A Working Definition of Liberalism

[Chuck Naill]

From David Brooks https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/opinion/liberalism-democracy-russia-ukraine.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPD m8diOMNAo6B_EGKYatpasE62zWAQZpNPbooT-Z7xf4aJVF2UAih54aHgp0EJShzqZ62Wil--aPxao0C0G2gaHileqA4zaejvhmCPX-8UfTe1HQmIxI19ptiaV2v2iMXlqrBRfoh2tB62v4jVphxTGgQd WLd6amTfhZ9Od-Aah_X6QMkCaoOCXyIw4nqu_9Xex5SCFnGUHp__W42jdtdM9oUN 636RAUyLIu82f5CTzw1c_r6QsE5VIPWlL51sLTSqhXqyMC-xv0-F6s8r6qOSLt6uUeN2B6LTWuaF1zR&smid=url-share

"Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity."

Do you identify as liberal if this is the definition? Any other thoughts welcome.

[Bold2013]

I’m all about individualism too (we are each created in the image of God)

First and second amendments
Free market
Making a personal free choice on masks and vaccines
Fighting for the life of the unborn individual

[TSherbs]

I'm more of the rich-bastards-should-pay-more-taxes kind of liberal.

[Bold2013]

I'm more of the rich-bastards-should-pay-more-taxes kind of liberal.

Honestly if we just used a flat tax it would fix a lot of the tax code issues that lead people having a negative view of their rich neighbors.

[Chuck Naill]

I'm more of the rich-bastards-should-pay-more-taxes kind of liberal.

LOL!!:)

This morning's, Chris Buckley oped regarding the late P.J. O'Rourke. "The Last Funny Conservative"

“The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you’re rich.”

P.J. O'Rourke

[Chuck Naill]

I’m all about individualism too (we are each created in the image of God)

First and second amendments
Free market
Making a personal free choice on masks and vaccines
Fighting for the life of the unborn individual

Thank you for responding. Hypothetically, if you didn't know anything about the Bible, would you think differently?

The Founders said "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". What does self evident mean to you? One definition is not needed to be demonstrated or explained. Do you agree. In other words, do knowing that all men are equal need a divine explanation?

Paul said to eat, drink your wine, and enjoy life. Do you agree? If so, doesn't everyone deserve at least to enjoy a similar life? If you knowingly do not practice measure that could harm others, are you treating them with the same respect that you expect others to exercise when driving the speed limit? In other words, are you treating others as you would hope they treat you? I think of this when people complain about masks and vaccines which seems to be the least we might do to be a good citizen.

If we fight for the lives of the unborn, a good thing, is the fight to protect those born any less important?

[Bold2013]

I’m all about individualism too (we are each created in the image of God)

First and second amendments
Free market
Making a personal free choice on masks and vaccines
Fighting for the life of the unborn individual

Thank you for responding. Hypothetically, if you didn't know anything about the Bible, would you think differently?

The Founders said "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". What does self evident mean to you? One definition is not needed to be demonstrated or explained. Do you agree. In other words, do knowing that all men are equal need a divine explanation?

There is a lot to unpack in your post (not that I have all the answers or full certainty).

I am not entirely sure the answer to man as God’s image bearing being self evident or not.

God is self evident to all men through his general revelation. However not everyone knows about His special (or specific) revelation made through scripture. I wonder if us being image bearers is a specific or general revelation. It is clear that our founders were Christian (and by no means perfect like all of humanity for all of time) so maybe that specific truth was always before them that they could no longer separate if it was self evident to non believers too.

People have always sinned against their neighbor. Felt superiority. Acted with partiality. These things make me think they didn’t consider them as having divine rights. But on the other hand I suspect that deep down in the conscious humans knew others humans were much more valuable then animals, plants and the cosmos.

[Chuck Naill]

I’m all about individualism too (we are each created in the image of God)

First and second amendments
Free market
Making a personal free choice on masks and vaccines
Fighting for the life of the unborn individual

Thank you for responding. Hypothetically, if you didn't know anything about the Bible, would you think differently?

The Founders said "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". What does self evident mean to you? One definition is not needed to be demonstrated or explained. Do you agree. In other words, do knowing that all men are equal need a divine explanation?

There is a lot to unpack in your post (not that I have all the answers or full certainty).

I am not entirely sure the answer to man as God’s image bearing being self evident or not.

God is self evident to all men through his general revelation. However not everyone knows about His special (or specific) revelation made through scripture. I wonder if us being image bearers is a specific or general revelation. It is clear that our founders were Christian (and by no means perfect like all of humanity for all of time) so maybe that specific truth was always before them that they could no longer separate if it was self evident to non believers too.

People have always sinned against their neighbor. Felt superiority. Acted with partiality. These things make me think they didn’t consider them as having divine rights. But on the other hand I suspect that deep down in the conscious humans knew others humans were much more valuable then animals, plants and the cosmos.

Thank you, @bold2013 for stating your perspective.

In the Brook article I gifted in the OP, he says democracy is at odds with man's natural tendencies. Not suggesting you read, but I did find his op-ed interesting.

[Bold2013]

I am reading an interesting book now which examines government including socialism and capitalism in light of the Bible.

[Bold2013]

I’m all about individualism too (we are each created in the image of God)

First and second amendments
Free market
Making a personal free choice on masks and vaccines
Fighting for the life of the unborn individual

Paul said to eat, drink your wine, and enjoy life. Do you agree? If so, doesn't everyone deserve at least to enjoy a similar life? If you knowingly do not practice measure that could harm others, are you treating them with the same respect that you expect others to exercise when driving the speed limit? In other words, are you treating others as you would hope they treat you? I think of this when people complain about masks and vaccines which seems to be the least we might do to be a good citizen.

If we fight for the lives of the unborn, a good thing, is the fight to protect those born any less important?

There is even more to discuss regarding the sentiment of ‘eat, drink and be merry’ and does everyone deserve to enjoy a similar life (especially from Paul’s perspective). So much to say on this. I wish we could meet at a coffee shop.

[TSherbs]

I'm more of the rich-bastards-should-pay-more-taxes kind of liberal.

Honestly if we just used a flat tax it would fix a lot of the tax code issues that lead people having a negative view of their rich neighbors.

No no no. A flat tax is not the solution to this feeling. Quite the contrary. A more progressive system is. Our current structure is not progressive enough.

[Bold2013]

A progress system will never out pace people working around it (hence the 10k plus page tax code).

[Chuck Naill]

I’m all about individualism too (we are each created in the image of God)

First and second amendments
Free market
Making a personal free choice on masks and vaccines
Fighting for the life of the unborn individual

Paul said to eat, drink your wine, and enjoy life. Do you agree? If so, doesn't everyone deserve at least to enjoy a similar life? If you knowingly do not practice measure that could harm others, are you treating them with the same respect that you expect others to exercise when driving the speed limit? In other words, are you treating others as you would hope they treat you? I think of this when people complain about masks and vaccines which seems to be the least we might do to be a good citizen.

If we fight for the lives of the unborn, a good thing, is the fight to protect those born any less important?

There is even more to discuss regarding the sentiment of ‘eat, drink and be merry’ and does everyone deserve to enjoy a similar life (especially from Paul’s perspective). So much to say on this. I wish we could meet at a coffee shop.

I do also, @bold2013. Coffee would be nice if we could agree on what is good coffee...LOL!!

[TSherbs]

A progress system will never out pace people working around it (hence the 10k plus page tax code).

Less paperwork isn't my goal. Economic justice is. That immoral people will sin is not a reason not to have the morality in the first place.

[Bold2013]

Yeah but taking from one to help another is not justice

[Empty_of_Clouds]

God is self evident to all men through his general revelation.

I strongly disagree, and I expect you to respect my difference of opinion and perspective, and yet...


However not everyone knows about His special (or specific) revelation made through scripture.

Rather convenient dismissal of any opinion or perspective that does disagree.


As for liberalism, in the OP has a quote by John Mill with which I tend to agree on the understanding that in a society one's choices are, by unspoken acceptance of membership in that society, tempered to the general good of that society. If one was living the life of Thoreau, you know, in the woods alone, then you can pretty much do what you want. As soon as your choices have impact on others then rules must swing into play.

[Bold2013]

EoC I respect your opinion

[Chuck Naill]

Yeah but taking from one to help another is not justice

"But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have." Luke 25-37

If believers only took Jesus seriously. Some absolutely do. If they did, with what is spent in the US on facilities and staff, how much health care could be provided?

I really don't think cost is the issue, but a lack of knowledge. After all, Covid and Flu vaccines can be had for free, yet millions refuse and suffer.

[Bold2013]

We can individually be better in helping others need but as it stands America is the most charitable country on earth.

[Chuck Naill]

If one was living the life of Thoreau, you know, in the woods alone, then you can pretty much do what you want. As soon as your choices have impact on others then rules must swing into play.

Yes, and you would expect to see this occur outside you front door. In other words, what is common among people of good will.

[Chuck Naill]

We can individually be better in helping others need but as it stands America is the most charitable country on earth.

That is often said to be so, but it doesn't necessarily get your hands dirty. I once was a part of a house church movement. It occurred to me that the Kingdom of God didn't cost much. What costs is buildings and such. Yes, giving can be useful, but raking someone's yard says much more and is what I think Jesus' parable was saying.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

EoC I respect your opinion

And I really appreciate you saying so! :)

[TSherbs]

Yeah but taking from one to help another is not justice

Yes, it is. This is why families and churches and modern societies do this.

[TSherbs]

.... If one was living the life of Thoreau, you know, in the woods alone, then you can pretty much do what you want. As soon as your choices have impact on others then rules must swing into play.

Thoreau was jailed for not paying his taxes.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Ha! I did not know that.

[Chuck Naill]

More from Brooks.

"Many of America’s founders were fervent believers in liberal democracy — up to a point. They had a profound respect for individual virtue, but also individual frailty. Samuel Adams said, “Ambitions and lust for power … are predominant passions in the breasts of most men.” Patrick Henry admitted to feelings of dread when he contemplated the “depravity of human nature.” One delegate to the constitutional convention said that the people “lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.”

John Calvin said that man is totally depraved. I don't people think this is true today. Maybe we think man is basically good for the most part with some exceptions noted.

We do know this and see it daily, that the lack of information causes people to be led astray. Today it takes significant effort to get information that is not tainted.

[Bold2013]

John Calvin said that man is totally depraved. I don't people think this is true today. Maybe we think man is basically good for the most part with some exceptions noted.

.

The Bible says man is totally depraved. That’s why this world has so many problems.

My opinion is a depraved government can’t fix a society full of depraved individuals. We need God.

[Chuck Naill]

John Calvin said that man is totally depraved. I don't people think this is true today. Maybe we think man is basically good for the most part with some exceptions noted.

.

The Bible says man is totally depraved. That’s why this world has so many problems.

My opinion is a depraved government can’t fix a society full of depraved individuals. We need God.

If that were true the people who got God would live and talk differently. In other words, if you say you need God and you got God, it would have an effect on how you think and live. As it is in the US, people who say they got God, because they needed God, sound like Republicans, not Jesus.

The early church was a community of believers that met in homes and public places. They shared everything and anyone was welcome. Everyone had enough and no one lacked. This is in the scriptures if you want to look. So, what happened?

When the church was adopted by the Roman Empire, things changed. It became an industrial complex. You had a man in power. So, Jesus was no longer the head, you had to go through some man.

So, if we took Jesus seriously and first sought the Kingdom of God (that's where God rules and gets his way) and not worry about tomorrow and the things we need, how would this change our lives? How would it change how we look at the poor, the brown, the sick? We would be less suspicious. We would give away our resources. We would turn loose of our lives and be more trusting. If, as you say, we need God, there would be the result of having God in our lives that would be obvious. As it is, the church says, we need Trump or similar demagogue.

Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

[TSherbs]

John Calvin said that man is totally depraved. I don't people think this is true today. Maybe we think man is basically good for the most part with some exceptions noted.

.

The Bible says man is totally depraved.

Except where it doesn't.

[TSherbs]

It's always interesting when Christians start throwing the Bible at each other. It's pretty easy to pick and choose what serves your purpose and mood from such an amorphous and far ranging text collected from several cultures over hundreds of years. You're bound to find something you agree with and other things you dismiss or excuse away. I do the same. But I don't worship the text, so I treat it like many other religious texts: containers of both wisdom and poppycock.

[Chuck Naill]

It's always interesting when Christians start throwing the Bible at each other. It's pretty easy to pick and choose what serves your purpose and mood from such an amorphous and far ranging text collected from several cultures over hundreds of years. You're bound to find something you agree with and other things you dismiss or excuse away. I do the same. But I don't worship the text, so I treat it like many other religious texts: containers of both wisdom and poppycock.

That's a low blow, Ted. Shame on you.

I was simply saying that when people say you need God, the question based on what you can see, is to ask why.

All human texts contain wisdom and poppycock. Name one that doesn't? You take what works and dismiss the rest.

[TSherbs]

?? What's the low blow?

[Chuck Naill]

"“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.... If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives.”

Darwin

[Chuck Naill]

"“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.... If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives.”

Darwin

Maybe, maybe not!!

