MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Dachshund
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Dachshund » Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:40 am

gaffo wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:30 am
Dachshund wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:26 am
gaffo wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:30 am



I'm not a member of the sheep police.
Really ? Then you better watch what you say , Gaffo, "or they'll be calling you a radical, a Liberal, oh fanatical criminal."

:D

Dachshund
yes, but i'm a dreamer, nothing but a dreamer taking the long way home.

at least i ain't no john be good, so I'm not coming along.
OK, that's enough already. Supertramp were basically a cheesy , 70's "Superband" who sold out to the corporate capitalist pop music machine in the US. Sure, they knocked out a few catchy tunes, but let's not get too carried away, Gaffo.

D

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by gaffo » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:11 am

Dachshund wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:40 am
gaffo wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:30 am
Dachshund wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:26 am


Really ? Then you better watch what you say , Gaffo, "or they'll be calling you a radical, a Liberal, oh fanatical criminal."

:D

Dachshund
yes, but i'm a dreamer, nothing but a dreamer taking the long way home.

at least i ain't no john be good, so I'm not coming along.
OK, that's enough already. Supertramp were basically a cheesy , 70's "Superband" who sold out to the corporate capitalist pop music machine in the US. Sure, they knocked out a few catchy tunes, but let's not get too carried away, Gaffo.

D
no, they were not cheezy, they are one of the best 70's rock bands (top 5 of the 70's). ya after breakfast in america (they broke up) - then sort of reformed, and become pop-80's crap (BTW the 80's suck full balls per "rock music - most all we had were former good rock bands turned snyth pop - like Supertramp (Genesis went the same rought, they were great in early 70's with Gabrial, then sort of ok with early collins, then horrible 80's pop under Collins)- or horrid solo acts like MC Hammer, Gabrials solo work was shit too BTW (just like the solo works by the Beatles - Beatles the group was the best rockband/popband of all time - but solo works are par or sub par offerings - sorry but that just the way is was - of those solo works Harisons were actually decent/best of the "fab four").

no 80's really REAALY sucked - i'm trying to think of the good music in the 80's and all i can think of early U2 (tehy sucked after Rattle and Hum - so post 87), Rush, REM, The Cult.

thats it. in facl Rock nearly died, then somehow revived with Grunge/alternative (not the same thing but related) - and rock music started to sound good again - like it did in the 70's and 60's (late 60's had the best Rock BTW - Joplin/doors/animals/CCR/the who/the guess who/etc) - we got Throwing Muses/Kristen Hirsh, Julianna Hatfield, Veruca Salt, The Refreshments, Nada Surf, The Tragically Hip (Gord Downy-lead singer died from brain tumor last year - RIP), foo fighters/etc.

then RAP swamped all rock and rock was effectively destroyed by the mid 90's

Rock is now like Jass, fully underground. you will not hear it on the radio (unless you live near a Pirate/i partook myself for a few years doing that), and have to find it on YT.

bands like The Phoenix Foundation, Black Mountain, Lake Street Dive, Taco Cat.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by gaffo » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:33 am

going to bed - after midnight here - but honour demanded i return, for in my ignorance, i forgot to mention 2 of the best early 70's rock groups - up there with Supertramp.

so i had to return to include them here.

Crosby Still Nash and sometime Young, and America.

early works are excellent, and yes sadly both of those groups, like Supertramp went pop (but earlier by 4 yrs or so).

by mid-late 70's they were not all that.

but prior! oh ya! they were all that and more! ;-).

for "what it worth" - ya i know buffalo springfield, but Still(s) related. one of the other members wrote good stuff and went on to found Poco, a good group of the mid 70's.

ok i'm outta here for now.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5894
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:11 am
ya, maybe i should "cool my jets" - but i do HATE hypocricy! i view Henry is too steeped in his "cult" of "whatever - right conservativism - to be an honest oberserver.
Henry's a bit of a provocateur. He's also darn funny, if you take his comments in the right spirit. He's invented an artificial persona of the caveman thug, but he uses it very ingeniously to puncture the pomposity of Leftists and other forms of irrationality.

