August1991 Posted December 16, 2023 Report Share Posted December 16, 2023 What's the difference? Progressives want to change the world - no problem. Some now use the word "transition". I reckon that Reagan and Thatcher won. We transition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legato Posted December 16, 2023 Report Share Posted December 16, 2023 We're making good progression, we've nearly reached the edge of the cliff, what will we do then? Thatcher..."keep going". Reagan.... "I second that". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 20, 2023 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2023 (edited) On 12/16/2023 at 1:10 PM, Legato said: We're making good progression, we've nearly reached the edge of the cliff, what will we do then? Thatcher..."keep going". Reagan.... "I second that". Edge of the cliff? Jump off? Radical change? You are a revolutionary. ==== The world changed in 1989, peacefully. Edited December 20, 2023 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legato Posted December 20, 2023 Report Share Posted December 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, August1991 said: Edge of the cliff? Jump off? Radical change? You are a revolutionary. Jump off what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 20, 2023 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, Legato said: Jump off what? What cliff are we jumping off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legato Posted December 20, 2023 Report Share Posted December 20, 2023 13 minutes ago, August1991 said: What cliff are we jumping off? Who's we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 20, 2023 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2023 45 minutes ago, Legato said: Who's we? We in the civilised world won. Peacefully. ==== Since 1990, Americans don't seem to understand this. You Americans won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 20, 2023 Report Share Posted December 20, 2023 6 hours ago, August1991 said: We in the civilised world won. Peacefully. ==== Since 1990, Americans don't seem to understand this. You Americans won. You are talking about the world after the Soviets fell. There was a world before them also. It was a world of chaos, where the west had soaring economies that also didn't provide enough for the worst off. It led to social strife. A lot like today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 22, 2023 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2023 On 12/20/2023 at 6:04 AM, Michael Hardner said: You are talking about the world after the Soviets fell. There was a world before them also. It was a world of chaos, where the west had soaring economies that also didn't provide enough for the worst off. It led to social strife. A lot like today. Dunno. People like Churchill, Kennan and Nixon negotiated with them. People like Thatcher and Reagan had nothing to do with them. Kissinger argued that the Soviets were different from Russians: the Communists wanted to change the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 22, 2023 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2023 On 12/19/2023 at 11:22 PM, August1991 said: We in the civilised world won. Peacefully. ==== Since 1990, Americans don't seem to understand this. You Americans won. This period of 1989-1991 in world history is remarkable. And unlike 1789, it has been largely peaceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 On 12/15/2023 at 10:18 PM, August1991 said: What's the difference? Progressives want to change the world - no problem. Some now use the word "transition". I reckon that Reagan and Thatcher won. We transition. Progressives do want to change the world. The problem is people think change is good. Not always. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 31 Author Report Share Posted January 31 (edited) 5 hours ago, Yakuda said: Progressives do want to change the world. The problem is people think change is good. Not always. Some radical change is "good". The collapse of the Berlin Wall for example was radical, revolutionary and good. I prefer slow change; I'm conservative by nature. But here's one of my points in the OP: this change/transition in 1989 was radical, revolutionary - and peaceful. Edited January 31 by August1991 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 12 hours ago, August1991 said: Some radical change is "good". The collapse of the Berlin Wall for example was radical, revolutionary and good. I prefer slow change; I'm conservative by nature. But here's one of my points in the OP: this change/transition in 1989 was radical, revolutionary - and peaceful Which one? China crushed a popular revolt with violence, then proceeded to amp up a consumer society that would reward the average person for compliance. The Soviet Union fell apart, was neglected by the West.... And a dictatorship grew in its place. Canada joined the FTA and built a foundation for a new North American state, that would be potentially the strongest alliance in the world. Plus ca change... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 (edited) 12 hours ago, August1991 said: Some radical change is "good". The collapse of the Berlin Wall for example was radical, revolutionary and good. I prefer slow change; I'm conservative by nature. But here's one of my points in the OP: this change/transition in 1989 was radical, revolutionary - and peaceful. That's the point "some" change is good not all change. Changes based on lies are never good. Most of what the left wants to change now is based on lies. Edited January 31 by Yakuda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 (edited) On 1/31/2024 at 4:44 AM, Yakuda said: Most of what the left wants to change now is based on lies. What does “the left” want changed based on a lie? Edited February 2 by TreeBeard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: What does “the left” want changed based on a lie? That's easy, people with penises can be women. Theres plenty more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 4 minutes ago, Yakuda said: That's easy, people with penises can be women. Theres plenty more. I don’t find labels important. The label is just how we use a word. Call them womyn, call them woomen, call them men with dicks. So this whole premise is a made up bogeyman. Isn’t “the left” wanting social acceptance of people who are transgender? Wouldn’t that be a more fair way of phrasing it? Your comfort with the labels is really unimportant and only designed to rile up opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Yakuda said: That's easy, people with penises can be women. Theres plenty more. 1 hour ago, TreeBeard said: Isn’t “the left” wanting social acceptance of people who are transgender? And why is accepting transgender people automatically regarded as a hallmark of "the left" ? I think that's a function of 60s political strategies... with the Democrats and Republicans jockeying for various demographics ? Surely individual personal freedom is a conservative value ? Eisenhower, Jim Flaherty, and others thought so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, TreeBeard said: I don’t find labels important. The label is just how we use a word. Call them womyn, call them woomen, call them men with dicks. So this whole premise is a made up bogeyman. No it's not. Women, womyn and woomen dont have penises. I'm sorry that reality bothers you so much but it's irrelevant. Isn’t “the left” wanting social acceptance of people who are transgender? Wouldn’t that be a more fair way of phrasing it? Your comfort with the labels is really unimportant and only designed to rile up opposition. If you want to be a woman I couldn't care less. Want me to call you a woman? Fine. Want me to say you are a woman? No because you aren't. Your discomfort with the label is really unimportant and is only designed to rile up divisiveness. 10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: And why is accepting transgender people automatically regarded as a hallmark of "the left" ? I think that's a function of 60s political strategies... with the Democrats and Republicans jockeying for various demographics ? Surely individual personal freedom is a conservative value ? Eisenhower, Jim Flaherty, and others thought so. So then you're in agreement that people have the personal freedom to say it's delusional to think women have penises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 2 minutes ago, Yakuda said: So then you're in agreement that people have the personal freedom to say it's delusional to think women have penises. Of course. They have the personal freedom to say the holocaust was a hoax, that evolution doesn't exist, that gayness is a sin repaid in hellfire and that I'm not the most excellent poster here too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: And why is accepting transgender people automatically regarded as a hallmark of "the left" ? I usually put those terms in quotes as I don’t know what they mean. They’re poorly defined by the people who use them. 10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Surely individual personal freedom is a conservative value ? Depends. Is that a social conservative value? Absolutely not. They clearly want a society that conforms to their values, and individual liberty takes a back seat, or liberty is redefined as being allowed to be a bigot. E.g. “businesses should be allowed to serve who they want without government interference “. That’s bigotry couched as liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Of course. They have the personal freedom to say the holocaust was a hoax, that evolution doesn't exist, that gayness is a sin repaid in hellfire and that I'm not the most excellent poster here too. People are free to say those things and saying women have penises is just as screwy. BTW the first three are untrue but that last one is spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: 1. Is that a social conservative value? Absolutely not. They clearly want a society that conforms to their values, and individual liberty takes a back seat, or liberty is redefined as being allowed to be a bigot. 1. That's regressive not conservative. 10 minutes ago, Yakuda said: 2. People are free to say those things and saying women have penises is just as screwy. 3. BTW the first three are untrue but that last one is spot on 2. Screwy ? Who cares ? It's about Freedom vs Lack Therof. 3. Wow ok thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. That's regressive not conservative. 2. Screwy ? Who cares ? It's about Freedom vs Lack Therof. 3. Wow ok thanks. 2. You dont care that people might be telling you screwy things????? Really????? That might explain a few things 3. Humility is good for the soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 3 minutes ago, Yakuda said: 1. You dont care that people might be telling you screwy things????? 2. Really????? That might explain a few things 3. Humility is good for the soul. 1. I just ignore a lot of it, frankly. There's even an official function here that does it automatically. It functions something like those little bags you carry in your pocket when you head out to walk the dog. 2. Before the internet, folks like me used to walk past street corner crazies. Now they get on CNN/FOX and especially NewsMax 3. I'm humble as f*ck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.