[Chuck Naill]

Since Ted wants to hit below the belt, I offer a more thoughtful approach to discussing the topic. And, @dneal, your "thanks" is so predictable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/19/opinion/kandiss-taylor-jesus.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC EIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPDm8 TiOMNAo6B_EGKZqNla9ooxHGHTc5FN6VqRvFp0_QZP1BoT0Pgh Kq4r6k_And_r5OvDCRx1ojRXLs8_HizNjThJL1ymfizsUiLdWX vCqLAgnInLBJm9sZjfFCqiSMDzqzVA6UijIkFqPQiB5p8QTkLZ yOY7bK_W1glZoLwPlyL4RI2WupZRTjTgdWejroHewlXAl_MJ2h ttSd-sJgPfYNKY9usakIoa8H8gr4OC2Z3L4zPB5E5Q4bckrQCoqfjoV WyoJiqB_G7v-K7QvM3&smid=url-share

[dneal]

Since Ted wants to hit below the belt, I offer a more thoughtful approach to discussing the topic. And, @dneal, your "thanks" is so predictable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/19/opinion/kandiss-taylor-jesus.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC EIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPDm8 TiOMNAo6B_EGKZqNla9ooxHGHTc5FN6VqRvFp0_QZP1BoT0Pgh Kq4r6k_And_r5OvDCRx1ojRXLs8_HizNjThJL1ymfizsUiLdWX vCqLAgnInLBJm9sZjfFCqiSMDzqzVA6UijIkFqPQiB5p8QTkLZ yOY7bK_W1glZoLwPlyL4RI2WupZRTjTgdWejroHewlXAl_MJ2h ttSd-sJgPfYNKY9usakIoa8H8gr4OC2Z3L4zPB5E5Q4bckrQCoqfjoV WyoJiqB_G7v-K7QvM3&smid=url-share

Awwwww, Chuck got his feelings hurt…

Chuck, you should stop trying to have it both ways. You want to be an ass when it suits you, but you don’t want anyone to be an ass to you. You dish it out, but can’t take it. Is there a word for that? Something like “hypocritical”?

If you’re going to complain about someone “hitting below the belt, Remember you’re the guy who posted this:



I can't figure out if you're blind or just plain stupid. Maybe you're deaf to.

[TSherbs]

Since Ted wants to hit below the belt, ...]

Chuck, I don't even know what this is about. I asked you once, but you didn't answer....

[Chuck Naill]

Since Ted wants to hit below the belt, ...]

Chuck, I don't even know what this is about. I asked you once, but you didn't answer....

You wrote,
"It's always interesting when Christians start throwing the Bible at each other. It's pretty easy to pick and choose what serves your purpose and mood from such an amorphous and far ranging text collected from several cultures over hundreds of years. You're bound to find something you agree with and other things you dismiss or excuse away. I do the same. But I don't worship the text, so I treat it like many other religious texts: containers of both wisdom and poppycock."

I am sure all ideologies feud a bit.

[TSherbs]

Of course they do. How is it a cheap shot to occasionally acknowledge the obvious, even about Christianity? By the way, I grew up in a minister's household. My upbringing is as religious as they come. I have attended revivals, church camps, Sunday school, and born again meetings at college in the 1980s. I am familiar with a good bit of the variety of Christian life and thinking. I have much respect for a lot of it, but not all of it.

[Chuck Naill]

Of course they do. How is it a cheap shot to occasionally acknowledge the obvious, even about Christianity? By the way, I grew up in a minister's household. My upbringing is as religious as they come. I have attended revivals, church camps, Sunday school, and born again meetings at college in the 1980s. I am familiar with a good bit of the variety of Christian life and thinking. I have much respect for a lot of it, but not all of it.

Your comments were unhelpful, Ted. Being a MK means nothing to me. Why even mention it?

What should matter is, if you say you are a disciple, it should show. Of course being a disciple is not necessary. The point is, live like you say you believe or think. I am sure there are Buddhist that don't follow as well.

There is an op-ed where a candidate has "Jesus, guns, and Babies" on her bus. Funny how people throw names around to get votes.

[Chip]

The Bible says man is totally depraved.

It also says that we were created in the image of god.

So your god is totally depraved?

[TSherbs]

Your comments were unhelpful, Ted.
"Unhelpful" toward what end? I really don't understand. Must I *agree* with you about how you use the Bible in this thread?


Being a MK means nothing to me. Well it means a lot to me. You tell us about your religious background all the time, Chuck. It seems only equitable to allow others to do the same.

[Chuck Naill]

There is no reason to suggest it about interpretation, Ted

[TSherbs]

??

I don't understand you, Chuck, so I am moving on.

[Bold2013]

The Bible says man is totally depraved.

It also says that we were created in the image of god.

So your god is totally depraved?

The depravity came with the fall of man in eden.

[Bold2013]

TS if you don’t mind me asking what tradition was your father a minister in?

[Chip]

Would you set up your kids to fall into depravity?

Nice god you've got there.

[Chuck Naill]

??

I don't understand you, Chuck, so I am moving on.

Yes, move on, Ted.

[Bold2013]

Would you set up your kids to fall into depravity?

Nice god you've got there.

What is your standard for nice?

[kazoolaw]

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke, Give War a Chance: Eyewitness Accounts of Mankind's Struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice, and Alcohol-Free Beer

[Chuck Naill]

And yet, he voted for H. Clinton...LOL!!

[kazoolaw]

On this weekend's episode of the NPR game show Wait Wait…Don't Tell Me!, humorist P.J. O'Rourke—usually classified as either a conservative-leaning libertarian or a libertarian-leaning conservative—announced that he's voting for Hillary Clinton. Clinton, he declared, was "the second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she's way behind in second place, you know? She's wrong about absolutely everything. But she's wrong within normal parameters!"

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, and now you know the rest of the story. :)

[Chip]

What is your standard for nice?

Higher than your standard for god.

[Bold2013]

Checkmate

[Chuck Naill]

I used to try and defend God. Then, it occurred to me that if God wants to be defended, surely he/she doesn’t need me. She /he can do it themselves.

An analogy, a child doesn’t always think their parents are nice, or a teacher/coach is nice. Those older and experienced people have a larger perspective, one that a child or student may not understand.

Nature can be cruel. The virus doesn’t care if it your loved one or that your house is in the path of a tornado.

Some will say that everything used to be lovely before Man sinned and the Earth was cursed and brought on death and destruction.

I have no answers. I do tend to lean toward an intelligent design.

[Chuck Naill]

Putin should win an Oscar.

[Chip]

Presented by Trump?

[Chuck Naill]

Presented by Trump?

Yes, he said "this is genius". ""Putin is now saying, 'It’s independent,' a large section of Ukraine. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper... We could use that on our southern border."

Do the Trumpians need another reason to not support this person? He claims Putin wouldn't being doing this if he were President. Anyone believe this to be true. Trump would be handing out donuts at the border if Putin bragged on him. That's all it would take.

From Madeline Albright:

"Mr. Putin’s actions have triggered massive sanctions, with more to come if he launches a full-scale assault and attempts to seize the entire country. These would devastate not just his country’s economy but also his tight circle of corrupt cronies — who in turn could challenge his leadership. What is sure to be a bloody and catastrophic war will drain Russian resources and cost Russian lives — while creating an urgent incentive for Europe to slash its dangerous reliance on Russian energy. (That has already begun with Germany’s move to halt certification of the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline.)"
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/opinion/putin-ukraine.html

[dneal]

Maybe somebody can borrow Hillary's reset button.

[Chuck Naill]

Or chose to vote for someone else, or chose to vote.

The Hillybilly Elegy guy said, "“I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” That's one view that doesn't seem that smart, but it will resonate with some.

Is it possible to be an isolationist, piss off your neighbors, and survive? It takes a village. And before anyone whines, this has become something from Ms. Clinton for which I can agree whether we are raising children or saving the planet.

[dneal]

Nobody seems to be able to explain how Ukraine is vital to U.S. national interests, or why American blood and treasure should be spent. Instead, we just hear the banal "neocon" or "internationalist" excuse making (it's independent of party affiliation).

[Chuck Naill]

Nobody seems to be able to explain how Ukraine is vital to U.S. national interests, or why American blood and treasure should be spent. Instead, we just hear the banal "neocon" or "internationalist" excuse making (it's independent of party affiliation).

It has been explained. The idea is allowing Ukraine to be taken, then China feels emboldened toward Taiwan.

Had you read the Times piece, even if the US had made mistakes, which they have, being silent allows the Putins of this world a free pass. Surely you are not suggesting this is a reasonable strategy?

[dneal]

Nobody seems to be able to explain how Ukraine is vital to U.S. national interests, or why American blood and treasure should be spent. Instead, we just hear the banal "neocon" or "internationalist" excuse making (it's independent of party affiliation).

It has been explained. The idea is allowing Ukraine to be taken, then China feels emboldened toward Taiwan.

Had you read the Times piece, even if the US had made mistakes, which they have, being silent allows the Putins of this world a free pass. Surely you are not suggesting this is a reasonable strategy?

It hasn't been "explained". Just the same talking points have been made. Can you explain how Ukraine is in the United States' National Interest?

Why wasn't China emboldened when Putin took Crimea or the portions of the Ukraine he's had since pre-Trump? Could it be that TSMC in particular is critical to the Chinese electronic industry? Apple's chips are made by TSMC, and shipped to China for assembly in iDevices. What would be the result to Chinese industry if China took Taiwan and the western world (driven by western capitalists) boycotted Chinese made products? Note that the U.S. has forces stationed in Taiwan. Wouldn't stop an invasion, but is a tripwire.

Ukraine/Taiwan is apples and cranberries.

p.s.: The Times isn't a neutral/unbiased/credible source.

[Chuck Naill]

The Times are not Tucker

No idea, but just posting what others are saying .

[dneal]

More questions avoided. I suppose I'll just have to wait for others to say, so you can post it.

[Chuck Naill]

More questions avoided. I suppose I'll just have to wait for others to say, so you can post it.

Yes, please wait...LOL!!

[dneal]

You’re triggered again…LOL!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Are you smarter than the Trumps kids?

[dneal]

Trump and Tucker live in your head!!! LMAO!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Trump and Tucker live in your head!!! LMAO!!!

I wish that were true. I would be the ultimate patriot.

[dneal]

Chuck and Tucker, sittin' in a tree...

Chuck, look how much you know about Tucker and what he says!!! LMAO!!!!!!!



...For those still reading and those who will consider this from Tucker Carlson, he says that Fox News is here to "defend" , "“Tens of millions of Americans have no chance; they’re about to be crushed by the ascendant left,” Mr. Carlson claimed. “These people need a defender. You need a defender.” It was not hard to deduce whom he had in mind."...


...I have a friend who obcesses with Fox News, he sounds a lot like you. Perhaps consider taking a break. Get outside. Go camping or hiking where social media is impossble. It is your life and your choice of how to think. Don't screw it up believing everything Tucker says…



…Tucker is not your friend. He's selling air time...


...Trump didn't invent mRNA vaccines no matter how much you want to believe he did or what Tucker told you...



...Yes, I understand Tucker Carlson, Rand Paul, and other people of that stripe are chirping...


...Old Tucker is earning his keep...


…Tucker is a known purveyor of misinformation. It is how he makes a living...


...Yet, if Tucker and Rand think Fauci is a fool, you fall all over yourself to post…



…All the stuff you posted is from similar sources as Tucker. Anyone who thinks otherwise can validate…


...If Tucker says the FBI was involved, do you do any due diligence toward discovery?...


...Get aways from Tucker and Trump...


...I see TC, as you call him, and many Republican Trumpians this way...


...Carlson is often repeated here...


...The Times are not Tucker...

[Chuck Naill]

What’s your first name?

[dneal]

What’s your first name?

Tucker. ROFL!!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Tucker Neal. Okay that’s how I’ll refer to you from now on. Thanks, Tucky👍

[Chip]

What’s your first name?

We could guess.

Dwight?

DeWayne?

Devaunte?

Dempster?

Durward?

Deepak?

Demetrius?

Deshawn?

Dingle?

Draco?

Dax?

[dneal]

Tucker Neal. Okay that’s how I’ll refer to you from now on. Thanks, Tucky👍

Cool. Now maybe you'll listen to me as closely as you do your favorite Tucker.

[dneal]

What’s your first name?

We could guess.

Dwight?

DeWayne?

Devaunte?

Dempster?

Durward?

Deepak?

Demetrius?

Deshawn?

Dingle?

Draco?

Dax?

Diogenes.

I'm still looking for an honest man.

[Chip]

Diogenes.

I'm still looking for an honest man.

You won't find him in the mirror.

[dneal]

A+ on the snark, Chip; but F for the wit. You really need to up your game in that area. You claim to be a writer, after all.

[Chip]

Used to earn a living writing. Published five books. How many publications can you claim?

(Toilet stalls don't count.)

[Chuck Naill]

From Brook's op-ed this week.
"The authoritarians tell a simple story about how to restore order — it comes from cultural homogeneity and the iron fist of the strongman. Democrats have a harder challenge — to show how order can be woven amid diversity, openness and the full flowering of individuals. But Democrats need to name the moral values and practices that will restore social order."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/opinion/defeat-trump-democrat-myths.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC EIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPDmw eiOMNAo6B_EGKaadtatIvmiiBWdpZdbMiQft51OZDekl8Vwmz5 JuYnZBPawMElbWOZEJklZTcQeJ_tjbwcmiyLOo4lOzv5EjeYWH 1XqXV1WkmIlpjvZs2c1C1iXYKwa-UR-Al29Auzu5hUs4hPUoIZCCLuvXtAx5_KY_GOkmasl9qLrkfDTLD ntec6KYCcxFSDT_FT3B-4GU767BMKY9dffa_f1N7Jp2I0fhGAXdoLYypG5QwW4PR8r1qur TPohCMo9GkzDv8R0s7h2oxzRRiktG4DA&smid=url-share

[dneal]

Used to earn a living writing.

