They Had a Dream

[Ishmael]

Hey, you always court the biggest faction of the tribe.

The old "I feel your pain" ploy. The attempt to form an alliance. And from the cynics dictionary an alliance is;

"A compact formed between two parties that have their hands so deeply enthrusted in each others pockets that they cannot safely plunder a third."

Ishmael

 

[miles]

Hey, you always court the biggest faction of the tribe.

To say he's a member of any tribe infers that he's a human being.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The old "I feel your pain" ploy. The attempt to form an alliance. And from the cynics dictionary an alliance is;

"A compact formed between two parties that have their hands so deeply enthrusted in each others pockets that they cannot safely plunder a third."

Ishmael

Ellsworth Toohey trying to stay one step ahead of the mob acting as if he leads...

To say he's a member of any tribe infers that he's a human being.

Indeed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

To say he's a member of any tribe infers that he's a human being.

Your godfather Adolf also like to claim that his political opponents were less than human too.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Watch 'em run amuck,
Catch 'em as they fall,
Never know your luck
When there's a free for all,
Here a little `dip'
There a little `touch'
Most of them are goners
So they won't miss much!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It was a fun night for the Eurosceptics.

Nigel Farage's UKIP was the top vote getter in the UK with about 29% of the vote
Marine Le Pen's Front National party was the top vote getter in France with 26% of the vote
The Danish People’s party is the largest party in Denmark with about 25% of the vote
Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement is a likely second-place finisher in Italy
Alexis Tsipras' Syriza part is the top vote getter in Greece with about 26% of the vote

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#RhGG8BuDcGywoLAY.99

 

[Ishmael]

It was a fun night for the Eurosceptics.

Nigel Farage's UKIP was the top vote getter in the UK with about 29% of the vote
Marine Le Pen's Front National party was the top vote getter in France with 26% of the vote
The Danish People’s party is the largest party in Denmark with about 25% of the vote
Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement is a likely second-place finisher in Italy
Alexis Tsipras' Syriza part is the top vote getter in Greece with about 26% of the vote

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#RhGG8BuDcGywoLAY.99

The Grand Alliance seems to be coming apart at the seams.

Ishmael

 

[eyer]

Your godfather Adolf also like to claim that his political opponents were less than human too.

Just as you progressives must demean the unborn as "less than human", too.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Just as you progressives must demean the unborn as "less than human", too.

Tell us again how an acorn is actually an oak tree if you squint really really hard.

 

[eyer]

Just as you progressives must demean the unborn as "less than human", too.

Tell us again how an acorn is actually an oak tree if you squint really really hard.

Voilà.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

last person that had a dream got shot lol

 

[LadyVer]

I refuse to dumb it down. I spent months and months trying to have an adult conversation with you and it all boiled down to one final exasperated gasp proclaiming that the sole political litmus that you cherish above all else is the sacrament of abortion. If you know someone is pro-life, whatever the issue is, you treat all their points of view as dead on arrival, a veritable lie that must be argued against even if on some deeper level you actually agree. That POV must be defeated because it might lead to one abortion not being performed.

You have thusly reduced yourself to more polite, but just as dogmatic, shadow of ThrobDownSouth, a true yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye Democrat.

Well, you're entitled to think whatever you want and if you want to use what I said for arguing a point, so be it. I just don't see where abortion comes into your previous post. I've told you before much of what you post is so wordy and convoluted that I truly don't know what you're saying. And I didn't see "abortion" mentioned. I didn't think abortion was the subiect. And geez, talking about someone being over sensitive and making every issue about abortion is just weird to me. Don't feel like you need to respond back. You more than got your point across.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I refuse to dumb it down. I spent months and months trying to have an adult conversation with you and it all boiled down to one final exasperated gasp proclaiming that the sole political litmus that you cherish above all else is the sacrament of abortion. If you know someone is pro-life, whatever the issue is, you treat all their points of view as dead on arrival, a veritable lie that must be argued against even if on some deeper level you actually agree. That POV must be defeated because it might lead to one abortion not being performed.

You have thusly reduced yourself to more polite, but just as dogmatic, shadow of ThrobDownSouth, a true yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye Democrat.

The Chief cannot tolerate dissent.
:nods:

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Grand Alliance seems to be coming apart at the seams.

Ishmael

They could not keep the pendulum held in check.

I had that thread some time back about how everyone wanted to go their own way the world over.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One aspect of the Dream is still alive...

Death at both ends of the spectrum:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...t-assisted-suicide-elderly-not-terminally-ill



iPAB the unproductive for the greater good.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

‘There’s a deal of ruin in a nation,” said Adam Smith — and that goes double for a continent. Sunday’s elections for the European parliament were an important stage on the road to ruin, which has now been traveled for almost 60 years, but they did not signal arrival at the final destination. From the standpoint of both its founders and its critics, that destination is a federal European state, and the transport system taking us there is the so-called “functionalist” theory of integration. Under this theory, Europe is supposed to be integrated function by function — coal and steel production, trade diplomacy, trade in goods and services, legal rules, police functions, defense, foreign policy, currency, etc., etc. — until its peoples and governments wake up one morning and realize that, Hey, we’re living in the same state/country/nation/polity/whatever. Isn’t that great! Henry Kissinger will be phoning any minute to congratulate us.

The single most vital missing ingredient in the functionalist recipe, however, is a European demos. “European” is no more than a geographical expression. There are Frenchmen, Germans, Brits, Italians, and Dutchmen, but there is no European people united by sentiment, common fellowship, language, historical institutions, the mystic chords of memory, and a sense of overriding vital mutual interests. There is the “vanguard” of a possible future European people in the form of those politicians and bureaucrats who go by the name of Eurocrats. But vanguards are no guarantee of a successful future demos, as the dissolutions of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia illustrate horribly.