If you watch him, though, you'll catch behind his jibes and japes a sharp intellect to go along with the quick wit. Understand that "Henry" is a game he plays, and plays rather cleverly, to great effect, and you'll enjoy him a whole lot more. Sometimes what "Henry" says is what the real Henry believes, and sometimes it's just an exaggerated form designed to push the boundaries of thought. But it's often very good stuff.

At the end of the day, I find him honest.
I do like Henry more than Veg
Everyone does.
i will welcome talking to him when/if he can remove his mental shackles of tribalism and talk to me as a liberated person without tribe.
He's a Libertarian. He doesn't have a real "tribe." He just argues for minimal government and minimal interference and maximal individual rights.

I don't know if Henry takes apologies, and I'm sure yours is sincere; but I know he doesn't hold grudges. Give him another chance, sometime, if you can bring yourself to do it.
As for yourself, i do not see you posting per political issues and honestly have no idea if you are liberal moderate or conservative, nor do i even know of your national origin.
I'm happy to tell you. I'm on the margins of both the US and the UK, citizen of neither. I'm very, very skeptical of political activity of any kind, beyond the basic provision of security for citizens. I do not admire the work of large political entities, because I know much about their histories.
i thank you for your thoughtful reply to me.
And I return the thanks for yours.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm
gaffo wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:11 am
ya, maybe i should "cool my jets" - but i do HATE hypocricy! i view Henry is too steeped in his "cult" of "whatever - right conservativism - to be an honest oberserver.
Henry's a bit of a provocateur. He's also darn funny, if you take his comments in the right spirit. He's invented an artificial persona of the caveman thug, but he uses it very ingeniously to puncture the pomposity of Leftists and other forms of irrationality.

If you watch him, though, you'll catch behind his jibes and japes a sharp intellect to go along with the quick wit. Understand that "Henry" is a game he plays, and plays rather cleverly, to great effect, and you'll enjoy him a whole lot more. Sometimes what "Henry" says is what the real Henry believes, and sometimes it's just an exaggerated form designed to push the boundaries of thought. But it's often very good stuff.

At the end of the day, I find him honest.
i concur with your assessment of Henry.

I like Walker too BTW - though disagree with him too - he and i like the same music/movies.



I do like Henry more than Veg
Everyone does. [/quote]

;-)

no comment.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm
He's a Libertarian. He doesn't have a real "tribe." He just argues for minimal government and minimal interference and maximal individual rights.
YES I KNOW -and why i respect his view of our Constitution's precepts!

I'm a Libartarian too!!!!

only difference is he is a Conservative and I'm a Liberal.

Libertarians (I'm a "liberaltarian" coined by KOS daily founder/guy ages ago during the illegal Iraqnam war) are not "conservative"/"liberal" - ie. in othwerwords they are not dems or repbublicans, but have a mentality that is "different"

we make up the full spectrum, yes 60 percent of Libertarians are right of center (none are Riech of center - there are no Fascist Libertarians (unlike 1/2 of Republicans today), the other 40 percent are Left of center.

Henry is Right of center Libertarian, and i'm left of center.

we are both Libertarians.


- and so he identifies with Republicans more and i Dems more - per those other (sadly only viable ones here in America) political parties.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm
I don't know if Henry takes apologies, and I'm sure yours is sincere; but I know he doesn't hold grudges.
I hate phonies

if i post something it is what i'm thinking at the time.

it was and remains sincere.

as for holding grudges, this has been a personal vise of mine for decades, i'm much better the last 20 yrs, but as a young man i was not good at that - i.e. "letting go, forgiving"

with age comes humility - usually.

that is a good thing IMO.




Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm
Give him another chance, sometime, if you can bring yourself to do it.

yes of course! i like Henry!

I'm on the margins of both the US and the UK, citizen of neither.
oh Canadian ;-).

