Florida State Seminoles

[Tree]

Lenin used the language of the left to get into power but in actuality once he took the reigns he and Trotsky both ruled in the typically harsh left wing manner.

FYP

When Chairman Mao took power in China, was his "Cultural Revolution" and "Great Leap Forward," which caused the murder of millions, was that also "right wing"?

When Pol Pot took over Cambodia, were his "Killing Fields" of millions also "right wing"?

Wherever Marxists have taken over a country, the gulags and mass murders usually quickly follow. That's what they do.

Once you break through the nonsense and propaganda you've allowed into your brain and realize the real left is the wing of the people and the real right is the wing of the rich and powerful, you won't need to ask those types of questions.

[hedge]

You'll be waiting a long time for that breakthrough...

[Professor Tiger]

yes, the cultural revolution was very much in line with the current right wing anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-elite philosophy.

Incorrect. Your intellectual cousins in Stalin's Moscow or Mao's Beijing all ran around proclaiming themselves as "scientific" and "enlightened" and "modern" while they were exterminating millions. Sort of like when modern day liberals run around claiming that they are "tolerant" and "inclusive" and "open-minded" and "diverse" while they are doing everything they can to shut down free speech and crush anybody who disagrees with them.

[DooKSucks]

yes, the cultural revolution was very much in line with the current right wing anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-elite philosophy.

Incorrect. Your intellectual cousins in Stalin's Moscow or Mao's Beijing all ran around proclaiming themselves as "scientific" and "enlightened" and "modern" while they were exterminating millions. Sort of like when modern day liberals run around claiming that they are "tolerant" and "inclusive" and "open-minded" and "diverse" while they are doing everything they can to shut down free speech and crush anybody who disagrees with them.

Extreme liberals and the Evangelical Right are equally intolerant.

Most conservatives eschew basic science much like Mao and Stalin did.

[Professor Tiger]

the real left is the wing of the people and the real right is the wing of the rich and powerful

Sounds like you haven't come into personal contact with a member of "the people" whose interests you supposedly champion it in a long time: The reason those "people" you mention just voted Trump into office - led by former Obama voters in PA, OH, MI and WI - is they know the left hasn't done diddly squat for them for the last 30 years. The Democrat party used to be the party of "the people," but in its current state it is only for the people who are black, feminist, illegal immigrant, LGBT, snowflake, college professor, SJW, journalist, actor, comedian, Hollywood actor, or Silicon Valley mogul. Wall Street hedge fund managers and globalist multinational corporatists are the newest additions to the Democrat Party - the very type of people whose predations the Democrats used to protect "the people" from.

If you happen to be one of "the people" that don't fit into one of these categories, then the Democrat party hates you. If you are a male, they hiss at your "male privilege" and your "patriarchy." If you are white, then they accuse you of being an alt-right KKK Neo-Nazi. If you don't live in a gated community on one of the coasts, they are always letting you know just how much better they are then you. If you are on the lower end of the economic ladder, and you are struggling to get and keep a blue collar job, they want to flood your job market with illegal immigrants that makes it that much harder for you to make a living. If you work in industries they don't like (tobacco, coal), they will happily destroy the industry that employs you, and then pat themselves on the back. If you are a gun owner, they want to invalidate the 2nd Amendment and take your guns away. If you disagree with them, especially on a college campus, they will give you all F's and then run you out of town. If you are a Christian who is insufficiently supportive of forcing men who think they are women into every bathroom in America, or forcing Christian florists and bakers to participate in gay marriages, or forcing Catholic nuns to give away birth control, then they despise you.

In short, the Democrats have been giving the middle finger to "the people" for 30+ years. Now, "the people" are returning the favor by giving you Trump.

[eCat]

yes, the cultural revolution was very much in line with the current right wing anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-elite philosophy.

Incorrect. Your intellectual cousins in Stalin's Moscow or Mao's Beijing all ran around proclaiming themselves as "scientific" and "enlightened" and "modern" while they were exterminating millions. Sort of like when modern day liberals run around claiming that they are "tolerant" and "inclusive" and "open-minded" and "diverse" while they are doing everything they can to shut down free speech and crush anybody who disagrees with them.

Extreme liberals and the Evangelical Right are equally intolerant.

Most conservatives eschew basic science much like Mao and Stalin did.

most? horseshit

what they have a problem with is the forced "solutions" and need for constant hyperbole on the subject.

[hedge]

Like the forced "solutions" to the opioid "epidemic"...

[bluetick]

Amazing, isn't it? Weeks ago it was "nothing to see here - move along", and now comes the finger-pointing and the full-on blame game. Seems our current national nightmare is the result of democratic fecklessness the last, oh, 30 years or so. Too much attention given to the women and the blacks and the rest, so it was time for a reset to a simpler time. Pre-globalization, pre-diversification, pre-...pinhead intellectualism. MAGA circa 1950s, Leave it to Beaver, hardhats and lunch pails, and everyone knows their place (and their bathroom). So whatever comes from this Trump 'phenomenom', remember...dems brought it on.

