Being European, Doing What They Do

[Kathianne]

On your 'group think' point ... you describe it well. In fact, back in my teens (before I knew better !) I did suffer from it. I bought all the garbage the Left spoonfed us with, and to an extent I was even passionate about it. But, then ... I observed chaos and destruction, fomented by a REAL manifestation of Left wing politics, filtered into a destructive force courtesy of its incompatability and inevitable clash with human nature. I refer, of course, to Trade Unionism ... and its immense vandalism.

I rebelled against that hateful reality.

I've been rebelling ever since, with my evolved hatred for Socialism undimmed by time (if anything, intensified by its passage).

Noir hasn't rebelled. He swallows propaganda, not even aware that he's doing so, unaware that he's been programmed by societal pressures. I know better than that, which is what separates me from him.

My society is, in its everyday existence, 'anti-gun'; it doesn't relate to gun ownership at all. Yours does. This is nothing more or less than a difference in evolved culture. You had a 'wild West', a 'pioneering' origin, in a new and hostile land. We had none of that. Different histories ... and NOTHING to get judgmental about. Those who do exhibit ignorance.

I can't comment on racism in America, all I AM sure about is that you've made great strides in reversing it over decades (the Rosa Parks incident had a pivotal value). To the extent I can even judge, or SHOULD judge, I'd just say 'good for you'.

On the point of 'Left v extreme Left' ... unless I misunderstand you, I think you may be confirming what I've asserted in the recent past (?) .. which is, our viewpoints around what may or may not constitute 'extreme' Leftieism are markedly different. My understanding of what America has experienced of the Left is decidedly tame compared to the British experience of it, and you may recall I debated with Jim to argue this ... with Jim saying that your Left wasn't so different from ours.

If I paint you a picture of the Left as Britain has known it (and to varying degrees, right across Europe) .. I think you'd balk at that picture, not recognising the extremes I describe as having a correlation with America's experience of it. Obama's 'ObamaCare', for example, is still a far cry from our far more State-dominated and State run healthcare system. Try enforcing 'presumed consent' on organ donation, where your authorities plunder whatever organs they want from newly-deceased bodies, UNLESS the deceased had made officially recorded provision to prevent it ! Our Left, in Wales, pioneered that reversal in our law ... the rest of the UK is expected to follow suit in the coming years.

I've barely started to describe what our Left has done, and what it hopes to achieve, after, of course, the Left has done its utmost to indoctrinate everyone into accepting its changes, its social terraforming of our society. America hasn't as yet felt the reality of full-blooded Socialism. I pray it never does.

You will see what I describe as 'extreme'. To me, it's everyday life. Why ? Because the Left has got away with far more, and for far longer, than is true in America. We are 'terraformed' to an extent that you, are not.

I believe that your Left - in truth - are probably a clone of ours. The difference is that they dare not advertise their very long-term ambitions for America's future, because you're far from ready to swallow it all.

But Obama gave you the weakest of tastes of it. He merely hinted at what's to come .. IF .. the Right ever offers sufficiently weak opposition to help facilitate it.

This is why the support Trump has enjoyed is so heartening, certainly to me. With that being true, your Left has a daily reminder of how far they have to go, in order to make their hoped-for inroads. I believe this is part of why they hate Trump with such vitriol.

He's the perfect antidote for their poison.

As I stated earlier, the left as the right are along a continuum, the extremes are where violence could break out so currently would guess there are more extremists on left than right. The assumption may well be in error for the simple reason for more violence on the left has to do with the greater youth on the left.

Anyways, here is one look at the left and leaders v voters. For most Americans are practical. When it comes to politics I'm more idealistic than most on the right or left. Blame it on a lifelong love affair with politics, news. My majors in university simply reflected those. While it's pretty unusual to have a conservative in sociology, political science, even history, I never lost my compass or passion. Still haven't.

[Kathianne]

