I don't think you understood anything I said. :up: — frank

Likewise, I'm sure. :up:

The question is:. can you accept that American democracy has been subverted to create a super wealthy class? Can you accept that the US military has been used to cement this same anti-egalitarian approach throughout the world?

Did you even know that when you drink cheap coffee, you're imbibing the fruits of hard nosed exploitation connected to the same principles? — frank

If you've paid any attention to what I've said about plutocracy, etc. then you know the answers to those questions. On the other hand, I don't suspect you've hung on all my pearls of wisdom like you should have. There are 2.3k of them to date. That would be a big ask :lol:

When I say "accept", I mean can you engage the subverted system in front of you and try to work within it to help those who can be helped? — frank

I can, but I'm cautious about working at cross-purposes to my goal. Also, my "those who can be helped" are usually not human, though humans benefit as a result. Sometimes against their will.

And put off the revolution until tomorrow? — frank

I can, but I'm old. I won't resist if I see the young and energetic start their work.

If so, then support Biden and continue on. — frank

Thanks for the permission. :wink:

He'll claim I'm a shill for the Democrats. — Xtrix

Yeah, but I don't seem him going after the Republicans, while you don't give the Democrats a pass. That was my original question: has he ever given them equal time with what he would have a reader believe is his objective, two-edged sword? I haven't seen it. But then again, I don't pay him too much attention. In fact, I've given him too much oxygen already. On to something else . . .

Unfortunately I'm as bad a role model and as immature as he is in terms of communication — Xtrix

We all are, now that politics has been placed over facts, science and the rule of law. So I pick the side that does not pretend to be neutral while they only rip down only one side. I figure them as a shill for the side they ignore. That, in my opinion, is dishonorable, dishonest and cowardly.

If any would be dictator is reading this, please consider me for the position of reeducation camp systems architect. — fdrake

Will do. :smile:

Yeah, if I'm going to roll with anyone I'll roll with you and not Street. I smell something bad on that side of the street.

Did you fall for all this stuff? — NOS4A2

No. Honestly I didn't even read whatever it was you put up. Like Covid: For me, it's not about the science; it's become all about the politics. Likewise the rule of law: I find your concern about "fact" to be disingenuous. You don't care about this or that law or science or fact. It's all about "owning the libs." LOL!

Problem is, you can't stand it when the cons get owned. So I will take being painted with a Biden/liberal/Democrat/socialist/inclusive American brush. I know that I am on the side of good, relative to the evil of white supremacy, fascism, nationalism and the lie of "individualism" that is really just more Republican conservative BS. :roll:

In short, I am on the side of good. You are on the side of evil.

(I really don't believe in either, but sometimes you play the hand you've been dealt, and you play by the rules that your opposition likes to play by.)

People worldwide had to bear 4 years of these lies and propaganda. The damage is already done. — NOS4A2

Like Benghazi? :rofl: Where were you in Trump's Nigeria? :roll: See, whataboutism goes on forever. Face it, you are a political tool for Trump. He's your leader.

A former prosecutor, a former marine, a former cop… wow, you’ve done it all. — NOS4A2

That's only 3 out of 34. :rofl:

Nah, the US Justice system is utterly corrupt. Anyone who lies to the DOJ gets a pat on the back, in my book. — NOS4A2

You do know that is a felony, right? Where were you on January 6th? :razz: Just kidding, I know you don't have it in you. But yeah, with dummies like Trump stacking the judicial deck, I see your point.

Another not charged with insurrection? That must sting a bit, given the narrative. — NOS4A2

Doesn't sting a bit. I'm all about the rule of law. As a former prosecutor, I know it's not all about what you can prove. Sometimes it's about picking your battles.

Say, NOS, when the DOJ does something you don't like, are you going to pat them on the back like you did with the analyst? :rofl:

Ouch! It looks like one of Trump's stooges stepped on her dick:

I plan to act as I always have. In other words, no plan at all. No suggestions, no advice, no plan, no secret way. Got it now? — NOS4A2

Right, I just said "Okay, so you don't have a plan to direct your activities in a way that will not hurt the environment. Got it."

I think it's pretty clear I got it.

So you were wrong when you said I misunderstood you. Got it.

I’m sure there are more words you can think of. Look how easy it was to list off the words you’ll affix to others as you murder them. — NOS4A2

Oh, I'm satisfied with "common good." I was asking what you could think of. Apparently nothing?