[Tree]

the real left is the wing of the people and the real right is the wing of the rich and powerful

Sounds like you haven't come into personal contact with a member of "the people" whose interests you supposedly champion it in a long time: The reason those "people" you mention just voted Trump into office - led by former Obama voters in PA, OH, MI and WI - is they know the left hasn't done diddly squat for them for the last 30 years. The Democrat party used to be the party of "the people," but in its current state it is only for the people who are black, feminist, illegal immigrant, LGBT, snowflake, college professor, SJW, journalist, actor, comedian, Hollywood actor, or Silicon Valley mogul. Wall Street hedge fund managers and globalist multinational corporatists are the newest additions to the Democrat Party - the very type of people whose predations the Democrats used to protect "the people" from.

If you happen to be one of "the people" that don't fit into one of these categories, then the Democrat party hates you. If you are a male, they hiss at your "male privilege" and your "patriarchy." If you are white, then they accuse you of being an alt-right KKK Neo-Nazi. If you don't live in a gated community on one of the coasts, they are always letting you know just how much better they are then you. If you are on the lower end of the economic ladder, and you are struggling to get and keep a blue collar job, they want to flood your job market with illegal immigrants that makes it that much harder for you to make a living. If you work in industries they don't like (tobacco, coal), they will happily destroy the industry that employs you, and then pat themselves on the back. If you are a gun owner, they want to invalidate the 2nd Amendment and take your guns away. If you disagree with them, especially on a college campus, they will give you all F's and then run you out of town. If you are a Christian who is insufficiently supportive of forcing men who think they are women into every bathroom in America, or forcing Christian florists and bakers to participate in gay marriages, or forcing Catholic nuns to give away birth control, then they despise you.

In short, the Democrats have been giving the middle finger to "the people" for 30+ years. Now, "the people" are returning the favor by giving you Trump.

Correct that the DNC is just another party of the rich. So now we have two parties that ultimately represent the same things (unlimited concentration of corporate power and empire building abroad). The SJW stuff and identity politics ultimately functions as a distraction to keep people from focusing and uniting on the underlying issues that really matter, i.e. economic ones. Basic divide and conquer. The DNC is actually worse than the GOP, since the latter is just doing what they're supposed to in representing the rich and powerful whereas the former is supposed to be representing the masses and instead have been driving a dagger into our collective spine for decades and getting paid millions extra for every twist.

[eCat]

Like the forced "solutions" to the opioid "epidemic"...

yep, except there isn't a sizeable outcry from the public to legalize heroin. The public is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping heroin illegal.

[Professor Tiger]

Correct that the DNC is just another party of the rich. So now we have two parties that ultimately represent the same things (unlimited concentration of corporate power and empire building abroad). The SJW stuff and identity politics ultimately functions as a distraction to keep people from focusing and uniting on the underlying issues that really matter, i.e. economic ones. Basic divide and conquer. The DNC is actually worse than the GOP, since the latter is just doing what they're supposed to in representing the rich and powerful whereas the former is supposed to be representing the masses and instead have been driving a dagger into our collective spine for decades and getting paid millions extra for every twist.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo.

[Professor Tiger]

Tick, if a couple of low level Iranian functionaries had asked to set up a meeting with Chelsea offering dirt on Trump during the campaign, I think we all know what the answer would have been. There's no doubt Hillary would have crawled across of field of broken glass to get at such information. Or at least written a seven figure check from her "charity." It would never have been treated like COLLUSION! and TREASON!!!

[bluetick]

Tick, if a couple of low level Iranian functionaries had asked to set up a meeting with Chelsea offering dirt on Trump during the campaign, I think we all know what the answer would have been. There's no doubt Hillary would have crawled across of field of broken glass to get at such information. Or at least written a seven figure check from her "charity." It would never have been treated like COLLUSION! and TREASON!!!

A) Predictably, your hypothetical is stupid on it's face and B) what dirt could your fantasy Iranians produce that'd match the real dirt Trump heaped on himself? Women accusers came out of the woodwork, there was the Access Hollywood video, one of his ex-wives swore he raped her. His shirking of military service yet he dissed POWs and swore he's smarter the the generals. He mocked people with disabilities. Trump U and the 'Mexican' judge who presided over it. Mexicans as murders and rapists. Cruz's dad; Cruz's wife; little Marco; horse-face Fiorina. Bankruptcies, dirty deals, and scores of unpaid contractors. Hidden taxes. The list goes on and on.

Seriously, what dirt-scenario could you dream up that'd beat all the other stuff? Golden shower with some Moscow hookers? Nah. Shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Ave.? We heard the big guy himself say you'd give him a pass for that.

[DooKSucks]

Incorrect. Your intellectual cousins in Stalin's Moscow or Mao's Beijing all ran around proclaiming themselves as "scientific" and "enlightened" and "modern" while they were exterminating millions. Sort of like when modern day liberals run around claiming that they are "tolerant" and "inclusive" and "open-minded" and "diverse" while they are doing everything they can to shut down free speech and crush anybody who disagrees with them.

