The Democrat Party Hates America

[Gary Childress]

I don't know. I'm not a police expert. Go ask someone who is.

I don't think a couple of cops are enforcing international law.

Do you expect your idea to be enforced by... more wars?

You can't stop war by declaring war, can you???????

Sorry to get frustrated with you "Jesus". But I don't have all the answers, especially to really, really stupid questions.

[Gary Childress]

Who the fuck names themselves "Jesus" anyway? If I had had a kid should I have named him or her "God"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was explaining dialectics. Hegel and Marx are the right sources.

I do not buy (at least not entirely) the narrative that Woke-Culture, Cultural Marxism, Critical Theories, and socialism, is all that need be focused on if our endeavor is to understand what is happening in the present and to remediate it (if that is even possible).

I wrote of that here in a response to Walker's Levin reference.

Woke-culture, Cultural Marxism, Critical Theories, and the creeping socialism in which there is collusion between business interests and government is a real concern, but that concern (in my view) sits within a larger issue of power-dynamic.

As to where I got my view of Power -- I named one source: On Power and Ideology by the dread Noam Chomsky. If one is interested in entertaining a trenchant analysis of a power-system that is one source to research.

When your Ass's Ears show, Immanuel, you seem to lose the sense that conversation can be looked upon as a shared endeavor, with the purpose being to better understand our world and what is going on around us. The comments I offer are constructively critical of Mark Levin's outlook and the point-of-view which he presents, and in a sense *sells*, through his TV show.

Neoconservatism has been a bane on the social and political body of America. That is tied up, certainly, with Zionism, Christian Zionism, and the immense and thoroughly improper level of influence that (Jewish Zionist) Neoconservatives have in America today. I see this as a necessary fact to state openly.

I pointed out that if we only see *trees* we fail to discern *the forest* and it seems an apt metaphor since -- again, my opinion -- we all seem to be in the dark and searching for coherent interpretive explanations.

Mark Levin is putting forward a Grand Narrative about the central problem. It is a form of generalization and reduction. And numerous people here on this forum take issue with a too-general analysis that is offered by you, by Walker, and by some others (including myself). I do not disagree with him in many areas but as I suggest he has his blind spots.

[Gary Childress]

I was explaining dialectics. Hegel and Marx are the right sources.

I do not buy (at least not entirely) the narrative that Woke-Culture, Cultural Marxism, Critical Theories, and socialism, is all that need be focused on if our endeavor is to understand what is happening in the present and to remediate it (if that is even possible).

What is "happening in the present"? Do any of us know? Is it even possible to find out? If we string enough isms and theories in there and learn them all will any of us get to the bottom of "now"? All I know is that there's a war going on right now that is very concerning to many, including me.

[Walker]

I doubt "selfless public service" is how he made all that money that he could donate in his own name.

That's very good, Gary. Very observant. Public service does not make one rich ... but what about Biden? He's rich ... and he's always been a politician.

Explain that one, Gary. Where did he get the money, Honey?

Is Biden a billionaire? Trump also has made and lost billions many times I hear, even to the point of teetering on bankruptcy. Is that the man you're betting on? Or would you most like to see the rich guy (who devoted most of his life to public service and didn't make quite as much money as Trump) lose instead?

This isn't Jeopardy. The question requires an answer, not a question.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think a couple of cops are enforcing international law.

Do you expect your idea to be enforced by... more wars?

You can't stop war by declaring war, can you???????

Sorry to get frustrated with you "Jesus". But I don't have all the answers, especially to really, really stupid questions.

I really don't think it's fair to call it a stupid question. If you make a law without any way to enforce it, then... wtf is the law for? Take the question seriously and think about it. How would it be enforced?

[Gary Childress]

That's very good, Gary. Very observant. Public service does not make one rich ... but what about Biden? He's rich ... and he's always been a politician.

Explain that one, Gary. Where did he get the money, Honey?

Is Biden a billionaire? Trump also has made and lost billions many times I hear, even to the point of teetering on bankruptcy. Is that the man you're betting on? Or would you most like to see the rich guy (who devoted most of his life to public service and didn't make quite as much money as Trump) lose instead?

This isn't Jeopardy. The question requires an answer, not a question.

No. It's not Jeopardy. That's for sure.

[Gary Childress]

You can't stop war by declaring war, can you???????

Sorry to get frustrated with you "Jesus". But I don't have all the answers, especially to really, really stupid questions.

I really don't think it's fair to call it a stupid question. If you make a law without any way to enforce it, then... wtf is the law for? Take the question seriously and think about it. How would it be enforced?

If you can't enforce something that needs to be enforced, should you therefore leave it legal? And what counts as "enforcement"?

[Immanuel Can]

If someone declares war on someone else, then outlaw that.

With what body? What authority?

How about the UN?

Seriously? When did the UN ever have power to legislate anything? And who would grant it any?

[Immanuel Can]

I was explaining dialectics. Hegel and Marx are the right sources.

I do not buy (at least not entirely) the narrative that Woke-Culture, Cultural Marxism, Critical Theories, and socialism, is all that need be focused on if our endeavor is to understand what is happening in the present and to remediate it (if that is even possible).

Who said it was? Not me.

I just said that if you want to understand the motives of Socialists, you need to understand dialectics. If you want to understand dialectics, it's Hegel and Marx you need to understand. It's that straightforward.

It seems you want to talk about something different, some general point about "power" -- which you can, of course, to whomever you wish to talk. But I have no interest in that conversation. I'm making the point about dialectical views of history.

[Walker]

Levin addresses the actual effects of American Marxism and how they came to be, rather than focus on an analysis of 19th century theory. To do that he does expand the meaning of the last sentence into book-lengths, with many endnotes and sources.

I am not attempting to challenge nor undermine aspects of his analysis, which can certainly be considered, but rather I think it necessary to consider what he is — obviously — leaving out of the picture.

Levin’s book is the balance.

Mark Levin, the author of The Democrat Party Hates America, is a political activist and constitutionalist.

The Leftists are busy breaking laws, ignoring laws, and corrupting the balance of power designed into the constitution.

When the Democrats break all the rules and excuse one another, and then use those same rules to destroy their political opponents who they consider to be enemies, then the compromise and balance to that is not as the Democrats prefer.

viewtopic.php?p=669572#p669572

[Gary Childress]

With what body? What authority?

How about the UN?

Seriously? When did the UN ever have power to legislate anything?

It stopped having that power when it became almost immediately apparent that nations with permanent member status on the Security Council were using their status toward their own interests.

[Gary Childress]

And who would grant it any?

Anyone who would like to see nations of the world resolve their issues between each other neutrally, diplomatically, and peacefully. Do you have something against those things?

[Walker]

And who would grant it any?

Anyone who would like to see nations of the world resolve their issues between each other neutrally, diplomatically, and peacefully. Do you have something against those things?

That is a perfect description of Trump.

Does this resolution occur before or after all the nations join hands and sing Kumbaya, in perfect balance and harmony? Do you have something against hands?

(The proper response to a question is an answer, not a question.)

[Gary Childress]

And who would grant it any?

Anyone who would like to see nations of the world resolve their issues between each other neutrally, diplomatically, and peacefully. Do you have something against those things?

That is a perfect description of Trump.

Does this resolution occur before or after all the nations join hands and sing Kumbaya, in perfect balance and harmony? Do you have something against hands?

(The proper response to a question is an answer, not a question.)

I don't have "something against hands" that I'm aware of. Does Trump want to disband the security council? Maybe leave the general assembly to address issues?