do the same.

What has pissed me off no end where you are concerned is that you projected your hatred on to me just because of my political beliefs and without knowing me as a person. You have reveled in specious tactics giving your side election victories under spurious circumstances.

My caveat was within the law. I think that covers hate speech there sport. I don't and haven't hated anyone, but I don't trust people who think that when I disagree with their positions that my rights ought to be taken away. Apparently by your answer you do. We've been talking foreign politics, not domestic social issues. Radicals always want to take away their oppositions right to free speech, to take away their property if they have the chance, and they love a pound of flesh whether the actual person before them is guilty of damned thing or not.

The fact that you would place Gay rights and abuse of Gays before the national interests is proof to me of where your priorities reside. Mine reside with the health of this nation because that's where almost everyone I love and esteem lives. You want tolerance and it's been given freely by many many more people than who would deride you. But you give no tolerance back. If I were to hold to a Biblical view of morality, which is not prohibited by the law and is my right, you would classify me as a hater because it doesn't conform to your view of morality. That isn't tolerance Tom! If I vote for policies that recognize China as our most lethal adversary and would utilize some form of cooperation with Russia that is my political right. You insinuate that it makes me a gay hater. My view is that it would be in the best interest of our nation. By the way Tom the Chinese are even less tolerant than Russia. You conform to their norms in China. The folks that don't simply aren't heard from again. They don't tolerate other cultures except for business when they need something. They have the most successful assimilation program in history. Chinese move in and pretty soon only Chinese live there. Check out Cambodia. It really makes conquest and assimilation even easier if you don't have to put up with a minority or dissent. Even if it isn't formalized and added to the Chinese map and keeps the old state's name it is still quite effective. There are no human rights in China.

Tom there are many Americans who will not accept the Gay lifestyle as moral. But if they don't persecute you, don't assault you, and don't try to deny your rights that is the essence of tolerance. The America in which you would live would force compliance of even these most personal of choices. Tom you are the fascist here. Practicing Christians, sadly of which there aren't as many as the other variety, would never harm you because it is against there faith. But your hatred of faith came through loud and clear in your post.

I find you to be a hypocrite to the very tolerance you preach. Tolerance for you is everyone being forced to comply to your personal choices. Freedom doesn't work that way.

I pushed you Tom because your form of liberalism and your intolerance are not only destructive to true liberalism, but destructive to the fabric of freedom and true tolerance that is the United States of America. One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All is something I take seriously. And yet what you have espoused many times is contrary to Unity because you do divide, and it is contrary to liberty because you would take away my rights to practice morality as I see fit, to think as I see fit, and to speak my views freely if they didn't conform to your vision for America.

America has to be big enough for many visions, but wise enough to govern by consensus.

You can espouse what you wish here and I'll leave you alone for the most part. But you have no credibility sir, at least not when it comes to affirming every American's rights to disagree, to believe as they see fit, to say what they believe publicly, and you certainly don't display empathy for fair elections based on your defenses of what are plainly atrocities in Broward and other such spots, and your assessment of China versus Russia defies logic, but now I at least know why.

But ancient wisdom from the far east says that any enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I would add "for now."

I knew you couldn't answer a question about self sacrifice for those who may not be able to agree with you because to do so you would have to place something ahead of self and everything you post starts and ends with that world view.

(11-16-2018 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 05:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody on the anti-Putin/Trump side trusts anyone on the other to do anything but undercut us. You're either on our side or Putin/Orban's. And there is no freedom for anyone on the other side of the fence. We all know now that to protect our freedoms, our basic liberties, and even our safety/lives, we must ALL do everything we can to stop global nativism.

And even the friggin' EU, a notoriously passive group, has awoken to that reality.

-----

Heck Americans don't prefer American products. Why the heck would Brits? Your assertion that a grateful group of UKIP/BNP fans will immediately go buy a bunch of American products 'just because' is rather dubious.

Urban America subsidizes rural America, not the other way around.