You did misunderstand. I don’t suggest anything. I don’t have advice. I don’t have words of encouragement. You’re asking the wrong guy. — NOS4A2

Okay, so you don't have a plan to direct your activities in a way that will not hurt the environment. Got it.

My post history is literally open for all to see. — StreetlightX

I stipulated to that. But like I intimated, digging through 5 years of posts is not my thing. I just thought if someone had been familiar with you all that time, they could toss in their two cents.

It's worth asking what it says about someone though, who cannot even fathom the idea that a critque of the democrats could be motivated by anything other than some conspiritorial foreign-agent red-scaring. — StreetlightX

I addressed that too, but apparently you missed it. Hence my query.

Ignore away. — StreetlightX

Okay. Like I told another member, you will be tossed in with the company you keep. Guilt by association. Especially when you don't put any distance between yourself and Putin or the fascist racist Republicans who's water you carry.

“The common good” is a phrase collectivists and utilitarians break out now and again to justify their schemes. You pretend to know it is, how to attain it, and then stack bodies to reach it. — NOS4A2

Is there another phrase you might use that is less offensive to you, but which gets at the same idea? Or are you just disputing that there is such a thing in the first place?

(By the way, you are right about the stacking of bodies to reach it. I'm a champion of the stacking of fascist, imperialist, communist, racist, slave-supporting bodies. You can never kill enough of them. In fact, our restraint in the past has them raising their ugly heads even to this day.)

I don’t suggest anything when it comes to global warming. Never have, never will. I’ll let you lot stress out about that. — NOS4A2

I thought you had a secret way to do no harm. My bust. I must have misunderstood when you said:

My plan is the same as it always has been: to direct my own activities in a way that will not hurt the environment. — NOS4A2

Pepetuating a cycle of planetary death while pretending to do the opposite is less so. — StreetlightX

I agree. But, like I said, prayer, like hope, is not a strategy. What might be even worse than either, is if your pretense to objection to planetary death is actually a ruse and you are trying to aid those who kill the planet.

I typed up the following some time ago and was going to ask this question of . But I see his post count isn't much longer than mine, so I don't know if he can even answer it. Further, I also got to the point where I don't really care enough about you or your opinions to spend too much time ruminating on the answer. But since I had, some days ago, wondered about it enough type it up, I'll just toss it out there, stream of consciousness:

I used to be an opponent of the two-party system (actually writing myself in for lack of a better alternative) and I still am. However, I can see the benefit that a party provides. If some guy or gal were pulled off the street and made POTUS, they’d be overwhelmed by the professional pols on each side, not to mention a bureaucracy that often seems to stand on its own. So a party can fill appointments, run interference, caution and guide an innocent babe who was tossed into a fire of conniving and deceit. The supply their own party expert conniving and deceit. Any other option and the babe gets eaten alive. That is where party comes in.

Stepping back, on the outside of the U.S. looking in, it seems easy to take pot shots at those who participate in the U.S. system. Objectively, it’s possible those pot shots are warranted and good critique. However, before putting too much stock in the opinions of such a sniper, it would be interesting to know if that sniper is indeed the objective player he pretends to be.

The only way to answer this question is to look back at their history and see if they were equally as accurate and sustained in their fire when the opposite party was in power in the U.S. If not, then it seems clear, they are just another party-player trying to sew division and weakness within the party at which they are currently shooting.

Serious question: Was StreetlightX around during the Trump Administration, doling it out objectively then, like he pretends to be doing now, while Biden tries to herd cats? Or is he really just working Putin’s game of disrupting civic, civil, progressive, anti-fascist sentiment?

I would ask him, but I am currently vetting him, to decide if he is what he purports to be.

The idea that the U.S. has some real and substantial problems, and that the two parties are indistinguishable from a certain perspective, has merit. But if those problems and the lack of distinction are simply tools being used to further undermine and divide, without the offer of a viable, constructive criticism, then it’s easier to flush him down the toilet.

So I ask, what this StreetlightX running around poking holes like this when Trump and company were running the show? I’d like to know, but not bad enough to go back and read all his posts from years ago.

Should I flush him down the toilet, or concern myself with his drivel?

Your lack of imagination is not an indictment on hope. — StreetlightX

Then again, hope, like prayer, is not a strategy.

This doesn't in any way, shape, or form address what I said. — Artemis

It does. But you don't see it. That's unfortunate. But not unusual.