Oh Canada!

do you have any views on Jordan Peterson? (that "lobster debate" with the BBC gal (Judy somesuch) was priceless. jopurnalism today is such CRAP!

my views on the man is:

1. i affirm his side of the whole "PC is out of control" idea
2. think "rightists" worship him as a god - like they do Shapiro (who i think is a pompuss ass with nothing must to say of value)
3. Left lables Peterson as "Rightist", Right affirms the Lefts view of the man.
4. I think Peterson is center, to the right a little but not a rightist - he grew up in northern alberta? - in a small town, his mentality today was shaped by his town.
5. I think Peterson is a good man, not in any way a racist (i saw that video where the black man accussed him of being a racist - sorry i can't rem the black guy's name - but it was unfair accusation and i could feel and relate to Paterson trying to defend his honour being accussed of someting he was not).
6. I think Peterson's celibrity (i.e. the Right adopting him as some sort of god) - may have gone to his head and made him arrogant.
7. i too might become arrogant if i were adopted as a god, so i still like Peterson (this i see as just a trial of his character in his personal life, and we shall see how it plays out in the nest decade).
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm
i thank you for your thoughtful reply to me.
And I return the thanks for yours.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by gaffo » Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:39 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:21 am

I am NOT a racist.
Dachshund
no reply from days ago i see.

you have a mind, and i think even a conscience buried and killed by you over the years.

let your conscience live life and remove your racist views.

i think you are better than the cage you built yourself.

-------

but maybe you are not?

..

you got decades of life to find out, let yourself become more than you are today.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"he is a Conservative"

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:20 am

No, I'm not.

I'm a natural rights libertarian minarchist.

If it seems I favor repubs, or cons, it's only cuz I note they are slightly 'more correct' than dems or progressives some of the time.

Again: The right can be a shithole, yep, but the left 'is' a shithole all the damn time.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5894
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:19 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:59 pm
I like Walker too BTW
Yeah, I do too.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm
He's a Libertarian. He doesn't have a real "tribe." He just argues for minimal government and minimal interference and maximal individual rights.
YES I KNOW -and why i respect his view of our Constitution's precepts!

I'm a Libartarian too!!!!

only difference is he is a Conservative and I'm a Liberal.
Well, I'm curious, then. As a Liberal-Libertarian, how do you reconcile the Liberal advocacy of means requiring big governments and large-scale government intervention with the Libertarian cardinal values of individual liberties and of keeping government as small as practical?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm
Give him another chance, sometime, if you can bring yourself to do it.
yes of course! i like Henry!
Dandy.
do you have any views on Jordan Peterson?
Sure.

The Kathy Newman interview was golden. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
my views on the man is:

1. i affirm his side of the whole "PC is out of control" idea
4. I think Peterson is center, to the right a little but not a rightist - he grew up in northern alberta? - in a small town, his mentality today was shaped by his town.
5. I think Peterson is a good man,
I agree.

I don't see eye-to-eye with him on some things, particularly his rather Jungian way of understanding faith; but I like a lot of what he says. I'd love to sit down with him sometime and ask him a few questions.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:19 am

Well, I'm curious, then. As a Liberal-Libertarian, how do you reconcile the Liberal advocacy of means requiring big governments and large-scale government intervention with the Libertarian cardinal values of individual liberties and of keeping government as small as practical?
first off - are you Canadian? curious, because you seen to maybe not know all that much about Libartarianism (not trying to be a dick, just asking/observing here).

there are Three components to Libertarianism - of which i fall into Two (Henry falls into 2 also - one he and i share)

Libertarian platform affirms three "Pillars" one more that the other two 1/4 1/4 and 1/2.

1. Economic Capitalism, no (or little) regulation. This i do not affirm, suspect Henry does. Libertarian assumption is that the "Free market" is self correcting and all with work out fine. my view is that without regulation you will always end up with a monopoly (big guys will just buy out the competition and fix prices). that is why i support Logan Act/Sherman Act /etc when needed to bust up monopolies. I do not support gov run economy, i affirm capitalism, until some company gets too big, like in the case of Bell Telephone - the bust em up to restore competition.

2. Social Liberalism, no regulation. there i think Henry would have a problem with legalized polygamy/beastiality/etc. for me no prob. as a Liberarian, i think it if fine if you marry your dog and try to have children, do whatever you like as long as you are not endangering anyone else in your activity.

3. This the the biggest pillar of Libertarians - respect and knowledge of the US and State Constitutions, respect for the Rule of Law, Court rulings - note: and not just the most recent ones, Libertarians value old rulings as much as newer ones for all have been done under the same Constitution/s. We value regionalism - affirm that each State has its own laws and should not have to be forced to have the same laws as the neighboring states nor forced to be similar to the federal laws - as long as the process of aquiring those laws were proper and lawfull.