I think I know why it didn’t pan out.


Published five books. How many publications can you claim?

(Toilet stalls don't count.)

See, the toilet stall thing just doesn’t work when the context is “books”. Poetry? Sure. Books? Nope.

You might see an advisor about dropping this course.

[TSherbs]

From Brook's op-ed this week.
"The authoritarians tell a simple story about how to restore order — it comes from cultural homogeneity and the iron fist of the strongman. Democrats have a harder challenge — to show how order can be woven amid diversity, openness and the full flowering of individuals. But Democrats need to name the moral values and practices that will restore social order."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/opinion/defeat-trump-democrat-myths.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC EIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPDmw eiOMNAo6B_EGKaadtatIvmiiBWdpZdbMiQft51OZDekl8Vwmz5 JuYnZBPawMElbWOZEJklZTcQeJ_tjbwcmiyLOo4lOzv5EjeYWH 1XqXV1WkmIlpjvZs2c1C1iXYKwa-UR-Al29Auzu5hUs4hPUoIZCCLuvXtAx5_KY_GOkmasl9qLrkfDTLD ntec6KYCcxFSDT_FT3B-4GU767BMKY9dffa_f1N7Jp2I0fhGAXdoLYypG5QwW4PR8r1qur TPohCMo9GkzDv8R0s7h2oxzRRiktG4DA&smid=url-share

I agree with this part:

"But that struggle also has domestic fronts — the need to defeat the mini-Putins now found across the Western democracies. These are the demagogues who lie with Putinesque brazenness, who shred democratic institutions with Putinesque bravado, who strut the world’s stage with Putin’s amoral schoolboy machismo while pretending to represent all that is traditional and holy.

In the United States that, of course, is Donald Trump. This moment of heightened danger and crisis makes it even clearer that the No. 1 domestic priority for all Americans who care about democracy is to make sure Trump never sees the inside of the Oval Office ever again. As democracy is threatened from abroad it can’t also be cannibalized from within."

[the "can't" in the last sentence must be a typo]

[Chuck Naill]

From Brook's op-ed this week.
"The authoritarians tell a simple story about how to restore order — it comes from cultural homogeneity and the iron fist of the strongman. Democrats have a harder challenge — to show how order can be woven amid diversity, openness and the full flowering of individuals. But Democrats need to name the moral values and practices that will restore social order."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/opinion/defeat-trump-democrat-myths.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC EIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPDmw eiOMNAo6B_EGKaadtatIvmiiBWdpZdbMiQft51OZDekl8Vwmz5 JuYnZBPawMElbWOZEJklZTcQeJ_tjbwcmiyLOo4lOzv5EjeYWH 1XqXV1WkmIlpjvZs2c1C1iXYKwa-UR-Al29Auzu5hUs4hPUoIZCCLuvXtAx5_KY_GOkmasl9qLrkfDTLD ntec6KYCcxFSDT_FT3B-4GU767BMKY9dffa_f1N7Jp2I0fhGAXdoLYypG5QwW4PR8r1qur TPohCMo9GkzDv8R0s7h2oxzRRiktG4DA&smid=url-share

I agree with this part:

"But that struggle also has domestic fronts — the need to defeat the mini-Putins now found across the Western democracies. These are the demagogues who lie with Putinesque brazenness, who shred democratic institutions with Putinesque bravado, who strut the world’s stage with Putin’s amoral schoolboy machismo while pretending to represent all that is traditional and holy.

In the United States that, of course, is Donald Trump. This moment of heightened danger and crisis makes it even clearer that the No. 1 domestic priority for all Americans who care about democracy is to make sure Trump never sees the inside of the Oval Office ever again. As democracy is threatened from abroad it can’t also be cannibalized from within."

[the "can't" in the last sentence must be a typo]

I am often accused here of paying too much attention to Trump. That's not possible. Or, it is not for me. I have younger family members who will pay the price of an autocratic type of government. We've told ourselves it couldn't happen, but it could.

While there is a place for civil disobedience and peaceful protest, right now whining about masks and vaccines seems small and immature.

Ukrainian refugees might need a place to live. I think if I were given the opportunity, I would try to offer them a place. It would be mutually beneficial.

[Chuck Naill]

I think I know why it didn’t pan out.


Published five books. How many publications can you claim?

(Toilet stalls don't count.)

See, the toilet stall thing just doesn’t work when the context is “books”. Poetry? Sure. Books? Nope.

You might see an advisor about dropping this course.

This is really all you have, @dneal. You've bet on the wrong horse. No one here ignores you because you are as bright as you think you are. They ignore you because you are a jerk.

[dneal]

It's curious that you think I'm being a jerk, when lately I have been simply posting the exact crap you do. "LOL's" and "ROFL's" with precisely three exclamation points following? Where do you think I copied that from? Perhaps some self-reflection on your end is in order.

In Chip's case - like I told him when he first arrived - if you come out of the gate being a dick, you'll get the same in return. In another thread: don't be an asshole, and I won't either.

You see "jerk" in my posts (and again, I'm just imitating you), but not your own. Chip sees the snark in my posts, but not his own. No self-awareness.

Both of you refuse to see your part in it - or are incapable of it (which is more likely the case, IMHO). How I respond here is pretty much up to you. Want to be thoughtful? considerate or constructively critical of opposing views? Cool. Want to "YOU WATCH TUCKER!!! LOL!!!" Cool too. But if you don't care for the latter, maybe you shouldn't do it either.

p.s.: About the "ignoring" thing you (and Chip) like to bring up for some reason. I don't care whether you do or don't. I find it laughable that you feel the need to publicly proclaim it, and then aren't able to do it. I find it laughable that I knew that would be the case, told you, and then told you so. Just another example of your lack of self-awareness and self-discipline.

[TSherbs]

From Brook's op-ed this week.
"The authoritarians tell a simple story about how to restore order — it comes from cultural homogeneity and the iron fist of the strongman. Democrats have a harder challenge — to show how order can be woven amid diversity, openness and the full flowering of individuals. But Democrats need to name the moral values and practices that will restore social order."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/opinion/defeat-trump-democrat-myths.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC EIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPDmw eiOMNAo6B_EGKaadtatIvmiiBWdpZdbMiQft51OZDekl8Vwmz5 JuYnZBPawMElbWOZEJklZTcQeJ_tjbwcmiyLOo4lOzv5EjeYWH 1XqXV1WkmIlpjvZs2c1C1iXYKwa-UR-Al29Auzu5hUs4hPUoIZCCLuvXtAx5_KY_GOkmasl9qLrkfDTLD ntec6KYCcxFSDT_FT3B-4GU767BMKY9dffa_f1N7Jp2I0fhGAXdoLYypG5QwW4PR8r1qur TPohCMo9GkzDv8R0s7h2oxzRRiktG4DA&smid=url-share

I agree with this part:

"But that struggle also has domestic fronts — the need to defeat the mini-Putins now found across the Western democracies. These are the demagogues who lie with Putinesque brazenness, who shred democratic institutions with Putinesque bravado, who strut the world’s stage with Putin’s amoral schoolboy machismo while pretending to represent all that is traditional and holy.

In the United States that, of course, is Donald Trump. This moment of heightened danger and crisis makes it even clearer that the No. 1 domestic priority for all Americans who care about democracy is to make sure Trump never sees the inside of the Oval Office ever again. As democracy is threatened from abroad it can’t also be cannibalized from within."

[the "can't" in the last sentence must be a typo]

I am often accused here of paying too much attention to Trump. That's not possible. Or, it is not for me. I have younger family members who will pay the price of an autocratic type of government. We've told ourselves it couldn't happen, but it could.

While there is a place for civil disobedience and peaceful protest, right now whining about masks and vaccines seems small and immature.

Ukrainian refugees might need a place to live. I think if I were given the opportunity, I would try to offer them a place. It would be mutually beneficial.

I saw a report that Ireland was dropping their VISA requirements for people from Ukraine.

[Chuck Naill]

From Brook's op-ed this week.
"The authoritarians tell a simple story about how to restore order — it comes from cultural homogeneity and the iron fist of the strongman. Democrats have a harder challenge — to show how order can be woven amid diversity, openness and the full flowering of individuals. But Democrats need to name the moral values and practices that will restore social order."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/opinion/defeat-trump-democrat-myths.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC EIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPDmw eiOMNAo6B_EGKaadtatIvmiiBWdpZdbMiQft51OZDekl8Vwmz5 JuYnZBPawMElbWOZEJklZTcQeJ_tjbwcmiyLOo4lOzv5EjeYWH 1XqXV1WkmIlpjvZs2c1C1iXYKwa-UR-Al29Auzu5hUs4hPUoIZCCLuvXtAx5_KY_GOkmasl9qLrkfDTLD ntec6KYCcxFSDT_FT3B-4GU767BMKY9dffa_f1N7Jp2I0fhGAXdoLYypG5QwW4PR8r1qur TPohCMo9GkzDv8R0s7h2oxzRRiktG4DA&smid=url-share

I agree with this part:

"But that struggle also has domestic fronts — the need to defeat the mini-Putins now found across the Western democracies. These are the demagogues who lie with Putinesque brazenness, who shred democratic institutions with Putinesque bravado, who strut the world’s stage with Putin’s amoral schoolboy machismo while pretending to represent all that is traditional and holy.

In the United States that, of course, is Donald Trump. This moment of heightened danger and crisis makes it even clearer that the No. 1 domestic priority for all Americans who care about democracy is to make sure Trump never sees the inside of the Oval Office ever again. As democracy is threatened from abroad it can’t also be cannibalized from within."

[the "can't" in the last sentence must be a typo]

I am often accused here of paying too much attention to Trump. That's not possible. Or, it is not for me. I have younger family members who will pay the price of an autocratic type of government. We've told ourselves it couldn't happen, but it could.

While there is a place for civil disobedience and peaceful protest, right now whining about masks and vaccines seems small and immature.

Ukrainian refugees might need a place to live. I think if I were given the opportunity, I would try to offer them a place. It would be mutually beneficial.

I saw a report that Ireland was dropping their VISA requirements for people from Ukraine.

That is a good thing to hear. Ukraine is on everyone heart and mind. And, Ukraine calls the capital KIVE and not as Russia Ki-ve. I am sure I have the spelling screwed.

Just had a thought watching Ukrainians giving out guns to what appeared to be civilians, how many of the January 6th and Canadians Truckers would be in line if they knew they were facing someone with a gun.

How long would an insurrection last in Moscow?

[Chuck Naill]

It's curious that you think I'm being a jerk, when lately I have been simply posting the exact crap you do. "LOL's" and "ROFL's" with precisely three exclamation points following? Where do you think I copied that from? Perhaps some self-reflection on your end is in order.

In Chip's case - like I told him when he first arrived - if you come out of the gate being a dick, you'll get the same in return. In another thread: don't be an asshole, and I won't either.

You see "jerk" in my posts (and again, I'm just imitating you), but not your own. Chip sees the snark in my posts, but not his own. No self-awareness.

Both of you refuse to see your part in it - or are incapable of it (which is more likely the case, IMHO). How I respond here is pretty much up to you. Want to be thoughtful? considerate or constructively critical of opposing views? Cool. Want to "YOU WATCH TUCKER!!! LOL!!!" Cool too. But if you don't care for the latter, maybe you shouldn't do it either.

p.s.: About the "ignoring" thing you (and Chip) like to bring up for some reason. I don't care whether you do or don't. I find it laughable that you feel the need to publicly proclaim it, and then aren't able to do it. I find it laughable that I knew that would be the case, told you, and then told you so. Just another example of your lack of self-awareness and self-discipline.

Maybe you're not simply a jerk. Maybe there is some pathology. However, it seems you are fixated on saying others are not intelligent, and I have to assume, as intelligent as you.

I haven't written a book. Perhaps you have. Chip has. He must have something to say. He must have a level of intelligence you don't want to have to admit. It is like you saying something about typos. Who does this? You!

[dneal]

I have no problem acknowledging I can be a jerk. I clearly said I won't be an asshole (or jerk) if you won't. I don't pretend otherwise, like many of you. There's no pathology there.

I don't care how many books Chip has or has not written. That's some juvenile dick-measuring attempt because he's not very witty.

I'm also not fixated on saying others are not intelligent. That's your schtick.


...That's just dumb...


...What an over educated dumb ass...


...If you don’t have anything better to say, why bother taking up space? Dumb!!...


...I can't figure out if you're blind or just plain stupid...


Your lack of self-awareness continues, and you substitute projection for it.

[Chuck Naill]

I have no problem acknowledging I can be a jerk. I clearly said I won't be an asshole (or jerk) if you won't. I don't pretend otherwise, like many of you. There's no pathology there.

I don't care how many books Chip has or has not written. That's some juvenile dick-measuring attempt because he's not very witty.

I'm also not fixated on saying others are not intelligent. That's your schtick.




...What an over educated dumb ass...


...If you don’t have anything better to say, why bother taking up space? Dumb!!...


...I can't figure out if you're blind or just plain stupid...


Your lack of self-awareness continues, and you substitute projection for it.

Being "witty" is not synonymous with intelligence. He was witty with the mirror comment.