The military argument is kind of oversold, especially in a world where I have more reason to fear 'some random male with a gun and a political agenda', than ISIS. Sure, we need a military. Especially to deploy against Russian expansionism. But no, I see no reason to be in Syria under current engagement rules and no reason to be in Afghanistan at all. Or Iraq. And no, I don't have to place extra value to military service, especially since I was barred from participating in it during my military ages, solely because of who I am. Being in the military is for many people, just a job - most of the military don't face military action. Sure, Vets deserve respect, but so do NON-Vets.

You didn't answer the question Mr. Rant & Whine. Would you die for the freedom of speech for the right as well as the left and that's assuming you would risk your life for the left? The social contract of a free nation is that we can disagree, practice our own understanding of morality within the law, read, speak and believe as we see fit, and agree to disagree, but when one's rights are threatened, the rights of all are threatened. If you won't honor that social contract then your views are alien to those of the nation. When you try to pass laws forcing a morality upon us that we don't accept, when you vote to increase public spending and force us to pay for it, when you try to legislate what we can read, say, or believe, then you are betraying the social contract that binds us together and you are the enemy of freedom. When duty calls if you don't answer you break the social contract. When you side with the political views of our military adversary then you are the traitor.

You claim to believe in many things but do you believe in defending the rights of all, or defending only your rights with the intention of forcing everyone else to acquiesce to your point of view? I get more than a strong whiff of your wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, what to believe, what we can or can't say, and giving us only your propaganda to read, and resenting anything else. That's what I get from you. And yet just like wanting the UK to stay in the EU to support those who are too inept or corrupt to support themselves your body politic on this board wants the rest of us to do the same for the inept and corrupt among us. You want to defile our sovereignty in the name of compassion when the goal is to further manipulate the vote for your agenda. If you can give me rational reasons to support irrational policies I'll listen. But so far I haven't heard one.

Either you will defend the rights of all within a diverse society or you will not? Which is it?

There's a big difference between accepting that there are awful people that will use basic freedoms to promote hatred of minorities and tolerating those behaviors.

Yea, if you think that America is a white Christian straight nation where those cultural norms should be supreme, then of course, we're going to condemn that. If you think we should align with a murderous thug who has actual death camps for Gay people in his country, then of course I'm going to say that's unacceptable.

There's a difference between accepting that people are going to say offensive things and allowing people to normalize that speech.

Tom, you've answered my question by condemning yourself. I am straight and by definition mostly White. I do have some Native American heritage confirmed in the family tree. I have worked on behalf of civil rights, have done some community organizing on behalf of the poor in a community where their children were going to be subjugated to pollutants hazardous to their health and as I had to point out to the health of those around them. I have employed gay people and worked on projects with others. I've taken battered women to shelters when their drunken husbands were threatening me with a gun, stopped a perp from mugging a woman in the parking lot of a mall where I was threatened with knife.

I've put life and skin on the line for those who likely wouldn't vote for who I would vote for, who would say things contrary to what I believe, but they knew where I stood on some of these issues and yet didn't flinch to do the same.

What has pissed me off no end where you are concerned is that you projected your hatred on to me just because of my political beliefs and without knowing me as a person. You have reveled in specious tactics giving your side election victories under spurious circumstances.

My caveat was within the law. I think that covers hate speech there sport. I don't and haven't hated anyone, but I don't trust people who think that when I disagree with their positions that my rights ought to be taken away. Apparently by your answer you do. We've been talking foreign politics, not domestic social issues. Radicals always want to take away their oppositions right to free speech, to take away their property if they have the chance, and they love a pound of flesh whether the actual person before them is guilty of damned thing or not.

