User Tag List

First 1927282930 Last

Results 281 to 290 of 295

  1. #281
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearchingforPeace View Post
    The US president should focus on improving things for the citizens of the USA, first and foremost. And Reagan challenged the evil empire, which was evil, in fact, and worldwide communism, when no one else believed it possible. And won. I suspect citizens of former Soviet puppets states appreciate what Reagan did for them, even if you seem to not understand.

    He didn't divide his constituents, he united them in support of the country. The USA in 1980 was on the path to being a failed state. If you had asked political scientists in 1980 which superpower was more likely to fail, I suspect that 95+% would have said the USA. That was Reagan succeeding, again.

    Reagan had a vision for the country that including personal freedom and fairness. Overburden of regulation limits personal freedom and welfare cheats attack fairness. The air traffic controllers were illegally striking, and endangered the country.......

    There is a reason 89% of the country approves of his presidency and 69% say he was outstanding as president. To dislike his presidency really puts you into a very small minority. link that is pretty unified.

    And no, he was nothing like Trump but you really seem incapable of understanding that. "White, male fears" is sexist and bigoted, btw....but you knew that.
    So it is unfair to make any generalizations about white men? What an odd definition of bigotry. You can read countless articles nowadays about how effectively Trump has been reaching out to the same consituency. I suppose all those are written by bigots, too. Come to think of it, if this is a deliberate campaign strategy on the part of Trump, that must make him a bigot, too. Well, I won't dispute that.

    I can think of lots of other reasons why so many people still idolize Reagan, willful ignorance being at the top of the list. I doubt I will be around to see the judgment of history agree with me, so we will simply need to agree to disagree on this.

    As for the USSR, most analysts agree that it was already on its last legs before Reagan even took office, decay from within that only surfaced when Reagan could claim credit. Might as well attribute it to all those prayers to Our Lady of Fatima. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see now how these things really did play out.


    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    If you go by "black and white" as a criterion, then, shit, it's all wedge issues as far as the eye can see. Politics does not equal "reasonable discussion". Politics is where all the difficult issues go because people cannot easily come to an agreement. Lack of agreement and arguing for your own side is par for the course. Rather, politicians engage in negotiation. The problem in recent years is that some major players have been so ideological that they saw no purpose in trying to persuade members of the opposition that negotiation seems to be a bit of a lost art form. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal both engaged in strong rhetoric, but they negotiated and agreed on legislation.
    Exactly, and some politicians are more willing and able than others to make good and heavy use of this tactic. I said Reagan was a master of it, but many of today's politicians have him beat by a mile, which comes out in the comparison you make. I have used the example of Reagan and O'Neill myself as an illustration of how even those who are ideological opposites can actually get something done when there is a will to compromise.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #282
    breaking out of my cocoon SearchingforPeace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    6,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    So it is unfair to make any generalizations about white men? What an odd definition of bigotry. You can read countless articles nowadays about how effectively Trump has been reaching out to the same consituency. I suppose all those are written by bigots, too. Come to think of it, if this is a deliberate campaign strategy on the part of Trump, that must make him a bigot, too. Well, I won't dispute that.
    No, it is sexist and bigoted to lump all "white men" together and assign some "fears" to them. Are you a psychologist? Will you diagnose all white men with certain fears? Do you claim only "white men" have these "fears"? Or do you merely seek to delegitimize opposing views by assigning them the title "white male fears"?

    Strange that Trump isn't just supported by white males and that a very large number of the white males I know are as disgusted with Trump as we are with Hillary. I guess we really are not white males. Damn, there goes my white male privilege card.

    And yes, many partisan lefties project all sorts of their own fears on conservatives. As Haidt writes in The Righteous Mind, most lefties do not even begin to comprehend conservatives and project all sorts of wrong things on them, while conservatives actually know and understand lefties. Haidt himself, a liberal, was shocked by his findings.

    And you have proven where you fit ideologically over and over, while thinking you keep it hidden.

    I can think of lots of other reasons why so many people still idolize Reagan, willful ignorance being at the top of the list. I doubt I will be around to see the judgment of history agree with me, so we will simply need to agree to disagree on this.
    Lol. Sorry, but you really can't see. Keep telling yourself that everyone else is willfully ignorant. I suspect it keeps you feeling comfortable and superior to all us ignoramuses out here.

