https://youtu.be/c4dSUn-1UU0?t=42s
(the relevant part is 42 seconds in)
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/59f10742180000360ddfc48f.png?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
51% of Dems - a majority - have a favorable view of George W. Bush now. (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/george-w-bush-democratic-opinion-poll_us_59f0c60be4b092dad3bb3fed) While he was in office, that figure was just 7%. Seven percent. That's "would you like to be kicked in the balls?" numbers.
What changed?
To the best of my knowledge, most of it is because Dubya came out against Trump. That's apparently all you have to do to get Democrats to like you these days. The enemy of my enemy...
The rest might be a false sense of nostalgia for the "good ol' days" before the Dark Reign of Trump. In those "good" times, the headline was Bush Sr insisting, "My son is not a warmonger." People were calling W a war criminal and threw around empty threats of dragging him to the Hague.
Granted, I'll allow that the person of George W. Bush seems to be very different from my impression of his during years as Prez - he comes across as far more thoughtful and compassionate than I previously gave him credit. How much of that is due to the lack of Darth Cheney by his side is unknown.
While as a person, I think he's not quite as bad as he was made out to be, his administration is much less likable. We got:
* A preemptive war under false pretenses (as bad as Trump is, he has yet to give us one of those)
* The Patriot Act
* Gitmo
* support for torture and secret prisons
* a tax cut primarily for the rich (https://www.cbpp.org/research/bush-tax-cuts-have-provided-extremely-large-benefits-to-wealthiest-americans-over-last-nine)
* blocked stem cell research
* opposed gay marriage (I sincerely hope none of Dubya's admirers are gay Americans)
* refused to take serious action to combat climate change, much like Trump (to his credit, at least Dubya believes it's real and not a chinese hoax)
* supported creationism 2.0 (aka intelligent design) in its holy crusade into public schools. Bush publicly stated that both sides should be taught - actual science alongside the idea that an Intelligent God, err...I mean Designer did it. Whew. Close one.
The W Bush administration, in many ways, laid the groundwork for Trump. Imho, it was Trump version 0.5
This stuff should NOT be normalized.
I worry that by praising people to the left of Trump, liberals are inadvertently shifting the Overton window to the right and accidentally giving an air of acceptability to policies that are almost as bad as Trump's policies.
I also worry that liberals' displeasure is a simple on/off switch controlled by a few talking heads. That worries the crap out of me. I give Republicans crap about lacking principles all the time, I'd hate to reach a similar conclusion about Democrats.
And going forward, we shouldn't even think about splitting the difference between our positions and Trump's - we should be working to move a deeply damaged country back to something approaching actually liberal policies, and you don't do that by lauding people who opposed that. If anything, we should have our own candidate with "radical" positions unthinkable to conservatives and meet them halfway - thereby enacting somewhat liberal positions.
But I fear that Republicans have already beat us to the punch and it's just a slow, inevitable slide to the right from here on out. In 8 years time, a majority of Dems might even fondly remember Trump because he just criticized a President worse than him. *shudders*
That and the Dems are just as much Deep State as the Repubs. Presidents Clinton and Obama are war mongers. After a full release of the Kennedy papers ... what next? More truth about 9/11? Trump haters are going to get what they want, President Pence. Who will do as he is told.
Talks about a country moving evermore to the right. lol. Dude, Trump is the first pro-gay politician ever while going into presidency. Look, if you think Trump is anywhere close to the end of the spectrum that represents the most right-wing presidents the US has ever had, then you are dull in the fucking head.
"I also worry that liberals' displeasure is a simple on/off switch controlled by a few talking heads. That worries the crap out of me."
Don't worry about that. Liberals aren't so fickle. Now, if you're talking about democrats, or SJW's, then sure, that's exactly what they are; same with repubs. There's a lot of idiots in america who fancy themselves liberals because that's what their detractors call them, but neither themselves nore their detractors know a thing about liberalism.