The fact that you would place Gay rights and abuse of Gays before the national interests is proof to me of where your priorities reside. Mine reside with the health of this nation because that's where almost everyone I love and esteem lives. You want tolerance and it's been given freely by many many more people than who would deride you. But you give no tolerance back. If I were to hold to a Biblical view of morality, which is not prohibited by the law and is my right, you would classify me as a hater because it doesn't conform to your view of morality. That isn't tolerance Tom! If I vote for policies that recognize China as our most lethal adversary and would utilize some form of cooperation with Russia that is my political right. You insinuate that it makes me a gay hater. My view is that it would be in the best interest of our nation. By the way Tom the Chinese are even less tolerant than Russia. You conform to their norms in China. The folks that don't simply aren't heard from again. They don't tolerate other cultures except for business when they need something. They have the most successful assimilation program in history. Chinese move in and pretty soon only Chinese live there. Check out Cambodia. It really makes conquest and assimilation even if it isn't formalized quite effective.

Tom there are many Americans who will not accept the Gay lifestyle as moral. But if they don't persecute you, don't assault you, and don't try to deny your rights that is the essence of tolerance. The American in which you would live would force compliance of even these most personal of choices. Tom you are the fascist here. Practicing Christians, sadly of which there aren't as many as the other variety, would never harm you because it is against there faith. But your hatred of faith came through loud and clear in your post.

I find you to be a hypocrite to the very tolerance you preach. Tolerance for you is everyone being forced to comply to your personal choices. Freedom doesn't work that way.

I pushed you Tom because your form of liberalism and your intolerance are not only destructive to true liberalism, but destructive to the fabric of freedom and true tolerance that is the United States of America. One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All is something I take seriously. And yet what you have espoused many times is contrary to Unity because you do divide, and it is contrary to liberty because you would take away my rights to practice morality as I see fit, to think as I see fit, and to speak my views freely if they didn't conform to your vision for America.

American has to be big enough for many visions, but wise enough to govern by consensus.

You can espouse what you wish here and I'll leave you alone for the most part. But you have no credibility sir, at least not when it comes to affirming every American's rights to disagree, to believe as they see fit, to say what they believe publicly, and you certainly don't display empathy for fair elections based on your defenses of what are plainly atrocities in Broward and other such spots, and your assessment of China versus Russia defies logic, but now I at least know why.

But ancient wisdom from the far east says that any enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I would add "for now."

I knew you couldn't answer a question about self sacrifice for those who may not be able to agree with you because to do so you would have to place something ahead of self and everything you post starts and ends with that world view.

It looks like you might need a nap.

The safety and freedom of my people is ultimately my only priority, especially if it is under direct and ongoing threat. And the threat is real.

I am a GLOBALIST, not a nativist/nationalist.

The building I'm in is on fire and you're asking me to stop fighting the fire and help the guy carrying more gas to the fire.

----

After 2 years of Trump and all the horrors that it has revealed, I really don't have time to focus on overreach.

Is Duda's plan to deny all freedom of speech, petition, protest, assembly, association, press, due process and expression in Poland an acceptable cultural expression or something that should be fought? Since Trump has abrogated America's normal role in doing so, I have to consider who will stand up in cases like this. And in Poland's case, that is Merkel and the EU.

Farange and his fellow travelers in the BNP/UKIP have repeatedly and richly earned our reflexive opposition, through their statements and associations. Right now, if it hurts the ONLY people who are doing anything to stop attacks on my people and threats to my freedom, then I'm going to reflexively defend those who defend my people.

By the way, they might not be the biggest losers, but probably will be. The biggest losers may be the civilized people in the Conservatives who foolishly tried to appease the Farange side, and will probably end up and get destroyed politically by it.

I don't have time to worry about China right now. If China is the big threat, and you want all of us on board with you, perhaps you should have your side stop your side's allies from putting greater threats in between us and the China threat.

----

Its pretty clear that the nativists support a new order. And Gays, persons of color, Jews, Athiests, Muslims, Hispanics, and Blacks are on many of the anti-Globalists' shopping lists. Any one group might not be the first item on the list in any given day, but its pretty clear we are ALL on that list.

(11-16-2018 07:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 05:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody on the anti-Putin/Trump side trusts anyone on the other to do anything but undercut us. You're either on our side or Putin/Orban's. And there is no freedom for anyone on the other side of the fence. We all know now that to protect our freedoms, our basic liberties, and even our safety/lives, we must ALL do everything we can to stop global nativism.

And even the friggin' EU, a notoriously passive group, has awoken to that reality.

-----

Heck Americans don't prefer American products. Why the heck would Brits? Your assertion that a grateful group of UKIP/BNP fans will immediately go buy a bunch of American products 'just because' is rather dubious.

Urban America subsidizes rural America, not the other way around.

The military argument is kind of oversold, especially in a world where I have more reason to fear 'some random male with a gun and a political agenda', than ISIS. Sure, we need a military. Especially to deploy against Russian expansionism. But no, I see no reason to be in Syria under current engagement rules and no reason to be in Afghanistan at all. Or Iraq. And no, I don't have to place extra value to military service, especially since I was barred from participating in it during my military ages, solely because of who I am. Being in the military is for many people, just a job - most of the military don't face military action. Sure, Vets deserve respect, but so do NON-Vets.

You didn't answer the question Mr. Rant & Whine. Would you die for the freedom of speech for the right as well as the left and that's assuming you would risk your life for the left? The social contract of a free nation is that we can disagree, practice our own understanding of morality within the law, read, speak and believe as we see fit, and agree to disagree, but when one's rights are threatened, the rights of all are threatened. If you won't honor that social contract then your views are alien to those of the nation. When you try to pass laws forcing a morality upon us that we don't accept, when you vote to increase public spending and force us to pay for it, when you try to legislate what we can read, say, or believe, then you are betraying the social contract that binds us together and you are the enemy of freedom. When duty calls if you don't answer you break the social contract. When you side with the political views of our military adversary then you are the traitor.

You claim to believe in many things but do you believe in defending the rights of all, or defending only your rights with the intention of forcing everyone else to acquiesce to your point of view? I get more than a strong whiff of your wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, what to believe, what we can or can't say, and giving us only your propaganda to read, and resenting anything else. That's what I get from you. And yet just like wanting the UK to stay in the EU to support those who are too inept or corrupt to support themselves your body politic on this board wants the rest of us to do the same for the inept and corrupt among us. You want to defile our sovereignty in the name of compassion when the goal is to further manipulate the vote for your agenda. If you can give me rational reasons to support irrational policies I'll listen. But so far I haven't heard one.

Either you will defend the rights of all within a diverse society or you will not? Which is it?

There's a big difference between accepting that there are awful people that will use basic freedoms to promote hatred of minorities and tolerating those behaviors.

Yea, if you think that America is a white Christian straight nation where those cultural norms should be supreme, then of course, we're going to condemn that. If you think we should align with a murderous thug who has actual death camps for Gay people in his country, then of course I'm going to say that's unacceptable.

There's a difference between accepting that people are going to say offensive things and allowing people to normalize that speech.

Tom, you've answered my question by condemning yourself. I am straight and by definition mostly White. I do have some Native American heritage confirmed in the family tree. I have worked on behalf of civil rights, have done some community organizing on behalf of the poor in a community where their children were going to be subjugated to pollutants hazardous to their health and as I had to point out to the health of those around them. I have employed gay people and worked on projects with others. I've taken battered women to shelters when their drunken husbands were threatening me with a gun, stopped a perp from mugging a woman in the parking lot of a mall where I was threatened with knife.

I've put life and skin on the line for those who likely wouldn't vote for who I would vote for, who would say things contrary to what I believe, but they knew where I stood on some of these issues and yet didn't flinch to do the same.

What has pissed me off no end where you are concerned is that you projected your hatred on to me just because of my political beliefs and without knowing me as a person. You have reveled in specious tactics giving your side election victories under spurious circumstances.

My caveat was within the law. I think that covers hate speech there sport. I don't and haven't hated anyone, but I don't trust people who think that when I disagree with their positions that my rights ought to be taken away. Apparently by your answer you do. We've been talking foreign politics, not domestic social issues. Radicals always want to take away their oppositions right to free speech, to take away their property if they have the chance, and they love a pound of flesh whether the actual person before them is guilty of damned thing or not.

The fact that you would place Gay rights and abuse of Gays before the national interests is proof to me of where your priorities reside. Mine reside with the health of this nation because that's where almost everyone I love and esteem lives. You want tolerance and it's been given freely by many many more people than who would deride you. But you give no tolerance back. If I were to hold to a Biblical view of morality, which is not prohibited by the law and is my right, you would classify me as a hater because it doesn't conform to your view of morality. That isn't tolerance Tom! If I vote for policies that recognize China as our most lethal adversary and would utilize some form of cooperation with Russia that is my political right. You insinuate that it makes me a gay hater. My view is that it would be in the best interest of our nation. By the way Tom the Chinese are even less tolerant than Russia. You conform to their norms in China. The folks that don't simply aren't heard from again. They don't tolerate other cultures except for business when they need something. They have the most successful assimilation program in history. Chinese move in and pretty soon only Chinese live there. Check out Cambodia. It really makes conquest and assimilation even if it isn't formalized quite effective.

Tom there are many Americans who will not accept the Gay lifestyle as moral. But if they don't persecute you, don't assault you, and don't try to deny your rights that is the essence of tolerance. The American in which you would live would force compliance of even these most personal of choices. Tom you are the fascist here. Practicing Christians, sadly of which there aren't as many as the other variety, would never harm you because it is against there faith. But your hatred of faith came through loud and clear in your post.

I find you to be a hypocrite to the very tolerance you preach. Tolerance for you is everyone being forced to comply to your personal choices. Freedom doesn't work that way.

I pushed you Tom because your form of liberalism and your intolerance are not only destructive to true liberalism, but destructive to the fabric of freedom and true tolerance that is the United States of America. One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All is something I take seriously. And yet what you have espoused many times is contrary to Unity because you do divide, and it is contrary to liberty because you would take away my rights to practice morality as I see fit, to think as I see fit, and to speak my views freely if they didn't conform to your vision for America.

American has to be big enough for many visions, but wise enough to govern by consensus.

You can espouse what you wish here and I'll leave you alone for the most part. But you have no credibility sir, at least not when it comes to affirming every American's rights to disagree, to believe as they see fit, to say what they believe publicly, and you certainly don't display empathy for fair elections based on your defenses of what are plainly atrocities in Broward and other such spots, and your assessment of China versus Russia defies logic, but now I at least know why.

But ancient wisdom from the far east says that any enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I would add "for now."

I knew you couldn't answer a question about self sacrifice for those who may not be able to agree with you because to do so you would have to place something ahead of self and everything you post starts and ends with that world view.

It looks like you might need a nap.

The safety and freedom of my people is ultimately my only priority, especially if it is under direct and ongoing threat. And the threat is real.

I am a GLOBALIST, not a nativist/nationalist.

The building I'm in is on fire and you're asking me to stop fighting the fire and help the guy carrying more gas to the fire.

----

After 2 years of Trump and all the horrors that it has revealed, I really don't have time to focus on overreach.

Is Duda's plan to deny all freedom of speech, petition, protest, assembly, association, press, due process and expression in Poland an acceptable cultural expression or something that should be fought? Since Trump has abrogated America's normal role in doing so, I have to consider who will stand up in cases like this. And in Poland's case, that is Merkel and the EU.

Farange and his fellow travelers in the BNP/UKIP have repeatedly and richly earned our reflexive opposition, through their statements and associations. Right now, if it hurts the ONLY people who are doing anything to stop attacks on my people and threats to my freedom, then I'm going to reflexively defend those who defend my people.

By the way, they might not be the biggest losers, but probably will be. The biggest losers are likely to be the civilized people in the Conservatives who foolishly tried to appease the Farange side, and will probably end up and get destroyed politically by it.

Tom your building isn't on fire in the United States and people who are your fellow citizens are not your enemy. But by your own admission you don't prize your citizenship since you are a Globalist which means we can't count on you when things threaten our way of life.

That sums up your narcissism beautifully. I got news for you. Most of the Globe is out to kill you. You had better know who has your back and you had better have theirs.

But thank you for clearly stating to the board what it is that you are about, and why it is that you despise their rights.

I think Tom and I have almost 100% diametrically opposed world views. Whereas I view the EU as anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and authoritarian, Tom rejoices in its oppression of sovereign nations and peoples.

I wish the US would withdraw from international organizations and form a Five Eyes alliance with the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They're the countries that carry their weight as allies. F**k the EU.

(11-16-2018 08:16 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I think Tom and I have almost 100% diametrically opposed world views. Whereas I view the EU as anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and authoritarian, Tom rejoices in its oppression of sovereign nations and peoples.

I wish the US would withdraw from international organizations and form a Five Eyes alliance with the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They're the countries that carry their weight as allies. F**k the EU.

My God, you think its the EU that is oppressing? You know who they are oppressing.

Are they oppressing Orban when he shuts down a University because he doesn't like its founder and suspends freedom of the press and the EU refuses to allow him to continue to do so using the EU's money?

Are they oppressing Duda, when they suspend their subsidies when Duda wipes out the judicial branch, and proposes suspending all freedom of speech, petition, protest, assembly, association, due process, expression, and press?

Or when they refuse to help the UK destroy their union?

The EU isn't forcing anyone to do anything. They aren't keeping the UK in the EU. They're now in the

-----

I love Canada and New Zealand. More importantly I trust their government and their people. Australia is a bit more complicated. Things there, unlike here, are generally moving in the correct direction, BUT there's a rather nasty undercurrent down there. I think that things will go well there.

The UK is objectively good as things stand now. But Farange....hell no.

(11-16-2018 08:16 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I think Tom and I have almost 100% diametrically opposed world views. Whereas I view the EU as anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and authoritarian, Tom rejoices in its oppression of sovereign nations and peoples.

I wish the US would withdraw from international organizations and form a Five Eyes alliance with the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They're the countries that carry their weight as allies. F**k the EU.

Tom's gay and sees everything through that lense which is detrimental to carrying on a conversation that might be meaningful because he's obviously not stupid.

(11-16-2018 08:33 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:16 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I think Tom and I have almost 100% diametrically opposed world views. Whereas I view the EU as anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and authoritarian, Tom rejoices in its oppression of sovereign nations and peoples.

I wish the US would withdraw from international organizations and form a Five Eyes alliance with the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They're the countries that carry their weight as allies. F**k the EU.

Tom's gay and sees everything through that lense which is detrimental to carrying on a conversation that might be meaningful because he's obviously not stupid.

Logic, economics, history....are useless. The only discipline that can be applied to those rants is psychology.

(11-16-2018 08:39 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:33 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:16 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I think Tom and I have almost 100% diametrically opposed world views. Whereas I view the EU as anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and authoritarian, Tom rejoices in its oppression of sovereign nations and peoples.

I wish the US would withdraw from international organizations and form a Five Eyes alliance with the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They're the countries that carry their weight as allies. F**k the EU.

Tom's gay and sees everything through that lense which is detrimental to carrying on a conversation that might be meaningful because he's obviously not stupid.

Logic, economics, history....are useless. The only discipline that can be applied to those rants is psychology.

There is one pertinent question here. How does a Globalist with an ends justifies the means approach to his issues get to be a Polling Judge?

(11-16-2018 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You didn't answer the question Mr. Rant & Whine. Would you die for the freedom of speech for the right as well as the left and that's assuming you would risk your life for the left? The social contract of a free nation is that we can disagree, practice our own understanding of morality within the law, read, speak and believe as we see fit, and agree to disagree, but when one's rights are threatened, the rights of all are threatened. If you won't honor that social contract then your views are alien to those of the nation. When you try to pass laws forcing a morality upon us that we don't accept, when you vote to increase public spending and force us to pay for it, when you try to legislate what we can read, say, or believe, then you are betraying the social contract that binds us together and you are the enemy of freedom. When duty calls if you don't answer you break the social contract. When you side with the political views of our military adversary then you are the traitor.

You claim to believe in many things but do you believe in defending the rights of all, or defending only your rights with the intention of forcing everyone else to acquiesce to your point of view? I get more than a strong whiff of your wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, what to believe, what we can or can't say, and giving us only your propaganda to read, and resenting anything else. That's what I get from you. And yet just like wanting the UK to stay in the EU to support those who are too inept or corrupt to support themselves your body politic on this board wants the rest of us to do the same for the inept and corrupt among us. You want to defile our sovereignty in the name of compassion when the goal is to further manipulate the vote for your agenda. If you can give me rational reasons to support irrational policies I'll listen. But so far I haven't heard one.

Either you will defend the rights of all within a diverse society or you will not? Which is it?

There's a big difference between accepting that there are awful people that will use basic freedoms to promote hatred of minorities and tolerating those behaviors.

Yea, if you think that America is a white Christian straight nation where those cultural norms should be supreme, then of course, we're going to condemn that. If you think we should align with a murderous thug who has actual death camps for Gay people in his country, then of course I'm going to say that's unacceptable.

There's a difference between accepting that people are going to say offensive things and allowing people to normalize that speech.

Tom, you've answered my question by condemning yourself. I am straight and by definition mostly White. I do have some Native American heritage confirmed in the family tree. I have worked on behalf of civil rights, have done some community organizing on behalf of the poor in a community where their children were going to be subjugated to pollutants hazardous to their health and as I had to point out to the health of those around them. I have employed gay people and worked on projects with others. I've taken battered women to shelters when their drunken husbands were threatening me with a gun, stopped a perp from mugging a woman in the parking lot of a mall where I was threatened with knife.

I've put life and skin on the line for those who likely wouldn't vote for who I would vote for, who would say things contrary to what I believe, but they knew where I stood on some of these issues and yet didn't flinch to do the same.

What has pissed me off no end where you are concerned is that you projected your hatred on to me just because of my political beliefs and without knowing me as a person. You have reveled in specious tactics giving your side election victories under spurious circumstances.

My caveat was within the law. I think that covers hate speech there sport. I don't and haven't hated anyone, but I don't trust people who think that when I disagree with their positions that my rights ought to be taken away. Apparently by your answer you do. We've been talking foreign politics, not domestic social issues. Radicals always want to take away their oppositions right to free speech, to take away their property if they have the chance, and they love a pound of flesh whether the actual person before them is guilty of damned thing or not.

The fact that you would place Gay rights and abuse of Gays before the national interests is proof to me of where your priorities reside. Mine reside with the health of this nation because that's where almost everyone I love and esteem lives. You want tolerance and it's been given freely by many many more people than who would deride you. But you give no tolerance back. If I were to hold to a Biblical view of morality, which is not prohibited by the law and is my right, you would classify me as a hater because it doesn't conform to your view of morality. That isn't tolerance Tom! If I vote for policies that recognize China as our most lethal adversary and would utilize some form of cooperation with Russia that is my political right. You insinuate that it makes me a gay hater. My view is that it would be in the best interest of our nation. By the way Tom the Chinese are even less tolerant than Russia. You conform to their norms in China. The folks that don't simply aren't heard from again. They don't tolerate other cultures except for business when they need something. They have the most successful assimilation program in history. Chinese move in and pretty soon only Chinese live there. Check out Cambodia. It really makes conquest and assimilation even if it isn't formalized quite effective.

Tom there are many Americans who will not accept the Gay lifestyle as moral. But if they don't persecute you, don't assault you, and don't try to deny your rights that is the essence of tolerance. The American in which you would live would force compliance of even these most personal of choices. Tom you are the fascist here. Practicing Christians, sadly of which there aren't as many as the other variety, would never harm you because it is against there faith. But your hatred of faith came through loud and clear in your post.

I find you to be a hypocrite to the very tolerance you preach. Tolerance for you is everyone being forced to comply to your personal choices. Freedom doesn't work that way.

I pushed you Tom because your form of liberalism and your intolerance are not only destructive to true liberalism, but destructive to the fabric of freedom and true tolerance that is the United States of America. One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All is something I take seriously. And yet what you have espoused many times is contrary to Unity because you do divide, and it is contrary to liberty because you would take away my rights to practice morality as I see fit, to think as I see fit, and to speak my views freely if they didn't conform to your vision for America.

American has to be big enough for many visions, but wise enough to govern by consensus.

You can espouse what you wish here and I'll leave you alone for the most part. But you have no credibility sir, at least not when it comes to affirming every American's rights to disagree, to believe as they see fit, to say what they believe publicly, and you certainly don't display empathy for fair elections based on your defenses of what are plainly atrocities in Broward and other such spots, and your assessment of China versus Russia defies logic, but now I at least know why.

But ancient wisdom from the far east says that any enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I would add "for now."

I knew you couldn't answer a question about self sacrifice for those who may not be able to agree with you because to do so you would have to place something ahead of self and everything you post starts and ends with that world view.

It looks like you might need a nap.

The safety and freedom of my people is ultimately my only priority, especially if it is under direct and ongoing threat. And the threat is real.

I am a GLOBALIST, not a nativist/nationalist.

The building I'm in is on fire and you're asking me to stop fighting the fire and help the guy carrying more gas to the fire.

----

After 2 years of Trump and all the horrors that it has revealed, I really don't have time to focus on overreach.

Is Duda's plan to deny all freedom of speech, petition, protest, assembly, association, press, due process and expression in Poland an acceptable cultural expression or something that should be fought? Since Trump has abrogated America's normal role in doing so, I have to consider who will stand up in cases like this. And in Poland's case, that is Merkel and the EU.

Farange and his fellow travelers in the BNP/UKIP have repeatedly and richly earned our reflexive opposition, through their statements and associations. Right now, if it hurts the ONLY people who are doing anything to stop attacks on my people and threats to my freedom, then I'm going to reflexively defend those who defend my people.

By the way, they might not be the biggest losers, but probably will be. The biggest losers are likely to be the civilized people in the Conservatives who foolishly tried to appease the Farange side, and will probably end up and get destroyed politically by it.

Tom your building isn't on fire in the United States and people who are your fellow citizens are not your enemy. But by your own admission you don't prize your citizenship since you are a Globalist which means we can't count on you when things threaten our way of life.

That sums up your narcissism beautifully. I got news for you. Most of the Globe is out to kill you. You had better know who has your back and you had better have theirs.

But thank you for clearly stating to the board what it is that you are about, and why it is that you despise their rights.

Our way of life isn't supporting Putin. Our way of life isn't destroying the EU. Our way of life isn't destroying our immigrant culture. Might be some of you guys way to support YOUR way of life.

Yes, many around the Globe want my people dead, marginalized, or abused. The problem is, we can't fight them all at the same time so we have on the greatest threat. And I'm focusing on the greatest threat to MY freedom and my fellow Americans' freedom. That person is Vladimir Putin (not ISIS - not by a long shot) internationally.

I wish our community could have the privilege of worrying about obscure points in the realm of legislation like we're over at the corner over at National Review. We don't.

We've seen enough to know that Farange is a bad player. And he's either willing or not, advancing the cause of Putin. So of course, I"m going to celebrate him getting punked. Sure, Farange might have nominally more power (he may probably enter Commons in the next election), but I certainly want a UK where his movement has been discredited with the majority of the population. And I think this fiasco reduces his actual power.

Who has my back... Merkel, Macron, Trudeau and the EU. That's basically it. Trump most certainly does NOT have our back. That's a demonstrable fact.

My country is a diverse USA that respects human rights and basic freedoms and opposes discrimination. And where white supremacy (or any other kind of supremacy) is not the power metric. We're not to that point yet on the supremacy, but we're getting close enough so that I certainly am going to root for the EU and oppose threats to it.