On your 'group think' point ... you describe it well. In fact, back in my teens (before I knew better !) I did suffer from it. I bought all the garbage the Left spoonfed us with, and to an extent I was even passionate about it. But, then ... I observed chaos and destruction, fomented by a REAL manifestation of Left wing politics, filtered into a destructive force courtesy of its incompatability and inevitable clash with human nature. I refer, of course, to Trade Unionism ... and its immense vandalism.<br>
<br>
I rebelled against that hateful reality.<br>
<br>
I've been rebelling ever since, with my evolved hatred for Socialism undimmed by time (if anything, intensified by its passage).<br>
<br>
Noir hasn't rebelled. He swallows propaganda, not even aware that he's doing so, unaware that he's been programmed by societal pressures. I know better than that, which is what separates me from him.<br>
<br>
My society is, in its everyday existence, 'anti-gun'; it doesn't relate to gun ownership at all. Yours does. This is nothing more or less than a difference in evolved culture. You had a 'wild West', a 'pioneering' origin, in a new and hostile land. We had none of that. Different histories ... and NOTHING to get judgmental about. Those who do exhibit ignorance.<br>
<br>
I can't comment on racism in America, all I AM sure about is that you've made great strides in reversing it over decades (the Rosa Parks incident had a pivotal value). To the extent I can even judge, or SHOULD judge, I'd just say 'good for you'.<br>
<br>
On the point of 'Left v extreme Left' ... unless I misunderstand you, I think you may be confirming what I've asserted in the recent past (?) .. which is, our viewpoints around what may or may not constitute 'extreme' Leftieism are markedly different. My understanding of what America has experienced of the Left is decidedly tame compared to the British experience of it, and you may recall I debated with Jim to argue this ... with Jim saying that your Left wasn't so different from ours.<br>
<br>
If I paint you a picture of the Left as Britain has known it (and to varying degrees, right across Europe) .. I think you'd balk at that picture, not recognising the extremes I describe as having a correlation with America's experience of it. Obama's 'ObamaCare', for example, is still a far cry from our far more State-dominated and State run healthcare system. Try enforcing 'presumed consent' on organ donation, where your authorities plunder whatever organs they want from newly-deceased bodies, UNLESS the deceased had made officially recorded provision to prevent it ! Our Left, in Wales, pioneered that reversal in our law ... the rest of the UK is expected to follow suit in the coming years.<br>
<br>
I've barely started to describe what our Left has done, and what it hopes to achieve, after, of course, the Left has done its utmost to indoctrinate everyone into accepting its changes, its social terraforming of our society. America hasn't as yet felt the reality of full-blooded Socialism. <strong>I pray it never does.<br>
</strong><br>
You will see what I describe as 'extreme'. To me, it's everyday life. Why ? Because the Left has got away with far more, and for far longer, than is true in America. We are 'terraformed' to an extent that you, are not.<br>
<br>
<strong>I believe that your Left - in truth - are probably a clone of ours. The difference is that they <em>dare</em> not advertise their very long-term ambitions for America's future, because you're far from ready to swallow it all. <br></strong>
<br>
But Obama gave you the weakest of tastes of it. He merely hinted at what's to come .. <em>IF</em> .. the Right ever offers sufficiently weak opposition to help facilitate it. <br>
<br>
This is why the support Trump has enjoyed is so heartening, certainly to me. With that being true, your Left has a daily reminder of how far they have to go, in order to make their hoped-for inroads. I believe this is part of why they hate Trump with such vitriol. <br>
<br>
He's the perfect antidote for their poison.

<br><br>As I stated earlier, the left as the right are along a continuum, the extremes are where violence could break out so currently would guess there are more extremists on left than right. The assumption may well be in error for the simple reason for more violence on the left has to do with the greater youth on the left.&nbsp;<br><br>Anyways, here is one look at the left and leaders v voters. For most Americans are practical. When it comes to politics I'm more idealistic than most on the right or left. Blame it on a lifelong love affair with politics, news. My majors in university simply reflected those. While it's pretty unusual to have a conservative in sociology, political science, even history, I never lost my compass or passion. Still haven't. &nbsp;<br>
<br>

https://www.city-journal.org/politic...-bluest-cities

The differences between 'leaders' and 'practical voters.'

[Drummond]

<br><br>As I stated earlier, the left as the right are along a continuum, the extremes are where violence could break out so currently would guess there are more extremists on left than right. The assumption may well be in error for the simple reason for more violence on the left has to do with the greater youth on the left.&nbsp;<br><br>Anyways, here is one look at the left and leaders v voters. For most Americans are practical. When it comes to politics I'm more idealistic than most on the right or left. Blame it on a lifelong love affair with politics, news. My majors in university simply reflected those. While it's pretty unusual to have a conservative in sociology, political science, even history, I never lost my compass or passion. Still haven't. &nbsp;<br>
<br>

https://www.city-journal.org/politic...-bluest-cities

The differences between 'leaders' and 'practical voters.'

We have a fundamental disagreement in progress, I think.

You think that both the Left AND the Right have 'extremes'. I disagree.

Your second link, it seems to me, is proposing - if its contents are to be accepted - that extremes need to be blurred, that a 'middle ground' is a 'best solution'. This is a fatal error. The more this blurring effect succeeds, the greater the inability to defeat the Left. Blur distinctions .. lose focus as a result .. lose motivation .. settle for a less-than-comprehensive total victory .. and some form of the Left survives.

That surely isn't the point. You don't defeat just 'bits' of an evil, and expect the fullest good to result out of it !! This is nonsense.

I do not accept that 'the Right' has any extreme. This, too, is nonsense.

What separates the Left from the Right, quite apart from how those philosophies are described, is this: the Left dictates. It's a 'hive mind' philosophy, where the individual is forever subsumed to 'the masses'. Individuals don't ultimately matter, since 'the bigger picture' is (they would believe, as an article of faith) greater than them. Therefore, any manner of subhumanity, any level of societal terraforming, is rendered possible, just so long as it can be defended logically, and so long as a preferred-for end goal can be said to be being advanced towards.

HOW IS THIS TRUE OF THE RIGHT ?

The Right is, definably, the polar opposite. Individuals are all-important to a Rightist philosophy, and this remains its focus. Since that's true ... (1) it's FAR more in line with human nature than the Left ever could be. Also, (2) individualism will always rebel against the Left's true extremes !!

What could EVER be 'extreme' about a philosophy serving human nature, interlocking with it, fully identifying with it, to defeat a force designed to crush individualism ??

Think about it, Kathianne. When you have .. understand that 'a Rightist extreme' is a contradiction in terms. You might as well argue that to be too human is of itself bad.

A human individual values personal freedom. A Leftist hive mind proponent wants to see attitudes pre-determined, dictated, shaping society towards a bigger picture which confers zero worth to any one individual. THIS is an 'extreme'. IT IS A TRULY APPALLING EXTREME. And the Right, by its very nature, must stand in opposition to such moves and intentions.