By the way, what policies of Trumps do you think are too far right? I guarantee you I can outmatch all policies you name with an obama policy that rivals it in 'right-ness.' The simple truth is most people are fucking dumb, and therefore aren't judging politicians based on policy. They simply turn on the MSM and pretend that politics is a soap-opera.
I will say this... a few days ago, I actually had the thought of, "Man... I actually miss Bush. Even he was better than this shit show."
I don't mean that as a favorable view of him. I only mean that's how bottom of the barrel we are scratching.
And please Gil, Trump has been terrible for gay people. How about all the repeals of Obama era regulations that Trump hasn't opposed, or out right supported (attempts to repeal ACA, the latest bill repealed that means banks and financial institutions no longer having to appear before a jury and instead can just arbitrate that was approved by pence, etc)?
It's not so much Trump being right wing, it's more he is just a heartless, void of integrity shit stain. It's just coincidence that the neo-con movement, which leans predominately right, happen to agree with him... :roll:
And don't get me started on his treatment of Puerto Rico, or I swear to god I will find a way to reach through the screen and bitch slap the living fuck out of you if you think it has been anything other than horrific.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2017, 11:15:19 PMTalks about a country moving evermore to the right. lol.
In some ways, yes, at least among elected officials. Bush at least had the decency to distance himself from the torture and insist that it's not really torture. Trump looks right into the camera and says "torture works!" with a straight face. He even talks about it with unsettling enthusiasm. And he's apparently far from alone. Bush didn't make much headway on climate change, but at least he knows it's going on. Trump talks about it like it's a delusion that some liberal dreamed up some day to scare businessmen. He makes nuke threats like I make coffee. I could go on and on.
Yes, the "we should kill their families and take their oil" guy is totally off his rocker. The fact that you don't even notice this shows your blinders.
QuoteDude, Trump is the first pro-gay politician ever while going into presidency.
Not counting transgender ban from the man himself and Mike "shock 'em" Pence? And this assumption is based primarily from him holding a flag that one of his supporters threw to him. Logic almost as solid as the logic that went into pizzagate, lol.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2017, 11:15:19 PMI guarantee you I can outmatch all policies you name with an obama policy that rivals it in 'right-ness.'
Alright. Global warming.
Whatever mental contortions you'd have to make to get reality fit your conclusion are bound to be hilarious.
George Bush, despite his policies, was at least a respectable President. The mentally challenged orangutan currently in office doesn't have a Presidential bone in his body. Next to the other Presidents of history, Drumph sticks out like a sore thumb.
this is a trend that is ending with the past and current generation, the back and forth from center right to far right based on whos president, democrats shift back and forth between the two, and its finally coming to an end, the people who shifted to liking bush aren't the youth, they're older people.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 30, 2017, 02:14:18 AM
George Bush, despite his policies, was at least a respectable President. The mentally challenged orangutan currently in office doesn't have a Presidential bone in his body. Next to the other Presidents of history, Drumph sticks out like a sore thumb.
I think perhaps Nixon, though Nixon had the brains to not normally show how sleezy he was, is comparable in someways. But even Nixon had leagues more class than Trump. Probably have to go all the way back to Jackson to find a president who was just as completely and utterly terrible of human being as Trump is.
That is not great company to keep, for either Jackson or Trump.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 30, 2017, 02:14:18 AM
George Bush, despite his policies, was at least a respectable President. The mentally challenged orangutan currently in office doesn't have a Presidential bone in his body. Next to the other Presidents of history, Drumph sticks out like a sore thumb.
This is one of the issues with americans, the "We don't care if you kill 3rd world people, get rid of necessarily regulations, and deny us necessities, just be nice about it or you have a problem" mentality
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 30, 2017, 02:14:18 AM
George Bush, despite his policies, was at least a respectable President. The mentally challenged orangutan currently in office doesn't have a Presidential bone in his body. Next to the other Presidents of history, Drumph sticks out like a sore thumb.
President Bush? Don't you mean President Cheney? President Trump? Don't you mean President Pence?