    FYI, the judgment of history tends to lower the support for Democrats and raise the support for Republicans. Lefty academics are usually very biased about contemporary affairs but gain clarity in time. For ex., Ike is shooting up in reputation while Wilson and Truman are rapidly declining. So, I expect you will continue to be disappointed.....

    As for the USSR, most analysts agree that it was already on its last legs before Reagan even took office, decay from within that only surfaced when Reagan could claim credit. Might as well attribute it to all those prayers to Our Lady of Fatima. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see now how these things really did play out.
    Wrong again, but I have posted extensively before rebutting this falsity. No analyst forecast the fall of the Soviet Union. They were certain it would last for a long time.

    What they genetally agree is Reagan's fierce opposition to the Soviet Union and the arms build up and SDI all led to the collapse (in other words, Reagan did it). The Soviet Union could not compete economically with Reagan's resurrgent America. Reagan went against the advice of the professionals to confront the Soviet Union.

    Funny how top presidential and foreign policy historians I knew (ultra lefties and absolutely brilliant) had zero problem crediting Reagan.

    In 1992, I attended a lecture by a Russian military strategist (fascinating lecture on Russian development of combined arms tactics) that I spoke with for an hour after the lecture (and he gave me his notes) and he credited Reagan.

    I also talked at length with a then sitting National Security Advisor and he credited Reagan.

    i had a great discussion with a Hungarian historian about 8 years ago and he credited Reagan.

    Anyone trying to discount Reagan really is just showing themself to be a partisan hack, because the professionals don't do that. But hey, I can tell you have a visceral and abiding hatred of Reagan so it is absolutely useless to discuss the matter with you anymore.

    Exactly, and some politicians are more willing and able than others to make good and heavy use of this tactic. I said Reagan was a master of it, but many of today's politicians have him beat by a mile, which comes out in the comparison you make. I have used the example of Reagan and O'Neill myself as an illustration of how even those who are ideological opposites can actually get something done when there is a will to compromise.
    The difference is that Ron and Tip shared many common principles and spent time together developing trust.

    But you haven't shown understanding of what a wedge issue really is and how it works, which is how this entire discussion started......
    Quote Originally Posted by Archilochus
    The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one.
    And I am not a hedgehog......

    -------------------

    Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" not "blessed are the conflict avoiders.....

    9w8 6w5 4w5 sx/so

    ----------------------

    “Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984
    Likes ZNP-TBA liked this post

  3. #283
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    It's a fair trade: every american should have the right to use weapons to equalize self-defense capabilities and the right to be randomly shot in any nightclub. Tug life...
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  4. #284
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,694

    Default

    I think that the "problem" is comming from history and the fact that American mainland never had real " war baptization", since it was never openly invaded with modern war machinery. Therefore locals have this individualistic sense of relating to each other since the collective was never in real jeopardy or suffered losses in tens of millions on their own soil (women and children included). Therefore collective consciousness is not that well developed and people believe/think that they can solve their own issues and that constitution was made forever. What is true to some degree since the collective didn't trully experience immediate problem in their own backyard that will require tigh collective collaboration. Probably the main reason why America still didn't recover from 9/11 is because that day was a bleep in history that questioned all the premises on which the country was founded.


    While countries that experienced large scale destruction on their soil and/or experienced how small or weak their country is understand much better the value of collective strength or diplomacy. Especially since pictures/videos of leveled cities cause repulsive thought towards violence, plus it is know that if a stronger country invades that individualized resistance with light firearms simply will not be enough to solve the problem.


    My 2 cents.
    Likes ZNP-TBA liked this post

  5. #285
    Privileged Sh!tlord ZNP-TBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Virtual ghost View Post
    I think that the "problem" is comming from history and the fact that American mainland never had real " war baptization", since it was never openly invaded with modern war machinery. Therefore locals have this individualistic sense of relating to each other since the collective was never in real jeopardy or suffered losses in tens of millions on their own soil (women and children included). Therefore collective consciousness is not that well developed and people believe/think that they can solve their own issues and that constitution was made forever. What is true to some degree since the collective didn't trully experience immediate problem in their own backyard that will require tigh collective collaboration. Probably the main reason why America still didn't recover from 9/11 is because that day was a bleep in history that questioned all the premises on which the country was founded.