Without a demos, however, functionalism eventually fails to function. It runs into a crisis and it finds that it cannot call on the loyalty of its citizens to solve it. Indeed, its creates a crisis by removing powers from its constituent governments that the citizens would prefer at home. Eventually it provokes a rebellion. And that is what arrived on Sunday.

Editors, NRO

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"If that is so, it is fair to ask: Why did the Euro-establishment parties of Left and Right win two-thirds of the seats in the Euro-parliament? The answer is that most ordinary people in democratic societies develop a loyalty to established parties that goes quite deep and remains a force even when the parties disappoint or betray their supporters."

 

[Ishmael]

They could not keep the pendulum held in check.

I had that thread some time back about how everyone wanted to go their own way the world over.

For centuries the Europeans, the Western Europeans in particular, enjoyed relatively homogenous societies. This kept politics, internal politics that is, on a smooth keel. We call it 'nationalism' today. While internal political frictions were kept to a minimum, nationalism led to a great deal of external frictions. To a great extent the whole Third Reich thing was about maintaining political homogeneity. That all came to an end post WWII in general and with the rise of the socialist state in particular.

They began to solicit immigration thinking to use the American model. A model that worked quite well for us up until recently. The problem is to be found in the reason for immigration. A great deal of the early American immigration experience were immigrants that were coming here not just for economic reasons, but for reasons of political freedom and the embrasure of the American ideals. The European impetus was to bring in labor to prop up the socialist state. A mere matter of numbers, it take 4 workers to support 1 pensioner. It's all about demographics as applied to state economics. The immigrants were well aware of this and when you through in cheap international travel and easy instant international communication you end up with an immigrant group that is reluctant to assimilate.

We are now imitating the European model of immigration and for some insane reasons seem to believe that our results will be different from theirs.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I agree.

The German Student who was shot here during a B&E...,

When they showed us the mob of "outraged Germans," they were all in Islamic garb.

 

[Ishmael]

I agree.

The German Student who was shot here during a B&E...,

When they showed us the mob of "outraged Germans," they were all in Islamic garb.

Identity of convenience.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, you're entitled to think whatever you want and if you want to use what I said for arguing a point, so be it. I just don't see where abortion comes into your previous post. I've told you before much of what you post is so wordy and convoluted that I truly don't know what you're saying. And I didn't see "abortion" mentioned. I didn't think abortion was the subiect. And geez, talking about someone being over sensitive and making every issue about abortion is just weird to me. Don't feel like you need to respond back. You more than got your point across.

Let me break this down at a sixth grade level.

I do not want to tax your little mind.

"Abortion" was not being mentioned in context with the topic at hand.

"Abortion" has nothing to do with the topic.

"Abortion" has everything to do with you.

You told me that you would never, ever vote for a Republican because they are, in general, opposed to abortion.

I hope that you are still able to follow me, because the next part might be to complex for a mind that unsophisticated.

Once you identify a "Republican" on the board, you then have identified one of the enemy.

In simpler terms:

A_J hate "Abortion"
A_J a "Republican"
"Rebublican" is the enemy of "Abortion"
∴ "A_J" is my enemy

Now that you have an enemy, the topic no longer matters, but you know that each post, each comment, each idea has to be deeply flawed.

The enemy is just plain always wrong.

LadyVer is always right.
She is a good person.
She would never tell a woman what to do with her body.
A_J would.
He is not a good person.
I do not have to pay any attention to his ideas, it is enough to mock him.
LadyVer will then act too stupid to understand a complex sentence.
LadyVer will then think that is is okay to simply dismiss A_J as incomprehensible.
(That means hard to understand, doll)

That is why I said that I would not break it down for you into very simple words so that you could counter with the usual Democratic mantras and bumper sticker key phrases all of which are meant to indicate that the argument is over because you have typed a very simple and profound a priori fundament truth which cannot be denied.

(A priori means so obvious that you do not even have to prove it, like when you say, you cannot tell me what to do with my body.)

The tragic thing about it is that those you have denigrated to the status of enemy of "Abortion" are those who run to the fire, the ones who throw themselves of others to protect them, then ones who value your life so much that they will put themselves between you and a gunman. You cannot see that we are not trying to tell you what to do with your body, but acting according to our nature which is to protect and defend life.

I am sorry to get so complex there, but after a lifetime of reading complex sentences penned by complex thinkers, I have been somewhat trained to get beyond argument by bumper sticker and why I will not mollycoddle your lack of effort in understanding the thoughts and motives of your "enemy."

Love and Kisses,
A_J

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Identity of convenience.

Ishmael

No one ever mentioned that he was a Muzzie...

He was Trayvon all over again.




Another poor innocent Ute murdered by the White Man's guns.

 

[Ishmael]

In the interests of bandwidth and brevity I didn't quote the above even though the heart of it is quotable.

Suffice it to say I have little patience for those that make their voting decisions based on gender, genital, abortion, or marriage identity. Hormonal voting at it's basest.

The fate of the Republic will not be decided by those subjects, or rather the fate of the Republic may very well be sealed by the fixation on those subjects to the exclusion of the very real problems.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

Shorter A_J: "As a libertarian, I demand maximum freedom for me to determine what a woman can and cannot do with her body". - A_J, the Inconsistent

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Part of the Dream is Fear of the Oik...

Oikophobia

Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.' "

The oik repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence's question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.
The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.
Roger Scruton, British philosopher