This is not a process that can profit from a blurring of perceptions. You need to appreciate that ... I suggest.

If you haven't lost your compass or passion, then you should - even if it'll take a bit of thought - understand that I'm right about this. The Right CANNOT be too 'extreme', unless fighting for humanity is of itself 'extreme'.

Have you wondered why the Left favour Muslims, and Islam ? Consider Islam's own nature. Compare the mutual contempt the Left and Islam have for individual human worth (.. how the concept of Jihad can attain divine acceptance, how terrorism interlocks with Islam, how and why Sharia Law is a product of Islam). The Left does not respect individual worth any more than a true, devout, Islamist can.

This is why the Right is a natural opponent of both. Why true, unmitigated opposition will flow far more naturally from the Right than from anyone, or anything, else.

[You don't eradicate a killer disease by applying a medication conferring temporary relief from it. You eradicate it by applying the cure to it. It isn't a process where a fudge, borne of wishing to blur the full truth of the malady and therefore its countering-agent, will serve instead of a full and proper antidote.]

Guess what ? There's nothing extreme about that. Human worth has true meaning to the Right. It is the ultimate liberation, Kath.

Do you see ?

[Kathianne]

We have a fundamental disagreement in progress, I think.

You think that both the Left AND the Right have 'extremes'. I disagree.

Your second link, it seems to me, is proposing - if its contents are to be accepted - that extremes need to be blurred, that a 'middle ground' is a 'best solution'. This is a fatal error. The more this blurring effect succeeds, the greater the inability to defeat the Left. Blur distinctions .. lose focus as a result .. lose motivation .. settle for a less-than-comprehensive total victory .. and some form of the Left survives.

That surely isn't the point. You don't defeat just 'bits' of an evil, and expect the fullest good to result out of it !! This is nonsense.

I do not accept that 'the Right' has any extreme. This, too, is nonsense.

What separates the Left from the Right, quite apart from how those philosophies are described, is this: the Left dictates. It's a 'hive mind' philosophy, where the individual is forever subsumed to 'the masses'. Individuals don't ultimately matter, since 'the bigger picture' is (they would believe, as an article of faith) greater than them. Therefore, any manner of subhumanity, any level of societal terraforming, is rendered possible, just so long as it can be defended logically, and so long as a preferred-for end goal can be said to be being advanced towards.

HOW IS THIS TRUE OF THE RIGHT ?

The Right is, definably, the polar opposite. Individuals are all-important to a Rightist philosophy, and this remains its focus. Since that's true ... (1) it's FAR more in line with human nature than the Left ever could be. Also, (2) individualism will always rebel against the Left's true extremes !!

What could EVER be 'extreme' about a philosophy serving human nature, interlocking with it, fully identifying with it, to defeat a force designed to crush individualism ??

Think about it, Kathianne. When you have .. understand that 'a Rightist extreme' is a contradiction in terms. You might as well argue that to be too human is of itself bad.

A human individual values personal freedom. A Leftist hive mind proponent wants to see attitudes pre-determined, dictated, shaping society towards a bigger picture which confers zero worth to any one individual. THIS is an 'extreme'. IT IS A TRULY APPALLING EXTREME. And the Right, by its very nature, must stand in opposition to such moves and intentions.

This is not a process that can profit from a blurring of perceptions. You need to appreciate that ... I suggest.

If you haven't lost your compass or passion, then you should - even if it'll take a bit of thought - understand that I'm right about this. The Right CANNOT be too 'extreme', unless fighting for humanity is of itself 'extreme'.

Have you wondered why the Left favour Muslims, and Islam ? Consider Islam's own nature. Compare the mutual contempt the Left and Islam have for individual human worth (.. how the concept of Jihad can attain divine acceptance, how terrorism interlocks with Islam, how and why Sharia Law is a product of Islam). The Left does not respect individual worth any more than a true, devout, Islamist can.

This is why the Right is a natural opponent of both. Why true, unmitigated opposition will flow far more naturally from the Right than from anyone, or anything, else.

[You don't eradicate a killer disease by applying a medication conferring temporary relief from it. You eradicate it by applying the cure to it. It isn't a process where a fudge, borne of wishing to blur the full truth of the malady and therefore its countering-agent, will serve instead of a full and proper antidote.]

Guess what ? There's nothing extreme about that. Human worth has true meaning to the Right. It is the ultimate liberation, Kath.

Do you see ?

Actually, your premise is incorrect for the simple assumption you state:

If you haven't lost your compass or passion, then you should - even if it'll take a bit of thought - understand that I'm right about this. The Right CANNOT be too 'extreme', unless fighting for humanity is of itself 'extreme'.

You insist on framing perfected good fighting perfected evil. Man, which in the non-pc lexicon is synonymous to human, the individual, is not perfect. That would be God.

By your definition, which you create off the basis of your own thoughts, anyone not fitting your created definition is incapable of passion or compassion. Yeah, that I will reject as a premise. We join in the community for the survival of all-consciously or not, agreeing to provide and protect the whole body. We do that as individuals-anything else is a Hobbesian choice.

We are individuals, but we are social beings. Anyone subsumed by either is what we'd call 'not quite right.' Those are the psychopaths and they don't know or care about your 'right' and 'left.' We all need to make those basic needs, thus willing take up basic rights which we have more or less defined in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. If scarcity comes, we fail to provide for the whole those basics, then the individual will only use the means of the community to ensure the survival of their own individual. It all falls apart.

There are extreme far right individuals, which you seem incapable of understanding their existence, because with your construct, they cannot exist.

The right is for less government, not an abolishment of such. That would be anarchy-which is also something that is a desire by the far left. Note that. The extremes only sound different, their end game is the same. Both are seeking their definition of 'perfection' which both mean they would control the apparatus to destroy those they deem not.

It's easier to see your 'enemies' as complete evil doers, the terrorists seem able to do that with both individuals, countries, even systems of government.

[Kathianne]

It's not just Europe, though I doubt we'll see it as openly on the East Coast, with all those Jewish Democrat voters:


https://freebeacon.com/issues/califo...ol-curriculum/

California Introduces Radical Anti-Semitic High School Curriculum
Outrage in Jewish, pro-Israel community after anti-Israel activists hijack curriculum
Adam Kredo - AUGUST 12, 2019 11:00 AM

The state of California has introduced "blatantly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" lessons into its official high school curriculum, drawing outrage and concern in the state's Jewish and pro-Israel communities, according to multiple sources involved in the controversy.


The California Department of Education is facing backlash after permitting a host of anti-Israel activists to build a statewide educational curriculum that demonizes the Jewish state and is said to be fostering hatred of Jewish and Israeli-American students, sources said.


Already, 83 pro-Israel and anti-discrimination organizations have petitioned the state's education department to reform its Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) to remove multiple instances of what they say is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias.


Multiple sources involved in the fight have described to the Washington Free Beacon anti-Semitic courses that they say are fostering an unsafe environment for Jewish and Israeli-American students. Further information obtained by the Free Beacon reveals that several of the educators involved in pushing the new curriculum have a history of anti-Israel activism that has often spilled into anti-Semitic territory.


"We are aware that many individuals and groups affiliated with the Jewish community have already written to you about the ESMC's shocking omission of information about American Jews and anti-Semitism, its use of classic anti-Semitic stereotypes, and its blatant anti-Israel bias," a coalition of 83 pro-Israel organizations led by the AMCHA Initiative, a watchdog group that combats anti-Semitism in America, wrote to California's Education Department.


"This includes the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, who wrote to you that they ‘cannot support a curriculum that erases the American Jewish experience, fails to discuss anti-Semitism, reinforces negative stereotypes about Jews, singles out Israel for criticism and would institutionalize the teaching of anti-Semitic stereotypes in our public schools,'" the groups wrote.


The curriculum, the organizations claim, is the result of an effort by several leading educators who have expressed both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic viewpoints.


"The anti-Jewish, anti-Israel bias of the proposed ESMC curriculum—including its implicit portrayal of Jews and Israel as part of ‘interlocking systems of oppression and privilege' and its endorsement of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement as a form of ‘direct action' or ‘resistance' that students are encouraged to engage in—clearly exposes the politically motivated and directed nature of the curriculum and its drafters," the organizations wrote.


"Not surprisingly, more than one-quarter of the Model Curriculum Advisory Committee members, appointed by the State Board of Education to draft the ESMC, have publicly expressed animus towards Israel and its supporters, with some members openly supporting BDS," the letter states. "There is no doubt that these committee members have unconscionably used the state-mandated curriculum as a tool for politically indoctrinating California's high school students with anti-Israel propaganda and encouraging them to engage in political activism against the Jewish state."

...

[Drummond]

Actually, your premise is incorrect for the simple assumption you state:

You insist on framing perfected good fighting perfected evil. Man, which in the non-pc lexicon is synonymous to human, the individual, is not perfect. That would be God.

By your definition, which you create off the basis of your own thoughts, anyone not fitting your created definition is incapable of passion or compassion. Yeah, that I will reject as a premise. We join in the community for the survival of all-consciously or not, agreeing to provide and protect the whole body. We do that as individuals-anything else is a Hobbesian choice.

We are individuals, but we are social beings. Anyone subsumed by either is what we'd call 'not quite right.' Those are the psychopaths and they don't know or care about your 'right' and 'left.' We all need to make those basic needs, thus willing take up basic rights which we have more or less defined in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. If scarcity comes, we fail to provide for the whole those basics, then the individual will only use the means of the community to ensure the survival of their own individual. It all falls apart.

There are extreme far right individuals, which you seem incapable of understanding their existence, because with your construct, they cannot exist.

The right is for less government, not an abolishment of such. That would be anarchy-which is also something that is a desire by the far left. Note that. The extremes only sound different, their end game is the same. Both are seeking their definition of 'perfection' which both mean they would control the apparatus to destroy those they deem not.

It's easier to see your 'enemies' as complete evil doers, the terrorists seem able to do that with both individuals, countries, even systems of government.

If I've learned anything, it's that the Left can use equivocation. They build on it, see it as a basis for making inroads. Me, I'd rather not grant them that advantage.

Human nature is not perfect. I've never said it is. However .. it's completely fundamental to all of us. So, it makes sense to suppose that the best of all political philosophies will be one that works with it, to serve it. Right wing political thought does that.

The Left does pretty much the opposite to that. The Left try to mould human nature to fit their own agenda. They don't serve. They dictate.

The worst dictators this world has ever seen have been creatures of the Left.

You have jumped on a 'good v evil' comparison. I say again: human nature isn't perfect, so why you've inferred a 'good v evil' absolute to my argument ... I don't know. My basic point is one of fitting jigsaw pieces together ... a political philosophy fitting well with that it's meant to serve, will do a better job than will the jigsaw piece which sees Lefties try to reshape the 'fit' so that the one can relate to the other ... but by force and manipulation.

You do the best you can. Right-wing political thought is the best there is. Which is why it needs to succeed.

I've seen the application of its polar opposite. Result ... chaos, misery, destruction. Because Socialism cannot be made to work. Human nature intervenes, always.

You say we're social creatures. I agree. The Left sees that as a means to an end. The Right does not. THAT is the point.

Kath, your tendency towards finding a middle ground, with the natural effect coming from it of equivocation, waters down the inevitable political battle necessary to combat the Left. The British, with our natural cultural inclination of striking balances, has all too often given the Left its opening to influence and gain power. You see where that has led us.

Nothing I can say will convince you I'm right. Which is why I'm not trying too hard to prove the point. I can only say that the path you choose to tread is a familiar one in my society. It has led us to where we are today.

I'll leave you to decide whether it's all been a 'good thing'.

Have I already been proven right ?

Some would say it's in the eye of the beholder. But I know what I believe ... well, I should !!

[Kathianne]

If I've learned anything, it's that the Left can use equivocation. They build on it, see it as a basis for making inroads. Me, I'd rather not grant them that advantage.

Human nature is not perfect. I've never said it is. However .. it's completely fundamental to all of us. So, it makes sense to suppose that the best of all political philosophies will be one that works with it, to serve it. Right wing political thought does that.

The Left does pretty much the opposite to that. The Left try to mould human nature to fit their own agenda. They don't serve. They dictate.

The worst dictators this world has ever seen have been creatures of the Left.

You have jumped on a 'good v evil' comparison. I say again: human nature isn't perfect, so why you've inferred a 'good v evil' absolute to my argument ... I don't know. My basic point is one of fitting jigsaw pieces together ... a political philosophy fitting well with that it's meant to serve, will do a better job than will the jigsaw piece which sees Lefties try to reshape the 'fit' so that the one can relate to the other ... but by force and manipulation.

You do the best you can. Right-wing political thought is the best there is. Which is why it needs to succeed.

I've seen the application of its polar opposite. Result ... chaos, misery, destruction. Because Socialism cannot be made to work. Human nature intervenes, always.

You say we're social creatures. I agree. The Left sees that as a means to an end. The Right does not. THAT is the point.

Kath, your tendency towards finding a middle ground, with the natural effect coming from it of equivocation, waters down the inevitable political battle necessary to combat the Left. The British, with our natural cultural inclination of striking balances, has all too often given the Left its opening to influence and gain power. You see where that has led us.

Nothing I can say will convince you I'm right. Which is why I'm not trying too hard to prove the point. I can only say that the path you choose to tread is a familiar one in my society. It has led us to where we are today.

I'll leave you to decide whether it's all been a 'good thing'.

Have I already been proven right ?

Some would say it's in the eye of the beholder. But I know what I believe ... well, I should !!

Nor will I convince you of any doubt of your beliefs, nor am I trying to.

I too see what is happening between your discussions with Noir. Both of you give no ground and proudly. From what I 'know' of you both, good people.

Yet, you speak of an elected leader not following the rules of how your country is governed, because of vote from 2 or 3 years ago. I get that vote. If memory serves it passed or polling shows that the majority still want out of EU, so you think the behavior is justified. Am I misunderstanding or misstating what I've read?

[Drummond]

Nor will I convince you of any doubt of your beliefs, nor am I trying to.

I too see what is happening between your discussions with Noir. Both of you give no ground and proudly. From what I 'know' of you both, good people.

Yet, you speak of an elected leader not following the rules of how your country is governed, because of vote from 2 or 3 years ago. I get that vote. If memory serves it passed or polling shows that the majority still want out of EU, so you think the behavior is justified. Am I misunderstanding or misstating what I've read?

Where Noir is concerned ... I'm not prepared to go so far as to call him 'good people'. He only recently gave me reason to be sharp with him, as a result of a gratuitous remark ... the 'apology' I got back was a sarcastic one, hardly worth reading. All of that was unnecessary .. yet, it happened.

In a sense, though, any 'spats' I may have with Noir are highly impersonal. They are such, because I understand Noir to be a loyal drone to that which he is loyal to. He cannot, ever, give ground, because his entire belief system is an artificial construct with propaganda and predetermined social goals as its basis. There's no room for the giving of ground when wedded to such strictures. He knows it. I know it. When he's bested, I know he'll never, ever, acknowledge it. He doesn't DARE to. So, he'll launch into insults or jibes, or whatever takes the place of actual objective commentary or debate.

Reminds me of another character here who no longer posts ... when bested, along came the put-downs. My years of 'jousting' with him were entirely pointless. I outed him as a Left winger, and he forever denied it .. YET .. he acted classically as one, argued as one, manipulated comments not to his liking (.. better that, than taking them on their merits, you see ..) but thought himself smart enough to deny the obvious and yet have people buy into it.

It was a pathetic performance. I wonder if he fooled anyone ! But, like Noir, he could never give ground, because once he did, the whole edifice that sustained his argumentation would've come crashing down.

Pathetic. Sad, too.

You ask if you misread or misunderstood what you'd read. I'd have to say 'yes' to both.

You said:

.. you speak of an elected leader not following the rules of how your country is governed, because of vote from 2 or 3 years ago. I get that vote. If memory serves it passed or polling shows that the majority still want out of EU, so you think the behavior is justified. Am I misunderstanding or misstating what I've read?

I did think you were speaking of Corbyn, the Labour leader. But you also speak of my thinking 'the behaviour is justified'. I definitely don't think that of Corbyn. So, I'm confused.

If you mean Cameron, the Conservative leader who resigned once the 'Leave' vote came through ... since it was he who offered the Referendum, instituted it, and promised that whatever the vote was, it'd be respected in full .. then he resigned because he wouldn't personally act to honour it (!) ... there's nothing morally justified about that !

So I'm still confused.

Do you mean Theresa May ? She DID do 'her best' to deliver Brexit .. but, it was her specific version of one. Always saying that 'no deal was better than a bad deal', then emerging WITH a bad deal, an unratifiable one, but one she never stopped trying to implement (!!) .. I don't think her behaviour was justified, either. Three attempts at ratification, all failed, then she resigned rather than admit her own personal error. Very hard to justify any of that.

The Referendum majority voted to leave the EU. They said nothing about how, only that it should happen. Boris Johnson has nailed his colours to the mast, and said we'll leave, 'come-what-may', on Halloween. Now, there is a Conservative who is truly dedicated to democratic principle.

Corbyn would disagree, especially if a No Confidence motion happens, Boris loses it, then ignores that. So what. Boris is loyal to a greater democracy ... proper representation of The Peoples' Wishes.

Corbyn would fight that tooth & nail, because he has His Cause to not only fight for, but to DICTATE TO PEOPLE. This is what the Left does. They say .. 'We know best. Be subject to what WE SAY must happen. Tough if you don't like it (and if we have our way, we'll force you to like it, too)'.

You can't ever compromise with that thinking or behaviour. Try, and erosion of freedom and principle is the inevitable outcome. The Left is an extreme that must be uncompromisingly battled against, because there's no choice to it.

There just isn't.

THEIRS is the extreme. All the Right does is to act as an antidote to it; and there is not, nor could there be, anything 'extreme' in what the Right does.

If you think otherwise, you're making a fundamental mistake.

Aggressive cancer is an 'extreme' illness. Curing it is in no way an 'extreme' act, or an act requiring equivocation, or watering down, to find a 'middle ground' (!!!?!!). It's merely the RIGHT action to take; and, the NECESSARY action to take.

[Kathianne]

Where Noir is concerned ... I'm not prepared to go so far as to call him 'good people'. He only recently gave me reason to be sharp with him, as a result of a gratuitous remark ... the 'apology' I got back was a sarcastic one, hardly worth reading. All of that was unnecessary .. yet, it happened.

In a sense, though, any 'spats' I may have with Noir are highly impersonal. They are such, because I understand Noir to be a loyal drone to that which he is loyal to. He cannot, ever, give ground, because his entire belief system is an artificial construct with propaganda and predetermined social goals as its basis. There's no room for the giving of ground when wedded to such strictures. He knows it. I know it. When he's bested, I know he'll never, ever, acknowledge it. He doesn't DARE to. So, he'll launch into insults or jibes, or whatever takes the place of actual objective commentary or debate.

Reminds me of another character here who no longer posts ... when bested, along came the put-downs. My years of 'jousting' with him were entirely pointless. I outed him as a Left winger, and he forever denied it .. YET .. he acted classically as one, argued as one, manipulated comments not to his liking (.. better that, than taking them on their merits, you see ..) but thought himself smart enough to deny the obvious and yet have people buy into it.

It was a pathetic performance. I wonder if he fooled anyone ! But, like Noir, he could never give ground, because once he did, the whole edifice that sustained his argumentation would've come crashing down.

Pathetic. Sad, too.

You ask if you misread or misunderstood what you'd read. I'd have to say 'yes' to both.

You said:



I did think you were speaking of Corbyn, the Labour leader. But you also speak of my thinking 'the behaviour is justified'. I definitely don't think that of Corbyn. So, I'm confused.

If you mean Cameron, the Conservative leader who resigned once the 'Leave' vote came through ... since it was he who offered the Referendum, instituted it, and promised that whatever the vote was, it'd be respected in full .. then he resigned because he wouldn't personally act to honour it (!) ... there's nothing morally justified about that !

So I'm still confused.

Do you mean Theresa May ? She DID do 'her best' to deliver Brexit .. but, it was her specific version of one. Always saying that 'no deal was better than a bad deal', then emerging WITH a bad deal, an unratifiable one, but one she never stopped trying to implement (!!) .. I don't think her behaviour was justified, either. Three attempts at ratification, all failed, then she resigned rather than admit her own personal error. Very hard to justify any of that.

The Referendum majority voted to leave the EU. They said nothing about how, only that it should happen. Boris Johnson has nailed his colours to the mast, and said we'll leave, 'come-what-may', on Halloween. Now, there is a Conservative who is truly dedicated to democratic principle.

Corbyn would disagree, especially if a No Confidence motion happens, Boris loses it, then ignores that. So what. Boris is loyal to a greater democracy ... proper representation of The Peoples' Wishes.

Corbyn would fight that tooth & nail, because he has His Cause to not only fight for, but to DICTATE TO PEOPLE. This is what the Left does. They say .. 'We know best. Be subject to what WE SAY must happen. Tough if you don't like it (and if we have our way, we'll force you to like it, too)'.

You can't ever compromise with that thinking or behaviour. Try, and erosion of freedom and principle is the inevitable outcome. The Left is an extreme that must be uncompromisingly battled against, because there's no choice to it.

There just isn't.

THEIRS is the extreme. All the Right does is to act as an antidote to it; and there is not, nor could there be, anything 'extreme' in what the Right does.

If you think otherwise, you're making a fundamental mistake.

Aggressive cancer is an 'extreme' illness. Curing it is in no way an 'extreme' act, or an act requiring equivocation, or watering down, to find a 'middle ground' (!!!?!!). It's merely the RIGHT action to take; and, the NECESSARY action to take.

@Noir may correct my memory, but I thought you said that if Johnson was given a no confidence vote he should ignore it and go forward with Brexit-BECAUSE two or three years ago the British people made clear they wanted Brexit. When asked how you could say something like that, I believe it was answered something to the effect that since the people had been clear then, the behavior would be justified now.

[Drummond]

@Noir may correct my memory, but I thought you said that if Johnson was given a no confidence vote he should ignore it and go forward with Brexit-BECAUSE two or three years ago the British people made clear they wanted Brexit. When asked how you could say something like that, I believe it was answered something to the effect that since the people had been clear then, the behavior would be justified now.

Oh, I see. I stand corrected - thank you.

Ok, all is clear. You're correct. That was, and is, my position. And of course, Noir took his stance that Boris was being disreputable.

But then, he would. What else could he do ? He remains loyal to his Leftie agenda, and it isn't one flexible enough to meet ongoing realities and adjust to them in any truly proper way.

No. What we have, in Boris, is somebody conceding that a direct and democratically arrived-at mandate emanating directly from The People, is THE most important and inviolable expression of democracy that there can be. It (if you'll forgive the word) 'Trumps' all else.

Of course, the Left would never see it that way, and so, therefore, if only out of sheer obedient loyalty, neither does Noir. Labour never offered a Referendum on Brexit in the first place. Its vote always received opposition from Labour (because it didn't go their way!), and never more so than now. Now, they're aiming the strongest attack they can against the Conservative who's determined to honour that Brexit outcome.

Of course they are. Never accuse a Leftie of being uncompromisingly dedicated to free expressions of democracy !! They exist to exert their will, not to heed others' wishes !!

[Kathianne]

Oh, I see. I stand corrected - thank you.

Ok, all is clear. You're correct. That was, and is, my position. And of course, Noir took his stance that Boris was being disreputable.

But then, he would. What else could he do ? He remains loyal to his Leftie agenda, and it isn't one flexible enough to meet ongoing realities and adjust to them in any truly proper way.

No. What we have, in Boris, is somebody conceding that a direct and democratically arrived-at mandate emanating directly from The People, is THE most important and inviolable expression of democracy that there can be. It (if you'll forgive the word) 'Trumps' all else.

Of course, the Left would never see it that way, and so, therefore, if only out of sheer obedient loyalty, neither does Noir. Labour never offered a Referendum on Brexit in the first place. Its vote always received opposition from Labour (because it didn't go their way!), and never more so than now. Now, they're aiming the strongest attack they can against the Conservative who's determined to honour that Brexit outcome.

Of course they are. Never accuse a Leftie of being uncompromisingly dedicated to free expressions of democracy !! They exist to exert their will, not to heed others' wishes !!

Again, I do not pretend to understand your system of government in any comprehensive way. We haven't anything like a 'no confidence' vote for the executive, the only recourse until the term is up would be impeachment for cause. Of course the legislature, (as they have for years and across different presidents), can block any efforts to move forward the executive's plans, but that is it.

So without a direct example, the best I can come up with is it would be like one of our Presidents refused to leave after their term was up and they lost an election? Is that what you are suggesting?

[Drummond]

Again, I do not pretend to understand your system of government in any comprehensive way. We haven't anything like a 'no confidence' vote for the executive, the only recourse until the term is up would be impeachment for cause. Of course the legislature, (as they have for years and across different presidents), can block any efforts to move forward the executive's plans, but that is it.

So without a direct example, the best I can come up with is it would be like one of our Presidents refused to leave after their term was up and they lost an election? Is that what you are suggesting?

Likewise, your own system of government is baffling in certain ways.

Your second paragraph suggests an intended 'parallel' which actually isn't one. It can't qualify as one. Boris Johnson can hardly be refusing to leave after his term is up ... unless his term is expected to last less than a month ? He also hasn't lost an election, not least because he hasn't even called one.

No. Labour want to table their motion of No Confidence simply because they want him, and his Government, ousted. They need enough electoral support from other MP's to succeed with it. If they can get that, then, by normal convention, a General Election is triggered.

But these aren't normal times, very far from it.

A weakness of Labour's position is that they have no way of arguing that any mandate exists, from anywhere, for them to do what they're doing. But winning an election (if with a workable majority) would then give them that mandate.

Then again, their recent talk has been to simply overthrow the present Government if Boris doesn't do what they'd wish him to do, and trigger an election. Power by any means whatever ... eh ?

Bottom line, they just crave power. They're desperate for it. That, and to offer a bargain basement sale for an overstock of jackboots.

[Kathianne]

Likewise, your own system of government is baffling in certain ways.

Your second paragraph suggests an intended 'parallel' which actually isn't one. It can't qualify as one. Boris Johnson can hardly be refusing to leave after his term is up ... unless his term is expected to last less than a month ? He also hasn't lost an election, not least because he hasn't even called one.