    While countries that experienced large scale destruction on their soil and/or experienced how small or weak their country is understand much better the value of collective strength or diplomacy. Especially since pictures/videos of leveled cities cause repulsive thought towards violence, plus it is know that if a stronger country invades that individualized resistance with light firearms simply will not be enough to solve the problem.


    My 2 cents.
    Interesting perspective and and I see where it's coming from I think because I share a common heritage with you except that I'm also American. Collectivization is much tougher in America than in Croatia or the Ex-Yugo countries. America has a deep history of republicanism (small 'r' intended since it's not the actual Party but the ideology) but also a deep history of Federalism which is more 'collective' in comparison. The questions of individualism vs. collectivism have always been at the forefront of American politics since the country's inception. Even during the American Revolution a couple centuries ago not all of the colonies were exactly 'united' which made a future Civil War predictable.

    One of the main reasons for this, in my opinion, is diversity. The more diverse and multicultural America becomes the more collectivism actually becomes difficult though the imperative to impress it by the government is increased. Weird huh? Collectivism is easy in Croatia for the most part. Croatia is 90% Croat and 90% Catholic. Even the minorities like Serbs, Bosniaks, and Slovenians are not all that different from Cros. Almost everyone there shares a common history, common language, common culture, and 90% common religion. This is why I notice American culture is more 'cold' and 'distant' compared to Croatian which seems more 'warm' and 'inclusive.' It's simple as to why. I walk around Croatia and I know I share a common culture, customs, history, and folklore with even with complete strangers. I never met you but I already know you and I have a lot more in common than I would with anyone else here even if we have some different political opinions. We already understand elements about each other that a person outside our culture here simply wouldn't even if we explained it. I know what Cro parents/family are like and what it's like growing up as an NT in THAT

    America isn't like that. Here you have a 'lonac' of all kinds of people who do not share common roots. There is more inherent distrust because there is less inherent understanding. Sure, people who worship at the alter at diversity clamor for more government programs in order force us to embrace diversity so that they can superficially eliminate the real differences but it usually doesn't work and just ends up causing more division actually. Individualism here works because it allows us to function sanely in a multicultural society
    Likes SpankyMcFly, uumlau liked this post

  6. #286
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    America is based on on idea rather than a culture. So America is ideological rather than cultural or ethnic.

    So America looks to the future rather than the past.

    But perhaps more than anything America is based on print and indeed on the first printed book in the world, the Bible.

    However the world has changed and now the book is the content of the internet. This changes the status and meaning of the book. And it changes the very way we see the world.

    So we see a split in America between those who cling to the values of the book, and those who experience the world differently on the internet.

    In short, the book creates the literate individual, while the net creates electronic tribalism.

    And so we are seeing the split between the individual and the new tribe.

    This promises to be uncomfortable.

  7. #287
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearchingforPeace View Post
    No, it is sexist and bigoted to lump all "white men" together and assign some "fears" to them. Are you a psychologist? Will you diagnose all white men with certain fears? Do you claim only "white men" have these "fears"? Or do you merely seek to delegitimize opposing views by assigning them the title "white male fears"?

    Strange that Trump isn't just supported by white males and that a very large number of the white males I know are as disgusted with Trump as we are with Hillary. I guess we really are not white males. Damn, there goes my white male privilege card.

    And yes, many partisan lefties project all sorts of their own fears on conservatives. As Haidt writes in The Righteous Mind, most lefties do not even begin to comprehend conservatives and project all sorts of wrong things on them, while conservatives actually know and understand lefties. Haidt himself, a liberal, was shocked by his findings.

    And you have proven where you fit ideologically over and over, while thinking you keep it hidden.


    Lol. Sorry, but you really can't see. Keep telling yourself that everyone else is willfully ignorant. I suspect it keeps you feeling comfortable and superior to all us ignoramuses out here.

    FYI, the judgment of history tends to lower the support for Democrats and raise the support for Republicans. Lefty academics are usually very biased about contemporary affairs but gain clarity in time. For ex., Ike is shooting up in reputation while Wilson and Truman are rapidly declining. So, I expect you will continue to be disappointed.....

    Wrong again, but I have posted extensively before rebutting this falsity. No analyst forecast the fall of the Soviet Union. They were certain it would last for a long time.