Libertarians are very legal minded, I'll give you a few examples of my mind in this regard.

Civil War: all 11 Confederate States held reforendoms to leave the union - votes were 60/40 for leaving (in general give a few point via the diff states) i think it is lawful for any state to leave the Federal Union (Lincoln claimed secession was illegal via the Articles of Confederation - that document has no legal standing, not since 1789 YET he affirmed it a legal when West Virginia succeeded from Virginia!). There is no mention of it being illegal for a State to leave the Union anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Legalized Dueling: Dueling (Trial by Combat) was legal in the UK until 1715? 18? when Parliment outlawed it. American left the UK in 1789, american affirms all the prior UK laws and Customs (refer to the 9th Bill of Rights) up and to 1789, when future UK laws were no longer recognized by our courts. So the repeal of dueling did not take place here in America.

https://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/judge-a ... -order-it/


Jury PArdon: refer to the 18th centruy Zinger trail - slander of the King. Affirmed by the 9th Bill of rights - right to rule "innocent per your conscience regardless of the evidence" i.e to judge the law to which one is accussed of violating and to reject the law as unlawful.



Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:54 pm
Give him another chance, sometime, if you can bring yourself to do it.
yes of course! i like Henry!
Dandy.
do you have any views on Jordan Peterson?
Sure.

The Kathy Newman interview was golden. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
my views on the man is:

1. i affirm his side of the whole "PC is out of control" idea
4. I think Peterson is center, to the right a little but not a rightist - he grew up in northern alberta? - in a small town, his mentality today was shaped by his town.
5. I think Peterson is a good man,
I agree.

I don't see eye-to-eye with him on some things, particularly his rather Jungian way of understanding faith; but I like a lot of what he says. I'd love to sit down with him sometime and ask him a few questions.
[/quote]

Ya Kathy, not Judy - lol thats the one! oh god, and she was not fired after that! in fact she thought she did a great interview (that was the BBC wasn't it? wow, my regard for them used to be great, not now though, who is in charge over there? a bunch of clowns?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

gaffo

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:06 am

There are a lotta strains of libertarianism, a lotta ways to break it down.

As I see it there are two main branches: consequentialist libertarianism and natural rights libertarinism.

The consequentialist branch skews toward being political; the natural rights branch toward being philosophical.

Me, as a natural rights guy, am not a party member, not affiliated with any formal doctrine.

Self-ownership and the right to one's life, liberty, and property is the summation of my position.


"Economic Capitalism"

I prefer free enterprise to capitalism.

#

"Social Liberalism, no regulation. there i think Henry would have a problem with legalized polygamy/beastiality/etc. for me no prob. as a Liberarian, i think it if fine if you marry your dog and try to have children, do whatever you like as long as you are not endangering anyone else in your activity."

Bestiality is perverse, indicative of disordered thinking. Mental illness doesn't compartmentalze, it infects the whole of a psyche. That is: if screwing dogs is your bag, then you're probably twisted in other parts of your thinkin' (i.e. you are shithouse mouse crazy). Should we lock up such folks? Probably not. Damned straight no one should ever sell such a person a dog or allow such a person to dog sit.

#

"This the the biggest pillar of Libertarians - respect and knowledge of the US and State Constitutions"

Not for me. I value the constitution as a capable tool and adequate blueprint, but it ain't perfect. A truly libertarian charter it ain't.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5894
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm

gaffo wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:13 am
This the the biggest pillar of Libertarians - respect and knowledge of the US and State Constitutions, respect for the Rule of Law, Court rulings...Civil War...
Interesting.

