The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[Sculptor]

Presidents do not set the price of oil.
OPEC does and has done since the 1970s

Presidents *DO* set the price of oil,

Please cite.
You are just being stupid.

[FlashDangerpants]

Desiring to expand conversational possibilities does not exclude having and offering thoughts and opinions.

In the end this is what I see occurring here: once again, through obstinacy and stubbornness, all communication channels are shut down. No agreements, even simple, intuitive ones, are allowed to develop.

“You” are here exclusively to bicker.

Solution: locate one solitary point on which there is agreement and build on that.

Did I miss the bit where you looked at my writing to find the thing you agree with so that you can launch this epic of cooperative goodwill?
Was it hidden under all the stuff about how predictable and unfair and mean I am?

But no. In fact why even bother? What “you” desire and what serves you is just what occurs. Why alter procedure?

You could have opened up new vistas by just opening a new line of conversation. If that's what you actually were doing. You were just trying to run interference for Gandalf the KKK.

I open new vistas every day. At least in my own thinking, speculating and perceiving.

I was already quite well aware of how impressive, fascinating and learned you find yourself to be.

[Sculptor]

You live in a fantasy world.
Where the fuck do you get this stuff.??

I love how ignorant you are, LOL!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... a086444ef4

You do not understand the different between "set the price of oil" and "have an impact on the price of oil".

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was already quite well aware of how impressive, fascinating and learned you find yourself to be.

Now we have agreement to build on.

[FlashDangerpants]

I was already quite well aware of how impressive, fascinating and learned you find yourself to be.

Now we have agreement to build on.

Well I'll just have to be the sexy one in this double act with the sassy no-nonsense banter and perhaps an off screen drinking problem.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My latest post in this thread offered points that could be agreed on, and you haven't built on it.

My notion of “agreement” is quite different from how you interpret it. First, let me say that encompassing social agreements (in the US) will not be forthcoming. Therefore social, and political agreements, are largely out of the question.

Where I seek “agreement” is in the understanding of why that is. I refer to intellectual agreements among thinking people. I do not mean that I will (or you should) sacrifice or relinquish your value-set, whatever it is (which in your case I do not understand).

The agreements I propose as possible allow for very different orientation and objectives to stand while the reasons for irreconcilable differences only to be better understood.

[Lacewing]

I was already quite well aware of how impressive, fascinating and learned you find yourself to be.

Now we have agreement to build on.

Well I'll just have to be the sexy one in this double act with the sassy no-nonsense banter and perhaps an off screen drinking problem.

My vote for most balanced actor in a supporting role goes to Mr. Dangerpants.

[Lacewing]

My latest post in this thread offered points that could be agreed on, and you haven't built on it.

Where I seek “agreement” is in the understanding of why that is.

I know. You're essentially imagining that you can see behind the curtain... but your view is skewed and not truly reflective of all the contributing factors.

I refer to intellectual agreements among thinking people.

Why would anyone else care about putting much effort forth based on your conditions?

The agreements I propose as possible allow for very different orientation and objectives to stand while the reasons for irreconcilable differences only to be better understood.

It's not going to happen... because your concept of the reasons is skewed and limited.

You would have to drop all of your divisive and blaming nonsense in order to more accurately see and understand a larger dynamic at work.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I know. You're essentially imagining that you can see behind the curtain... but your view is skewed and not truly reflective of all the contributing factors.

I do not know how to put this except directly: I assert, yet without an absolute certaintly, that in regard to these issues of American politics and *the culture wars* -- what the different factions think and say -- that I have possibly 10 times the experience that you have. You have almost zero experience. You never refer to reading or to sources. With you it is all *opinion* not knowledge. I might respect your opinions in some areas, but more often than not you are completely vague. That is, you make general statements that don't pertain enough to the realities. What you do is vain and easy.

I do not *imagine* that it is possible to see *behind the curtain*. I start by saying *there is a curtain* and I propose that with insight and knowledge that curtain can be penetrated.

Here, in this thread, and certainly in your case, no substantial analysis is offered. It remains entirely superficial. I suggest that there are better ways to approach understanding.

Why would anyone else care about putting much effort forth based on your conditions?

Because the 'conditions' lead to a greater understanding -- potentially. Much better to do the work needed to *see behind the curtain* and to have understanding, then to be stuck in superficial views that are repeated like so many memes of today.

The question you ask surprises me for its denseness. But I assume that my comment here will spark a flare-up from you as you react emotionally to the immense *insult*.

It's not going to happen... because your concept of the reasons is skewed and limited.

In a nutshell this is all that you say in each and every one of your posts. And for years now. You critique any idea or perspective that is offered by tossing out the phrase that it is "limited" or in this case "skewed". But you yourself offer no replete analysis of anything, ever.

It is not that my reasoning in regard to social analysis is either limited or skewed, it is in fact that you have no basis of any sort on which to offer any but the most superficial opinions. Note the difference.

You would have to engage with at least one the *reasons* that I offer and refute it. You don't because you can't Lacewing.

In any case I challenge you to do that.

You would have to drop all of your divisive and blaming nonsense in order to more accurately see and understand a larger dynamic at work.

Now you are really talking out of your posterior end! Talk about this 'larger dynamic' Lacewing. What are you referring to? Make it plain.