Quote from: Jannabear on October 30, 2017, 02:53:57 AM
This is one of the issues with americans, the "We don't care if you kill 3rd world people, get rid of necessarily regulations, and deny us necessities, just be nice about it or you have a problem" mentality
Being an American means ... elect me President or go away. Individualism run amok. While I don't think Hillary would have been an improvement (Kaine would have been the real President), Bernie would have been interesting. But Bernie got to play McGovern.
Comparing Trump to Bush is difficult for me. It's like comparing GPS navigation to bug zappers. They are unrelated. They are both horrible presidents. Bush's lies and propaganda were more sinister and evil with an obvious intent of doing harm. Trump is not as evil, although possibly more devastating, but we can't know that yet. His policies may well end up doing more harm world wide that Bush's, but I don't think it's an intended goal. He is more unaware of his motivations and their consequences. He is incompetent and thoughtless more than he is evil. Bush seemed to have a greater awareness of what he was doing. Was he a better president? Is comparative harm done the standard we use or something else? We would have to know the future to make that judgment now. For Trump, the outcomes have yet to come out.
I don't think Hillary fits in when comparing presidents. She never was president, failed twice to become president, and never achieved or failed in any presidential initiatives or leaves any presidential legacy behind. It's time to stop obsessing on her. Most Democrats have gotten over her. Some of the right wing can't seem to let her go.
Quote from: SGOS on October 30, 2017, 08:14:35 AMComparing Trump to Bush is difficult for me. It's like comparing GPS navigation to bug zappers. They are unrelated. They are both horrible presidents. Bush's lies and propaganda were more sinister and evil with an obvious intent of doing harm. Trump is not as evil, although possibly more devastating, but we can't know that yet. His policies may well end up doing more harm world wide that Bush's, but I don't think it's an intended goal. He is more unaware of his motivations and their consequences. He is incompetent and thoughtless more than he is evil. Bush seemed to have a greater awareness of what he was doing. Was he a better president? Is comparative harm done the standard we use or something else? We would have to know the future to make that judgment now. For Trump, the outcomes have yet to come out.
Fair enough, though with evil, I'm talking more about the consequences than the intent. I don't think we can really know intent for sure, while the consequences are much easier to figure out.
Trump seems obsessed with dismantling everything Obama put his name to, and much of Obama's tenure was trying to clean up W Bush's messes. If anything, you'd think Bush would like Trump for that. It's a real testament to Trump's leadership abilities that he makes enemies everywhere he goes.
Quote from: Jannabear on October 30, 2017, 02:53:57 AM
This is one of the issues with americans, the "We don't care if you kill 3rd world people, get rid of necessarily regulations, and deny us necessities, just be nice about it or you have a problem" mentality
That was a real bugbear of mine during the election. You had a guy who said he would approve waterboarding immediately and "make it much worse" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and the Dems fired back with scathing attack ads talking about how he uses profanity when kids might be watching.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 29, 2017, 11:35:04 PM
Not counting transgender ban from the man himself and Mike "shock 'em" Pence? And this assumption is based primarily from him holding a flag that one of his supporters threw to him.
Uh, no. It comes from him being pro-gay-marriage. He's said as much - multiple times, before he had ever been elected.
QuoteAlright. Global warming.
Name a policy.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 29, 2017, 11:29:51 PM
I will say this... a few days ago, I actually had the thought of, "Man... I actually miss Bush. Even he was better than this shit show."
I don't mean that as a favorable view of him. I only mean that's how bottom of the barrel we are scratching.
This this this this this.
It took Dumbya all the way to 2006 for me to finally say, "You know, crook and all, I miss Nixon now."
I didn't even get to the inauguration before Asshole made me miss Dumbya. At least
he could behave like an adult most of the time, whether or not I liked what he was doing.
What the polling is most likely capturing is not so much "we like W now" as it is "jesus fuck we didn't know it could get THIS much worse!"
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 30, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
Uh, no. It comes from him being pro-gay-marriage. He's said as much - multiple times, before he had ever been elected.