Blaming me or others for being a jerk is not taking responsibility for yourself. If you are a jerk, it is because you've decided to be one.

[dneal]

I didn't equate wit with intelligence. He wasn't witty with the mirror comment. The context was me holding up a mirror for your reflection, not looking at my own.

I'm not blaming you for me being a jerk. I'm straight up saying you're a jerk, and that you can't see it in yourself. You lack self-awareness and persist in projecting your shortcomings on me.

I don't, so (again) I'm completely comfortable acknowledging that I can be a jerk. I don't have a problem with it.

--edit--

It's kind of funny that you're even a hypocrite about this. As simply as I can put it:

Chuck: You're as asshole, but I'm not.
Me: You're an asshole, and I am too. If you won't be one, I won't either.

[Chuck Naill]

I didn't equate wit with intelligence. He wasn't witty with the mirror comment. The context was me holding up a mirror for your reflection, not looking at my own.

I'm not blaming you for me being a jerk. I'm straight up saying you're a jerk, and that you can't see it in yourself. You lack self-awareness and persist in projecting your shortcomings on me.

I don't, so (again) I'm completely comfortable acknowledging that I can be a jerk. I don't have a problem with it.

No, I understood he was speaking about you. Everyone did. Instead of recognizing he get you good, your overblown ego had to resort to an insult.

Yes, I can be a jerk and I know it when I am doing it. You just don't understand that I know it. Do I need to provide some fine print?

[dneal]

I understood he was talking about me too. He still missed the context of the mirror metaphor - just like he missed the context and metaphor of the book/toilet thing. I enjoy a good dig, even at my expense; because I don't have an overblown ego (notice how you still project with that, btw?). Chip's aren't good ones. The fact that you think you have to explain it just proves that it wasn't very good.

As for you knowing you're being a jerk, now go back and look at old threads to see where they go wrong. Who initiates the jerk behavior? Want me to provide links?

[Chuck Naill]

I understood he was talking about me too. He still missed the context of the mirror metaphor - just like he missed the context and metaphor of the book/toilet thing. I enjoy a good dig, even at my expense; because I don't have an overblown ego (notice how you still project with that, btw?). Chip's aren't good ones. The fact that you think you have to explain it just proves that it wasn't very good.

As for you knowing you're being a jerk, now go back and look at old threads to see where they go wrong. Who initiates the jerk behavior? Want me to provide links?

You said you were looking for an honest person and he said you would not find him looking in the mirror. He got you. Maybe you didn't notice, but I'd say the rest of us had a little laugh at your expense.

Dig all you want. It doesn't bother me who starts it. It is not a problem for me. I was on an unmoderated forum 15 years ago. If it bothers you so much, ignore me. Just don't suggest you're the smartest person in the room, because you're not.

[dneal]

Chuck, if you still have to explain the joke, it's still not funny.

Feel free to cite the post where I suggested I'm the smartest person in the room. You're building quite the list of unsubstantiated assertions.

[Chip]

I think I know why it didn’t pan out.

It worked fine. Published three non-fiction books with major NY houses, and two books of poetry with small presses. Had a top-notch agent. Placed articles, essays, and poems in journals and magazines, in the US, UK, and Ireland. Did reading tours and residencies. But I got tired of the constant self-promotion, the travel, and the business aspects. So I worked as a field scientist while writing for fun.

You didn't answer my question. Have you published anything?

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, if you still have to explain the joke, it's still not funny.

Feel free to cite the post where I suggested I'm the smartest person in the room. You're building quite the list of unsubstantiated assertions.

Like I said, everyone else got it. That said, since you were the butt of the joke, I can appreciate you not wanting to recognize.

Usually when someone consistently points out that others are not intelligent, there is a corresponding suggestion, even if delusional, they consider themselves a superior intellect. It has become your go to reply when you run out of something to add.

And, Diogenes didn't say he was looking for an honest man, but a human being.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Modern sources often say that Diogenes was looking for an "honest man", but in ancient sources he is simply "looking for a man" – "ἄνθρωπον ζητῶ". In his view, the unreasoning behavior of the people around him meant that they did not qualify as men. From the Wiki. It could be argued that the later addition of the term 'honest' could have been a reflection of the quality of reason, given that a reasonable man must by definition be honest with himself. So, it seems to me that the later designation, as exemplified in the painting by Tischbein, is a kind of abbreviation of Diogenes intention.

I already knew who Diogenes was of course, and curiously enough there was a gentleman of the road in my home town called Edwin McKenzie who was known on our streets as Diogenes. His ending was a point of some controversy after he had bequeathed his body to the local artist Robert Lenkiewicz for embalming as the 'ultimate memento mori'. After the death of Lenkiewicz the embalmed body of Diogenes was found in a cupboard in his studio. This LINK (https://flashbak.com/the-peculiar-tale-of-robert-lenkiewicz-and-diogenes-the-tramp-who-became-the-ultimate-memento-mori-367733/) takes you to a page about the artist and his work involving vagrants. I think people here will find it interesting; it is certainly worth a read. Lenkiewicz was a divisive character, often appearing to court controversy for the sake of it. In 1981 he faked his own death to, in his words, know what it was like to be thought of as dead. I remember seeing an advert on the window of his studio looking for elderly models - he was doing a series of paintings on ageing as I recall - but the startling part of the ad was that the models had to pose nude and be willing to sit on the artist's knee! He was certainly colourful.

Ah, memories.


As for publications, I have two. Three if you accept the poem I had printed in the local church gazette. :)

[dneal]

Chuck, if you still have to explain the joke, it's still not funny.

Feel free to cite the post where I suggested I'm the smartest person in the room. You're building quite the list of unsubstantiated assertions.

Like I said, everyone else got it. That said, since you were the butt of the joke, I can appreciate you not wanting to recognize.

Usually when someone consistently points out that others are not intelligent, there is a corresponding suggestion, even if delusional, they consider themselves a superior intellect. It has become your go to reply when you run out of something to add.

And, Diogenes didn't say he was looking for an honest man, but a human being.

*sigh*

You asked my name. I joked "Tucker" and Chip listed some random names that start with D.

I picked Diogenes, the Cynic (there are several of them, but he is one of the most notable). He is known for many things, from "I am looking for an honest man" to even urinating on people; but mainly he's known as a critic of convention. I thought Chip would have ample opportunity to riff off of something. There's no shortage of material.

He picked the mirror thing. The reason it doesn't work is that I used the mirror metaphor to say I was showing a reflection of you and your behavior - which is what I have done for some time now with the "LOL's" etc... It's pretty obvious, really. My first inclination as a response to Chip was along those lines. "Well, it's Chuck's reflection, so no I'm not going to find an honest man..." etc... My second thought was just that he (again) screwed up the joke. He didn't understand the metaphor or wasn't able to employ it - so I just pointed that out.

It's kind of like your crazy notion that I comment on intelligence. There's no need for me to say you aren't intelligent. You make that apparent. I just point it out. ;)

[dneal]

I think I know why it didn’t pan out.

It worked fine. Published three non-fiction books with major NY houses, and two books of poetry with small presses. Had a top-notch agent. Placed articles, essays, and poems in journals and magazines, in the US, UK, and Ireland. Did reading tours and residencies. But I got tired of the constant self-promotion, the travel, and the business aspects. So I worked as a field scientist while writing for fun.

You didn't answer my question. Have you published anything?

Not that tired of it, it seems.

I never claimed to be a writer, so no, I haven't published - mainly because the things I've written are classified.

[TSherbs]

Modern sources often say that Diogenes was looking for an "honest man", but in ancient sources he is simply "looking for a man" – "ἄνθρωπον ζητῶ". In his view, the unreasoning behavior of the people around him meant that they did not qualify as men. From the Wiki. It could be argued that the later addition of the term 'honest' could have been a reflection of the quality of reason, given that a reasonable man must by definition be honest with himself. So, it seems to me that the later designation, as exemplified in the painting by Tischbein, is a kind of abbreviation of Diogenes intention.

I already knew who Diogenes was of course, and curiously enough there was a gentleman of the road in my home town called Edwin McKenzie who was known on our streets as Diogenes. His ending was a point of some controversy after he had bequeathed his body to the local artist Robert Lenkiewicz for embalming as the 'ultimate memento mori'. After the death of Lenkiewicz the embalmed body of Diogenes was found in a cupboard in his studio. This LINK (https://flashbak.com/the-peculiar-tale-of-robert-lenkiewicz-and-diogenes-the-tramp-who-became-the-ultimate-memento-mori-367733/) takes you to a page about the artist and his work involving vagrants. I think people here will find it interesting; it is certainly worth a read. Lenkiewicz was a divisive character, often appearing to court controversy for the sake of it. In 1981 he faked his own death to, in his words, know what it was like to be thought of as dead. I remember seeing an advert on the window of his studio looking for elderly models - he was doing a series of paintings on ageing as I recall - but the startling part of the ad was that the models had to pose nude and be willing to sit on the artist's knee! He was certainly colourful.

Ah, memories.


As for publications, I have two. Three if you accept the poem I had printed in the local church gazette. :)

You're right. That's a fascinating story!

[Chip]

I never claimed to be a writer, so no, I haven't published - mainly because the things I've written are classified.

Yet you claim to be a judge of writing ability. Based on internet posts?

Teasing you is a guilty pleasure: such an easy mark. Like when you were huffing about my "repeatedly" mentioning the ignore function and (after how long a search?) came up with two. That's one and one repeat. The image of you feverishly punching the keys, wasting your time, to get dirt on me confirms my judgement of you.

I won't touch the "classified" thing. That how the government (which you claim to distrust) hides corruption and collusion and murder and vicious schemes from the public.

[dneal]

The judge of writing isn't the writer, it's the reader. Being published isn't a mark of achievement, being a bestseller is. How many bestsellers did you write, Chip?

You can't tease me, because you lack the wit for it. A quick forum search for "ignore" and "chip" was no trouble at all. Let's not forget your furious googling for "Kant" and "Nazi's", to prove some irrelevant point you thought worthwhile; only to discover your results contradicted your point! How embarrassing it must have been to have me (a reader) point that out.

The "judgement" of petulant toddlers who poke their lip out and declare they are going to "ignore" me, is not something I concern myself with. Your only defense is that you didn't do it that often?

You "won't touch the classified thing", because you lack the wit to employ that. All you have is the attempt at snark that follows the thing you "won't touch". Hypocritical, witless, and snarky all in one sentence.

[Chuck Naill]

Not sure where to put this and regarding Ukraine,
"Welcome to World War Wired — the first war in a totally interconnected world. This will be the Cossacks meet the World Wide Web. Like I said, you haven’t been here before."

"To lead is to choose, and if China has any pretense of supplanting the U.S. as the world leader, it will have to do more than mumble."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/opinion/putin-russia-ukraine.html

[TSherbs]

Not sure where to put this and regarding Ukraine,
"Welcome to World War Wired — the first war in a totally interconnected world. This will be the Cossacks meet the World Wide Web. Like I said, you haven’t been here before."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/opinion/putin-russia-ukraine.html

paywall block

[Chuck Naill]

Sound familiar?
"For all these reasons, at this early stage, I will venture only one prediction about Putin: Vladimir, the first day of this war was the best day of the rest of your life. I have no doubt that in the near term, your military will prevail, but in the long run leaders who try to bury the future with the past don’t do well. In the long run, your name will live in infamy."

Sounds like something from the Republican playbook. Let's give those old retired white people the past they so eagerly desire. Don't talk about Civil Rights struggles or how many black folk were lynched. Don't mention slavery. After all, those folk had a better life than they would have had in Africa. We've got some of those old white men here apparently.

[TSherbs]

Sound familiar?
"For all these reasons, at this early stage, I will venture only one prediction about Putin: Vladimir, the first day of this war was the best day of the rest of your life. I have no doubt that in the near term, your military will prevail, but in the long run leaders who try to bury the future with the past don’t do well. In the long run, your name will live in infamy."

Sounds like something from the Republican playbook. Let's give those old retired white people the past they so eagerly desire. Don't talk about Civil Rights struggles or how many black folk were lynched. Don't mention slavery. After all, those folk had a better life than they would have had in Africa. We've got some of those old white men here apparently.

hey, I'm an old white man

you too, right?

I agree with the quote: this invasion and occupation is a long-term failure in the making. This is about Putin's version and vision of power, nothing more. And in the long term, this will weaken it. And what if it gets him assassinated?

[Chuck Naill]

Sound familiar?
"For all these reasons, at this early stage, I will venture only one prediction about Putin: Vladimir, the first day of this war was the best day of the rest of your life. I have no doubt that in the near term, your military will prevail, but in the long run leaders who try to bury the future with the past don’t do well. In the long run, your name will live in infamy."

Sounds like something from the Republican playbook. Let's give those old retired white people the past they so eagerly desire. Don't talk about Civil Rights struggles or how many black folk were lynched. Don't mention slavery. After all, those folk had a better life than they would have had in Africa. We've got some of those old white men here apparently.

hey, I'm an old white man

you too, right?

I agree with the quote: this invasion and occupation is a long-term failure in the making. This is about Putin's version and vision of power, nothing more. And in the long term, this will weaken it. And what if it gets him assassinated?

I am an old "woke" white man. I do not own an $80K pickup, however....LOL!! To those who disparage "wokeness", why go around stupid? Jesus said not to call others RACA, "“empty-headed,” insinuating a person’s stupidity or inferiority. It was an offensive name used to show utter contempt for another person. Jesus warned that the use of such a word to describe someone was tantamount to murder and deserving of the severest punishment of the law.", but he didn't say such did not exist.

I am not for assassination, but considering Waterloo,
"Wired. The long run can be a long way away and the rest of us are not insulated from your madness. That is, I wish that I could blithely predict that Ukraine will be Putin’s Waterloo — and his alone. But I can’t, because in our wired world, what happens in Waterloo doesn’t stay in Waterloo."

[Chip]

General comment: The idea of someone so obviously pathological and malicious having access to classified material, let alone writing it, is alarming.

[dneal]

General comment: The idea of someone so obviously pathological and malicious having access to classified material, let alone writing it, is alarming.

*Yawn* A swing and a miss - and another attempt at snark - remaining hypocritical, witless, and snarky all in one sentence.

A+ for consistency. F for creativity.

But compare your constant characterizations and assertions about many people you haven't met, politicians for example; or your fetish with characterizing me as a "psychopath" and now "pathological and malicious" with what you hypocritically wrote just a few posts earlier:


Yet you claim to be a judge of writing ability. Based on internet posts?

Writing ability can certainly be judged by internet posts. It is a 'written' form of communication, after all. But what superpowers do you believe you possess to so accurately get into the psyche of other posters? What evidence of your banal assertions can you provide?

You should join Chuck in the self-reflection room, because if you can't assess your own behavioral tendencies you're certainly not capable of assessing others.

--edit--

Oh, since you like reminding people they haven't answered questions... How many bestsellers have you written, Chip?

[Chuck Naill]

And thus why so many have you on their ignore list. Besides misquoting ancient writers and Mr. Sowell, I can never remember a post where I didn't have to fact check. So, perhaps some delusion or dementia is beginning to take hold, I suspect it's more simple.

[dneal]

Yep. You’re still out of ammunition.

What’s that label you’re so fond of projecting on others? Troll?

p.s.: delusion and dementia? Do you really want to go there?

[Chuck Naill]

Please go there. I vote. I try my best to prevent the spread of a deadly virus, I don't misquote. I don't spread misinformation, or support Trump. Please, please, please go there!!

[dneal]

Please go there. I vote. I try my best to prevent the spread of a deadly virus, I don't misquote. I don't spread misinformation, or support Trump. Please, please, please go there!!


Ad hominem exchanges begin with someone who has run out of ammunition.

LMAO!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Exactly what I expected.

[dneal]

Pointing out your hypocrisy? Mocking you by mimicking your behavior?

You just now learned to expect that in response to your nonsense?

ROFL!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Any new members should be sure to fact check anything @dneal posts.

[TSherbs]

Chuck, your exchanges with dneal are truly tiresome for others to deal with. Can you not manage this a diffrent way that does not clog up these threads?

[dneal]

Any new members should be sure to fact check anything @dneal posts.


Ad hominem exchanges begin with someone who has run out of ammunition.

LOL!!!

[Chip]

If one of my books had been a bestseller, (ala John Grisham or Nora Roberts) I'd have quit in shame and dismay.

I managed to live as I wished, mostly outdoors in remote spots. I got decent advances ($50k at best), with several printings and trade paper editions, for books that were risky, rather than following a formula. The reviews were spectacular, sales so-so. The three nonfiction works are now e-books and the second book of poems (1998) is still in print.

If that bestseller huff represents your idea of good writing, then you have none.

Let me guess: you watch Fox News, eat at MacDonalds, drink Bud Lite, and drive a Ford F150.

[dneal]

If one of my books had been a bestseller, (ala John Grisham or Nora Roberts) I'd have quit in shame and dismay.

If that bestseller huff represents your idea of good writing, then you have none.

A writer with few readers. Why boast on being published? Why think it something to be a source of comparison? You introduced that facet, after all.


I managed to live as I wished, mostly outdoors in remote spots. I got decent advances ($50k at best), with several printings and trade paper editions, for books that were risky, rather than following a formula. The reviews were spectacular, sales so-so. The three nonfiction works are now e-books and the second book of poems (1998) is still in print.

I'm happy for you. I worked for 30 years and am enjoying a comfortable retirement in a little green patch in the middle of nowhere.


Let me guess: you watch Fox News, eat at MacDonalds, drink Bud Lite, and drive a Ford F150.

Wrong on every count. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Wikipedia (because I'm feelin' lazy) states Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. How do the working definitions that have been nutted out on this thread (if there are any) differ from this? Asking because my brain is in overload right now and thinking is harder than normal (and it's never been that easy to be honest, ho hum).

[dneal]

Wikipedia (because I'm feelin' lazy) states Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. How do the working definitions that have been nutted out on this thread (if there are any) differ from this? Asking because my brain is in overload right now and thinking is harder than normal (and it's never been that easy to be honest, ho hum).

Language is shifting rapidly in today's hyper-partisan world, and "Liberalism" has a specific connotation in the U.S. that's not necessarily meant outside the country. It's essentially a synonym for some borderline socialist ideology; but that's not even completely correct. It also is interchangeable with "progressivism" to a large extent.

The right characterizes the left with catch-all term "liberalism", but the left is also constantly moving the philological goalposts with how it's defined. They're quick to excommunicate whoever or whatever commits some sin - determined haphazardly on any given day on social media. It's kind of funny to see who's next. As I pointed out in a different thread some time ago, famed liberal law professor, and former darling of the left Alan Dershowitz has been banished to Newsmax (which is to the right of Fox News).

It's insanity.

[Chip]

Darling of the left? You haven't been paying attention.

Alan Dershowitz went on a tirade against Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, calling him a 'self-hating Jew' on Newsmax on Friday, May 14. "Bernie Sanders, who’s Jewish, is a self-hating Jew, a self-hating Jew who is willing to see Israel be defeated militarily by a terrorist group because he’s on the hard left and he has to follow the hard left," he digressed while talking about Gal Gadot's comments on Israel and Palestine calling her an "antisemite" too.

Dershowitz's comments have often left many fuming with rage in the past. This includes the time he deemed George Floyd's murder accused Derek Chauvin "not a danger" and for all the times he's exhibited his loyalty to Trump publicly. However, one of the biggest controversies remains the accusations made against him by alleged Jeffrey Epstein Virginia Roberts Giuffre who claimed she had sex with him at Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's direction when she was just 16.

RELATED ARTICLES

Alan Dershowitz blasts CNN, MSNBC for editing Trump's speech before riots, claims he wanted 'peaceful' protest

Should Derek Chauvin be out on bail? Alan Dershowitz tells Laura Ingraham George Floyd’s killer ‘not a danger’

https://meaww.com/where-victoria-roberts-giuffre-claimed-alan-dershowitz-had-sex-with-her-at-16-lawsuit

[dneal]

Darling of the left? You haven't been paying attention.

No Chip, you're the one not paying attention.


...former darling of the left Alan Dershowitz has been banished to Newsmax (which is to the right of Fox News).

Citing recent "liberal" articles criticizing Dershowitz (your first citing his comments on Newsmax) demonstrate the point rather than counter it. He's been essentially memory-holed. Now go back 20 years. Dershowitz didn't move to the right. The left moved (much) further left.

This is relatively commonplace, and becoming more the case. Bill Maher is next.

[Chip]

Weird. Dershowitz's reputation among decent folk has suffered owing to things he said and did, not some lefty conspiracy.

So when is the GOP going to dump Tucker and Marjorie and Lauren and Rudy, not to mention the Putin fanboy and chief bootlicker, Mr. T?

[dneal]

Dershowitz’s crime was defending Trump in the impeachments. He advocated for the Constitution and not partisanship.

I’d like to see the MTG’s go too. She, like Trump, is a consequence of the progressive left policies in particular and political corruption in general.

“Putin fanboy and chief bootlicker” rhetoric is nonproductive dog whistling. A blue version of edteach’s red echo chamber.

[Chuck Naill]

Like everyone that is connected to Trump, gets soiled. William Barr is not an exception, even though now he is saying what I, and anyone paying attention, knew all along and why we didn't/couldn't vote for him.

What is posted here by some is not productive and dog whistling. What we don't need is the prime suspect thinking they can call attention to it when others do it. If he were to want to be the standard, he should post differently.

[dneal]

Like everyone that is connected to Trump, gets soiled. William Barr is not an exception, even though now he is saying what I, and anyone paying attention, knew all along and why we didn't/couldn't vote for him.

What is posted here by some is not productive and dog whistling. What we don't need is the prime suspect thinking they can call attention to it when others do it. If he were to want to be the standard, he should post differently.

As noted by another poster…




This is Chuck.
When the topic is too tough for him to understand Chuck goes inanely off-topic.
Chuck thinks his distraction prevents you from noticing his inability to engage in genuine discussion.
Don't be Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

Neither of you worry me. Like another member said, this is something I enjoy.

That said, some of you have been Trumpian supporters. With the Russian’s recent events, I sure there will be some distancing and for those that choose not to participate in elections, you’ll pretend you knew it all along.

And, there is a common discussion strategy of trying to say those that disagree are not as bright. Well, that’s just petty and silly. Even a blind hog finds an acorn.

Kaz, you’re someone that posts occasionally and those posts have as much weight as a balloon. While it doesn’t matter to me, you’re the last person that should be talking. We’ll talk next week when you post again.

For all the concern for lost lives, @dneal was trying to say the Covid numbers were inflated and trying to make Fauci a rogue. Now he’s concerned about war dead. Is was dead different from virus dead? Not to me.

Remember this is my thread and it’s about liberal thought which says all people should have an equal opportunity.

[dneal]

Neither of you worry me. Like another member said, this is something I enjoy.

That said, some of you have been Trumpian supporters. With the Russian’s recent events, I sure there will be some distancing and for those that choose not to participate in elections, you’ll pretend you knew it all along.

And, there is a common discussion strategy of trying to say those that disagree are not as bright. Well, that’s just petty and silly. Even a blind hog finds an acorn.

Kaz, you’re someone that posts occasionally and those posts have as much weight as a balloon. While it doesn’t matter to me, you’re the last person that should be talking. We’ll talk next week when you post again.

For all the concern for lost lives, @dneal was trying to say the Covid numbers were inflated and trying to make Fauci a rogue. Now he’s concerned about war dead. Is was dead different from virus dead? Not to me.

Remember this is my thread and it’s about liberal thought which says all people should have an equal opportunity.

Also posted by Chuck:



Ad hominem exchanges begin with someone who has run out of ammunition.

So you're still out of ammunition, Chuck. Or maybe the other poster had it right:




This is Chuck.
When the topic is too tough for him to understand Chuck goes inanely off-topic.
Chuck thinks his distraction prevents you from noticing his inability to engage in genuine discussion.
Don't be Chuck.

Trumpian supporters, Russian events, election participation, accusations of who is or isn't bright, blind hogs, balloon weights, covid, and whose thread it is.

Kaz pretty much got it right. Chuck is all over the place.

Why can't you engage in a genuine discussion, Chuck?

[Chip]

“Putin fanboy and chief bootlicker” rhetoric is nonproductive dog whistling.

It got a bark out of you.

Do you think these discussions should "produce goods, crops, or economic benefit?" Like a bestseller?
(A liberal would have chosen unproductive.) :bounce:

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal is a barker at best.

[dneal]

“Putin fanboy and chief bootlicker” rhetoric is nonproductive dog whistling.

It got a bark out of you.

Do you think these discussions should "produce goods, crops, or economic benefit?" Like a bestseller?
(A liberal would have chosen unproductive.) :bounce:

A writer would know they're synonyms.

See, the snark gets boring...

[Chuck Naill]

You’re the snark

[Chuck Naill]

You’re the snark and don’t know it….lol! However, you’re fun…😩😩😩

[dneal]

And you’re triggered, again!!! LMAO!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Actually, I am going to enjoy watching you and Kaz try to disassociate yourselves from Trump given the Ukrainian situation.

[TSherbs]

There's been a lot of tripe in this thread, and no good definition (IMO) of liberalism yet presented. I'm not sure it's even worth trying because it is one of those "isms" that has been so castigated, twisted, and mutilated that it is just a bloody mess. Same with "conservatism" and "socialism." So many ill-informed people now shout these terms in the public/internet sphere that the muck has so coated over the original forms as to have entirely hidden them from common public understanding and agreement.

[TSherbs]

Weird. Dershowitz's reputation among decent folk has suffered owing to things he said and did, not some lefty conspiracy.

Dershowitz is well past his prime (like many others of these older male pundits). He's hard to listen to. I mostly mute him after a few sentences, but I do this to most pundits on the telly.

[Chuck Naill]

Read the OP Ted. It’s as good of a definition as you need.

My eldest granddaughter and I were discussing what it means this morning. We both know what it means.

[TSherbs]

I can't read anything behind that paywall, Chuck. It's for members only, and I--and others--am not a paying member. I can only read what you quote for me, which I did. I disagreed with nearly everything Brooks wrote that you quoted (which, admittedly, wasn't much). EoC also quoted wikipedia, but I also thought that what he quoted was lacking.

On my own I have read Newman, Mill, Disreali, Marx, Wollstonecraft, Rousseau, Hobbes, Rand, Emerson, Thoreau, Orwell, Baldwin, de Beauvoir, Hooks....who knows whatnot....I'm just listing things I have read out of my tangled memory over 40 years or so...

There's social liberalism, economic liberalism, political liberalism, religious liberalism....

You'll need to quote more of the Brooks column (how many words is it?) to get me to think that he somehow provided some key insight into how to summarize something essential to "liberalism" that would not also be essential to "conservatism."

Freedom, individual responsibility, or experimentation are not the key characteristics of liberalism, because conservatism values these, too (in my understanding).

By the way, I enjoy hearing what Brooks has to say. But I don't always agree with him. But I don't value him more or less depending on my agreement. He is always reasonable, conscientious, and discerning. It's just that sometimes I disagree with his conclusions.

[TSherbs]

My eldest granddaughter and I were discussing what it means this morning. We both know what it means.

?? Then share. What does "liberalism" mean?

[Chuck Naill]

My eldest granddaughter and I were discussing what it means this morning. We both know what it means.

?? Then share. What does "liberalism" mean?

Ted, the Brooks op-ed provided a very useful definition or description. What she and I discussed were that everyone should have an equal opportunity to have a good life. There shouldn't be an advantage for white, heterosexual men. There are other tenets that Brooks describes. As you might know, Brooks is a life long conservative thinker. He, like me, have changed over the past 10 years.

[Chip]

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

[TSherbs]

What she and I discussed were that everyone should have an equal opportunity to have a good life....

Conservatives don't believe this, too?

[Chuck Naill]

What she and I discussed were that everyone should have an equal opportunity to have a good life....

Conservatives don't believe this, too?

Conservatives tend to go slow, prefer the status quo, don’t rock the boat, and avoid change.

When you consider it was liberal pressure that took the lead in the Civil Rights movement, income equality, affirmative action, marriage equality, female rights, and protections for sexual preferences, it’s obvious who is progressive.

[TSherbs]

What she and I discussed were that everyone should have an equal opportunity to have a good life....

Conservatives don't believe this, too?

Conservatives tend to go slow, prefer the status quo, don’t rock the boat, and avoid change.

When you consider it was liberal pressure that took the lead in the Civil Rights movement, income equality, affirmative action, marriage equality, female rights, and protections for sexual preferences, it’s obvious who is progressive.

I thought that you had a "definition" to share about wanting opportunity for a good life. I'm pretty sure that conservatives want that too. Conservatives also want this for everyone. There is nothing definitional about conservatism that states that they don't want opportunity for success for all.

[Chip]

Present day "conservatives" don't want a good life for all. They love winners and hate losers. Most of the legislation and policy they've enacted or proposed punishes the poor and ethnic minorities while heaping disproportionate rewards on the rich, white, and connected. One hears occasional objections from Warren Buffett and his ilk, but they don't actually do much about it.

The harsh reaction by corporations (Starbucks, Amazon, WalMart, MacDonalds, et al) to their workers forming unions shows they want to keep their workforce on the verge of poverty, one paycheck away from ruin.

[Chuck Naill]

What she and I discussed were that everyone should have an equal opportunity to have a good life....

Conservatives don't believe this, too?

Conservatives tend to go slow, prefer the status quo, don’t rock the boat, and avoid change.

When you consider it was liberal pressure that took the lead in the Civil Rights movement, income equality, affirmative action, marriage equality, female rights, and protections for sexual preferences, it’s obvious who is progressive.

I thought that you had a "definition" to share about wanting opportunity for a good life. I'm pretty sure that conservatives want that too. Conservatives also want this for everyone. There is nothing definitional about conservatism that states that they don't want opportunity for success for all.

You're not reading my posts, so I will move on. I provided a link to Brooks op-ed which is a through historic account of liberal thought. And, since you are an educator, you should be able to see that liberal thought have been the reaason we have freedoms for everyone in the US and not just white males who are Protestants.

[Chuck Naill]

Present day "conservatives" don't want a good life for all. They love winners and hate losers. Most of the legislation and policy they've enacted or proposed punishes the poor and ethnic minorities while heaping disproportionate rewards on the rich, white, and connected. One hears occasional objections from Warren Buffett and his ilk, but they don't actually do much about it.

The harsh reaction by corporations (Starbucks, Amazon, WalMart, MacDonalds, et al) to their workers forming unions shows they want to keep their workforce on the verge of poverty, one paycheck away from ruin.

Hardly a day goes by that you do not see the exploitation of the weak and poor.

[TSherbs]

You're not reading my posts, ....

That's not accurate.

I asked if you might quote some more of the Brooks column so some of us might see more of his argument.

[Chuck Naill]

Sorry Ted.

I’m able to gift op-Ed’s from the Times, but I thought you had a subscription. Either way, the Brooks article should have been available. My bad.

Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity.

Many of America’s founders were fervent believers in liberal democracy — up to a point. They had a profound respect for individual virtue, but also individual frailty. Samuel Adams said, “Ambitions and lust for power … are predominant passions in the breasts of most men.” Patrick Henry admitted to feelings of dread when he contemplated the “depravity of human nature.” One delegate to the constitutional convention said that the people “lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.”

Our founders were aware that majorities are easily led by ambitious demagogues.

So our founders built a system that respected popular opinion and majority rule while trying to build guardrails to check popular passion and prejudice. The crimes of the constitutional order are by now well known. It acquiesced to the existence of slavery and prolonged that institution for nearly another century. Early democratic systems enfranchised only a small share of adult Americans. But the genius of the Constitution was in its attempt to move toward democracy while trying to prevent undue concentrations of power. The founders divided power among the branches. They built in a whole series of republican checks, so that demagogues and populist crazes would not sweep over the land.

“They designed a constitution for fallen people,” the historian Robert Tracy McKenzie writes in his book “We the Fallen People.” “Its genius lay in how it held in tension two seemingly incompatible beliefs: first, that the majority must generally prevail; and second, that the majority is predisposed to seek personal advantage above the common good.”

[dneal]

Also from the piece:


Joe Biden and the other world leaders have done an impressive job of rallying their collective resolve and pushing to keep Putin within his borders.

[dneal]

Chuck, tell TSherbs to unignore this post. It's the whole article for him.


In the early 1990s I was a roving correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, based in Europe. Some years it felt as if all I did was cover good news: the end of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians voting for independence, German reunification, the spread of democracy across Eastern Europe, Mandela coming out of prison and the end of apartheid, the Oslo peace process that seemed to bring stability to the Middle East.

I obsess about those years now. I obsess about them because the good times did not last. History is reverting toward barbarism. We have an authoritarian strongman in Russia threatening to invade his neighbor, an increasingly authoritarian China waging genocide on its people and threatening Taiwan, cyberattacks undermining the world order, democracy in retreat worldwide, thuggish populists across the West undermining nations from within.

What the hell happened? Why were the hopes of the 1990s not realized? What is the key factor that has made the 21st century so dark, regressive and dangerous?

The normal thing to say is that the liberal world order is in crisis. But just saying that doesn’t explain why. Why are people rejecting liberalism? What weakness in liberalism are its enemies exploiting? What is at the root of this dark century? Let me offer one explanation.

Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity.

Many of America’s founders were fervent believers in liberal democracy — up to a point. They had a profound respect for individual virtue, but also individual frailty. Samuel Adams said, “Ambitions and lust for power … are predominant passions in the breasts of most men.” Patrick Henry admitted to feelings of dread when he contemplated the “depravity of human nature.” One delegate to the constitutional convention said that the people “lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.”

Our founders were aware that majorities are easily led by ambitious demagogues.

So our founders built a system that respected popular opinion and majority rule while trying to build guardrails to check popular passion and prejudice. The crimes of the constitutional order are by now well known. It acquiesced to the existence of slavery and prolonged that institution for nearly another century. Early democratic systems enfranchised only a small share of adult Americans. But the genius of the Constitution was in its attempt to move toward democracy while trying to prevent undue concentrations of power. The founders divided power among the branches. They built in a whole series of republican checks, so that demagogues and populist crazes would not sweep over the land.

“They designed a constitution for fallen people,” the historian Robert Tracy McKenzie writes in his book “We the Fallen People.” “Its genius lay in how it held in tension two seemingly incompatible beliefs: first, that the majority must generally prevail; and second, that the majority is predisposed to seek personal advantage above the common good.”

While the Constitution guarded against abuses of power, the founders recognized that a much more important set of civic practices would mold people to be capable of being self-governing citizens: Churches were meant to teach virtue; leaders were to receive classical education, so they might understand human virtue and vice and the fragility of democracy; everyday citizens were to lead their lives as yeoman farmers so they might learn to live simply and work hard; civic associations and local government were to instill the habits of public service; patriotic rituals were observed to instill shared love of country; newspapers and magazines were there (more in theory than in fact) to create a well-informed citizenry; etiquette rules and democratic manners were adopted to encourage social equality and mutual respect.

Think of it like farming. Planting the seeds is like establishing a democracy. But for democracy to function you have to till and fertilize the soil, erect fences, pull up weeds, prune the early growth. The founders knew that democracy is not natural. It takes a lot of cultivation to make democracy work.

American foreign policy had a second founding after World War II. For much of our history Americans were content to prosper behind the safety of the oceans. But after having been dragged into two world wars, a generation of Americans realized the old attitude wasn’t working any more and America, following the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, would have to help build a liberal world order if it was to remain secure.

The postwar generation was a bit like the founding generation. Its leaders — from Truman to George F. Kennan to Reinhold Niebuhr — championed democracy, but they had no illusions about the depravity of human beings. They’d read their history and understood that stretching back thousands of years, war, authoritarianism, exploitation, great powers crushing little ones — these were just the natural state of human societies.

If America was to be secure, Americans would have to plant the seeds of democracy, but also do all the work of cultivation so those seeds could flourish. Americans oversaw the creation of peaceful democracies from the ruins of military dictatorships in Germany and Japan. They funded the Marshall Plan. They helped build multinational institutions like NATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund. American military might stood ready to push back against the wolves who threatened the world order — sometimes effectively, as in Europe, but oftentimes, as in Vietnam and Iraq, recklessly and self-destructively. America championed democracy and human rights, at least when the Communists were violating them (not so much when our dictator allies across, say, Latin America were).

Just as America’s founders understood that democracy is not natural, the postwar generation understood that peace is not natural — it has to be tended and cultivated from the frailties of human passion and greed.

Over the past few generations that hopeful but sober view of human nature has faded. What’s been called the Culture of Narcissism took hold, with the view that human beings should be unshackled from restraint. You can trust yourself to be unselfish! Democracy and world peace were taken for granted. As Robert Kagan put it in his book “The Jungle Grows Back”: “We have lived so long inside the bubble of the liberal order that we can imagine no other kind of world. We think it is natural and normal, even inevitable.”

If people are naturally good, we no longer have to do the hard agricultural work of cultivating virtuous citizens or fighting against human frailty. The Western advisers I covered in Russia in the early 1990s thought a lot about privatization and market reforms and very little about how to prevent greedy monsters from stealing the whole country. They had a naïve view of human nature.

Even in America, over the past decades, the institutions that earlier generations thought were essential to molding a democratic citizenry have withered or malfunctioned. Many churches and media outlets have gone partisan. Civics education has receded. Neighborhood organizations have shrunk. Patriotic rituals are out of fashion.

What happens when you don’t tend the seedbeds of democracy? Chaos? War? No, you return to normal. The 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were normal. Big countries like China, Russia and Turkey are ruled by fierce leaders with massive power. That’s normal. Small aristocracies in many nations hog gigantic shares of their nations’ wealth. That’s normal. Many people come to despise cultural outsiders, like immigrants. Normal. Global affairs resembles the law of the jungle, with big countries threatening small ones. This is the way it’s been for most of human history.

In normal times, people crave order and leaders like Vladimir Putin arise to give it to them. Putin and Xi Jinping have arisen to be the 21st century’s paradigmatic men.

Putin has established political order in Russia by reviving the Russian strong state tradition and by concentrating power in the hands of one man. He has established economic order through a grand bargain with oligarch-led firms, with him as the ultimate C.E.O. As Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy write in their book, “Mr. Putin,” corruption is the glue that holds the system together. Everybody’s wealth is deliberately tainted, so Putin has the power to accuse anyone of corruption and remove anyone at any time.

He offers cultural order. He embraces the Russian Orthodox Church and rails against the postmodern godlessness of the West. He scorns homosexuality and transgenderism.

Putin has redefined global conservatism and made himself its global leader. Many conservatives around the world see Putin’s strong, manly authority, his defense of traditional values and his enthusiastic embrace of orthodox faith, and they see their aspirations in human form. Right-wing leaders from Donald Trump in the United States to Marine Le Pen in France to Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines speak of Putin admiringly.

The 21st century has become a dark century because the seedbeds of democracy have been neglected and normal historical authoritarianism is on the march. Putin and Xi seem confident that the winds of history are at their back. Writing in The Times a few weeks ago, Hill said that Putin believes the United States is in the same predicament Russia was in during the 1990s — “weakened at home and in retreat abroad.”

Putin, Xi and the other global conservatives make comprehensive critiques of liberalism and the failings of liberal society. Unlike past authoritarians they have the massive power of modern surveillance technology to control their citizens. Russian troops are on the border of Ukraine because Putin needs to create the kind of disordered world that people like him thrive in. “The problem Russia has faced since the end of the Cold War is that the greatness Putin and many Russians seek cannot be achieved in a world that is secure and stable,” Kagan writes in “The Jungle Grows Back.” “To achieve greatness on the world stage, Russia must bring the world back to a past when neither Russians nor anyone else enjoyed security.”

Will the liberals of the world be able to hold off the wolves? Strengthen democracy and preserve the rules-based world order? The events of the past few weeks have been fortifying. Joe Biden and the other world leaders have done an impressive job of rallying their collective resolve and pushing to keep Putin within his borders. But the problems of democracy and the liberal order can’t be solved from the top down. Today, across left and right, millions of Americans see U.S. efforts abroad as little more than imperialism, “endless wars” and domination. They don’t believe in the postwar project and refuse to provide popular support for it.

The real problem is in the seedbeds of democracy, the institutions that are supposed to mold a citizenry and make us qualified to practice democracy. To restore those seedbeds, we first have to relearn the wisdom of the founders: We are not as virtuous as we think we are. Americans are no better than anyone else. Democracy is not natural; it is an artificial accomplishment that takes enormous work.

Then we need to fortify the institutions that are supposed to teach the democratic skills: how to weigh evidence and commit to truth; how to correct for your own partisan blinders and learn to doubt your own opinions; how to respect people you disagree with; how to avoid catastrophism, conspiracy and apocalyptic thinking; how to avoid supporting demagogues; how to craft complex compromises.

Democrats are not born; they are made. If the 21st century is to get brighter as it goes along, we have to get a lot better at making them. We don’t only have to worry about the people tearing down democracy. We have to worry about who is building it up.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, tell TSherbs to unignore this post. It's the whole article for him.


In the early 1990s I was a roving correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, based in Europe. Some years it felt as if all I did was cover good news: the end of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians voting for independence, German reunification, the spread of democracy across Eastern Europe, Mandela coming out of prison and the end of apartheid, the Oslo peace process that seemed to bring stability to the Middle East.

I obsess about those years now. I obsess about them because the good times did not last. History is reverting toward barbarism. We have an authoritarian strongman in Russia threatening to invade his neighbor, an increasingly authoritarian China waging genocide on its people and threatening Taiwan, cyberattacks undermining the world order, democracy in retreat worldwide, thuggish populists across the West undermining nations from within.

What the hell happened? Why were the hopes of the 1990s not realized? What is the key factor that has made the 21st century so dark, regressive and dangerous?

The normal thing to say is that the liberal world order is in crisis. But just saying that doesn’t explain why. Why are people rejecting liberalism? What weakness in liberalism are its enemies exploiting? What is at the root of this dark century? Let me offer one explanation.

Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity.

Many of America’s founders were fervent believers in liberal democracy — up to a point. They had a profound respect for individual virtue, but also individual frailty. Samuel Adams said, “Ambitions and lust for power … are predominant passions in the breasts of most men.” Patrick Henry admitted to feelings of dread when he contemplated the “depravity of human nature.” One delegate to the constitutional convention said that the people “lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.”

Our founders were aware that majorities are easily led by ambitious demagogues.

So our founders built a system that respected popular opinion and majority rule while trying to build guardrails to check popular passion and prejudice. The crimes of the constitutional order are by now well known. It acquiesced to the existence of slavery and prolonged that institution for nearly another century. Early democratic systems enfranchised only a small share of adult Americans. But the genius of the Constitution was in its attempt to move toward democracy while trying to prevent undue concentrations of power. The founders divided power among the branches. They built in a whole series of republican checks, so that demagogues and populist crazes would not sweep over the land.

“They designed a constitution for fallen people,” the historian Robert Tracy McKenzie writes in his book “We the Fallen People.” “Its genius lay in how it held in tension two seemingly incompatible beliefs: first, that the majority must generally prevail; and second, that the majority is predisposed to seek personal advantage above the common good.”

While the Constitution guarded against abuses of power, the founders recognized that a much more important set of civic practices would mold people to be capable of being self-governing citizens: Churches were meant to teach virtue; leaders were to receive classical education, so they might understand human virtue and vice and the fragility of democracy; everyday citizens were to lead their lives as yeoman farmers so they might learn to live simply and work hard; civic associations and local government were to instill the habits of public service; patriotic rituals were observed to instill shared love of country; newspapers and magazines were there (more in theory than in fact) to create a well-informed citizenry; etiquette rules and democratic manners were adopted to encourage social equality and mutual respect.

Think of it like farming. Planting the seeds is like establishing a democracy. But for democracy to function you have to till and fertilize the soil, erect fences, pull up weeds, prune the early growth. The founders knew that democracy is not natural. It takes a lot of cultivation to make democracy work.

American foreign policy had a second founding after World War II. For much of our history Americans were content to prosper behind the safety of the oceans. But after having been dragged into two world wars, a generation of Americans realized the old attitude wasn’t working any more and America, following the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, would have to help build a liberal world order if it was to remain secure.

The postwar generation was a bit like the founding generation. Its leaders — from Truman to George F. Kennan to Reinhold Niebuhr — championed democracy, but they had no illusions about the depravity of human beings. They’d read their history and understood that stretching back thousands of years, war, authoritarianism, exploitation, great powers crushing little ones — these were just the natural state of human societies.

If America was to be secure, Americans would have to plant the seeds of democracy, but also do all the work of cultivation so those seeds could flourish. Americans oversaw the creation of peaceful democracies from the ruins of military dictatorships in Germany and Japan. They funded the Marshall Plan. They helped build multinational institutions like NATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund. American military might stood ready to push back against the wolves who threatened the world order — sometimes effectively, as in Europe, but oftentimes, as in Vietnam and Iraq, recklessly and self-destructively. America championed democracy and human rights, at least when the Communists were violating them (not so much when our dictator allies across, say, Latin America were).

Just as America’s founders understood that democracy is not natural, the postwar generation understood that peace is not natural — it has to be tended and cultivated from the frailties of human passion and greed.

Over the past few generations that hopeful but sober view of human nature has faded. What’s been called the Culture of Narcissism took hold, with the view that human beings should be unshackled from restraint. You can trust yourself to be unselfish! Democracy and world peace were taken for granted. As Robert Kagan put it in his book “The Jungle Grows Back”: “We have lived so long inside the bubble of the liberal order that we can imagine no other kind of world. We think it is natural and normal, even inevitable.”

If people are naturally good, we no longer have to do the hard agricultural work of cultivating virtuous citizens or fighting against human frailty. The Western advisers I covered in Russia in the early 1990s thought a lot about privatization and market reforms and very little about how to prevent greedy monsters from stealing the whole country. They had a naïve view of human nature.

Even in America, over the past decades, the institutions that earlier generations thought were essential to molding a democratic citizenry have withered or malfunctioned. Many churches and media outlets have gone partisan. Civics education has receded. Neighborhood organizations have shrunk. Patriotic rituals are out of fashion.

What happens when you don’t tend the seedbeds of democracy? Chaos? War? No, you return to normal. The 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were normal. Big countries like China, Russia and Turkey are ruled by fierce leaders with massive power. That’s normal. Small aristocracies in many nations hog gigantic shares of their nations’ wealth. That’s normal. Many people come to despise cultural outsiders, like immigrants. Normal. Global affairs resembles the law of the jungle, with big countries threatening small ones. This is the way it’s been for most of human history.

In normal times, people crave order and leaders like Vladimir Putin arise to give it to them. Putin and Xi Jinping have arisen to be the 21st century’s paradigmatic men.

Putin has established political order in Russia by reviving the Russian strong state tradition and by concentrating power in the hands of one man. He has established economic order through a grand bargain with oligarch-led firms, with him as the ultimate C.E.O. As Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy write in their book, “Mr. Putin,” corruption is the glue that holds the system together. Everybody’s wealth is deliberately tainted, so Putin has the power to accuse anyone of corruption and remove anyone at any time.

He offers cultural order. He embraces the Russian Orthodox Church and rails against the postmodern godlessness of the West. He scorns homosexuality and transgenderism.

Putin has redefined global conservatism and made himself its global leader. Many conservatives around the world see Putin’s strong, manly authority, his defense of traditional values and his enthusiastic embrace of orthodox faith, and they see their aspirations in human form. Right-wing leaders from Donald Trump in the United States to Marine Le Pen in France to Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines speak of Putin admiringly.

The 21st century has become a dark century because the seedbeds of democracy have been neglected and normal historical authoritarianism is on the march. Putin and Xi seem confident that the winds of history are at their back. Writing in The Times a few weeks ago, Hill said that Putin believes the United States is in the same predicament Russia was in during the 1990s — “weakened at home and in retreat abroad.”

Putin, Xi and the other global conservatives make comprehensive critiques of liberalism and the failings of liberal society. Unlike past authoritarians they have the massive power of modern surveillance technology to control their citizens. Russian troops are on the border of Ukraine because Putin needs to create the kind of disordered world that people like him thrive in. “The problem Russia has faced since the end of the Cold War is that the greatness Putin and many Russians seek cannot be achieved in a world that is secure and stable,” Kagan writes in “The Jungle Grows Back.” “To achieve greatness on the world stage, Russia must bring the world back to a past when neither Russians nor anyone else enjoyed security.”

Will the liberals of the world be able to hold off the wolves? Strengthen democracy and preserve the rules-based world order? The events of the past few weeks have been fortifying. Joe Biden and the other world leaders have done an impressive job of rallying their collective resolve and pushing to keep Putin within his borders. But the problems of democracy and the liberal order can’t be solved from the top down. Today, across left and right, millions of Americans see U.S. efforts abroad as little more than imperialism, “endless wars” and domination. They don’t believe in the postwar project and refuse to provide popular support for it.

The real problem is in the seedbeds of democracy, the institutions that are supposed to mold a citizenry and make us qualified to practice democracy. To restore those seedbeds, we first have to relearn the wisdom of the founders: We are not as virtuous as we think we are. Americans are no better than anyone else. Democracy is not natural; it is an artificial accomplishment that takes enormous work.

Then we need to fortify the institutions that are supposed to teach the democratic skills: how to weigh evidence and commit to truth; how to correct for your own partisan blinders and learn to doubt your own opinions; how to respect people you disagree with; how to avoid catastrophism, conspiracy and apocalyptic thinking; how to avoid supporting demagogues; how to craft complex compromises.

Democrats are not born; they are made. If the 21st century is to get brighter as it goes along, we have to get a lot better at making them. We don’t only have to worry about the people tearing down democracy. We have to worry about who is building it up.

Thanks, Tucker.👍👍

[Chuck Naill]

Regarding what Ukrainians have taught us. More from Brooks…
“ They’ve reminded us that you can believe things with greater and lesser intensity, faintly, with words, or deeply and fervently, with a conviction in your bones. They’ve reminded us how much the events of the past few years have conspired to weaken our faith in ourselves. They’ve reminded us how the setbacks and humiliations (Donald Trump, Afghanistan, racial injustice, political dysfunction) have caused us to doubt and be passive about the gospel of democracy. But despite all our failings the gospel is still glowingly true.”

[Chuck Naill]

“ It wasn’t only Zelensky. Joe Biden masterly and humbly helped organize a global coalition. Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany understood the moment. So did Emmanuel Macron of France and Fumio Kishida of Japan. Across governments, businesses and the arts, we were well led this week.”

[TSherbs]

Sorry Ted.

I’m able to gift op-Ed’s from the Times, but I thought you had a subscription. Either way, the Brooks article should have been available. My bad.

Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity.

Many of America’s founders were fervent believers in liberal democracy — up to a point. They had a profound respect for individual virtue, but also individual frailty. Samuel Adams said, “Ambitions and lust for power … are predominant passions in the breasts of most men.” Patrick Henry admitted to feelings of dread when he contemplated the “depravity of human nature.” One delegate to the constitutional convention said that the people “lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.”

Our founders were aware that majorities are easily led by ambitious demagogues.

So our founders built a system that respected popular opinion and majority rule while trying to build guardrails to check popular passion and prejudice. The crimes of the constitutional order are by now well known. It acquiesced to the existence of slavery and prolonged that institution for nearly another century. Early democratic systems enfranchised only a small share of adult Americans. But the genius of the Constitution was in its attempt to move toward democracy while trying to prevent undue concentrations of power. The founders divided power among the branches. They built in a whole series of republican checks, so that demagogues and populist crazes would not sweep over the land.

“They designed a constitution for fallen people,” the historian Robert Tracy McKenzie writes in his book “We the Fallen People.” “Its genius lay in how it held in tension two seemingly incompatible beliefs: first, that the majority must generally prevail; and second, that the majority is predisposed to seek personal advantage above the common good.”

ok, I see now. Brooks was discussing "liberal democracy" as opposed to dictatorship, tyranny, oligarchy, etc. He isn't trying to define liberal politics versus conservative politics in the sense of political parties. He is talking about modern democracy versus things like autocracy, etc.

[Chuck Naill]

I took it as more than liberal politics, but a way of thinking about diversity.
"Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity. For me, this is what it means to be liberal.

[TSherbs]

I took it as more than liberal politics, but a way of thinking about diversity.
"Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity. For me, this is what it means to be liberal.

Conservatives (outside of religious conservatives) agree wholeheartedly that there is "no one best way to live," and that especially their government should not be telling them what that "best way" is. This is the heart of political American conservatisim (outside of religious conservatism).

[Chuck Naill]

I took it as more than liberal politics, but a way of thinking about diversity.
"Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity. For me, this is what it means to be liberal.

Conservatives (outside of religious conservatives) agree wholeheartedly that there is "no one best way to live," and that especially their government should not be telling them what that "best way" is. This is the heart of political American conservatisim (outside of religious conservatism).

I have not reason to think you are correct.

[TSherbs]

I took it as more than liberal politics, but a way of thinking about diversity.
"Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity. For me, this is what it means to be liberal.