This is nonsensical. Deer don't hunt. If you became a deer, you would eat leaves and leave all the other deer alone. — Artemis

Have you ever watched a deer watch for you? He/she is becoming you. Have you ever watched a cougar hunt a deer? He/she must become the deer.

A very simple example is the head movement. Sometimes it does indeed go into the vegetation for a bite, but other times, many times, it is a feint, trying to catch the cat in an unbalanced mid step. Other times, staring into one distant spot, trying to pick up movement with peripheral vision. This is only successful when, not only thinking like, but becoming that which wants to kill you.

Likewise the cat: stepping ever so carefully, eyes locked just through the prey (for you don't want to look *at* the prey; their sixth sense will give you away), trying to figure if that next placement of the head into the vegetation is for real, or just a feint. Only the cat that becomes the deer will know when to step.

Watch jaws of that deer grind. Watch when they stop grinding and just stare. Eyes don't see as well when jaws move. But those ears, that nose. You must become the moment. Immerse yourself in All.

Then, who knows first when the gig is up? Then the chase is on. The one who better became the other is the one that lives to eat another day.

They love each other. It's sad so many people don't know this love. This lack of knowing this love, this blindness, it makes us sicker. Some even become serial killers.

Communist! Don’t you understand there IS no community, only individuals pursuing their own interests. So sayeth Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

Markets will solve all problems, provided government doesn’t step in to ruin everything. — Xtrix

:rofl: Somebody latched onto "Atlas Shrugged", it confirmed a bias, and no effort has been made to read or understand the critiques. Just a bunch of commies like me. :wink:

Well, have fun with your strawpersons anyway. — Artemis

There are no straw persons here. Let me try to help you: Would you equate a deer to a serial killer? Personally, I would not. The deer is what you must become when you hunt it. Otherwise, you will not succeed.

Likewise when you are being hunted: you must become the predator to avoid becoming lunch. That is what the deer does. Put yourself in the other.

Having left off of the ability to do this is what creates your blindness. I think it does more to create serial killers than anything else. Preoccupation with us.

No thank you.

Same way I don't need to become a serial killer or rapist in order to see through those things. — Artemis

Another sickness brought on by our distance from who we are is the illogical conflation of disparate things, like hunting and serial killers. It's sad to watch the blind stumble around so. They actually think food comes from the grocery store.

The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me. — Artemis

I know, right? We've separated ourselves so far from the natural order of things that many cannot even fathom the notion. It's like trying to explain sight to one who has never seen. Most even say grace before eating, rather than living in grace with what they eat.

If you are sincerely interested in seeing, then I suggest you take up the hunt. Nothing will help you see better than becoming that which you seek.

(Side bar for those who actually try: The more primitive you can be, and the farther you go from that which separates us from the natural order of things, the better. Also, the longer you can go, the better.)

P.S. For those who don't want to put in the work, an interesting read is "Meditations on Hunting" by Jose Ortega yGasset.

in a thread about Joe Biden, no less. — NOS4A2

If I recall, his BBB was trying to get at this global warming issue.

Anyway, there is this thing called "the common good." The tussle is over who gets to decide what that is, how to achieve it, or if it even exists.

Some just don't like the word "common", and can't even seem to get past that to the word "good." Others don't have any input on it at all. It is perfectly understandable that those who are concerned with the common good seek the input of others. That's what communities do.

At the end of the day, you can lead, follow, get out of the way, or actively resist. When it comes to global warming, what do you suggest?

Yes, we've been strip mining the oceans for so long, they can't handle it. Sad. In the U.S. we long ago banned commercial exploitation of wildlife on land. I don't understand why ocean fish aren't considered wildlife. We thought the Carrier Pidgeon could never go extinct either. Commercial use of fish for the food of 7 billion just won't cut it. And lots of it ends up in pet food and whatnot. Jeesh!

Who are you trying to save face for? Me? — Tzeentch

Just trying to help. Many a young man I've seen who picks up a shovel and starts digging himself a hole and won't quit. Some folks don't want to learn. But please don't toss your dirt out on us while you dig.