Gay marriage is one aspect. If he's for gays having equal rights as everybody else, he sure isn't doing anything to stop some of the "religious rights exemptions" that are being pushed.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 30, 2017, 12:34:09 PMUh, no. It comes from him being pro-gay-marriage. He's said as much - multiple times, before he had ever been elected.
If you seriously think he's pro-gay marriage, I have a bridge to sell you. At best, he's said it's settled and might not be interested in contesting the Supreme Court ruling (though curiously, when that ruling happened he tweeted "Once again the Bush appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has let us down" apparently disappointed with the ruling that Trumptards say he's fine with)
Trump also supported the First Amendment Marriage Act (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-looms-over-sessions-confirmation-vote-n714226) (I'd link you to Trump's own site where he says this, but it's 404), which would essentially legalize discrimination against gays, appointed a Scalia 2.0 Supreme Court pick (https://www.gq.com/story/trump-vs-lgbt-americans), backs the poor persecuted Christian wedding cake baker (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/justice-department-colorado-cake/index.html) (gays wanted service, the nerve!)
And if we could talk all day about his other appointees like Sessions (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-lgbt-rights_us_58346cd9e4b030997bc1524f) or Clovis (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/347354-trump-nominee-same-sex-marriage-could-lead-to-legalizing-pedophilia) and other pals of Trump that are most definitely NOT pro gay marriage.
QuoteName a policy.
You don't know a policy related to global warming? Dafuq?! You don't even know why Dear Leader is disliked, so apparently I'm going to have to lead you by the hand.
I'm talking about cutting CO
2 emissions. Paris Agreement. Do you honestly think the War on Coal guy is to the left of Obama when in comes to global warming or will you just admit you bullshitted your way into a corner?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 30, 2017, 02:45:10 AM
I think perhaps Nixon, though Nixon had the brains to not normally show how sleezy he was, is comparable in someways. But even Nixon had leagues more class than Trump. Probably have to go all the way back to Jackson to find a president who was just as completely and utterly terrible of human being as Trump is.
That is not great company to keep, for either Jackson or Trump.
I seem to recall the Chump idolizes Jackson, so I guess it's a "birds of a feather" kind of thing.
I still can't stand to listen to "W" speak, I still get actually nauseated whenever I try. Lucky for me he isn't as prominent in the media as he was when he occupied the Oval Office.
Quote from: trdsf on October 30, 2017, 12:41:12 PM
This this this this this.
It took Dumbya all the way to 2006 for me to finally say, "You know, crook and all, I miss Nixon now."
I didn't even get to the inauguration before Asshole made me miss Dumbya. At least he could behave like an adult most of the time, whether or not I liked what he was doing.
What the polling is most likely capturing is not so much "we like W now" as it is "jesus fuck we didn't know it could get THIS much worse!"
Which goes to show, if you scratch a Democrat, you find a Republican underneath. But not the other way around.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 29, 2017, 09:30:52 PM
What changed?
Simple: He's not president anymore. Outside of mocking his speech patterns as a proxy for intelligence, I don't think I've ever heard anyone criticize GWB on a personal level. On the contrary, I've heard many people--even liberals--say things along the line of "he's a guy you could have a beer with". I hope (wish) people judge a president based on policies and the economy (even if I suspect the latter involves a lot of luck & events outside the presidents control) but neither is a concern for former presidents. The question asked for opinions of the person GWB, not his presidency. I suspect that a similar question about Jimmy Carter would also give surprisingly good numbers
In 1984, I didn't think it was possible for a US President to dumber than Reagan. And then Bush Sr came along and declared that atheists shouldn't be considered "citizens". Clinton followed and that was good. Bush Jr got to be President by Supreme Court pure politics. And HE seemed the dumbest person to ever hold the job.
Obama came along and proved an intelligent person COULD be a President. My hope was restored. Then Trump came along and proved there was no bottom to stupidity.
The recent indictments are the end of the beginning.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 12:48:36 AM
In 1984, I didn't think it was possible for a US President to dumber than Reagan. And then Bush Sr came along and declared that atheists shouldn't be considered "citizens". Clinton followed and that was good. Bush Jr got to be President by Supreme Court pure politics. And HE seemed the dumbest person to ever hold the job.