But I don't see Libertarianism as a specifically American phenomenon. It may have its American variants, to be sure; but it's an ideology that fits different countries and places, so I can't think that respect for US Constitutions is necessary for it. I think something's not quite right there.
Ya [C]athy, not Judy - lol thats the one! oh god, and she was not fired after that! in fact she thought she did a great interview (that was the BBC wasn't it? wow, my regard for them used to be great, not now though, who is in charge over there? a bunch of clowns?
I thought it was a very obvious display of media bias, to be sure. The extreme desperation with which she resorted to "...so you're saying..." and then invariably distorted what JP was saying, to the point of absurdity, was the clearest sort of evidence that the BBC in particular, but news media more generally, are simply no longer to be trusted to be even nominally neutral and fair-minded in their approach. And JP handled her like an expert, simply by being kind, precise and stalwart. In all, it was a clinic in composure on the JP side, and a clinic in partisan lunacy on the CN side. No wonder the thing went so wildly viral.

I agree with you that it's a bit hard to see how JP can keep his ego down to size in the face of so much attention. However, I think so far he's done a pretty good job of that, up to this point. And I've heard him say he's away of how easily the whole thing with the media attention can go bad. I'm hoping that will keep him reasonable, at least for now.

He's different from me on a number of points. But I think he's tapped into some things that are importantly true. He speaks of how life is hard -- and it is. He speaks of how we all need meaning to get through it well -- and I think that's true. And he speaks about how taking personal responsibility is a better route than whining about one's lot in life, or waiting for someone else to come and rescue us -- and that it also true. If all that gives some hope to people, I don't begrudge it to them. I feel it's not enough, but it's a start in the right direction, to be sure.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:09 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
gaffo wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:13 am
This the the biggest pillar of Libertarians - respect and knowledge of the US and State Constitutions, respect for the Rule of Law, Court rulings...Civil War...
Interesting.

But I don't see Libertarianism as a specifically American phenomenon. It may have its American variants, to be sure; but it's an ideology that fits different countries and places, so I can't think that respect for US Constitutions is necessary for it. I think something's not quite right there.

yes of course, you asked about Libertarianism - i assumed you meant that party in America.

of course anyone in China or Timbucktoo that affirms the Rule of Law (or more aptly wished their corrupt courts did so) - are Libertarians in spirit.

the lable AFAIK refers to one that is a member of that political party (I would be registered one but Oklahoma does not allow it on our ballot - the Republicrat machine fixed the bar too high to allow that party to be registerable in elections in my state (Green Party is in the same boat/non-boat in my state)

all we get is to choose from is Republicrat, Democan, and Independent (be you Green, Libertarian, Constition Party, Natural Law Party, Reform Party) - if you ain't a Dem-Rep - you are "other" nonaffilated Independant.

regardless if you identify is a conservative Constitution Party or Liberal Green Party person/etc, you can not register as such in my state.

"democracy" you gotta love it.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
I thought it was a very obvious display of media bias, to be sure. The extreme desperation with which she resorted to "...so you're saying..." and then invariably distorted what JP was saying, to the point of absurdity, was the clearest sort of evidence that the BBC in particular, but news media more generally, are simply no longer to be trusted to be even nominally neutral and fair-minded in their approach.

agreed.

i miss the days "media" was respectable - 20 yrs + ago.

24 hr news cycle pressure, general dumbing down of people, along with removal of fairness doctrine = the shit media we have today.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
And JP handled her like an expert, simply by being kind, precise and stalwart. In all, it was a clinic in composure on the JP side, and a clinic in partisan lunacy on the CN side. No wonder the thing went so wildly viral.

concur Peterson handled himself well (I'd have lost it and look like a lunatic! - "what the fk are you on about with fking lobsters!". lol

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
I agree with you that it's a bit hard to see how JP can keep his ego down to size in the face of so much attention. However, I think so far he's done a pretty good job of that, up to this point. And I've heard him say he's away of how easily the whole thing with the media attention can go bad. I'm hoping that will keep him reasonable, at least for now.
I first ran across him on YT about 3 yrs ago, and since viewed around 40? or so clips of his - from 2011 to last year or so. I always seemed likable, and so hope he does not let his "celibrity" do to his head.

sadly, many good men to become corrupted that way, WRT to Peterson, we shall see, and i wish him well.

the worship i see the right give him does make me a little sick (like they need a hero (if they do then they lack something inside and are insecure).

the second he slips up and shows he is just a man instead of mr Perfect Hero, those same right hero worshiper asshats with throw him under the bus and deny knowing him. Rooster crowing thrice/etc.