It's a bit embarrassing to see you latch onto the fact you were able to find a random person in an article proclaiming an opinion you liked (speaking of confirmation bias). — Tzeentch

Do your own research, Doctor Tzeentch. :rofl: Ask Doc Fauci. Let me know what he says. Or is he some random person? Your personal attacks convey only your inability to bring anything of substance to the table. There is no person on Earth that will satisfy your obstinance. You will just pivot to some personal attack on them, like they are paid by big pharma, or they are duped by big government or have some other bias. The list will go on. You won't be satisfied because it's not about the science. The science is clear: I am right and you are wrong. No, this is about politics.

I merely pointed out that you have no scientific reason to not get the shot. Your reason is political. Your politics can be discerned by the company you keep. Look around you. Who thinks like you? Fascist stooges for Putin and his bitch Trump, that's who. They and/or their ilk are your leaders. Sheep follow them.

If you are interested in this issue, you might look into Christopher Stone's "Should Trees Have Standing." It was a law review article that became a book. Reed, out of Idaho, also did "Should Rivers Have Running." Corporations, estates and other non-human entities have standing and representatives in court. I can't remember all their arguments, but they might give you some ideas.

Personally, I think it is okay to kill and eat animals in the same way that wolves kill and eat animals. However, the way we do it lacks respect, grace, gratitude and a personal relationship with the prey in such a way that we hone their edge (and lose, more often than not) at the same time that they hone our edge (when we don't stack the deck with domestication and long range weaponry). We used to have to work for our food.

Animals are "innocent" vs us in the same way a deer is "innocent" vs a cougar.

In the end, though, we are what we eat. There simply are not enough wild animals to feed 7 billion people and so, we eat fat, stupid, lazy, bawling, shit-smeared, fly-covered animals that stand around, face-to-asshole, breathing filthy air (flatulence), on three feet of their own shit, drinking putrid water and eating rotten corn silage. So there's that. You simply cannot have an upside down food pyramid with apex predators at the top and everything else at the bottom.

But I do hope that things will improve and get better for the USA and the whole world in the future. — Corvus

Me too! My only real hope is the younger generations from all over the world.

Regarding punishment, I just pulled this off the web but it comports with what I remember as a prosecuting attorney:

1. Specific deterrence prevents crime by frightening an individual defendant with punishment.
2. Incapacitation prevents crime by removing a defendant from society.
3. Rehabilitation prevents crime by altering a defendant's behavior.
4. Retribution prevents crime by giving victims or society a feeling of avengement.

I think torture goes beyond what is necessary for 1, 2 and 3. Sometimes nothing will satisfy #4.

There is, as says, the addition of information gathering.

I think torture is a sign of weakness. It's like the society or the soldier who must gin it/himself up with hate in order to kill. A professional doesn't need to hate to kill. You don't shoot a rabid dog because you are trying to deter other dogs, rehab, retribute, or whatever. It's just business. Punishment is business. Torture is weakness. But a professional will sometimes know human psychology and use business methods that seem untoward.

I got waterboarded and whatnot. They told us a password and told us not to repeat it. We all repeated it in short order. Things are pretty much set up now so that if you get captured, our people just change all the intel so you can sing like you are going to sing anyway. The intel won't be any good. The enemy knows this. So if they torture it's because they are weak. We have been weak too.

Fixed that for you. Don't steal my quotes. — Tzeentch

It wasn't your quote. I wrote it without your name for the reason stated. And I'll say it again:

Now you're just trying to give yourself an excuse for why you got personal. You got caught. Go reflect.

Listen son, when you step on your pee pee, man up and admit it. Like you should have when I called your bluff about experts and you stood with egg on your face. You just keep digging. :roll:

That had nothing to do with vaccination or anyone's right to bodily autonomy. That had to do with your seeming love of authority, and I meant every word of it. — Tzeentch

Now you're just trying to give yourself an excuse for why you got personal. You got caught. Go reflect.

Do you mean like what Streetlightx said or something else? Are you saying he is a shill for the republican party because he attacked the democrats? — John McMannis

Yes and yes.

But maybe it's better to let the republicans take over so that people fight back against it? — John McMannis

I used to think that the best way to turn a Republican was to give him what he prayed for. But that was working under the mistaken idea that people would learn and not double down. You see them dying of Covid in the hospital saying Covid is a hoax and they don't have it. Another example is Trump. We kept saying the bar could not get any lower and then "boom!" it dropped. That happened for five years and it's still happening. Now we are numb to it and there has been a complete reset to a new baseline where January 6th was just a bunch of tourists. :roll:

Now you're just trying to give yourself an excuse for why you got personal. You got caught. Go reflect. — Tzeentch

You are, as usual, wrong. Allow you to correct yourself (and this is only part of it):

That's not a basis of trust, that's called being naive and gullible. — Tzeentch

You believe "to grow up" is to accept a subjugation of the mind to the demands of the state - and that is what states want: subjugated minds that march to the beat of its (war)drums at their beck and call. — Tzeentch

Or will you follow authority without question, and expect everyone else to do the same? — Tzeentch

You do as you're told and expect others to do the same, but not everyone has this slavish disposition and unwavering faith in government. — Tzeentch

Or is not asking questions about that also a part of being a "real American"? — Tzeentch

You were right about one thing though: You didn't imply it. You outright said it. So again, when you start to get a little bit of your own medicine, you start to cry about me getting personal. Typical of those who pretend to individuality while hiding behind the anti-intellectual skirts of their leaders.

It's amusing how personal you get when you run out of ideas. — Tzeentch

P.S. I think it all started when you mistakenly intimated that those who got vaxxed were somehow government dupes who supported a violation of the stipulated individual right to bodily autonomy.

It's amusing how personal you get when you run out of ideas. It's a common theme in our conversations. — Tzeentch

It's a common theme in history. And I'm in good company.

Fair enough. I am also not smart enough to have "Dr" infront of my name — Tzeentch

Should have stopped there.

Oh, who are they, and what arguments do they make? — Tzeentch

They are who I already told you they are. Didn't you read? Didn't you pay attention? Do I have to repeat myself? Look, I don't want to have to do your thinking for you, so I'll give you a hint: Remember when I said the science was no longer the issue for me? Remember when, right after that, I explained how it was all about the politics? Remember why I said that? Remember who I said your position was aligned with? Who I said you agreed with? Remember all that? No? Okay.

which I did take a look at. — Tzeentch

I did take a look at who they were, and the fact that there's "medical" in their job title does not make them in expert in whatever it is they're making claims about. — Tzeentch

Pivot. Pivot. Pivot. :rofl: That "medical" in their job title is something you don't have and are not smart enough to have. Compared to you, they are experts. Besides, here you are pivoting when you already stipulated that science was not the issue for you either. So, you are just running from the fact that you said I couldn't and I did. You are a loser.

Likely I would've had to point out that whatever you believe that hypothetical study proves, does not correspond to the actual conclusion of the study. Which is what I would've had to do if you referred to the studies your articles referred to, which I did take a look at. — Tzeentch

The fact you call it a hypothetical study without follow up shows your ignorance. I'm not going to do your research for you, son. You are the one who pretends to be a researcher, a doctor, and expert, on par with people who are demonstrably smarter than you.

So have I. — Tzeentch

No you haven't. They were "biased" and blah blah blah. Pivot, pivot, pivot! :wink:

My leaders? And who might those be? — Tzeentch

Those people I referenced that you fail to distance yourself from. You know, the same people who make the same arguments you are now making. They are your government. The govern your thinking. Because you damn sure didn't get it from experts in the field. And you damn sure aren't smart enough to do your own independent thinking.

If by expert you thought I meant "a random person in a news article", then.. Oh well. Link an actual scientific study if you want me to take you serious. — Tzeentch

You lack the intellectual, analytic, and critical thinking skills to comprehend actual scientific studies. That is proven by the fact that you called those authors "random person" without even looking at who they are. Besides, like me, you aren't a doctor and even if I cited actual scientific studies, you would have done the same thing. You would have alleged bias and tried other futile pivots. (The truth is biased toward truth. DOH!) Just like those who supported big tobacco and big oil. As I said, others on this very thread have cited the actual scientific studies that take you over their collective knees and spank your bottom until it is an angry red.

So it is a concession of defeat. But it's one that was in the making for a long time. — Tzeentch

No, I'm correct: You will be judged by the company you keep. This was not long in making. You made it yourself when you aligned more solidly with your leaders than I do with the U.S., the CDC, the FDA, and the world experts.

You convince people into believing that the necessary transition wouldn't actually be a sacrifice for them, but a beneficial thing... which it probably would be to some extend. — ChatteringMonkey

I read somewhere there is no limit to what can be done if you give others credit for it. And something about letting people think it was there idea. However, I think those tactics are old, foreseen and undermined by interests that want to conserve (ative) the status quo. Maybe smarter people than me can figure it out.