Obama came along and proved an intelligent person COULD be a President. My hope was restored. Then Trump came along and proved there was no bottom to stupidity.
The recent indictments are the end of the beginning.
Indict them all, anyone who is presently in office. Then waterboard them at Guantanamo.
George Washington was our first idiot President (compared to Cavebear) ... then they descend from there. That is why George Washington seems to be a genius. Ever hear of Millard Fillmore?
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 06:59:45 AM
Indict them all, anyone who is presently in office. Then waterboard them at Guantanamo.
George Washington was our first idiot President (compared to Cavebear) ... then they descend from there. That is why George Washington seems to be a genius. Ever hear of Millard Fillmore?
Washington was the very man who would not be King in an era of monarchs.
Give the last word to Washington’s great adversary, King George III. The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.â€
“If he does that,†the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.â€
Close...
It is hard to praise Millard Fillmore. But he tried to keep the States together, argued against The Fugitive Slave Act, supported honest trade with Asia, and opposed Nationalist designs on Cuba.
Even the least have some good points.
Bush was a dunce, period end story . His most memorable line was, 'Remind me again, how many is a Brazilian? '
I don't think he was mean spirited, but his handlers certainly were and he cut his teeth with the same ilk who were too happy to finance the Nazi war machine, the wests bulwark against Bolshevism . Had the Nazis not gone batshit crazy antisemetic and trying to take over all of Europe and Russia they probably would have won and established the American Nazi party that would have gone on to rule us all, but they went overboard and spread themselves too thin too fast.
They essentially became rebranded as the 'conservatives'.
If Churchill had not ordered the French fleet sunk in N. Africa at Roosevelt's insistence all you Brits would likely be doing the goosestep today along with the rest of the world. The Man in the High Castle may have been more fact than fiction.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 31, 2017, 10:42:49 AM
Bush was a dunce, period end story . His most memorable line was, 'Remind me again, how many is a Brazilian? '
I don't think he was mean spirited, but his handlers certainly were and he cut his teeth with the same ilk who were too happy to finance the Nazi war machine, the wests bulwark against Bolshevism . Had the Nazis not gone batshit crazy antisemetic and trying to take over all of Europe and Russia they probably would have won and established the American Nazi party that would have gone on to rule us all, but they went overboard and spread themselves too thin too fast.
They essentially became rebranded as the 'conservatives'.
If Churchill had not ordered the French fleet sunk in N. Africa at Roosevelt's insistence all you Brits would likely be doing the goosestep today along with the rest of the world. The Man in the High Castle may have been more fact than fiction.
How quickly we forget the pages of laughable "Shrub Bushisms". But to be fair, the guy was dumb, not cruel. Trump is cruel, mean, vindictive, stupid, idiotic, and I'll have to go to the thesaurus for more.
And I understand your point about the failure of Hitler. Any rationale person could have fought WWII better as the Germans, but no rationale person would have.
Quote from: Poison Tree on October 30, 2017, 11:37:11 PMSimple: He's not president anymore. Outside of mocking his speech patterns as a proxy for intelligence, I don't think I've ever heard anyone criticize GWB on a personal level. On the contrary, I've heard many people--even liberals--say things along the line of "he's a guy you could have a beer with".
Unlike them, I find it difficult to separate the policies from the individual, especially when it comes to torture. That's a moral red line for me and instantly annihilates whatever goodwill I might hold for the individual. Imo, supporting torture is a direct reflection of one's humanity/inhumanity and causes severe and lasting damage to one's reputation. I don't forgive and forget stuff like that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 31, 2017, 11:45:32 AM
Unlike them, I find it difficult to separate the policies from the individual, especially when it comes to torture. That's a moral red line for me and instantly annihilates whatever goodwill I might hold for the individual. Imo, supporting torture is a direct reflection of one's humanity/inhumanity and causes severe and lasting damage to one's reputation. I don't forgive and forget stuff like that.