fk heroes, no such thing, just folks.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
He's different from me on a number of points. But I think he's tapped into some things that are importantly true. He speaks of how life is hard -- and it is. He speaks of how we all need meaning to get through it well -- and I think that's true. And he speaks about how taking personal responsibility is a better route than whining about one's lot in life, or waiting for someone else to come and rescue us -- and that it also true. If all that gives some hope to people, I don't begrudge it to them.
yes i agree fully here, and i like how he cares about us white guys (the privalege class - i know there is privalage - but i did not create it and i'm still a human being dammit!), when all i hear is LGBTQ/etc opprossion by white guys (ME!!!!!!! - WRT?) i just turn off NPR now ;-/.

NPR used to be good pre-2000, but has been shit for at least 15 yrs now, its either indentity politics (i.e. everyone except my demographic), oppression of them by ME, social media, some bullshit TV show or other "USA today" type fluff piece, or something about Millinials this or millinial that (i'ma fkling gen-x - forgotten again "x" for a moniker for a reason sadly - as 20 yrs ago still just an "x").

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
I feel it's not enough, but it's a start in the right direction, to be sure.
I agree it is a good start, "world is suffering", but there is nothing more, no advice/hope/bigger picture to lessen the suffering.

I do think his view of "god" and his Archtypes, Jungian stuff is kinda bullshit - but his view of religion is via pschycology, where mine is soley historical.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5894
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:48 am

gaffo wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:09 am
yes of course, you asked about Libertarianism - i assumed you meant that party in America.
No. Not being American myself, I had a more general definition in mind.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
I thought it was a very obvious display of media bias, to be sure. The extreme desperation with which she resorted to "...so you're saying..." and then invariably distorted what JP was saying, to the point of absurdity, was the clearest sort of evidence that the BBC in particular, but news media more generally, are simply no longer to be trusted to be even nominally neutral and fair-minded in their approach.
agreed.

i miss the days "media" was respectable - 20 yrs + ago.
Do you think they ever really were? I think that's possible, but I'm not certain. They talked a lot about press "independence," but now that we see how they operate, one has to wonder whether any of that was very genuine...
concur Peterson handled himself well (I'd have lost it and look like a lunatic! - "what the fk are you on about with fking lobsters!". lol
Yeah. The "lobster" idea is actually not very hard to understand. I think it's just that the press found it something they could pretend not to understand, and thereby mock him. But to me, their preoccupation with it just made them look puerile and stupid.
the worship i see the right give him does make me a little sick (like they need a hero (if they do then they lack something inside and are insecure).
I think it's not quite that. What I think it is, is that there has been an existential vacuum in public discourse for some time now. Everybody's assuming there's no meaning, purpose or direction to life...and at the end of the day, that cynical attitude is just a counsel of despair. So along comes this guy who talks about how stories and events have meaning, and that how taking some responsibility for yourself can make your life better, and meaning-starved people take to it like hounds to red meat.

But I'm not yet sure that's a bad thing.
Rooster crowing thrice/etc.
Nice reference. :wink:
yes i agree fully here, and i like how he cares about us white guys (the privalege class - i know there is privalage - but i did not create it and i'm still a human being dammit!), when all i hear is LGBTQ/etc opprossion by white guys (ME!!!!!!! - WRT?) i just turn off NPR now ;-/.
Well, who wants to hear some Leftist go on about how you're a turd for being white, or male, or Western, or whatever? It's pretty much the very definition of racist/sexist/heterophobic/and so on. They shouldn't be surprised if white guys stop listening to them altogether, just as persons of colour would rightly turn away from a neo-Nazi. There's no difference, really.
I do think his view of "god" and his Archtypes, Jungian stuff is kinda bullshit - but his view of religion is via pschycology, where mine is soley historical.

Mine's literary, theological, philosophical and historical. I know Jung. I don't mind JP speaking about archetypes and so on...there's something to all that...but I think he pulls back a little short of delivering on the full message. And I wonder why.

