Trump pardons the crooks...

First topic message reminder :

Trump pardons Joe Arpaio
August 26, 2017

Trump has granted a presidential pardon to former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona. The memo mentions his "admirable" and "selfless public service."

The memo mentions his "admirable" and "selfless public service."

* Arpaio is being pardoned for criminal contempt charges for disobeying a 2011 court order that ordered him to stop detaining people based on his suspicions they were undocumented immigrants in what critics have called racist and discriminatory practices.

* Arpaio served as a sheriff from 1993-2016 until he was defeated last year. He endorsed Trump's presidential candidacy in January 2016 and appeared with him at campaign events.

Why it matters: Choosing Arpaio as the first pardon will enrage half the country, but Trump won't care. The way Trump sees it, he genuinely believes an injustice was done to Arpaio and he sees this as helping somebody who was loyal to him throughout the campaign. Trump viewed Arpaio's support -- along with Jeff Sessions' -- as crucial to solidifying his credentials on being tough on the border.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:

OK, I was actually going to reply to you just this once, before I was so rudely interrupted.

I notice everything.
I notice the thuggery of shaven headed skinhead rightwingers, many of whom have their origins in the football terraces.
Leftwingers have their origins from long haired pacifists who  said "peace, man" and "flower power" a lot,  smoked weed, campaigned for nuclear disarmament.  Yes they are more active nowadays, they are no longer ''pacifists'' but imo nowhere as violent as skinhead thugs.

I also notice the criminal records of a large number of far right activists in senior positions in groups like EDL & BF.
Finally I noticed that one BF member murdered a LW MP in cold blood.
So yes, nicko I do notice a lot of things.

Sorry but that does not even come close to understanding left wingers or Far left violence in history.

Or the rise in Far left violence at countless events throughout the west in the last few years.

I condemn any extremists, whether political or religious, but its so weird how those on the left continually down play Far left extremism and violence by them.

I condemn all Far Right extremism and violence. Where its a much bigger problem in the US than it is the UK

I suggest you take a trip back in history to where Far left wing groups started on their campaigns of violence. In the early 20th century, would be a good start.

By the by, there were many extremist and terrorist left wing groups in the sixties. All around the world.

Here, this is the New York Times from 1971.

http://www.nytimes.com/1971/01/03/archives/-the-socialism-of-fools-the-new-left-calls-it-antizionism-but-its.html?_r=0

I love it when I post things to disprove points made by some on the left, they do what they do best.

Slag off other posters, on who's views they do not share and butter each other up, of the ones they do share.

So that is this thread where Jules cannot answer and Quill cannot on the other answer questions and points

Hey ho

Original Quill wrote:I miss Irn, lots.  Real friend.  I hear he is a bit under weather.

Hell, I miss all of 'em.

Me too.
Like I said, c'est la vie.

Original Quill wrote: Well, it's a value judgement, true.  Of course, it begs the question, should Deutsche Bank officials be in prison


if they laundered three or more money transactions?

Yes corporate crime is as injurious to people's health as violence.
Heavy metal poisoning of the water supply of impoverished people, overpollution of the air they breathe, and private firms which deny them  health care  - these are all injurious to health & wellbeing are they not?

But hey let folks carry on thinking INSIDE the box, and never venturing outside their comfort zone!
They're only capable of viewing things ONE way and that's that.
*shrug*

Ok, I’ll indulge the child in the room:

Thorin wrote:Sorry but that does not even come close to understanding left wingers or Far left violence in history.

Or the rise in Far left violence at countless events throughout the west in the last few years.

I condemn any extremists, whether political or religious, but its so weird how those on the left continually down play Far left extremism and violence by them.

I condemn all Far Right extremism and violence. Where its a much bigger problem in the US than it is the UK

I suggest you take a trip back in history to where Far left wing groups started on their campaigns of violence. In the early 20th century, would be a good start.

By the by, there were many extremist and terrorist left wing groups in the sixties. All around the world.

Didge, where is the question?  You are whining and moaning, and you don’t even know how to ask a question?

You cite an article by Seymour Marty Lipset, which he wrote while he taught at Berkeley, around or before 1971.  He also wrote/edited, The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Interpretations, edited with Sheldon S. Wolin (1965).  Sheldon Wolin was a friend of mine, and while at Princeton University, he sat in on my PhD committee at Rutgers.  Maybe you remember, I used his saying as a signature:  "Thought before action..."

Lipset was an ultimate conservative before he moved on to Harvard.  When he died in 2006, he was teaching at Georga Mason University.  If you had read Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains (2017), which you brought to us a couple of weeks ago, you would know that George Mason University is one of the most conservative institutions in America.  The Economics department there was started by James Buchanan, himself a graduate of the notoriously conservative University of Chicago.

I hardly think that Marty Lipset (since I knew him personally I take the liberty of addressing him in the familiar) is a fair spokesman to judge the left (or the right, but that is another matter).  Would you respect an article by Steven Bannon on the LW?  On anything?

talking LW ideologies but taking a 1970's article is stupid

western LW is NOT Marxism
hasn't been anything like that for decades, western LW is and has been for 50 years, about socially progressive movements.

veya_victaous wrote:talking LW ideologies but taking a 1970's article is stupid

western LW is NOT Marxism
hasn't been anything like that for decades, western LW is and has been for 50 years, about socially progressive movements.

Again you are not the standard or judge to say what Marxism is.

Just like any belief, there is many different forms of a belief and every single example of where Communism has become the state system. They were all proponents of Maxism

Actually its very important to show the article of left wing extremism, that was rife in the 60's and 70's. Especially when someone claims it all comes from 60's history.

It also shows you have no idea about many Left wing extremist groups today

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:talking LW ideologies but taking a 1970's article is stupid

western LW is NOT Marxism
hasn't been anything like that for decades, western LW is and has been for 50 years, about socially progressive movements.

Again you are not the standard or judge to say what Marxism is.

Marxism is what the man named "Marx" wrote and said, nothing more.

Thorin wrote:Just like any belief, there is many different forms of a belief and every single example of where Communism has become the state system. They were all proponents of Maxism

Yes, but those things are called "Leninism" or "Trotskyism", or at best, Bolshevism and Menshevism.  Leave poor Marx alone.  

If you are so concerned about it, why don't you spend some time reading about it.  Here, try this: Lichtheim, Geo., A Short History of Socialism.  Or, at least Google it, fgs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism

Thorin wrote:Actually its very important to show the article of left wing extremism, that was rife in the 60's and 70's. Especially when someone claims it all comes from 60's history.

It also shows you have no idea about many Left wing extremist groups today

My god...you should talk.  You quote an article from a political science teacher at George Mason University?  Are you aware that George Mason is a think-tank for the Koch Brothers?

The school was founded only in 1972...ask yourself, how did it get funded in so short a time?

Original Quill wrote:

Marxism is what the man named "Marx" wrote and said, nothing more.

Thorin wrote:Really, so there is no such thing as various forms of Marxism, like Lennist-Marxism for example?
Again you do not decide what is and what is not Marxism, as more to the point the man is dead

Yes, but those things are called "Leninism" or "Trotskyism", or at best, Bolshevism and Menshevism.  If you are so concerned about it, why don't you spend some time reading about it.  Here, try this: Lichtheim, Geo., A Short History of Socialism.  Or, at least Google it, fgs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism

Thorin wrote:They are formed from Maxism, thus Marxism, being the major aspect of the ideology and teachings

My god...you should talk.  You quote an article from a political science teacher at George Mason University?  Are you aware that George Mason is a think-tank for the Koch Brothers?

The school was founded only in 1972...ask yourself, how did it get funded in so short a time?

Ah so you end as you do as per usual and not take on the historical points made, but instead look to deligitimize the author.

Quell surprise

If posters want to see for themselves who Seymour was, here you go and not the warped view of Quill

Seymour Martin Lipset (March 18, 1922 – December 31, 2006) was an American political sociologist, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the Hazel Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University. His major work was in the fields of political sociology, trade union organization, social stratification, public opinion, and the sociology of intellectual life. He also wrote extensively about the conditions for democracy in comparative perspective.

At his death in 2006, The Guardian called him "the leading theorist of democracy and American exceptionalism"; The New York Times said he was "a pre-eminent sociologist, political scientist and incisive theorist of American uniqueness"; and the Washington Post said he was "one of the most influential social scientists of the past half century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Martin_Lipset

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Marxism is what the man named "Marx" wrote and said, nothing more.



Yes, but those things are called "Leninism" or "Trotskyism", or at best, Bolshevism and Menshevism.  If you are so concerned about it, why don't you spend some time reading about it.  Here, try this: Lichtheim, Geo., A Short History of Socialism.  Or, at least Google it, fgs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism



My god...you should talk.  You quote an article from a political science teacher at George Mason University?  Are you aware that George Mason is a think-tank for the Koch Brothers?

The school was founded only in 1972...ask yourself, how did it get funded in so short a time?

Ah so you end as you do as per usual and not take on the historical points made, but instead look to deligitimize the author.

Quell surprise

First things first. You ought to know something about the subject you preach before you start in. You know nothing whatsoever about the history of socialism. Consequently, you know nothing about the history of the LW.

The fact that you know nothing about someone you so freely quote is indicative. You've got a Google Attention-Span. And the fact that you have no depth-of-appreciation of the things you are parroting, shows you are trying to score easy-talking points, with no scholarly effort.

Why should anyone pay attention to you? You are just a C&P poster who knows nothing about his subject.

Thorin wrote:If posters want to see for themselves who Seymour was, here you go and not the warped view of Quill

Seymour Martin Lipset (March 18, 1922 – December 31, 2006) was an American political sociologist, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the Hazel Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University. His major work was in the fields of political sociology, trade union organization, social stratification, public opinion, and the sociology of intellectual life. He also wrote extensively about the conditions for democracy in comparative perspective.

At his death in 2006, The Guardian called him "the leading theorist of democracy and American exceptionalism"; The New York Times said he was "a pre-eminent sociologist, political scientist and incisive theorist of American uniqueness"; and the Washington Post said he was "one of the most influential social scientists of the past half century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Martin_Lipset

Yes, anyone can Google. I knew him personally, and in a way that you couldn't, even if you had spent four-years at Berkeley. Wikipedia is a good, quick source, but it's no substitute for real learning.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Ah so you end as you do as per usual and not take on the historical points made, but instead look to deligitimize the author.

Quell surprise

First things first.  You ought to know something about the subject you preach before you start in.  You know nothing whatsoever about the history of socialism.  Consequently, you know nothing about the history of the LW.

The fact that you know nothing about someone you so freely quote is indicative.  You've got a Google Attention-Span.  And the fact that you have no depth-of-appreciation of the things you are parroting, shows you are trying to score easy-talking points, with no scholarly effort.

Why should anyone pay attention to you?  You are just a C&P poster who knows nothing about his subject.

1) First things first, I do know what I am talking about and the above is just more hysterics from you after you disgustingly tried to slander a great political scientist. Which shows the desperation you lend yourself into debates

2) So stop paying attention to me if you are going to sulk like a little boy

3) so nothing to counter my views, just yet more desperate misdirection

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:If posters want to see for themselves who Seymour was, here you go and not the warped view of Quill

Seymour Martin Lipset (March 18, 1922 – December 31, 2006) was an American political sociologist, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the Hazel Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University. His major work was in the fields of political sociology, trade union organization, social stratification, public opinion, and the sociology of intellectual life. He also wrote extensively about the conditions for democracy in comparative perspective.

At his death in 2006, The Guardian called him "the leading theorist of democracy and American exceptionalism"; The New York Times said he was "a pre-eminent sociologist, political scientist and incisive theorist of American uniqueness"; and the Washington Post said he was "one of the most influential social scientists of the past half century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Martin_Lipset

Yes, anyone can Google.  I knew him personally, and in a way that you couldn't, even if you had spent four-years at Berkeley.  Wikipedia is a good, quick source, but it's no substitute for real learning.

You knew him personally and yet disgustingly compared him to Steve bannon, which shows you are full off shit.

As he is nothing like him.

This is all you pathetic commies can do, make up bullshit and attempt to slander and deligitimize people

Thorin wrote:1) First things first, I do know what I am talking about and the above is just more hysterics from you after you disgustingly tried to slander a great political scientist. Which shows the desperation you lend yourself into debates

Adjectives and invective to cover up your ignorance. You don't know what you are talking about, either as to Socialism, the LW or Marty Lipset. Great political scientist...psssaw! He wrote a lot, that's all.

Thorin wrote:You knew him personally and yet disgustingly compared him to Steve Bannon, which shows you are full off shit.

You're desperate. Of course he's comparable to Steven Bannon...both are products of the Koch Brothers.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:1) First things first, I do know what I am talking about and the above is just more hysterics from you after you disgustingly tried to slander a great political scientist. Which shows the desperation you lend yourself into debates

Adjectives and invective to cover up your ignorance.  You don't know what you are talking about, either as to Socialism, the LW or Marty Lipset.  Great political scientist...psssaw!  He wrote a lot, that's all.

So just more poor insults.

You exposed your lies on here claiming to know Seymore, by then making the most outlandish comparrison to Steve Bannon

In 2001, Lipset was named among the top 100 American intellectuals, as measured by academic citations, in Richard Posner's book, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline

Lets see all your citations shall we?

Its so boring when you never actually take on any points but come out with the biggest load of crap trying to deligitimize people instead of taking on views made.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:You knew him personally and yet disgustingly compared him to Steve Bannon, which shows you are full off shit.

You're desperate.  Of course he's comparable to Steven Bannon...both are products of the Koch Brothers.

Only in your hateful twisted commie mind is he comparable

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're desperate.  Of course he's comparable to Steven Bannon...both are products of the Koch Brothers.

Only in your hateful twisted commie mind is he comparable

I'll leave you pissing on your Kaikis.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:talking LW ideologies but taking a 1970's article is stupid

western LW is NOT Marxism
hasn't been anything like that for decades, western LW is and has been for 50 years, about socially progressive movements.

Again you are not the standard or judge to say what Marxism is.

Just like any belief, there is many different forms of a belief and every single example of where Communism has become the state system. They were all proponents of Maxism

Actually its very important to show the article of left wing extremism, that was rife in the 60's and 70's. Especially when someone claims it all comes from 60's history.

It also shows you have no idea about many Left wing extremist groups today

No, You are just a nutjob with almost no knowledge on the subject, including basic definitions.
Like Quill pointed out you ignorance of the topic means this is NOT a debate, just someone educated pointing out your crap is wrong

Western LW is NOT communism or Marxism.

In the past 50 years western LW has not pursued "Communism Left' it has pursued 'hippy Left' a.k.a equality, human rights etc.
which western RW has stood against for the past 50 years

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Again you are not the standard or judge to say what Marxism is.

Just like any belief, there is many different forms of a belief and every single example of where Communism has become the state system. They were all proponents of Maxism

Actually its very important to show the article of left wing extremism, that was rife in the 60's and 70's. Especially when someone claims it all comes from 60's history.

It also shows you have no idea about many Left wing extremist groups today

No, You are just a nutjob with almost no knowledge on the subject, including basic definitions.
Like Quill  pointed out you ignorance of the topic means this is NOT a debate, just someone educated pointing out your crap is wrong

Western LW is NOT communism or Marxism.

In the past 50 years western LW has not pursued "Communism Left' it has pursued 'hippy Left' a.k.a equality, human rights etc.
which western RW has stood against for the past 50 years        

Which shows again you know nothing of history, as western let wing have had many different forms of left wing politics, of which some have been very extreme and terrorists. I am not even saying most left people are bad, in fact many center left people are sensible and very reasonable. Yet the more left people go, just as with the right. You encounter more and more problems with their ideals and beliefs.

Which shows you live in a bubble not knowing a world outside Australia

Yes I am well aware both you and Quill are apologists for regressive leftism

I mean with have all seen what has happened time and again with PC in the hands of leftists, its caused far more problems than it has any good




Next you will be telling me Cuba and Venezuela are both shinning beacons of leftism, with their constant abuse of human rights

What people need to understand is that regardless of the rhetoric  about how neutral and politically balanced his posts are, Thorin ALWAYS sees the world through his Conservative blue eyes. Anti left this. Anti Corbyn that.
Every time. 
He is a broken record.
He always spoils for an arguement, not a debate, which he HAS to win, otherwise he throws a hissy fit and sulks.
A prime example is his last post.
Where is the counterbalanced viewpoint of what 'right' (but not necessarily  correct) people think?
Absent.
Therefore his post is not balanced but a swayed, skewed to a right view starting point.
To claim you are neutral or apolitical is utter guff, Thor. You would have more respect if you simply came out, and declared yourself a dyed in the wool tory.

As far as I see it Thorin bollocks both Left and Right if they need it !!

I see 90% anti left, 10% anti right.

Angry Andy wrote:What people need to understand is that regardless of the rhetoric  about how neutral and politically balanced his posts are, Thorin ALWAYS sees the world through his Conservative blue eyes. Anti left this. Anti Corbyn that.
Every time. 
He is a broken record.
He always spoils for an arguement, not a debate, which he HAS to win, otherwise he throws a hissy fit and sulks.
A prime example is his last post.
Where is the counterbalanced viewpoint of what 'right' (but not necessarily  correct) people think?
Absent.
Therefore his post is not balanced but a swayed, skewed to a right view starting point.
To claim you are neutral or apolitical is utter guff, Thor. You would have more respect if you simply came out, and declared yourself a dyed in the wool tory.

Ahhhhh, yet another post by Andy, failing to take on a single point I made and yet again come out with what the left do best.

Attack the poster, in some futile belief, this will just make my views disappear. Where even worse think they can thus get away without countering the points.

Anyway, what did you fail to understand about this Andy?


Which shows again you know nothing of history, as western let wing have had many different forms of left wing politics, of which some have been very extreme and terrorists. I am not even saying most left people are bad, in fact many center left people are sensible and very reasonable. Yet the more left people go, just as with the right. You encounter more and more problems with their ideals and beliefs.

nicko wrote:As far as I see it Thorin bollocks both Left and Right if they need it  !!

lol Indeed Nicko

Thorin wrote:

nicko wrote:As far as I see it Thorin bollocks both Left and Right if they need it  !!

lol Indeed Nicko

Nicko, you should have stopped a few words short: "Thorin...bollocks...full stop."

He's got a 1950's impression of socialism, when the modern New Left (NL) is not even about an economic theory.  It centers on policy matters.  

The NL is not even historicist...there's no overriding social mission compelled by events, economic or otherwise.  There is no International Workingmen's Association, nor is there a First, Second or Third International.  The NL is primarily focused on problem-solving at present.

To call the NL "marxist" reveals someone who was educated in the 1950's frame-of-mind, who never was curious enough to investigate further.  It's dealing in your grandfather's myths and paranoia.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

lol Indeed Nicko

Nicko, you should have stopped a few words short: "Thorin...bollocks...full stop."

A prime example of the regressive left yet again attacking the poster and not my points yet again. Even worse now inventing things I have not even said or understand my knowledge of history, makes him look like a pre-schooler on history.

See Quill even backs my previous point to Andy, by invoking yet another variant of leftism, which he calls NL. I never even classed the NL as Marxist, but rightly classed Quill as a Commie and a regressive. 

Then even more ignorantly then claims to speak for all leftist people and claim they are a part of this group. Where clearly many leftists would disagree with him. He is neither the spoke's person for all Leftist groups, but absurdly likes to think he is. 

Quelle surprise

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nicko, you should have stopped a few words short: "Thorin...bollocks...full stop."

A prime example of the regressive left yet again attacking the poster and not my points yet again. Even worse now inventing things I have not even said or understand my knowledge of history, makes him look like a pre-schooler on history.

See Quill even backs my previous point to Andy, by invoking yet another variant of leftism, which he calls NL. Then even more ignorantly then claims to speak for all leftist people and claim they are a part of this group. Where clearly many leftists would disagree with him.

Quelle surprise

Didge, you haven't made any points.  You've drawn on a group of metaphors and adjectives that reflect a long-past set of spooks.  To even try to take you seriously would be gratuitous.  

You rely on an article by Marty Lipset, and you are not familiar with the term "New Left"?  See, Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man (1950).  

So this lingering in a pile of bullshit is the real you?  You just read the titles, and don't bother with the content.  Kinda like your understanding of Marxism.  You deal in titles, adjectives and key-words, but you're too lazy (or afraid) to deal with content.

Quelle surprise.

Original Quill wrote:.


Didge, you haven't made any points.  You've drawn on a group of metaphors and adjectives that reflect a long-past set of spooks.  To even try to take you seriously would be embarrassing.  

You rely on an article by Marty Lipset, and you are not familiar with the term "New Left"?  See, Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man (1950).  

So this lingering in a pile of bullshit is the real you?  You just read the titles, and don't bother with the content.  Kinda like your understanding of Marxism.  You deal in titles, adjectives and key-words, but you're too lazy (or afraid) to deal with content.

1) More misdirection and talking only about me, so lets do the same in kind

2) Not relying on anything with the article. It was to show how at that time in history the problems there were with varied leftist extremist groups, many of which were antisemitic. You of course again fail to tackle the contents of the article and make embarrassing comparisons to Steve Bannon in regards to Seymour. Clearly formed from jealousy. You clearly did not even bother to read the article. Which showed with your answers, as all you did, was attempt to deligitimize a political scientist.

3) Quill, I have come to see you are nothing more than a clown at best, trying to pass yourself off as important. Inventing claims to who you know and where you have studied, in order to big yourself up to people. Simple because you have a major insecurity issue. Which is really silly, as you are intelligent, you simple do not know how to apply this at times.

Thorin wrote:1) More misdirection and talking only about me, so lets do the same in kind

There's nothing else to talk about, didge.  You C&P articles and then abandon them.  Normally, when you talk to someone, there's him, and what he says about something.  You have nothing to say...so we're left with just you to talk about.  

Thorin wrote:2) Not relying on anything with the article. It was to show how at that time in history the problems there were with varied leftist extremist groups, many of which were antisemitic. You of course again fail to tackle the contents of the article and make embarrassing comparisons to Steve Bannon. Clearly formed from jealousy.

"Not relying on anything with the article."  See?  WTF...why bring it up?  You saw the words "leftist" and "antisemetic" and never bothered to read the context.  That's why you don't understand anything...why you can't follow a train of thought.  You're all adjectives, titles and key-words.

Thorin wrote:3) Quill, I have come to see you are nothing more than a clown at best, trying to pass yourself off as important. Inventing claims to who you know and where you have studied, in order to big yourself up to people. Simple because you have a major insecurity issue. Which is really silly, as you have intelligence, you simple do not know how to apply this at times.

Why should I care about what you think?  You don't care enough to even think!

Original Quill wrote:
There's nothing else to talk about, didge.  You C&P articles and then abandon them.  Normally, when you talk to someone, there's him, and what he says about something.  You have nothing to say...so we're left with just you to talk about.  

Thorin wrote:And yet you are continuing to reply and discuss with me

Contradiction alert

You also do not get to decide what I have left to say, it shows you surrendering the white flag by doing so,  because you have simple exhausted what poor views you have made here

"Not relying on anything with the article."  See?  WTF...why bring it up?  You saw the words "leftist" and "antisemetic" and never bothered to read the context.  That's why you don't understand anything...why you can't follow a train of thought.  You're all adjectives, titles and key-words.

Thorin wrote:I read the whole article ages ago and had actually kept this to show a point to rubbish poor points being made that Leftists are formed from the hippy era. That is simple a false statement made, where as seen there is varying degrees of leftism. One of these is the NL, but its just one of a multiple of leftist beliefs Where some on the left are in continual denial of where there is certainly problems with various leftist groups. The more they turn more to the left. The same happens with the right when they turn more right. Until you have them going into the extremes. History has stacks of evidence on this.

Why should I care about what you think?  You don't care enough to even think!

You clearly do by replying.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
There's nothing else to talk about, didge.  You C&P articles and then abandon them.  Normally, when you talk to someone, there's him, and what he says about something.  You have nothing to say...so we're left with just you to talk about.  



"Not relying on anything with the article."  See?  WTF...why bring it up?  You saw the words "leftist" and "antisemetic" and never bothered to read the context.  That's why you don't understand anything...why you can't follow a train of thought.  You're all adjectives, titles and key-words.



Why should I care about what you think?  You don't care enough to even think!

You clearly do.

But not about me; it's only because I want to help you. It's obvious you love the world of academics, but you have no idea how to get inside and drive the vehicle. And you get off-course with trying to impress us with your half-thimble of knowledge. You divide your attention, and lose both sides.

It's a curse I carry, to have compassion for the struggling student. Do you think I would spend this much time if I didn't care?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

You clearly do.

But not about me; it's only because I want to help you.  It's obvious you love the world of academics, but you have no idea how to get inside and drive the vehicle.  And you get off-course with trying to impress us with your half-thimble of knowledge.  You divide your attention, and lose both sides.

It's a curse I carry, to have compassion for the struggling student.  Do you think I would spend this much time if I didn't care?

Quill, again you show another form of insecurity, the need of others, where you think they need your help.
So thanks for the offer, but you lack the wisdom to help many people, as you are inherently biased. I can at least see things wrong on both sides of the political equation. You simple though look through tunnel vision.

So your care is misplaced, as I do not see you as a teacher, or able to teach how teachers should teach. Being able to discuss all issues. Without as you do, attempt to deligitimize the writer of articles who have ideals/beliefs etc, when its the ideals you should be reasoning rationally either for or against the ideals and beliefs. This is why such views you hold on people, disqualifies you looking at something with balance and fairness, as you have started with a confirmation bias.

So in my hypothetical school, you simple would fail the interview for the teaching role at the school.

Thorin wrote:Quill, again you show another form of insecurity, the need of others, where you think they need your help.

I’m sure self-fulfillment is a part of it…but insecurity? Is a father’s care for his children a matter of insecurity? Is a teacher’s wish to improve the intellectual abilities of his student a matter of insecurity? Look again.

Thorin wrote:So thanks for the offer…You simple though look through tunnel vision.

But at least I look. You are smitten by two things: (1) you are impressed by academics, but you are on the outside looking in and don’t know how to do it; and, (2) you get distracted by trying to impress us, and looking over to see how it’s working. You have a bit of the narcissist in you, but you don’t want to put in the work to be the person in the mirror.

Thorin wrote:So your care is misplaced, as I do not see you as a teacher, or able to teach how teachers should teach. Being able to discuss all issues. Without as you do, attempt to deligitimize the writer of articles who have ideals/beliefs etc, when its the ideals you should be reasoning rationally either for or against the ideals and beliefs. This is why such views you hold on people, disqualifies you looking at something with balance and fairness, as you have started with a confirmation bias.

You are hurt. You misconstrue help to be criticism. That’s the problem with the narcissist…you can’t take time off to do the right thing…it would look bad.

Well, if I can ever be of any help…

Original Quill wrote:

I’m sure self-fulfillment is a part of it…but insecurity?    Is a father’s care for his children a matter of insecurity?  Is a teacher’s wish to improve the intellectual abilities of his student a matter of insecurity?  Look again.

Thorin wrote:But you are neither my father or guardian, so that is a false premise. Again yours is born from an insecurity. Your need to to want others to need you. Its a classic example

But at least I look.  You are smitten by two things: (1) you are impressed by academics, but you are on the outside looking in and don’t know how to do it; and, (2) you get distracted by trying to impress us, and looking over to see how it’s working.  You have a bit of the narcissist in you, but you don’t want to put in the work to be the person in the mirror.

Thorin wrote:
1) Since when?
You see you assume again wrongly. I merely look at many things with an open mind. I look at academics as I look at everyone else individually, but you seem very bitter about some, mainly as you have this confirmation bias. This was evident, with your really absurd claim to comparing Seymore a renowned political scientist to Steve Bannon. So its not about being impressed but taking you to task over what is quite frankly idiotic views. Born not from any reason but a view to simple dismiss what someone has written, because you dislike them or are jealous of them

2) I am not trying to impress anyone. I just get a right laugh in reading some of the crap you post, when you then try to back your argument with the worst form of argument. " I know people" As if this validates your argument. It does not and reeks of desperation.

You are hurt.  You misconstrue help to be criticism.  That’s the problem with the narcissist…you can’t take time off to do the right thing…it would look bad.

Well, if I can ever be of any help…  

Well when you post something at least meaningful and intellectual. Then we can have a decent discussion. You used to post intellectually and we had previously good discussions, but you have become so emotive all the time Quill. Its simple boring when all you do is not take on points but attempt to deligitimize the source. I mean when you resort to calling me an apologist for white supremacy and Nazism. Its so absurd, it shows you have reached the dregs of desperation, proving you are intellectually incompetent and dishonest. When your emotions rule your reasoning..

I have had a great teacher on here and his name is Victor and I have learn loads from him.

Like I say, you simple would not qualify as a teacher, with your poor bias, in any rational decent school.