I completely forgot how President-At-Large Cheney supported torture as a routine device, didn't I? NOT! I was saving it. In a way, Trump came out of the mind of Cheney like Athena from the head of Zeus.
Cheney wanted to blow up the structures of government and collect power from the rubble. And when he saw what he had gathered, there was only orange hair and tweets and he saw "this is sure damn well not what I expected". Only God would understand... LOL!.
Quote from: Baruch on October 30, 2017, 06:51:27 PM
Which goes to show, if you scratch a Democrat, you find a Republican underneath. But not the other way around.
Yeah, scratch a Republican and you'd better wash with lye soap!
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 09:05:27 AM
Washington was the very man who would not be King in an era of monarchs.
Give the last word to Washington’s great adversary, King George III. The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.â€
“If he does that,†the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.â€
Close...
It is hard to praise Millard Fillmore. But he tried to keep the States together, argued against The Fugitive Slave Act, supported honest trade with Asia, and opposed Nationalist designs on Cuba.
Even the least have some good points.
Washington had no male heir. He had step children from Martha's previous marriage. Not a good basis for a dynasty. Also as President, he had CinC ... which isn't what other Presidents of other countries have, and the monarch of GB no longer has (since before Washington became President). British monarchs even in the American Revolution, leave CinC to professionals. So in a way, the US President, is superior to a monarch. That is why I also bristle at the candidacy of Robert Kennedy, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton ... Dynasty is long off the TV.
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 31, 2017, 04:55:15 PM
Yeah, scratch a Republican and you'd better wash with lye soap!
Are you prejudicial toward sanitation engineers? ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 31, 2017, 11:45:32 AM
Unlike them, I find it difficult to separate the policies from the individual, especially when it comes to torture. That's a moral red line for me and instantly annihilates whatever goodwill I might hold for the individual. Imo, supporting torture is a direct reflection of one's humanity/inhumanity and causes severe and lasting damage to one's reputation. I don't forgive and forget stuff like that.
Teddy Roosevelt supported oppression, and waterboarding, in the Philippines, over 100 years ago.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 31, 2017, 10:42:49 AM
Bush was a dunce, period end story . His most memorable line was, 'Remind me again, how many is a Brazilian? '
I don't think he was mean spirited, but his handlers certainly were and he cut his teeth with the same ilk who were too happy to finance the Nazi war machine, the wests bulwark against Bolshevism . Had the Nazis not gone batshit crazy antisemetic and trying to take over all of Europe and Russia they probably would have won and established the American Nazi party that would have gone on to rule us all, but they went overboard and spread themselves too thin too fast.
They essentially became rebranded as the 'conservatives'.
If Churchill had not ordered the French fleet sunk in N. Africa at Roosevelt's insistence all you Brits would likely be doing the goosestep today along with the rest of the world. The Man in the High Castle may have been more fact than fiction.
The French were even more duplicitous than the English (WW I was exceptional). So I can see not trusting the Vichy French, even without the American pressure. But with that, it was a slam dunk. Most people thought in May 1940 that England would be occupied by Germany six months later. Nearly was. Without Churchill, the English would have surrendered, and not had the temerity to betray France (which was no longer France anyway). A lot of Frenchmen made it to England as part of Dunkirk ... but then were repatriated to France, where they did nothing more. That itself was a huge mistake, not keeping them as part of a Free French force, earlier than DeGaulle was ready to lead. Of course full support of England, before Pearl Harbor (rather than tepid support) would have made a difference too. We were rather relieved and happy that Hitler turned on Stalin instead.
Quote from: Baruch on October 30, 2017, 06:51:27 PM
Which goes to show, if you scratch a Democrat, you find a Republican underneath. But not the other way around.
You can rip me and you won't find a conservative Republican underneath. Republicans want to go back to 1900, Democrats want to get to 2100.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 04, 2017, 01:24:42 AM
You can rip me and you won't find a conservative Republican underneath. Republicans want to go back to 1900, Democrats want to get to 2100.
All you will find under a former government employee is ... more fur ;-) It is fur all the way down. If you aren't a closet Republican, then you are a true Marxist, even if you aren't a true Scotsman.
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2017, 10:31:46 AM
All you will find under a former government employee is ... more fur ;-) It is fur all the way down. If you aren't a closet Republican, then you are a true Marxist, even if you aren't a true Scotsman.
I am probably personally Libertarian but practically Progressive which does confuse people. I am assuredly not a closet Republican in any sense of the current definition. And, while I am waiting for a dna test result, I am almost certainly nearly everything in western and northern Europe BUT Scots.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 04:14:45 AM
I am probably personally Libertarian but practically Progressive which does confuse people. I am assuredly not a closet Republican in any sense of the current definition. And, while I am waiting for a dna test result, I am almost certainly nearly everything in western and northern Europe BUT Scots.
i used to be like you, but complete cynicism won out.
Why not Scots? Too gay for you ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 06:47:26 AM
i used to be like you, but complete cynicism won out.
Why not Scots? Too gay for you ;-))
It's the kilts.
Seriously, I would be perfectly fine as part Scottish, it is just not part of the family history (and we go back a bit). But as I said, the dna will tell.
My guess is that I am 1/4 English, 1/4 French, 1/4 Norman (Viking), and some 1/4 scraps of German, Irish, and Native American (some of my French ancestors seem to have been trappers in Canada and they probably weren't fussy about wives).
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 06:59:36 AM
It's the kilts.
Seriously, I would be perfectly fine as part Scottish, it is just not part of the family history (and we go back a bit). But as I said, the dna will tell.
My guess is that I am 1/4 English, 1/4 French, 1/4 Norman (Viking), and some 1/4 scraps of German, Irish, and Native American (some of my French ancestors seem to have been trappers in Canada and they probably weren't fussy about wives).
We would be similar ... but for you the spice is Native American, mine is Ashkenazi.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 07:00:53 AM
We would be similar ... but for you the spice is Native American, mine is Ashkenazi.
I find no special spice in Native American ancestry. It would probably be less than 1%. and neither revered nor disliked. I really don't care about minor attributions. The question is mostly about degree of English vs French and I would be happy either way. My siblings might not though.
Evil grin...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 07:11:08 AM
I find no special spice in Native American ancestry. It would probably be less than 1%. and neither revered nor disliked. I really don't care about minor attributions. The question is mostly about degree of English vs French and I would be happy either way. My siblings might not though.
Evil grin...
Yes, will your Joan of Arc slay your King Henry V?
We only like Bush in comparison to the shit-show we have now.
At least under Bush, despite his evils, it was still business as usual. I didn't have to fear the value of my passport diminishing. Nazis were still universally condemned even by the most right-wing Republican office-holders. Nuclear war was unthinkable; it was certainly not considered a viable first-strike option. There was still a sense of decorum coming from the White House. There was still a sense of stability.
Bush, despite his incompetence and wrong-headedness, at least thought he was doing what's right and wasn't trying to take a sledgehammer to all of America's long-standing institutions. trump is actively trying to destroy everything out of a sense of misplaced revenge and malice.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 07:18:03 AM
Yes, will your Joan of Arc slay your King Henry V?
I'm more aligned with Henry V at Agincourt. I'd rather wield a longbow than ride a horse in heavy armor. That stuff was a real PAIN to put on and wear. Besides, you could drown in a puddle.
Quote from: Atheon on November 07, 2017, 07:48:03 AM
We only like Bush in comparison to the shit-show we have now.
At least under Bush, despite his evils, it was still business as usual. I didn't have to fear the value of my passport diminishing. Nazis were still universally condemned even by the most right-wing Republican office-holders. Nuclear war was unthinkable; it was certainly not considered a viable first-strike option. There was still a sense of decorum coming from the White House. There was still a sense of stability.
Bush, despite his incompetence and wrong-headedness, at least thought he was doing what's right and wasn't trying to take a sledgehammer to all of America's long-standing institutions. trump is actively trying to destroy everything out of a sense of misplaced revenge and malice.
Bush-Cheney needed to kill a lot more people, so D party folks wouldn't be nostalgic for a Republican ... sad. Nietzsche lives ... smash Western Civilization.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 07:51:29 PM
Bush-Cheney needed to kill a lot more people, so D party folks wouldn't be nostalgic for a Republican ... sad. Nietzsche lives ... smash Western Civilization.
I am impressed that you want to live in a world controlled by robber barons, religious crazies, and think that people like Cheney have the "good of the people" in mind.
The rich and powerful (individuals and companies) want to make sure they don't have competitors. All the laws they support are for that outcome.
Here is an example...
Apple hides as much money as possible in Ireland. It saves them US taxes. But they also give money to charitable education agendas. Seems a balance, right?
But here's the rub. They save money on the foreign money taxes AND write off the charitable donations on the US taxes and win both ways.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 02:09:27 AM
I am impressed that you want to live in a world controlled by robber barons, religious crazies, and think that people like Cheney have the "good of the people" in mind.
The rich and powerful (individuals and companies) want to make sure they don't have competitors. All the laws they support are for that outcome.
Here is an example...
Apple hides as much money as possible in Ireland. It saves them US taxes. But they also give money to charitable education agendas. Seems a balance, right?
But here's the rub. They save money on the foreign money taxes AND write off the charitable donations on the US taxes and win both ways.
I don't want to live in a world run by apes, yet here I am. Off myself or wait a few more years for nature to take her course. I am describing things, to people who have their heads completely up their behinds with idealism or cynicism. I am not promoting any particular view ... but I am sure everyone would be happier if I smoked the Hopium the rest of you are smoking ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:19:33 AM
I don't want to live in a world run by apes, yet here I am. Off myself or wait a few more years for nature to take her course. I am describing things, to people who have their heads completely up their behinds with idealism or cynicism. I am not promoting any particular view ... but I am sure everyone would be happier if I smoked the Hopium the rest of you are smoking ;-)
You assume most of the rest of us are either idealistic or cynics. I am neither. I think I am rational and I act that way politically.
The world is not run by apes (except to the degree that humans are technically apes) but I think you mean "apes" in the pejorative sense of stupid and irrational.
Saying "Yet here I am" suggests what you think about all the rest of us. Bad! BAD!
Some of us might have their heads up their asses, but most of us don't and especially not here. I suspect you are talking to the top 90 percentile on the net and quite frankly I suspect many of us are growing tired of your increasing innuendoes about our intelligence.
I appreciate that you have become more honest about your views lately, but I do note that you have become less tolerant of our differences. I think you should really rethink that.
Vehement, not intolerant. And I was hyperbolic, not dishonest, before. Yes, technically we are an inferior breed of chimp (see Darwin and Spencer). Technically we are just a number too (see Pythagoras and Auschwitz and SSN).
And "apes" should be acceptable to any naturalist. It isn't about skin color. But I don't expect much from wild animals.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 11:02:44 AM
Vehement, not intolerant. And I was hyperbolic, not dishonest, before. Yes, technically we are an inferior breed of chimp (see Darwin and Spencer). Technically we are just a number too (see Pythagoras and Auschwitz and SSN).
And "apes" should be acceptable to any naturalist. It isn't about skin color. But I don't expect much from wild animals.
Were you on some new med earlier or now? This is not like you... I don't mean that meanly. It is just that there has been such a sudden change in your posts.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 11:46:21 AM
Were you on some new med earlier or now? This is not like you... I don't mean that meanly. It is just that there has been such a sudden change in your posts.
It is contextual. If there was only one post to respond to, then I could be consistent. I think by association (no, not random).
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 01:35:23 PM
It is contextual. If there was only one post to respond to, then I could be consistent. I think by association (no, not random).
OK. I mean, you did actually have me worried about you for the day. Not that I didn't take advantage of it. But an arrow needs a target.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 01:40:04 PM
OK. I mean, you did actually have me worried about you for the day. Not that I didn't take advantage of it. But an arrow needs a target.
Damp squib that.