No. Labour want to table their motion of No Confidence simply because they want him, and his Government, ousted. They need enough electoral support from other MP's to succeed with it. If they can get that, then, by normal convention, a General Election is triggered.

But these aren't normal times, very far from it.

A weakness of Labour's position is that they have no way of arguing that any mandate exists, from anywhere, for them to do what they're doing. But winning an election (if with a workable majority) would then give them that mandate.

Then again, their recent talk has been to simply overthrow the present Government if Boris doesn't do what they'd wish him to do, and trigger an election. Power by any means whatever ... eh ?

Bottom line, they just crave power. They're desperate for it. That, and to offer a bargain basement sale for an overstock of jackboots.

Ok, I really am trying to understand. Labour is trying for a no confidence vote too quickly, but won't be able to get the number of votes necessary? As I'm understanding it then, Johnson hasn't a problem, Labour failed? So what is it he is to 'ignore?'

[Drummond]

Ok, I really am trying to understand. Labour is trying for a no confidence vote too quickly, but won't be able to get the number of votes necessary? As I'm understanding it then, Johnson hasn't a problem, Labour failed? So what is it he is to 'ignore?'

Parliament is currently in Summer Recess. It won't begin its next session until the beginning of September. Once we see September, things should move quickly.

The 'No Confidence' vote ... nobody can say what will happen with it. Additionally, since what Labour is hoping for is a means of either stopping or at least stalling Brexit, and the default exit date is 31st October ... they'll have to move as quickly as they dare to kickstart any such No Confidence process.

Problem: these are not normal times ! Normally, votes for motions could be expected to run along Party lines, which is how, with a majority Government, Government manages to effectively govern. BUT ... Brexit has fractured the normal 'voting lines'. There are rebels in each Party, some to varying degrees willing to defy their Party's insisted-upon voting direction. Corbyn has a mess on his hands, because he has no way of being sure anything like all of his MP's will be loyal.

Boris has the same problem, to a great extent: his Party, too, has its rebels. As of now, Boris (given a normal voting pattern) could be said to command a majority of ONE MP over the other Parties, but, with the rebel faction, this is rendered meaningless.

Another problem: would a rebel Conservative MP be so determined to defy Boris's leadership on this issue, that s/he would even vote for their own Government to be deposed ?? You'd normally not think so. Then again ... some have already defected from the Conservative Party (Anna Soubry is a notable example, currently now leading a pro-Remain newly-formed Party !).

So we're in an almighty mess. Corbyn will have no idea at all if he can get his No Confidence vote through. His additional problem may be to consider taking time out to marshall all possible support ... BUT ... can he spare any real time in doing that ? With only a 7-8 week window before the end of October, and the prospect that Boris (if he has to) MAY call an election, but time it so that election day is after Brexit (!!!) ...

Bottom line: any attempt at a No Confidence motion may or may not succeed, and there's no way of knowing what calling one will bring. Will he win at his attempt ? Will Boris ignore it ? Will Labour then press to just take over Government, without an election, if he does ?

We've no way of knowing what'll happen. Tight deadlines, fractured voting, these confuse everything. We can only sit back and see what happens.

[Kathianne]

Parliament is currently in Summer Recess. It won't begin its next session until the beginning of September. Once we see September, things should move quickly.

The 'No Confidence' vote ... nobody can say what will happen with it. Additionally, since what Labour is hoping for is a means of either stopping or at least stalling Brexit, and the default exit date is 31st October ... they'll have to move as quickly as they dare to kickstart any such No Confidence process.

Problem: these are not normal times ! Normally, votes for motions could be expected to run along Party lines, which is how, with a majority Government, Government manages to effectively govern. BUT ... Brexit has fractured the normal 'voting lines'. There are rebels in each Party, some to varying degrees willing to defy their Party's insisted-upon voting direction. Corbyn has a mess on his hands, because he has no way of being sure anything like all of his MP's will be loyal.

Boris has the same problem, to a great extent: his Party, too, has its rebels. As of now, Boris (given a normal voting pattern) could be said to command a majority of ONE MP over the other Parties, but, with the rebel faction, this is rendered meaningless.

Another problem: would a rebel Conservative MP be so determined to defy Boris's leadership on this issue, that s/he would even vote for their own Government to be deposed ?? You'd normally not think so. Then again ... some have already defected from the Conservative Party (Anna Soubry is a notable example, currently now leading a pro-Remain newly-formed Party !).

So we're in an almighty mess. Corbyn will have no idea at all if he can get his No Confidence vote through. His additional problem may be to consider taking time out to marshall all possible support ... BUT ... can he spare any real time in doing that ? With only a 7-8 week window before the end of October, and the prospect that Boris (if he has to) MAY call an election, but time it so that election day is after Brexit (!!!) ...

Bottom line: any attempt at a No Confidence motion may or may not succeed, and there's no way of knowing what calling one will bring. Will he win at his attempt ? Will Boris ignore it ? Will Labour then press to just take over Government, without an election, if he does ?

We've no way of knowing what'll happen. Tight deadlines, fractured voting, these confuse everything. We can only sit back and see what happens.

Again, sorry for being ignorant. So, Parliament returns and Labour calls for a no confidence vote-that is an assumption. If it fails, fine, no election and Johnson goes ahead as he planned. If it succeeds, he can still go ahead as planned, just calling for an election after Brexit. No issues with that? Why wouldn't either result in Brexit going through one way or another?