    What they genetally agree is Reagan's fierce opposition to the Soviet Union and the arms build up and SDI all led to the collapse (in other words, Reagan did it). The Soviet Union could not compete economically with Reagan's resurrgent America. Reagan went against the advice of the professionals to confront the Soviet Union.

    Funny how top presidential and foreign policy historians I knew (ultra lefties and absolutely brilliant) had zero problem crediting Reagan.

    In 1992, I attended a lecture by a Russian military strategist (fascinating lecture on Russian development of combined arms tactics) that I spoke with for an hour after the lecture (and he gave me his notes) and he credited Reagan.

    I also talked at length with a then sitting National Security Advisor and he credited Reagan.

    i had a great discussion with a Hungarian historian about 8 years ago and he credited Reagan.

    Anyone trying to discount Reagan really is just showing themself to be a partisan hack, because the professionals don't do that. But hey, I can tell you have a visceral and abiding hatred of Reagan so it is absolutely useless to discuss the matter with you anymore.
    The notion of "white, male fears" is not mine, nor are the conclusions I have repeated about President Reagan and the demise of the USSR. The last in particular is based on more than the individual opinions of a few people with an obvious stake or role in what transpired. But I am not going to pursue this line of discussion because (1) it is off topic, and (2) I do not have the time to assemble the necessary documentation to support it properly.

    What I will discuss is the highlighted statements above. None has any place in a civil discussion. Several border on ad-hominem attacks. Several others attempt to tell me what I am thinking and feeling, the one area where I absolutely do know more than you.

    Normally I ignore such chaff to focus on the grains of wheat in the discussion, but you respond this way so often, to so many members, I decided finally to point it out. While the comments above might not be strictly against the rules, you are doing no service to yourself, to other members, or to the exchange of information by posting in this manner.

    (Yes, this is off-topic, too, but will be my one and only comment on the matter, here.)
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Hard liked this post

  8. #288
    breaking out of my cocoon SearchingforPeace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    6,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The notion of "white, male fears" is not mine, nor are the conclusions I have repeated about President Reagan and the demise of the USSR. The last in particular is based on more than the individual opinions of a few people with an obvious stake or role in what transpired. But I am not going to pursue this line of discussion because (1) it is off topic, and (2) I do not have the time to assemble the necessary documentation to support it properly.

    What I will discuss is the highlighted statements above. None has any place in a civil discussion. Several border on ad-hominem attacks. Several others attempt to tell me what I am thinking and feeling, the one area where I absolutely do know more than you.

    Normally I ignore such chaff to focus on the grains of wheat in the discussion, but you respond this way so often, to so many members, I decided finally to point it out. While the comments above might not be strictly against the rules, you are doing no service to yourself, to other members, or to the exchange of information by posting in this manner.

    (Yes, this is off-topic, too, but will be my one and only comment on the matter, here.)
    I will no longer respond to any of your posts since I can't put you on ignore. You truly seem to neither understand the discussion and the ideas you convey. The highighted words merely hit too close to home, I guess.

    Calling someone on their own words is very much part of a civil discussion.

    The first highlighted portion directly looks at your words and questions your word choice and meaning.

    The second mere points out that your consistency in your POV does place you in an ideological sphere. I didn't label which one.

    The third is directly quoting your words. You said "willful ignorance" was why the vast majority of the country doesn't see things your way.

    The fourth is discussing political scientists and historians. As I cited why those that try to hold a partisan view are partisan, i.e. political hack.

    The fifth is clear to anyone who reads your posts. You are free to label it how you want, but you are not free to tell others what they perceive about you.

    None is out of line in a civil discussion. Of course, in a civil discussion, parties actually address the points made by the other. In a civil discussion, often uncomfortable truths come out and people get irritated. In a civil discussion, one party may be shown to lack a strong position, causing that person to get bothered by the discussion. In a civil discussion, one party may actually admit the other person is correct rather than dig deeper.

    I, of course, am only putting forth my opinion based upon your posts of what I believe you to be thinking and feeling ("I suspect"). Some actually look at the words others use and address these words so as to understand the person.

    If the mod squad wants to warn me, have it warn me. This isn't a warning but a representation of something far different. As much as I want to explicitly describe in great detail exactly what this is, I will refrain. But, lol.......

    But I am done trying to discuss with you. Please refrain from quoting me. Do not expect you will get any response from me. I would put you on ignore if I could. Have a nice life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archilochus
    The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one.
    And I am not a hedgehog......

