What we're dismissive of is views that amount to active support of less-than-democracies, that don't amount to active support of liberal democracies and the capitalism whereby they flourish (though you yourself are less hostile to capitalism than some bad examples we could name presently strutting the national stage), and in your particular case, your steady effort at uncalling (to coin some Newspeak) a spade a spade in insisting that socialistic policies instituted by the present Democratic Congress and Administration are somehow not socialistic. We know what socialism looks like, and we know what it does too -- punkers were simply a quick visual manifestation of socialism-driven goofballery, with their damaged clothing and their somebody-tied-me-to-a-chair-to-give-me-these haircuts. No; I quite dislike ugly styles. Even worse are styles vying in their ugliness.

I think there's a disconnect between your raw intellectual powers and your political allegiance -- voting Dem is for dull-normals. People who live without values that can actually be valuable. That sort of suboptimality. There isn't, by contrast, a disconnect between my politics and my brainpower, nor is there for Merc or Classic.

We're not intolerant. We're just able to make value judgements and to live by them. Some ideas and ways are worth more than others, and we three, anyway, seek the ways that are worth more, forsaking the ways that are worth less -- with the space or without it. (And we're the loudest about it, which is why I noticed.) Now you, by contrast, inasmuch as you have so internalized white liberal guilt that you believe it to be a moral structure and a road to virtue, are left trying to imply that we'd better live life without values, as your posts suggest you do. We are what not paralyzed by white liberal guilt looks like and sounds like, and I guarantee that's a better road than what you've hitherto trod.

"Fellow citizen" -- how would that equal "wise?" I'll quote Heinlein (as seems inevitable :rolleyes:)
A lot of subtle and provocative tensions between those two suspension points. The question of how wise the million could be was brought home to me sharply in the Clinton and Obama elections, not so in Carter's.

We do not see that the "difference of opinion" adds up to being pro-democracy, pro-liberal social orders, pro-prosperity enough. Because of your liberal guilt, you're not enough of an apostle of democracy. Were you enough of one, you'd be ravening to cut Ba'athist throat, among those of other nondemocrats viciously opposing the democratizing and enriching effects of globalization. This would not necessarily make you a nice guy, don't get me wrong -- but it would be enough, aye, even a surplus. I think we three would only raven about it if we were in a particularly bad mood; we're not quite proof against the sable bird. Still, we cannot despise cutting totalitarian throats, and we have no reason to object to their passing from this world to another. It means they can't enslave our fellow creatures here. That is valuable.

Failing to destroy foreign tyrants, and domestic ones, is NOT "best for the country." Our troubles don't come from places of democracies. They come from places of tyranny, of undemocracy. So do not fail to destroy these things of villainy.

Thus we do; thus, you do not.

Thus, you could be doing. We wouldn't kick you out of the treehouse for trying.

Hey, how nice to be appreciated. Redux does cause me to think it out; Radar not so much.

Better do that checking, Sam; you will find I don't. I've remarked in a couple of posts that von Kühnelt-Leddihn visibly does, and even Russell Kirk sometimes wistfully looks that way.

Meantime, you should not make excuses for not reading EvKL. You should simply read the man and mull him over -- "helps to train and develop the brain/Except if you haven't got any." You were in effect asking to be allowed to remain stupid, to continue in ignorance. I always answer that goddamned question with a firm "No." It is not allowed.

Right away, you'll sputter, "Are you calling me stupid?!" I will always reply, "I am showing you an opportunity to become smarter." Wiser, or better informed may be used as needed. Dunno 'bout you, but I find being not bright to be very uncomfortable, hence I hand you some discomfort when I don't think you're following a way of wisdom. And what if EvKL's works make you smarter than I am? While you're not there now -- no smart man will ask to limit his intelligence or his knowledge -- wouldn't it be cool if you could?

Excuse me, but I'll remain stupid if I feel like it. I am currently reading the comix ilustrated editions of Collapse by Jared Diamond, Zen Buddhism. selected writings of d.t. suzki, and No Nature by Gary Snyder.

Here's a fav passage from No Nature:

In the first thirty years of my life
I roamed hundreds and thousands of miles.
Walked by rivers through deep grass
Entered cities of boiling red dust.
Tried drugs but couldn't make immortal.
Read books and wrote poems on history.
Today I'm back at Cold Mountain
I'll sleep by the creek and clarify my ears.

I'll will not lower my standards to include your so-called definition of intelligence. Try reading more poetry, especially Rilke. God might just jump out at you and give you the scare of your life (and if you need me to explain that I would be honored to do so.)



I couldn't care less if you call me stupid. Repeat it long and often. After all, even negative attention is better than none at all. I question your ability to "make" me smarter. I have to respect a person before I seriously consider his thought processes.

Then you will cut off your nose to spite your face, Sam. Can't say that does anything to improve your looks. I shall continue to throw smart-making things your way. "Here I stand; I can do no other."

Of course you question my ability. And so what?

Regarding stupidity, here's a little something I live by, which is why I told you I don't allow people around me to stay dumb:

Heinlein again.

From here. Hopefully, Entertainment Tonight isn't too biased.

Oh, typical Palin. She is SUCH a victim of the evil writers of Family Guy, but Limballs could call her a cunt and she'd be salivating. :rolleyes:

Ha! Yeah, a sign that she has no self-esteem, crawling around after him like she does. Apparently, she fits the "i love abuse" stereotype. Way to set the women's movement back 200 years, Sarah, ya dumbass. :p:

Dan Quayle had enough common sense to ignore the silliness. Where is Dan Quayle when we need him? Still sitting in that room waiting for the next "Project for a New American Century" meeting?

We got the New American Century we wanted - with Palin as its new spokesman.

So what if we start making fun of kids with Autism? Is that ok? or is it just because it is Palin that makes it ok to attack her family?

Its because of Palin's different responses. St. Limbaugh can call people retards and Palin's fine with it. Its like bass ackward political correctness. :headshake

My point is that is not correct in either contex. Limbaugh gets no pass from me. I think he is an idiot. Nothing excuses attacking a child of a political person you hate, even if it is Palin. We heard all this shit about Palin and how bad a mother she was during the election, abandoning her kids, etc. But no one batted an eye about that bitch Pelosi who is the terrible mother of 6. Right? No. It has nothing to do with it. And even though I believe Pelosi is a retard I don't make fun of her because of that.:)

On Fox News announcing that his son in running for Congress.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...for-congress/1

Palin/Qualye, 2012 ....

That sounds like a particularly troubling example of slash fiction.



[eta] *snicker* So..... Urbane, Mercenary and classicman: united against the world...one for all, and all for one! The Three Mouseketeers.

@ merc and classic: sorry. Couldn't resist. Bet you boys are thrilled to have Urbane represent you :P

Wrong order.

Classic, Urbane and Mercenary - The CUM Party
tagline: the manly freedom fighters!