Conservatives (outside of religious conservatives) agree wholeheartedly that there is "no one best way to live," and that especially their government should not be telling them what that "best way" is. This is the heart of political American conservatisim (outside of religious conservatism).

I have not reason to think you are correct.

Maybe you could ask some conservatives here if they believe that there is only one way to live (outside of the Christian conservatives). I am trying not to speak too much for them. They can speak for themselves.

[Chuck Naill]

I took it as more than liberal politics, but a way of thinking about diversity.
"Liberalism is a way of life built on respect for the dignity of each individual. A liberal order, John Stuart Mill suggested, is one in which people are free to conduct “experiments in living” so you wind up with “a large variety in types of character.” There’s no one best way to live, so liberals celebrate freedom, personal growth and diversity. For me, this is what it means to be liberal.

Conservatives (outside of religious conservatives) agree wholeheartedly that there is "no one best way to live," and that especially their government should not be telling them what that "best way" is. This is the heart of political American conservatisim (outside of religious conservatism).

I have not reason to think you are correct.

Maybe you could ask some conservatives here if they believe that there is only one way to live (outside of the Christian conservatives). I am trying not to speak too much for them. They can speak for themselves.

I’m trying to stay within the boundaries of Brook’s descriptions. Plus, US conservatives do not have a history of initiating human rights over the last 65 years .

Thing is, since the US is a “Christian nation” separation between those that aren’t is complicated.

[Chip]

Thing is, since the US is a “Christian nation” separation between those that aren’t is complicated.

There's a profound separation between those who profess to be Christians (and act as racists, fascists, sexual predators, and corrupt criminals) and the decent people, whether professed Christians or not, who would never hide behind their religious beliefs.

[TSherbs]

Thing is, since the US is a “Christian nation”...

That is a misnomer. Are you calling it this? Or are you quoting others that do?

[TSherbs]

Thing is, since the US is a “Christian nation” separation between those that aren’t is complicated.

There's a profound separation between those who profess to be Christians (and act as racists, fascists, sexual predators, and corrupt criminals) and the decent people, whether professed Christians or not, who would never hide behind their religious beliefs.

Either way, liberal democracy is not Christian (not aligned with any particular faith).

[Chuck Naill]

We know the US democracy, when considering the founding documents were rooted in the framers' religious affiliations.

[dneal]

We know the US democracy, when considering the founding documents were rooted in the framers' religious affiliations.

Like the deist Jefferson? The atheist Paine? or the christian Washington?

[Chuck Naill]

We know the US democracy, when considering the founding documents were rooted in the framers' religious affiliations.

Like the deist Jefferson? The atheist Paine? or the christian Washington?

Yes.

[TSherbs]

We know the US democracy, when considering the founding documents were rooted in the framers' religious affiliations.
Only *some* of them. Some of them quite *not* so.

And they purposely built a document that protected *against* any one religious view or practice becoming officially endorsed or promoted or required by the government. It is not historically a *Christian* act to go to the streets and say, "We promise never to expect you to be Christian." I don't recall that Jesus or Paul or any other apostle said that being Christian meant *not* encouraging others to be Christian. In fact, wasn't it the opposite??

[Chuck Naill]

We know the US democracy, when considering the founding documents were rooted in the framers' religious affiliations.
Only *some* of them. Some of them quite *not* so.

And they purposely built a document that protected *against* any one religious view or practice becoming officially endorsed or promoted or required by the government. It is not historically a *Christian* act to go to the streets and say, "We promise never to expect you to be Christian." I don't recall that Jesus or Paul or any other apostle said that being Christian meant *not* encouraging others to be Christian. In fact, wasn't it the opposite??

It was more, "as you go make disciples" rather than suggesting others become Christians. I have no idea what being a Christian means anymore.
When I read the founding documents, I can see the religious influence. Perhaps yoiu can't.

[TSherbs]

We know the US democracy, when considering the founding documents were rooted in the framers' religious affiliations.
Only *some* of them. Some of them quite *not* so.

And they purposely built a document that protected *against* any one religious view or practice becoming officially endorsed or promoted or required by the government. It is not historically a *Christian* act to go to the streets and say, "We promise never to expect you to be Christian." I don't recall that Jesus or Paul or any other apostle said that being Christian meant *not* encouraging others to be Christian. In fact, wasn't it the opposite??

It was more, "as you go make disciples" rather than suggesting others become Christians. I have no idea what being a Christian means anymore.
When I read the founding documents, I can see the religious influence. Perhaps yoiu can't.

yes, "disciples" for Christ (of course)

But our founding documents are not at all about this. In fact, the Constitution specifically protects *against* it.

Are you familiar with the "Jefferson Bible"? Jefferson did not belive in the deity of Jesus, and cut out of his Bible all of the miracles and all of the references to Jesus as God or son of God. He thought that that was balderdash. Not your typical "Christian" by term.

[Chuck Naill]

We know the US democracy, when considering the founding documents were rooted in the framers' religious affiliations.
Only *some* of them. Some of them quite *not* so.

And they purposely built a document that protected *against* any one religious view or practice becoming officially endorsed or promoted or required by the government. It is not historically a *Christian* act to go to the streets and say, "We promise never to expect you to be Christian." I don't recall that Jesus or Paul or any other apostle said that being Christian meant *not* encouraging others to be Christian. In fact, wasn't it the opposite??

It was more, "as you go make disciples" rather than suggesting others become Christians. I have no idea what being a Christian means anymore.
When I read the founding documents, I can see the religious influence. Perhaps yoiu can't.

yes, "disciples" for Christ (of course)

But our founding documents are not at all about this. In fact, the Constitution specifically protects *against* it.

Are you familiar with the "Jefferson Bible"? Jefferson did not belive in the deity of Jesus, and cut out of his Bible all of the miracles and all of the references to Jesus as God or son of God. He thought that that was balderdash. Not your typical "Christian" by term.

Yes, against some, but not all religions. Christianity was familar and known. Not so much with being a Jew or other.

Yes, I am familar with the concept of the jeff bible. I've read Tomas Paine's Age of Reason.

[TSherbs]

We know the US democracy, when considering the founding documents were rooted in the framers' religious affiliations.
Only *some* of them. Some of them quite *not* so.

And they purposely built a document that protected *against* any one religious view or practice becoming officially endorsed or promoted or required by the government. It is not historically a *Christian* act to go to the streets and say, "We promise never to expect you to be Christian." I don't recall that Jesus or Paul or any other apostle said that being Christian meant *not* encouraging others to be Christian. In fact, wasn't it the opposite??

It was more, "as you go make disciples" rather than suggesting others become Christians. I have no idea what being a Christian means anymore.
When I read the founding documents, I can see the religious influence. Perhaps yoiu can't.

yes, "disciples" for Christ (of course)

But our founding documents are not at all about this. In fact, the Constitution specifically protects *against* it.

Are you familiar with the "Jefferson Bible"? Jefferson did not belive in the deity of Jesus, and cut out of his Bible all of the miracles and all of the references to Jesus as God or son of God. He thought that that was balderdash. Not your typical "Christian" by term.

Yes, against some, but not all religions.

Yes, *all* religions, Chuck. The First Amendment protects against the establishment of any and all religious faiths. Whether familiar or not.

[Lloyd]

Thing is, since the US is a “Christian nation”...

That is a misnomer. Are you calling it this? Or are you quoting others that do?
Have you looked at the official Federal holidays? There's one religious holiday in the list. You want to guess which religion it belongs to?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Thing is, since the US is a “Christian nation”...

That is a misnomer. Are you calling it this? Or are you quoting others that do?
Have you looked at the official Federal holidays? There's one religious holiday in the list. You want to guess which religion it belongs to?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Is religious attendance required that day?

Our country has a *bias,* that is readily clear. Just notice the billboards as you drive through the Bible Belt. Or the number of churches you pass driving through my town in Maine: churches--4, stoplights--0.

[Chuck Naill]

Evangelical churches have a history of splitting over the most minor of issues. Couple this with thinking the only true way is their way. It is easy to see how a Hindu, Muslem, or Jewish adherent can be an outcast. Then add it a good amount of cult type philosophies where those disciples really think their way is the only way. I remember Mitt Romney was not supported or even liked for being Mormon. What is truly remarkable is that the same who didn't like Romney, embraced Trump. Go figure, as they say.

[Chuck Naill]

Found this today...
" America and liberal societies in general can often look and act dumb and divided — until they aren’t. Ask Adolf Hitler."

The US and it's NATO allies may look weak and divided at times until they are not. If the war in Ukraine has taught anything, it is we need each other.

[Chuck Naill]

"People want their biggest life. Human beings these days want to have full, rich lives and make the most of their potential. The liberal ideal is that people should be left as free as possible to construct their own ideal. "
David Brooks

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Except that the ideal that a great many people seem to want to construct (their biggest life) is actually a copy of the whole or the components parts of various celebrities. This has nothing whatsoever to do with seeking the best of of what we are capable of.

[Chip]

The notion that we ought to strive for a "biggest life" is rather quaint, when so many are struggling for mere survival. But then I seldom agree with Brooks, or breathe the atmosphere of his neo-liberal bubble.

[Chuck Naill]

So, rich, full lives, making the most of their potential are out of style?

There are folks who hate the concept of being a male in a females body. There are folks who think being gay is a pathology. There are folks that think two women being married and adopting wrong. The reason I know is I used to think the same. However, I never thought black and brown people deserved less or told them to get a job.

Age is a wonderful thing. Age consistently teaches you that your perceptions as a younger person were not always true.

[Chip]

The whole riff depends on what you mean by big.

There's a present drift to downsizing: making the most with less money, less consumption, less resource exploitation and exported misery, smaller houses and cars, etc. There are too many among us who want enormous lives.

[Chuck Naill]

Most Americans want to be able to live in a safe place, raise a family, and nurture their offspring educationally and socially.

You are doing what others do and thinking about the extremes.

Policy cannot be dominated by the extremes.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Define a full rich life, one that is not based on hegemonic trends.

[Chip]

You are doing what others do and thinking about the extremes.

Your assumptions are wrong– I've not lived the average American life. Apart from your insults about solar panels, etc. you don't know what I do or how I think.

[Chuck Naill]

Define a full rich life, one that is not based on hegemonic trends.

That's for each of us to decide. Brooks says the most important thing is to be relevant. There are wealthy and intelligent people who may not feel they are relevant. I am not saying Brooks is right, but it did resonate with me.

[Chuck Naill]

You are doing what others do and thinking about the extremes.

Your assumptions are wrong– I've not lived the average American life. Apart from your insults about solar panels, etc. you don't know what I do or how I think.

My comments were not directed toward you personally, but the idea of extremities as an argument against.

I don't recall anything I said about solar panels, but I did learn they may need periodic maintenance that could be expensive.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Define a full rich life, one that is not based on hegemonic trends.

That's for each of us to decide. Brooks says the most important thing is to be relevant. There are wealthy and intelligent people who may not feel they are relevant. I am not saying Brooks is right, but it did resonate with me.

Side-stepping. And what does 'be relevant' even mean here? It's easy to toss around generalities and catchwords without bothering to explore and/or explain.

[Chuck Naill]

Define a full rich life, one that is not based on hegemonic trends.

That's for each of us to decide. Brooks says the most important thing is to be relevant. There are wealthy and intelligent people who may not feel they are relevant. I am not saying Brooks is right, but it did resonate with me.

Side-stepping. And what does 'be relevant' even mean here? It's easy to toss around generalities and catchwords without bothering to explore and/or explain.

Does your life have a significant impact on what is being considered or accomplished in your sphere of influence? Would others say you’ve helped them or made a difference in their lives? Have you coached, mentored, financially supported someone or something for which you cannot personally benefit? Upon your death would others say your life mattered?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

This is your interpretation of 'being relevant'. Other people will almost certainly have a variety of differing views. Respect that.

By the way, there is literally nothing that you can do for another person that doesn't personally benefit you in one way or another. All actions in the human sphere have a transactional component to them.

[Chip]

[QUOTE=Chip;359049][QUOTE=Chuck Naill;359015]I don't recall anything I said about solar panels, but I did learn they may need periodic maintenance that could be expensive.

https://i.imgur.com/kti8oC1.jpg
It wasn't even your fight, mate. I apologized to EoC for my bad manners, but you never apologized for yours.

[Chuck Naill]

This is your interpretation of 'being relevant'. Other people will almost certainly have a variety of differing views. Respect that.

By the way, there is literally nothing that you can do for another person that doesn't personally benefit you in one way or another. All actions in the human sphere have a transactional component to them.

I do respect their views, but you insisted on more. As I said, if you want to be relevant, it is up to you to decide on the definition. Of course, relevancy might not matter to everyone, and they are free to disagree with Brooks.

There are unselfish acts. While it may give you a good feeling, the motivation was not to achieve a good feeling. Loving you neighbor as you love yourself comes to mind. Nothing wrong with loving yourself. Treating others are you would want to be treated is also a concept to consider.

[Chuck Naill]

[QUOTE=Chip;359049][QUOTE=Chuck Naill;359015]I don't recall anything I said about solar panels, but I did learn they may need periodic maintenance that could be expensive.

https://i.imgur.com/kti8oC1.jpg
It wasn't even your fight, mate. I apologized to EoC for my bad manners, but you never apologized for yours.

I apologize. My words were totally inappropriate, Chip. While I have no remembrance of what you wrote, there are much better ways to have said what I felt needed to be said at the time.

[Chip]

Accepted.

Let's call it good.