Extreme liberals and the Evangelical Right are equally intolerant.

Most conservatives eschew basic science much like Mao and Stalin did.

most? horseshit

what they have a problem with is the forced "solutions" and need for constant hyperbole on the subject.

Young Earth Theory and Climate Change denial...

[Toemeesleather]

No one denies Climate change, fool, it's been changing for millions of years, (both cooling and warming) way before Gore and SUVs.

Now, if it makes you feel good by calling me a AGW denier, have at it. AGW exists only in computer models and greedy one world politicians heads.

[bluetick]

Scientists have pieced together a record of Earth’s climate, dating back hundreds of thousands of years (and, in some cases, millions or hundreds of millions of years), by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun.[2]

This record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.[2]

Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.[2]


From the U.S. EPA website...(while they still have a website) (while we still have an EPA)

[bluetick]

Now, if it makes you feel good by calling me a AGW denier, have at it.

heh There are other things we could call you that would make us feel really really good.

[Toemeesleather]

Is this the same EPA that is trying to redefine mud puddles as navigable waterways?

Global warming...climate change....EPA(govt)....control, it all fits.

When one word/phrase doesn't work, change it. That's how you get consensus!

[bluetick]

Global warming...climate change....EPA(govt)....control, it all fits.

Can YOU think of scientific discoveries since the 4th century B.C. that have become the basis of civilization's laws throughout history? There are MANY! You're local library is a great source of information on this topic. Do you understand topics? Again - check out your local library!

[eCat]

It's impossible in some quarters to discuss Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a shady Russian lawyer without being quizzed about similar bad things politicians from the opposing party have done.

What about Ted Kennedy's secret messages to the Soviets while Ronald Reagan was running for re-election? What about the Ukrainian government trying to help Hillary Clinton? And on and on it goes.

This bit of rhetorical judo has become so common in our politics that it even has a name: "whataboutism." Naturally, its origins have been traced back to the Russians, if not even further back. The Economist's Edward Luce described it as an attempt to "match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined Western one."

More recently, the tactic has been deployed by diehard supporters of President Trump, as well as by his more removed "anti-anti-Trumpist" backers.

And you know what? Trump's supporters are not wrong to urge us all to truly examine historical precedents. Because all too often, Trump's fiercest critics declare his every utterance and action unprecedented without bothering to thoughtfully consider the precedents.

Now, when "whataboutism" is used to defend the indefensible, it is obviously wrong. But not every historical comparison can be dismissed as simple "whataboutism." And there are good reasons why "What about ... " questions have so frequently been raised under this president. The case against Trump is not simply that he does things that are wrong or bad, but that he is bad in ways that are unprecedented and represent a sharp break from important political norms.

If we are going to chastise Trump for norm violations, shouldn't we first establish how normal or abnormal his actions in a given area really are? If we are going to say he is guilty of doing the unprecedented, shouldn't we look to see if there are in fact any precedents?

These "what about" questions also impose some accountability on Trump critics. When asked in good faith, they can be used to determine consistency and avoid double standards.

None of this means that if President Trump were to suspend habeas corpus, we should respond by saying, "Calm down! Even Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War!" It does, however, mean that even people who believe Trump represents something fundamentally different from past presidents have an obligation to try to keep him in historical perspective.

The tendency to treat everything Trump does as an emergency, without distinction, will make true emergencies more difficult to recognize. And if the press gets it wrong, hyping something that isn't especially unusual, it makes it easier for Trump to dismiss future criticisms or unflattering reports as "fake news."

Take, for example, the dearth of on-camera press briefings. There is a legitimate argument to be made that this stifles transparency because it reduces the consequences for refusing to answer questions or giving incoherent responses — the viewing public doesn't get to see the administration's representatives squirm. (It's also a missed opportunity for Trump to use the bully pulpit, but that's another story.)

What it doesn't do is end the free press, which existed before on-camera briefings were even technologically possible, or alter the character of the republic in some fundamental way. CNN's Jim Acosta is being hyperbolic when he says video of Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been "banned by the USA" and asks if it feels like America when the media is "openly" trashed or other, more conservative outlets get to ask questions instead of his.

It's enough to make a person who would otherwise like to stand in journalistic solidarity with Acosta on these questions ask, "What about Spiro Agnew?" (Indeed, what about White House press secretaries under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush suggesting there be no live coverage of these briefings at all?)

The criticism some of us have of those who are obsessively anti-Trump isn't that they are necessarily wrong about the president. I personally share many of their harsh assessments, especially of his fixation on petty feuds at a time of international peril, not to mention his overall temperament.

Yet they can also be almost naive in their evaluations of politicians and government pre-Trump, blind to how the governing class' failures and character flaws made this presidency possible in the first place. Indeed, they often risk becoming the resistance that cried wolf.