Explain exactly what you are talking about and show me why you see it as "divisive and blaming nonsense". Do that here, among your peers.

I do not think you will even attempt it. You are, by and large, an empty vessel.

Stick with those *energies* that swirl around you, raising you to the rhetorical heights -- so lofty indeed!

[Lacewing]

...in regard to these issues of American politics and *the culture wars* -- what the different factions think and say -- that I have possibly 10 times the experience that you have.

And yet you fail to say anything very convincing or of noticeable relevance, rather you are often accused of missing/ignoring things, yes?

With you it is all *opinion* not knowledge

Wrong. I have a wealth of experience that is different than yours -- as well as awareness and insight that many people who know me value. This world is not all about a certain set of fabrications or conventions. People do not have to follow the same path.

I might respect your opinions in some areas, but more often than not you are completely vague.

I do my best to describe concepts when they don't fit into conventional terms.

That is, you make general statements that don't pertain enough to the realities.

Which realities?

What you do is vain and easy.

It's neither.

I suggest that there are better ways to approach understanding.

You've said so, yet people are not reaching agreement on your focus and your terms.

It's not going to happen... because your concept of the reasons is skewed and limited.

In a nutshell this is all that you say in each and every one of your posts.

That's a lie... which you evidently need to do because the truth doesn't suit you.

And for years now. You critique any idea or perspective that is offered by tossing out the phrase that it is "limited" or in this case "skewed".

I've pointed it out because it is true when people are ranting about something being a specific way without reasonably balanced considerations -- which people do a lot on this forum. Such rants are more self-serving to their argument, rather than being honest.

But you yourself offer no replete analysis of anything, ever.

Yet another lie... wow. I've offered many thoughtful posts about why things might be the way they are, and how they might evolve.

It is not that my reasoning in regard to social analysis is either limited or skewed

Yes, it is... and it has been pointed out to you by multiple posters.

...it is in fact that you have no basis of any sort on which to offer any but the most superficial opinions.

Wrong again. You've really gone off the rails. I didn't mean to get you so upset that you would be reduced to lying and making delusional accusations like I.C. does.

You would have to engage with at least one the *reasons* that I offer and refute it. You don't because you can't Lacewing.

I've engaged at length with you a few times on your claims/reasons. It was not worth it. You have an agenda and a process that you evidently think everyone else must fit into -- and your viewpoint is the 'agreement' you actually seek to arrive at.

You would have to drop all of your divisive and blaming nonsense in order to more accurately see and understand a larger dynamic at work.

Talk about this 'larger dynamic' Lacewing.

I have already talked about it at length. You know that. If you cannot present/discuss ideas with a more balanced (truer) perspective -- if you cannot step beyond dualistic, two-dimensional thinking -- then of course you are working with a skewed and limited view, and that is vain and lazy.

Explain exactly what you are talking about and show me why you see it as "divisive and blaming nonsense".

When you falsely pit one 'side' or viewpoint against another, and align yourself with the 'right' side (as you see it) -- as you have just done (again) between your viewpoint/experience and mine -- you are being divisive and blaming, rather than seeing a broader truth from multiple perspectives.

Stop being a dick and responding with a bunch of lies and arrogance.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Explain exactly what you are talking about and show me why you see it as "divisive and blaming nonsense". Do that here, among your peers.

I do not think you will even attempt it. You are, by and large, an empty vessel.

[Lacewing]

Explain exactly what you are talking about and show me why you see it as "divisive and blaming nonsense". Do that here, among your peers.

I do not think you will even attempt it. You are, by and large, an empty vessel.

I added this... (as I've said before)

When you falsely pit one 'side' or viewpoint against another, and align yourself with the 'right' side (as you see it) -- as you have just done (again) between your viewpoint/experience and mine -- you are being divisive and blaming, rather than seeing a broader truth from multiple perspectives.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In a nutshell this is all that you say in each and every one of your posts. And for years now. You critique any idea or perspective that is offered by tossing out the phrase that it is "limited" or in this case "skewed". But you yourself offer no replete analysis of anything, ever.

[Lacewing]

In a nutshell this is all that you say in each and every one of your posts. And for years now. You critique any idea or perspective that is offered by tossing out the phrase that it is "limited" or in this case "skewed". But you yourself offer no replete analysis of anything, ever.

So, you're going to keep doubling-down by simply repeating a lie that serves you.

Whatever, Alexis. You know there is more than what you're focusing on, but for whatever reasons, you must deny it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have already talked about it at length. You know that. If you cannot present/discuss ideas with a more balanced (truer) perspective -- if you cannot step beyond dualistic, two-dimensional thinking -- then of course you are working with a skewed and limited view, and that is vain and lazy.

Yes, “talk at length” if that means going on with general assertions not specific enough to actually discuss.

I ask for your help here to locate and identify the “more balanced (truer) perspective”. Let’s take as a topic — it is a hot one — the Conservative reaction to introducing sexual themes and materials in the public schools. Can you please explain what that more balanced and truer perspective should be? You know what it is, right? Can you explain it?

In my view, vanity means making statements that appear good or solid — but with no back-up reasoning. I.e. just opinion.

Laziness means unwillingness to read widely about the cultural and social divisions that are do rampant. I assert you do no reading whatever and are largely unfamiliar with the cultural conversation and if you will argument.

Tell me then what is the “right” means through which to gain understanding.