Biden Crime Family

[Gary Childress]

If that's the way you (a Canadian) feel, then I'm sorry that we (Americans) have let you down.

I like Americans. I don't like this aspect of their political culture.

Partisanship is not necessary, not wise, and not democratic, ultimately. But for some reason, Americans always think you have to be one or the other.

Do ALL Americans "always" think that way or do some of them? I've always wondered what my neighbors and other fellow people I meet around town think. I'm sorry if they come off that way. I hope you don't feel that way about me.

[Lacewing]

When I say "the proposition that the Nation is at a juncture of real and dangerous conflict — that is a good place to start our examination of “why” this has come about" I am making what I think is a very good suggestion. If it is true the next series of questions have to do with gaining the background (about causation, about history) that enables one to make fair, accurate and rounded statements.

Sure, you go do that in whatever skewed way suits you. Meanwhile, the war is in our face. Surely we can have the innate ability to some reasonable degree to discern truth from bullshit, balance from extremism, and right from wrong as we face things in real-time. Humans have been doing it throughout history without the luxury to study up on it and come to a definitive conclusion. You're wasting time and possibly being lazy. Get out of your armchair which you treat as a throne.

Do you agree? To me it seems bullet-proof.

I think it is valuable to learn from the past without being a servant to it. And I think awareness comes through many forms. There is no specific way to attain it. But it can be clear when someone has it and is using it. Just as it can be clear HOW they are using it. Words can be a smokescreen. Thankfully, politics and religion don't seem as convincing right now as they may have been at various times in history. I see this as beneficial. Although I recognize that the deconstructing shift may be very jarring if not devastating.

Why does Walker rely almost exclusively on far-right news sources and opinions... and why do you say that's worth considering seriously?

Why would you have me answer a question best posed to him?

Because it shows your tolerance for non-reputable sources.

If what you are saying is that one should not read at conservatively grounded sites, but should read somewhere else, or read the precise opposite, I think you are making a mistake of relativism.

I think it's not that hard to determine the difference between sources that are presenting opposing views vs. ranting in a skewed way that stomps over the truth and kicks it aside.

I tend now to a conservative-leaning analysis (indeed even to some Dissident Right ideas) but it is after reading Left-Progressive material for most of my life. I certainly know the latter very well indeed.

Well, there are very intelligent people who know and do the opposite of you. So what does THAT mean?

What I say is that the article that Walker presented is full of assertions about the last election that appear to me, after some time and some research, to be highly credible.

It contains grievances against the way voting was handled and the way certain processes were rushed or streamlined. This is presented as a bad thing... period. There is no recognition as to the reasonable efforts that might have been driving any of it. No, it was 'all bad, for bad reasons, by bad people'. If you can't recognize when something is skewed... if you can't recognize that liberal people are good and smart TOO... then you have really fallen off the edge of balance.

There are just different ways of seeing things... it's not good vs. evil... and we have to figure out how to live together and allow each other to live according to their own values without religion being the driver for everyone. Politics and religion need to be scaled way back.

[Immanuel Can]

If that's the way you (a Canadian) feel, then I'm sorry that we (Americans) have let you down.

I like Americans. I don't like this aspect of their political culture.

Partisanship is not necessary, not wise, and not democratic, ultimately. But for some reason, Americans always think you have to be one or the other.

Do ALL Americans "always" think that way or do some of them?

It's pretty general. Say anything, and an American will want to know if you're saying that because you're a Republican or a Democrat...even when you don't come from their country. It's weird, it's illogical, but it's common.

[Gary Childress]

I like Americans. I don't like this aspect of their political culture.

Partisanship is not necessary, not wise, and not democratic, ultimately. But for some reason, Americans always think you have to be one or the other.

Do ALL Americans "always" think that way or do some of them?

It's pretty general. Say anything, and an American will want to know if you're saying that because you're a Republican or a Democrat...even when you don't come from their country. It's weird, it's illogical, but it's common.

I'm not a fan of the American political machine. Really, it's like ping pong. Either one party wins or the other. Not much choice there. The Green Party had Dr. Jill Stein as their candidate in 2012 and 2016. IIRC part of her platform involved introducing Ranked Choice Voting in order to better counter the tendency of voting for the least worst candidate so that candidates other than ones from the two main parties stand an improved chance of making themselves and their issues heard.

[Alexis Jacobi]

unrestrained people

I said that I fear man when he is unrestrained. When he has lost the restraint of himself. Those who study the 20th century realize that man — men — are capable extremely depraved behavior, especially in mobs.

The context of my statement was a sensible caution about the (weak, un-empowered) Dissident Right. I referred to Ronald Beiner and his recent book and his presentation that Nietzsche and Heidegger are dangerous thinkers — an observation I agree with.

Youth, encountering radical propositions, often show lack of self-restraint when intoxicating ideas cone their way.

That, you drooling nut, is what I referred to.

[Gary Childress]

unrestrained people

I said that I fear man when he is unrestrained. When he has lost the restraint of himself. Those who study the 20th century realize that man — men — are capable extremely depraved behavior, especially in mobs.

The context of my statement was a sensible caution about the (weak, un-empowered) Dissident Right. I referred to Ronald Beiner and his recent book and his presentation that Nietzsche and Heidegger are dangerous thinkers — an observation I agree with.

Youth, encountering radical propositions, often show lack of self-restraint when intoxicating ideas cone their way.

That, you drooling nut, is what I referred to.

So what do you propose in the way of "restraint" for everyone? Or are you only proposing "restraint" for some?

[Alexis Jacobi]

…..

Lacewing, as per usual all your assertions are vague, general, non-definite, and always seem to me rhetorically based. You write about things that “sound good” but without concrete reference to specificities in our present.

You seem to exist within a rhetorical fog, and by that I mean one disconnected from first principles. I have not been able to discern what your first principles actually are.

In my view, you’d need to select one topic, one hot issue of the day, and demonstrate your position on it. Some topic that means something to you. And indicate through that something about your own first principles.

[Gary Childress]

You write about things that “sound good” but without concrete reference to specificities in our present.

Do the things that Lace writes "sound good" to you or do they not? Do some sound good but not others? And if so, what doesn't sound good to you?

[Gary Childress]

You write about things that “sound good” but without concrete reference to specificities in our present.

Do the things that Lace writes "sound good" to you or do they not? Do some sound good but not others? And if so, what doesn't sound good to you?

Or to flip it to the positive, what does sound good to you in what Lace says?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So what do you propose in the way of "restraint" for everyone? Or are you only proposing "restraint" for some?

I call for you to be put in a straight-jacket.

You moron, did you assimilate what I wrote? Do you understand what I said? Do you agree with the idea presented there or do you disagree?

[Gary Childress]

So what do you propose in the way of "restraint" for everyone? Or are you only proposing "restraint" for some?

I call for you to be put in a straight-jacket.

You moron, did you assimilate what I wrote? Do you understand what I said? Do you agree with the idea presented there or do you disagree?

Why do you "call" for me to be "put in a straight-jacket"? Is it because I have not "assimilated" what you wrote, possibly don't understand what you said and/ or possibly disagree?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You write about things that “sound good” but without concrete reference to specificities in our present.

Do the things that Lace writes "sound good" to you or do they not? Do some sound good but not others? And if so, what doesn't sound good to you?

Or to flip it to the positive, what does sound good to you in what Lace says?

I regard your constant tossing back questions as a symptom of passive-aggressive sickness. Don’t waste my time with vain questions. Talk about the ideas and your view of them.

If the straight-jacket is not enough I may have to escalate to more robust though always spiritual tortures.

Don’t make me … I am sometimes unrestrained when the opportunity of inflicting devilish torture is handed to me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do you "call" for me to be "put in a straight-jacket"? Is it because I have not "assimilated" what you wrote, possibly don't understand what you said and/ or possibly disagree?

Why don’t you take a stab at an answer? What do you think?

[Gary Childress]

Do the things that Lace writes "sound good" to you or do they not? Do some sound good but not others? And if so, what doesn't sound good to you?

Or to flip it to the positive, what does sound good to you in what Lace says?

I regard your constant tossing back questions as a symptom of passive-aggressive sickness. Don’t waste my time with vain questions. Talk about the ideas and your view of them.

If the straight-jacket is not enough I may have to escalate to more robust though sleays spiritual tortures.

Don’t make me … I am sometimes unrestrained when the opportunity ofinflicting devilish torture is handed to me.

Funny, I regard your insults as insults. I apologize for causing you to use them.

[Gary Childress]

Why do you "call" for me to be "put in a straight-jacket"? Is it because I have not "assimilated" what you wrote, possibly don't understand what you said and/ or possibly disagree?

Why don’t you take a stab at an answer? What do you think?

I think I don't belong in a straight jacket. Now your turn to give an answer to what YOU actually think.