Good thoughts. Thanks for the chat.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:48 am
gaffo wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:09 am
yes of course, you asked about Libertarianism - i assumed you meant that party in America.
No. Not being American myself, I had a more general definition in mind.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
I thought it was a very obvious display of media bias, to be sure. The extreme desperation with which she resorted to "...so you're saying..." and then invariably distorted what JP was saying, to the point of absurdity, was the clearest sort of evidence that the BBC in particular, but news media more generally, are simply no longer to be trusted to be even nominally neutral and fair-minded in their approach.
agreed.

i miss the days "media" was respectable - 20 yrs + ago.
Do you think they ever really were? I think that's possible, but I'm not certain. They talked a lot about press "independence," but now that we see how they operate, one has to wonder whether any of that was very genuine...
honest anwser?

YES I DO!!!!!!!

Corwin, Shurer(sp), Huntly, Brinkley, Chancellor and even Cronchite(sp) gave the news objectively!

i do believe this! and i miss the 4th Estate DOING ITS JOB as a check on the corruption of the 3 gov branches

from 1940 to 1980 or so CBS under Paley did the heavy lifting.

NBC under Sarnoff was - magh(sp) - Mutual and ABC were small at the time so not sure about their performance.

now we have "balkanization" and "no money in journalism" - result is tabloid crap (it cheap) - investigative journalism costs money, so the day of Bernstien and woodward exposing Nixon are long gone. instead we had a worse president and no investigative journalism (hey it costs money! and not in journalism, so lets write another story about Kardashians butt - lol - :-( )

the solution is to make it worth the money to have investigative journalism, but sadly there is no money there anymore and so no worthy journalism.

I know this! not happy about it but that is the facts today.

so the 4th estate fails to offer a check on my gov's corruption.

and i'm (and my nation) fucked ;-(.


snipped large section of your post due to concurring with it fully.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm
Mine's literary, theological, philosophical and historical. I know Jung. I don't mind JP speaking about archetypes and so on...there's something to all that...but I think he pulls back a little short of delivering on the full message. And I wonder why.

Good thoughts. Thanks for the chat.

why do you "wonder why"?

just curious.

ibid thanks back at you Sir!

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:42 am

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:06 am
There are a lotta strains of libertarianism, a lotta ways to break it down.

As I see it there are two main branches: consequentialist libertarianism and natural rights libertarinism.

The consequentialist branch skews toward being political; the natural rights branch toward being philosophical.

Me, as a natural rights guy, am not a party member, not affiliated with any formal doctrine.

Self-ownership and the right to one's life, liberty, and property is the summation of my position.
?

would you care to explain the different branches of Libertarians above?
henry quirk wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:06 am
"Economic Capitalism"

I prefer free enterprise to capitalism.

#

"Social Liberalism, no regulation. there i think Henry would have a problem with legalized polygamy/beastiality/etc. for me no prob. as a Liberarian, i think it if fine if you marry your dog and try to have children, do whatever you like as long as you are not endangering anyone else in your activity."

Bestiality is perverse, indicative of disordered thinking. Mental illness doesn't compartmentalze, it infects the whole of a psyche. That is: if screwing dogs is your bag, then you're probably twisted in other parts of your thinkin' (i.e. you are shithouse mouse crazy). Should we lock up such folks? Probably not. Damned straight no one should ever sell such a person a dog or allow such a person to dog sit.
I knew we would dissagree here.

perversion is irrelivent IMO - and no i do not assume such pervert "infects" the greater society, nor is a threat to others via that act.

any act that is a threat to others should be made illegal, fucking my cat (I don't have a dog) only degrade myself - even if i give me pleasure. lol.

fucking my cat does not threaten my neighbors nor society in general.

i think we can assume there is no pent up passion for others on mass to participate in my perversion, yes?



henry quirk wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:06 am

"This the the biggest pillar of Libertarians - respect and knowledge of the US and State Constitutions"

Not for me. I value the constitution as a capable tool and adequate blueprint, but it ain't perfect. A truly libertarian charter it ain't.
this threw me for a loop, i thought you were as pedantic about our Constitution as i was, since you say you are not, i welcome more on your view per this particular.

.............

ps are we "Good" - Peacepipe"? i have no wish to be viewed a dick nor for you to not wish to converse with me if you do not wish to Henry.

welcome clarification on our "relationship" ;-/. for future reference.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest