BS: reign of terror

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 09:18 AM

"if the woman disagreed with the policy she should have resigned"

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and the issues it raise. Sally Yates is responsible for ensuring adherence to the law and the constitution; it's her job to tell the incumbent President whether what they are doing follows the letter of the law. In this case, she did the only thing she could. She swears an oath to the constitution, not the president.

Nice to see you're supporting the breakdown of law and order.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: gillymor
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 08:52 AM

In 1933 a lot of Germans adopted a wait and see attitude toward Herr Hitler and by the time they "saw" it was too late.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 06:27 AM

Interesting that I should be accused of "dropping by." An idle quick count shows that this is approximately my 40th post in this thread. It's a bit like accusing Theresa May of "dropping by" Number Ten! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 05:59 AM

"For you stevie how about "Your Supreme Arrogance"?
and for you Jimmy "The Lord High Ranter"."
Wheren't you the one whingeing about people being rude to you
It seems Trump has dragged you out of your closet too
You have offered vacuous rudeness rather that actual ideas - you'll have to join the list to become a member of that sect - they have their stars already - all you are doing is borrowing their phraseology - not even original in your abuse
Give is a break Iains - this I a debating forum not an abuse column
And now we have Teribus "not supporting Trump"
Why don't you people have the balls to admit where you stand?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 05:33 AM

Regarding this "reign of terror" and the seeming cascade of Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders. Is the man doing anything that he said he wouldn't do during his election campaign? Is he doing what he said he would do?

If the answer to the first question is NO, and the answer to the second is YES, then there can be no complaint as he is giving the American electorate exactly what it said on the box.

As for the Attorney General, I am with Iains on that. Under the system of Government in the USA any political appointee who gets into a pissing contest with the President is going to end up on the losing side of the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Iains
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 04:54 AM

Disobey a direct order in any organisation and you tend to get fired.
You can always try your luck in court if you have an issue with it, unless in the military where the word fire just may mean that literally.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 10:39 PM

bobad another FSB Russian spy was imprisoned 2 weeks ago .


TRUMP FIRES ATTORNEY GENERAL Sally Yate would not enforce Muslim ban

the new yes man will be Dana Boetner (Bentner)

Sounds like Nixon all over again

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 03:48 AM

"BBC News this morning has reported that the petition has been rejected by the Tory government"
I knew nothing of this petition - I assume this is a different petition I received this morning (message dated yesterday)

"Ian Saville 20 hrs ·
There is a petition asking that Trump not be invited for a state visit, which I have signed. However, I have also put up a petition saying he should not be invited for any sort of visit:
I've made a petition – will you sign it?
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/…/spons…/yPupbe6AYDPTwro9b8Tq
My petition:
Donald Trump should be banned from visiting the United Kingdom.
Given Donald Trump's executive order barring citizens from 7 Muslim countries from entering the United States, his views on climate change, his attitude to women, his encouragement of violence and the authoritarian tone of his statements, it is not in the interests of the UK to allow him to visit.
It is clear that Donald Trump is an authoritarian President, whose views pose a grave danger to UK citizens and to the whole world. Allowing him to visit our country as though he were a normal leader will add to his authority and strengthen his power. He must not be treated as normal. He has already demonstrated that the rhetoric he spouted during his election campaign was not just bluster, and he is prepared to put extreme anti-humanitarian policies into practice. We must not give him credence.
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/…/spons…/yPupbe6AYDPTwro9b8Tq
I attempted to sign it only to find that it has been blocked pending investigation
What the **** is happening?
This is totally unprecedented.
This is appalling - an open case of an attempt to block protest on behalf of an extremist right wing foreign leader.
"It would be wise Not to antagonise President Donal John in this manner."
And we have our own home-grown little crop of right wing Mudcat quislings ready to sell out our democracy on behalf of this monster.
One of Trump's first actions on being elected was to demand that Farage, the fascist residue of British politics, be appointed Ambassador
This piece of work jas his supporters here as well - 'bout time we dug out our "be careful of who you talk to - wall have ears" notices.
Getting our front doors kicked in by jackboots seems the logical next step.
And still our home-grown Trumpeters refuse to address either Trump's extremist nature and the effect it is beginning to have on all of us.
'Bout time they crawled out of their woodwork and justified themselves.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: bobad
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 09:45 PM

Surprise, surprise.......a former Russian spy chief, Oleg Erovinkin, who was allegedly the source of much of the information Christopher Steele harvested on Trump in Russia is mysteriously found dead in the back of his car.......the FSB (formerly KGB) is investigating, lol. Christopher Steele remains in hiding.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 11:45 AM

Bee-dubya:
I agree with you that Trump's recent orders will have negative effects. I think this is only the beginning. I'm concerned that we are going into an era of negative-plus, sort of like when the Republicans put out the "Contract With America" which the Dems called the "Contract ON America". The effects are not merely deleterious, but likely to sow disorganization.
some music

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 10:46 AM

HEY UK Are you ready for some serious inflation? Prepare yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 08:59 AM

That is what I sound like with a migraine.

The right wing message is to tell the people to shut up and take it, that the media is the enemy and marches and demonstration are all funded by Hillary and George Soros. They say there is always someone behind any opposition. It is one guy's fault not most of the people.

Even the left does this by saying it is all Trumps fault when in reality it is white Nationalist advisors like Bannon and his son in law who are really at the helm of incessant Presidential orders with no Congressional input so far.

Ignoring won't help anyone but the administration.
Instead we have to join and do a small part someplace somehow.
Eventually a division will open up on the right and we must embrace that division and welcome some of that right into our ranks.

Will this include welcoming anti abortion forces? Yes. At least some of them. The next Supreme court judge is bound to break the tie.
Will the left take this well? no.

It will take time for Senate and House seats to change over.
The irony of Obama being bound so tightly to the Constitution while Trump is successful by ignoring the Constitution is something I was too naïve about. I think we all were.

If war breaks open then you will always need to present papers and there will be no guaranteed rights or freedoms.

and that is the rest of my version of Bull Shit.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 08:28 AM

Trump's Muslim ban will have exactly the opposite effect of its stated goal of "Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals". That is if one defines "nation" as a group of citizens, not just as a plot of land. Expect a severe backlash aimed at the thousands of American workers and visitors overseas, particularly those in predominately Muslim countries. Trump has just painted targets on the backs of all of them.

ISIS should send him a "Thank You" note for the huge bump in recruitment they're about to experience.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:21 PM

I don/t give a shit who accused who of what ego bruise.

It is our damned American children who Trump will send off for his
ego wars.

Demonstrations at Dulles over Muslim ban. Many Muslims detained at airport.
The governor came and spoke at the airport over his disgust with trump.

Court declares a stay for many detainees.

Trump brags.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 08:59 PM

I didn't accuse you of being a hallowed member of our electorate, though I will definitely agree that you seem ill-informed. And I do indeed know everything. Of course I do. Except for about 99.9999999999999999348% of stuff, about which I know nothing.
Post sensibly is my advice.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stanron
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 08:51 PM

Steve Shaw wrote: If you think we'd be better off outside the EU, then you clearly think that so would everyone else, no?

No. I am a member of the UK electorate. I am not informed regarding conditions in other EU countries and do not presume to tell them what they should or shouldn't do. You appear to consider that you know everything. I am proud to be more humble and confess that I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 08:33 PM

Excellent debating point, Stanron! Not! 😂Try answering the question, why don't you. If you think we'd be better off outside the EU, then you clearly think that so would everyone else, no? Bar Germany maybe? So the logical conclusion is that you want to see the EU collapse. If by some twisted logic you have any other explanation, do apprise us!

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 08:12 PM

Reign of terror and new Orders of Fascism should be paramount

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stanron
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 08:03 PM

Steve you are truly weird.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 07:52 PM

You have made it perfectly clear that you hate the EU. Why would I think that you don't want to see it collapse? What you say about our membership applies equally to all the other 27 countries, after all. Gravy train? Undemocratic? If you think that all that means we should leave, then it logically applies to all the other nations too. So, again logically, you want the EU to collapse. Cut the bullshit and admit that it's what you would love to see. The truth is that that you know deep down that long-term peace and security in Europe needs the EU to keep going. But as a little Englander you want the EU to manage that without us. Double standard or what?

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 05:11 PM

I'm with Stanron, I want the UK out of the EU, that is what I and another 17.4 million people voted for. What happens to the EU thereafter is entirely up to them - clear enough for you Shaw. I ask so that in future you refrain from attributing to me things I have not said.

I think it was the predictions of the "remoaners" that the economy of the UK would crash and that we would suffer all sorts of dire consequences for having the temerity to reject that corrupt and inefficient organisation known as the EU that you so revere. Now as things have turned out, we find ourselves not at the back of any queue, our economy is outperforming every other economy in the G7, and predictions are that unless they implement long overdue reforms it will be the Eurozone that will be in trouble. Germany has already acknowledged that they cannot make good the shortfall caused by the UK leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 04:30 PM

BTW Steve don't waste your time stalking me, as I rarely waste mine in reading any of your new world diatribes.....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 04:23 PM

I have no need to answer any of your questions Steve, the US electorate have already done that.   If it is of any solace to you, I am not much interested in Mr Trump, the important thing as far as I am concerned is the annihilation of the "liberal" establishment and their grovelling media....which are the biggest impediment to the construction of a realistic and sustainable society.

The myth peddlers are getting their comeuppance, and that is extremely satisfying.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stanron
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 04:19 PM

Steve Shaw wrote: Suppose all you madmen get your desires

I assume your accusing me of madness is based on your assumption that I want the EU "gone". I can't speak for Teribus but I don't want the EU "gone". I want the UK to be "gone" from the EU. What happens to the EU after that is up to the EU members.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 04:03 PM

I asked you some awkward questions at 11am, akenaton. It's been noted that you haven't answered. Shall I repeat them for you? Or would you rather avoid unfortunate truths? Here's an unfortunate truth for you: I won't be letting go of this. As you sow, so shall you reap (sorry, Donuel!).

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 03:55 PM

Bit of a stretch with your empire stuff there, Stanron. As for who pays, etc., who cares? You and Teribus want the EU gone. Trump wants NATO gone. Suppose all you madmen get your desires. Plenty of room for empire-building then, eh, plenty of scope for wars. Can't help you if you can't see it. It's called "learning from history."

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 03:55 PM

Bobad..... They have nothing else, no answers to any political problems. Eight years of ineffective government and absolutely nothing to show for it but a huge rustbelt.

Maher says that liberals must concentrate on political issues, but that is impossible, they are not about politics, they are about social upheaval and the advancement of myths.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: bobad
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 02:33 PM

Bill Maher

"Liberals must examine all the reasons why we keep losing elections. Democrats have gone from the party that protects people to the party that protects feelings."

Bill's epic rant on political correctness: The Sorrow and the Petty

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stanron
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 01:53 PM

Steve Shaw wrote: In what way was WWII an "extrapolation of empire?"

Don't you do history? WW II was an extrapolation of empire because WW 1 was, at least in part, a war of empires and WW 11 was Hitler's attempt at re-adjusting the result of WW 1.

It occurred to me after my previous post that perhaps the EU itself can be looked at as a kind of Empire. The possibilities for irony expand.

Whether it's the EU or NATO who's kept the peace ask yourself who's paid for it. The big yellow seems to think it's America via NATO.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 01:32 PM

In what way was WWII an "extrapolation of empire?"

The EU and its predecessors came about largely as a reaction to wars in Europe. On the whole, the peace has been kept. You can only be in the EU if you are a democracy and sign up to conventions on human rights. Democracies do not go to war with each other on the whole. Oh yes, Teribus claims that it's actually been NATO who's kept the peace. Whether he's right or wrong (he's wrong, as with everything else), Trump isn't up for NATO, is he? Better pray the EU survives. With us still in it, preferably. Both the Islamists and Putin are flexing their muscles, and a nice bit of US protectionism might make China become not very nice.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 12:48 PM

Trump signs order to ban refugees from 7 countries.

Those same 7 countries have never had their citizens attack the US at any time.

Who attacked us?
Saudi Arabia did, Afghanistan did, Egypt did, United Arab Emirates did and some others, but none of them are on the list.

It goes beyond refugee status of course. The ban was immediate and people are being turned around at the airport.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stanron
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:58 AM

Steve Shaw wrote: Well let's hope that your cherished collapse of the EU never comes about. If that happens, most of the conditions that bred those murderous warmongers of the early and mid-20th century will return to Europe. I expect that hasn't really occurred to you.

The dreadful wars of the 20th Century were an extrapolation of Empire. Empire is no longer a viable concept and therefor those kinds of wars are no longer a threat. There are other types of threat but I suspect that they will come from outside Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:53 AM

Stu
Is 'inverted snob' a common term or your own?

You did not say if you were an undiagnosed dyslexic. You sure don't write like it.

The likelihood of dyslexia is as high as 1 in 10.
My research shows a higher incidence of more fractal chaos activity in dyslexic brains, which is a good thing for intelligence and analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:35 AM

We had government by spiv here in the late 80s when Maggie liberated the banks and yuppies to do what the hell they wanted, unseen. Now you're getting government by one very bad man's prejudices. It's all progress, though all in the wrong direction.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stu
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:32 AM

I left in 1982. My class was the discarded misfits; people who struggled to learn and could barely write, undiagnosed dyslexics being treated as idiots, a few louts, a couple of lazy sods, those who were often bullied and mocked for being gay or fat or whatever. I grew up with most of these folk and they way they were treated was appalling, they never had a chance to even understand their potential.

I decided to get educated and it's been a battle. Those old prejudices are still in place and after my PhD went tits up (through no fault of my own) the university abandoned me as soon as it could. I have had several offers to start again, and I'm considering these.

So people dissing education and suggesting that a good education has somehow brainwashed people into not being good, unquestioning, subservient capitalist labour but has instilled in them some mythical sense of self-righteousness irks me.

It doesn't seem to occur old Bart, Trump, Farage, Bannon, Pence, May, BoJo etc etc that it's possible all these people might have reached their own conclusions about the likes of the aforementioned and all happen to agree with each other. So used are the likes of the alt-right corporate flunkies to being told what top think they don't even question whether the premise of the propaganda they so ready swallow whole is even correct. When this happens to enough people, you end up with Brexit and Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:21 AM

Demonstrators punishable by death

A pending law saying states may use any and all force against any demonstrator who blocks traffic.
It may now be legal to run people over with cars etc.

(this is not a presidential order)

This floated law is a reaction to protests in North Dakota and Indiana.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:09 AM

"...that LED him," by the way, just in case Iains is about!

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:08 AM

I can assure you that Bartholemew is far fuller of shit than you, Stu. You wrote a good response to that silly article with far more patience than I could have mustered. You won't get a riposte from the usual demurrers here that will contain substance other than the aforementioned brown stuff.

Am I older than you? I did two teaching practices in crappy comps on the outskirts of Brum. Knocked whatever fanciful notions I might have been harbouring about the romance of the classroom out of my head, I can tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 11:00 AM

"The demonization of President Trump and his unfortunate truths are an excellent example."

President Trump doesn't need anyone to demonise him. Would you care to comment on the unfortunate truths of his that lead him to consider women to be pervert-fodder, that building walls is the way to make friends, that keeping refugees and Muslims out of his country is humanitarian and inclusive and the way to end terrorism, that withdrawing aid for ideological reasons from relief agencies in third-world countries is morally correct, that torture works, that returning millions of Americans to relying on mercy for their healthcare is a progressive measure, that Putin is a great guy to cosy up to and that Israel should be encouraged to carry on settlement-building? These are his policies, among others, that presumably have been arrived at as he realised his unfortunate truths. Take them one at a time and justify them, please. I need you to persuade me why I shouldn't go ahead and demonise this fine upstanding paragon.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stu
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 10:47 AM

"Nowhere near as much as your own "chip-on-each-shoulder" cliched rant of yours Stu."

I don't claim to be any sort of great writer, commentator or to have any great political insight. In fact, I'm as full of shit as anyone. However, so is J. Bartholomew, and like many people knows a meanie when they see one.

Do you care to address any of the comments on the subject, or are you just going to sit there and sling shit like some crotchety old, over-privileged, white, right-wing kipper?

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 10:36 AM

Well let's hope that your cherished collapse of the EU never comes about. If that happens, most of the conditions that bred those murderous warmongers of the early and mid-20th century will return to Europe. I expect that hasn't really occurred to you.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 10:26 AM

"It's a poorly conceived argument, replete with dishonesty and misrepresentation and a vehicle for the author's own prejudices." - Stu

Nowhere near as much as your own "chip-on-each-shoulder" cliched rant of yours Stu.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stu
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 10:18 AM

Understood it perfectly thank ye Tezza. It's a poorly conceived argument, replete with dishonesty and misrepresentation and a vehicle for the author's own prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 10:00 AM

Stu - 28 Jan 17 - 09:04 AM

"I have read the article"

You may well have read it Stu - you certainly did not understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 09:29 AM

Thanks for posting that link Ake, some of the thumbnail sketches contained therein described a couple of the "usual suspects" on this forum perfectly.

To those wittering on about how bloodthirsty the 20th century was and their attribution of this bloodlust to the big bad "West" particularly the UK and USA illustrates the deficiencies outlined in Akenaton's linked article from "The Spectator".

Look up the term "democide" (The slaughter of a nations population by the leaders of that nation), look at the list of the top ten "democide Leaders". Those top ten - going back to Genghis Khan - were responsible for the deaths of over 189 million people - the top four democides were all post-Second World War communist leaders who were responsible for roughly 121 million of those 189 million deaths. Communism was a total failure, socially, economically and politically, the "experiment" resulted in the needless and unnecessary deaths of millions. What prevented that disaster from being much, much worse in magnitude and scale was the fact that the attempt at bringing the benefits of communism to world was countered and resisted by "the big bad West", particularly by the USA and the UK. During the 20th Century the UK and the USA successfully saw off the threat to freedom posed by the Kaiser's military autocracy, by Nazi Germany and the Axis powers, by Communism. Since the early 1970s democracy has been under attack by radical fundamental Islam and guess who it will be that will take on and defeat that threat? The "big, bad, West" - particularly the USA and the UK, THEIR efforts up to date have given and guaranteed you all the freedoms we currently enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stu
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 09:04 AM

I have read the article, it's a sad piece of right-wing propaganda designed to further accentuate divisions. The idea that everyone who disagrees with the alt-right is part some imagined elite is utterly ridiculous. I'm not; a lower-middle class lad from a solid working-class family who went to a shitty comprehensive on the outskirts of Brum. I was in the bottom class at my school, like everyone in my class I was written off for not being academic, my career aspirations dismissed as the school advisor tried to dump me and my friends into factories in Brum, but over the years have strived to get the education I was denied by a system that only recognised student grades as indicators of ability or potential. I've worked my tits off to get to the level of doing a PhD; and I've been dumped off this because of the idiocy and selfishness of others and the consequences of their actions (which has included the sacking my supervisor). On discussing this on the phone, the first thing the Dean said to me was "how did you get in?" when she saw my lack of qualifications. Because I fucking worked up from the bottom.

Bartholomew is a City of London ex-banker who has never been down at the bottom of the pile, ignored and considered hopeless by so many. His vitriolic attack on education is typical of the privilege of his economic class; he seems a little more than a low-grade hack without any degree of insight or even understanding of what he's talking about. Never had to struggle up the ladder, never had to fight the prejudice of those seen as 'cleverer' or this whose parents had more money. His article is little more than a boorish rant by someone lacking the emotional intelligence to even comprehend how asinine they sound; spoken out loud it would sound like Alf Garnet when pissed out of his gourd. Bartholomew's inarticulate little phlegm-ball of nastiness is a symptom of the times we live in.

This lumping together by the right that everyone who disagrees with them or thinks that human beings have potential beyond their most primal instincts betrays their own shallow wit and lack of critical thinking. Here's why artists, scientists, musicians, dancers, writers, painters, poets, doctors and any number of other professions tend towards what they call 'liberalism': they think. they consider, research, ruminate, reflect and weigh the options. They are naturally more engaged with other people, see beyond the obvious and immediate and are curious and questioning, healthily skeptical and willing to do the research, to put the effort in to FIND OUT FOR THEMSELVES. This leads them to be naturally more empathetic, tolerant and open to ideas, certainly not conservative/Conservative in outlook or opinion.

The alt-right elite cons the gullible and a certain breed working-class inverted snobs in the same way it always has. It is so vitriolic in its criticism precisely because deep down it knows in it's own black heart it's wrong and for society to function we need tolerance and understanding, equality and fairness. However, out there are still millions of working class people who remember the rise of other right-wing authoritarians, who remember why we fought them and why we must not allow their return. Who remember the origins of trades unionism and Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists, the Diggers and Levellers, the Putney Debates and the Suffragettes. See? We're in good company.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 07:45 AM

Just read the link in it's entirety Stu, all will be revealed.

Gilly, I don't agree with every point made in the link, socialism can work given the right conditions, but they will take generations to evolve.....at least the author points out the contradictions and dangers of "liberalism" when social and political change is sought.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stu
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 07:04 AM

"...become a socialist and work with conservatives to bring it about."

WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 05:30 AM

Sorry Don, I've been busy. I think you misunderstand the meaning of the Spectator link.   It was not as you suppose a rant against education, which is extremely important in any society, but pointed out that today's "liberals" are promoting an outdated , unaffordable and mythical ideology, fed to them by a generation of "teachers" brought up in the sixties where the whole strata of social and political life was being attacked...just because it was there.
Some of the demolition was good and some very bad, but one thing is certain these "teachers" have become dangerous "dinosaurs", lacking common sense or any idea about the workings of the real world.
The demonization of President Trump and his unfortunate truths are an excellent example.

If you want real change in your society dump "liberalism", become a socialist and work with conservatives to bring it about. Change can never be achieved without unity.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jan 17 - 08:32 PM

The only aliens I suspect have made their way to the US are viri hitchhiking on comets.

From my perspective robo dislikes esoteric themes and ideas but he is right about everything else. I bet he would agree that trade with Mexico is in jeopardy not because American jobs went to Mexico but that robot technology has replaced those jobs forever. Furthermore he would agree the Wall is a boondoggle.

Mexico is not the problem automation is. It has very little to do with trade. trump just that wrong idea in his head that jobs are being stolen and thinks it will sell to Joe Hickey in Indiana.

I have a trade deficit with Safeway grocery store because I give them money and they give me groceries. We are both better off for it. Its not inherently a bad thing.

The problems are NOT solved by starting a trade war with Mexico.
Education, Infrastructure and training will do much more to expand an employment force. Yep even immigration.

Robomatic, are we on the same page here?
Your screen name is apropos now more than ever.

- mini Gort -