    -------------------

    Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" not "blessed are the conflict avoiders.....

    9w8 6w5 4w5 sx/so

    ----------------------

    “Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

  9. #289
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #290
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZNP-TBA View Post
    Interesting perspective and and I see where it's coming from I think because I share a common heritage with you except that I'm also American. Collectivization is much tougher in America than in Croatia or the Ex-Yugo countries. America has a deep history of republicanism (small 'r' intended since it's not the actual Party but the ideology) but also a deep history of Federalism which is more 'collective' in comparison. The questions of individualism vs. collectivism have always been at the forefront of American politics since the country's inception. Even during the American Revolution a couple centuries ago not all of the colonies were exactly 'united' which made a future Civil War predictable.

    One of the main reasons for this, in my opinion, is diversity. The more diverse and multicultural America becomes the more collectivism actually becomes difficult though the imperative to impress it by the government is increased. Weird huh? Collectivism is easy in Croatia for the most part. Croatia is 90% Croat and 90% Catholic. Even the minorities like Serbs, Bosniaks, and Slovenians are not all that different from Cros. Almost everyone there shares a common history, common language, common culture, and 90% common religion. This is why I notice American culture is more 'cold' and 'distant' compared to Croatian which seems more 'warm' and 'inclusive.' It's simple as to why. I walk around Croatia and I know I share a common culture, customs, history, and folklore with even with complete strangers. I never met you but I already know you and I have a lot more in common than I would with anyone else here even if we have some different political opinions. We already understand elements about each other that a person outside our culture here simply wouldn't even if we explained it. I know what Cro parents/family are like and what it's like growing up as an NT in THAT

    America isn't like that. Here you have a 'lonac' of all kinds of people who do not share common roots. There is more inherent distrust because there is less inherent understanding. Sure, people who worship at the alter at diversity clamor for more government programs in order force us to embrace diversity so that they can superficially eliminate the real differences but it usually doesn't work and just ends up causing more division actually. Individualism here works because it allows us to function sanely in a multicultural society

    I was thinking if I will reply to this or not ... and I will.


    You are right that America is "lonac" but in a sense Croatia is as well since various groups had control over this territory and various religions effected this area. Not nearly as USA but the factor is still observable if you scratch the surface. Istria, Slavonia and Dubrovnik ... totally different stories.


    Also you can relate to me since I was rised in more western/intellectual way and we can find common langauge. However I am uncertain how would you deal with many more average Croats who live here. Due to cultural reasons I am by American standards very left while in Croatia I can even come as "Capitalist pig". There are also countless examples of Croats who came back into the land of their grandfathers but they moved back from where they came from within 6 months since they couldn't stand the "modern Croatian culture" and "socialism". Therefore since you declare yourself as Trump supporter and generally libertarian I simply don't see you fitting in here any time soon. Comming as a "tourist" for a few weeks is one thing but living here is another thing. I am willing to bet that you would have easier time to hang out with many Americans than these guys ...







    In other words even if there are no differences most people will invent them so that they have someone to hate. This may depend on which part of the country you are from or which sport club has your sympathies. It even happens that various sport fan groups mark some random field in the middle of the nowhere and then they just fight each other there. We don't have the differences as Amarica so we simply invented ours out of nothing.






    This is also one of the reasons why I am anti guns since Croats armed was American public ... that would be a massacre or civil war. This way at least the problem stays at a few incidents and physical injuries ... and country remains generally calm and witout classical street violence.


    I know that I am digging out the nasties of Croatia but saying that we are unified nation is simply wrong. In America at least everybody believes in Constitution, founding fathers or something while here this is "whatever". In America you can be fairly sure that the goverment will remain standing while here you have new system, new government, new currency and new borders with each new generation. Yeah, we may look alike but that doesn't mean that we are trully one and we have serious divides about most Americans doesn't even think about.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 11:20 PM
  2. Women's equality: demanding equal rights without offering equal behavior since 1872
    By netzealot in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 262
    Last Post: 03-12-2013, 01:03 PM
  3. Te and Fe are always 'right'
    By PeaceBaby in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-23-2013, 06:26 AM
  4. The "Guns Are Evil" vs. "Guns Are Good" Thread
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 526
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 06:53 PM
  5. The "Guns Are Evil" vs. Thread
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 10:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO