Official War Room Awards 2018

Hmm, this is very eloquently put, but I would revise it a bit. Both Fawlty and I come from somewhat rough origins, so I would say that we both have at-least-average levels of realism. I would, however, agree that Fawlty is a bit more of a pragmatist than I am (except in the area of First Amendment law, where I would say he's more of an ideologue and I'm more of a pragmatist). But I think that reflects the fact that Fawlty is very empirically inclined, as I have always considered myself a pragmatist, even if a forward-looking one. I have actually wondered whether Fawlty has been over-influenced by Jack V Savage in that regard, because I often feel that Jack is less rigid than Fawlty now, even though JVS sometimes gets the reputation or gives off the impression of being a rigid empiricist. (Part 1)



That's a genuinely strange statement to me, to be honest.

As @Fawlty can vouch, I named him as the most functionally libertarian poster on the board, which he disclaimed under the impression that I was calling him a right-libertarian.

There are rhetorical libertarians like Greoric and Cubo, and that kind of libertarianism is at best meaningless and at worst openly contradictory. But I would say that, functionally, Fawlty is or strives to be the most libertarian poster on this board. (Part 2 )

Part 1 analysis - I agree with how you see all of that for the most part. Your opinion kind of brings things into clarity and gives some solid background.

Fawlty is, admirably in many respects, a free speech radical. I would expect no less from someone who appears to have Lenny Bruce as an avatar.

Jack V Savage, hmm, a complicated figure indeed. I think you're right in this respect - that in internal discussions on the left he is reasonable, has clarity, and will compromise. He also has a good to very good command of his strong points - economics and some political policy.

However, in discussions with the right, he often seems like an uncomfortable interstellar explorer who crash landed on planet "Gods, Guts, and Guns." Finding the ray gun clinging dwellers of this Red State among the stars to be backward, and soon frustrated by the bizarre habits and beliefs of the other. I think he could "get" the philosophy of the right, and really add another dimension to his thought, but, I think some part of Jack V Savage would rather not.

Maybe there is a purest (in the ideological sense) nobility in that move, however, I prefer to know the two sides of any way of thought, even if one has far more advantages for humanity ad infinitum and beyond the stars.

Part 2 - I do not think we exactly disagree or diverge.

Fawtly fits that mold, and has just tilted a bit to the left on a few issues. Perhaps largely as a result of a strong, disgusted reaction to Emperor Don and the nakedly "might makes right" political coalition he formed. Or, maybe more as a result of favoring the ideas and reasoning of JVS and others.

Kind of ironic really. The intellectual, serious media (Not counting Fox), and respectable leadership figures of the right were in lockstep complaining about how Barack Obama was being repugnant tribal in the clever "salad bowl" divisions of his coalition.

A lot of truth there, and then, how does the base of the right respond? Not well.

At that point though, the intellectuals split between denouncing the figure who was culturally against what they stood for, and others who suggested the programmatic grab for power was more palatable, often against their own writing and opinions.

The leaders just collapsed to the far right, or worse alt-right figures of the mob, and the "strong" sources all fell in line. The left does this too, however, the right is supposed to have different principles that remain unchanging.

And too many went and changed their principles. That is hard to respect, + 2 Supreme Court Justices, but who are they fooling long term as their base ages and their principles disintegrate into Nationalist furor?

Maybe there is a hidden ace in the right's hands, but I get the feeling they will fold.

As someone who wants deep and fundamental social change in the United States, I would imagine you would favor this.

Yet I would urge caution.

As "iron sharpens iron," I prefer to see the best ideas of the left and the right in such a mixed and pluralistic society. I get the feeling the left will ascend... and then do, hmm how to put it, "Shit all" for the poor, destitute, ECT. and triple down on group divisions, or else pander to them while segregating themselves with ever higher internal walls. Most of the leaders are operating under the power foundations of Machiavelli as we slide ever further towards corpratist torpor.

That's not too cool, but the right just looks reactionary and angry. Maybe in response to the lefts provocations, however, who cares? The one pushing the facemask is not who gets noticed, the one who blows up and takes off his helmet is.

Maybe they'll get it together but more likely in my estimation the left wins out nationally in the long run (30 odd years,) the right is ever more shrill in enclaves, and the collective weight of empire slowly unscrews over the fundamental divisions.

Wait, what was I talking about?

Oh right, sure, Fawlty is still a libertarian in a functional sense, but with sharper left characteristics. His (largely rightful) loathing of the alt-right has seemingly fed the ideological revaluation.

I was maybe 90% libertarian in the Fawlty mode before swinging, improbably, or perhaps impossibly towards the "Evangelical Right" socially from my more ancharcho-libertarian background, and then politically drifting left in some dimensions, because too often the right just does not care about the results of governance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@JDragon dude, you just liked a post of mine in a closed, 2017 thread......

Am I under investigation ?

<DCrying>

I didn't mean my dog-fucking comment.....<mma1>
 
@JDragon dude, you just liked a post of mine in a closed, 2017 thread......

Am I under investigation ?

<DCrying>

I didn't mean my dog-fucking comment.....<mma1>

I cannot comment on ongoing DOX News journalistic activities.

Nah, I was actually just looking for a post of mine I made in the time of @Rod1 's ill-advised temp ban and ended up in that thread and could not resist liking
 
Am I under investigation ?

Though, on second thought...

tumblr_pjq7yaZd3B1u955i8o1_250.gif
 
I'm going old-school with a classic pick here;

@Rational Poster for worst poster. @Trotsky too. Ever notice Trotsky can't make his talking points concise?

It's always a novel. And he tries to come across as smarter than he is by adding in extra words.

He could be trying to say; "The old man wen't to the store to buy a red apple"

And it would come out; "The geriatric human male traversed to the store to purchase a red apple, part of the plantae kingdom"

I'm going to assume you voted for @Trotsky since you wrote a novel for him.

Fucking hypocrite.
 
Anyone who reads my posts knows I am a D-grade spelling-B student!

Now that Homer is gone (RIP) I am looking for a personal assistant or editor in chief to oversee my use of - their, there, they're, and they are.

Please send all requests @ Internethero

I will pay you in "likes" .
I'm not going to follow you around but if I see any, I'll let you know, for sure.
 
As someone who wants deep and fundamental social change in the United States, I would imagine you would favor this.
As your new personal grammar n-word, I'm forced to ask, do you mean you are "someone who wants deep and fundamental social change in the United States", or do you mean Trotsky is? If you mean Trotsky, he should come first in the latter clause, to wit, "you would favor this, I imagine."

I am curious and pedantic enough to really need you to clarify this exceedingly minor aspect of your lovely, detailed post.
giphy.gif
 
Part 1 analysis - I agree with how you see all of that for the most part. Your opinion kind of brings things into clarity and gives some solid background.

Fawlty is, admirably in many respects, a free speech radical. I would expect no less from someone who appears to have Lenny Bruce as an avatar.

Jack V Savage, hmm, a complicated figure indeed. I think you're right in this respect - that in internal discussions on the left he is reasonable, has clarity, and will compromise. He also has a good to very good command of his strong points - economics and some political policy.

However, in discussions with the right, he often seems like an uncomfortable interstellar explorer who crash landed on planet "Gods, Guts, and Guns." Finding the ray gun clinging dwellers of this Red State among the stars to be backward, and soon frustrated by the bizarre habits and beliefs of the other. I think he could "get" the philosophy of the right, and really add another dimension to his thought, but, I think some part of Jack V Savage would rather not.

Maybe there is a purest (in the ideological sense) nobility in that move, however, I prefer to know the two sides of any way of thought, even if one has far more advantages for humanity ad infinitum and beyond the stars.

Part 2 - I do not think we exactly disagree or diverge.

Fawtly fits that mold, and has just tilted a bit to the left on a few issues. Perhaps largely as a result of a strong, disgusted reaction to Emperor Don and the nakedly "might makes right" political coalition he formed. Or, maybe more as a result of favoring the ideas and reasoning of JVS and others.

Kind of ironic really. The intellectual, serious media (Not counting Fox), and respectable leadership figures of the right were in lockstep complaining about how Barack Obama was being repugnant tribal in the clever "salad bowl" divisions of his coalition.

A lot of truth there, and then, how does the base of the right respond? Not well.

At that point though, the intellectuals split between denouncing the figure who was culturally against what they stood for, and others who suggested the programmatic grab for power was more palatable, often against their own writing and opinions.

The leaders just collapsed to the far right, or worse alt-right figures of the mob, and the "strong" sources all fell in line. The left does this too, however, the right is supposed to have different principles that remain unchanging.

And too many went and changed their principles. That is hard to respect, + 2 Supreme Court Justices, but who are they fooling long term as their base ages and their principles disintegrate into Nationalist furor?

Maybe there is a hidden ace in the right's hands, but I get the feeling they will fold.

As someone who wants deep and fundamental social change in the United States, I would imagine you would favor this.

Yet I would urge caution.

As "iron sharpens iron," I prefer to see the best ideas of the left and the right in such a mixed and pluralistic society. I get the feeling the left will ascend... and then do, hmm how to put it, "Shit all" for the poor, destitute, ECT. and triple down on group divisions, or else pander to them while segregating themselves with ever higher internal walls. Most of the leaders are operating under the power foundations of Machiavelli as we slide ever further towards corpratist torpor.

That's not too cool, but the right just looks reactionary and angry. Maybe in response to the lefts provocations, however, who cares? The one pushing the facemask is not who gets noticed, the one who blows up and takes off his helmet is.

Maybe they'll get it together but more likely in my estimation the left wins out nationally in the long run (30 odd years,) the right is ever more shrill in enclaves, and the collective weight of empire slowly unscrews over the fundamental divisions.

Wait, what was I talking about?

Oh right, sure, Fawlty is still a libertarian in a functional sense, but with sharper left characteristics. His (largely rightful) loathing of the alt-right has seemingly fed the ideological revaluation.

I was maybe 90% libertarian in the Fawlty mode before swinging, improbably, or perhaps impossibly towards the "Evangelical Right" socially from my more ancharcho-libertarian background, and then politically drifting left in some dimensions, because too often the right just does not care about the results of governance.
mKAkaqt.gif
 
my mom did ancestry.com and told me we are direct descendents of Cliven Bundy. Is that an insult or a compliment?
 
I'm sure they're just trying to get a rise out of you.

Not in the least. If anything, I'd like it if @Cubo de Sangre didn't get risen so much and was able to just stay calm and discuss issues like a man.

As for this issue, Fawlty asked Cubo about Russler's proposal to imprison Mueller. Cubo said he thought Russler was likely being misrepresented. When it turned out he wasn't, and Russler defended his point, asserting that Mueller is a traitor and that the "the danger that his crimes will go unpunished is too great." Cubo then said that if treason was involved, he could see that. Then @JDragon asked Cubo if he thinks Mueller is a traitor. Cubo just said he didn't know the details but that he supported it if he was. Then I said that that was a weaselly answer (as it sidestepped the question and the meat of the discussion). Cubo said "you're entitled to your opinion." He denied that he meant to insinuate that my opinion was wrong with that comment. Then he initiated this long farce where he kept responding but pretending not to read the posts he was responding to.

It's the dontsnitch, Russler thing again. It's annoying when people won't just say what they think. It's a discussion forum. I suspect the issue is that Cubo is very tribalistic but also wants to see himself as a defender of the Constitution and of due process. On the issues where those values pull away from his tribal allegiances, he'd rather just not comment. And it's doubly funny since he has a habit of calling other people "dick tucker" for not jumping when he tells them to.
 
Part 1 analysis - I agree with how you see all of that for the most part. Your opinion kind of brings things into clarity and gives some solid background.

Fawlty is, admirably in many respects, a free speech radical. I would expect no less from someone who appears to have Lenny Bruce as an avatar.

Jack V Savage, hmm, a complicated figure indeed. I think you're right in this respect - that in internal discussions on the left he is reasonable, has clarity, and will compromise. He also has a good to very good command of his strong points - economics and some political policy.

However, in discussions with the right, he often seems like an uncomfortable interstellar explorer who crash landed on planet "Gods, Guts, and Guns." Finding the ray gun clinging dwellers of this Red State among the stars to be backward, and soon frustrated by the bizarre habits and beliefs of the other. I think he could "get" the philosophy of the right, and really add another dimension to his thought, but, I think some part of Jack V Savage would rather not.

Maybe there is a purest (in the ideological sense) nobility in that move, however, I prefer to know the two sides of any way of thought, even if one has far more advantages for humanity ad infinitum and beyond the stars.

Part 2 - I do not think we exactly disagree or diverge.

Fawtly fits that mold, and has just tilted a bit to the left on a few issues. Perhaps largely as a result of a strong, disgusted reaction to Emperor Don and the nakedly "might makes right" political coalition he formed. Or, maybe more as a result of favoring the ideas and reasoning of JVS and others.

Kind of ironic really. The intellectual, serious media (Not counting Fox), and respectable leadership figures of the right were in lockstep complaining about how Barack Obama was being repugnant tribal in the clever "salad bowl" divisions of his coalition.

A lot of truth there, and then, how does the base of the right respond? Not well.

At that point though, the intellectuals split between denouncing the figure who was culturally against what they stood for, and others who suggested the programmatic grab for power was more palatable, often against their own writing and opinions.

The leaders just collapsed to the far right, or worse alt-right figures of the mob, and the "strong" sources all fell in line. The left does this too, however, the right is supposed to have different principles that remain unchanging.

And too many went and changed their principles. That is hard to respect, + 2 Supreme Court Justices, but who are they fooling long term as their base ages and their principles disintegrate into Nationalist furor?

Maybe there is a hidden ace in the right's hands, but I get the feeling they will fold.

As someone who wants deep and fundamental social change in the United States, I would imagine you would favor this.

Yet I would urge caution.

As "iron sharpens iron," I prefer to see the best ideas of the left and the right in such a mixed and pluralistic society. I get the feeling the left will ascend... and then do, hmm how to put it, "Shit all" for the poor, destitute, ECT. and triple down on group divisions, or else pander to them while segregating themselves with ever higher internal walls. Most of the leaders are operating under the power foundations of Machiavelli as we slide ever further towards corpratist torpor.

That's not too cool, but the right just looks reactionary and angry. Maybe in response to the lefts provocations, however, who cares? The one pushing the facemask is not who gets noticed, the one who blows up and takes off his helmet is.

Maybe they'll get it together but more likely in my estimation the left wins out nationally in the long run (30 odd years,) the right is ever more shrill in enclaves, and the collective weight of empire slowly unscrews over the fundamental divisions.

Wait, what was I talking about?

Oh right, sure, Fawlty is still a libertarian in a functional sense, but with sharper left characteristics. His (largely rightful) loathing of the alt-right has seemingly fed the ideological revaluation.

I was maybe 90% libertarian in the Fawlty mode before swinging, improbably, or perhaps impossibly towards the "Evangelical Right" socially from my more ancharcho-libertarian background, and then politically drifting left in some dimensions, because too often the right just does not care about the results of governance.
i am shocked and awed by your 35k messages and 5k likes i gave you a pity like.

Plus i didnt read your post the last time i read that many words was back when books were a thing
 
However, in discussions with the right, he often seems like an uncomfortable interstellar explorer who crash landed on planet "Gods, Guts, and Guns." Finding the ray gun clinging dwellers of this Red State among the stars to be backward, and soon frustrated by the bizarre habits and beliefs of the other. I think he could "get" the philosophy of the right, and really add another dimension to his thought, but, I think some part of Jack V Savage would rather not.

Maybe there is a purest (in the ideological sense) nobility in that move, however, I prefer to know the two sides of any way of thought, even if one has far more advantages for humanity ad infinitum and beyond the stars.

You literally could not be more wrong. I'd bet that I have a deeper understanding of various strains of right-wing thought than anyone here who agrees with it, and I very regularly read the best of it. Just this year, I've cited two pretty heavy books on different strains of right-wing thought, and I've specifically discussed other strains with you previously (for example: http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/m...are-your-angus.3461799/page-49#post-126928327).
 
Hmm, this is very eloquently put, but I would revise it a bit. Both Fawlty and I come from somewhat rough origins, so I would say that we both have at-least-average levels of realism. I would, however, agree that Fawlty is a bit more of a pragmatist than I am (except in the area of First Amendment law, where I would say he's more of an ideologue and I'm more of a pragmatist). But I think that reflects the fact that Fawlty is very empirically inclined, as I have always considered myself a pragmatist, even if a forward-looking one. I have actually wondered whether Fawlty has been over-influenced by Jack V Savage in that regard, because I often feel that Jack is less rigid than Fawlty now, even though JVS sometimes gets the reputation or gives off the impression of being a rigid empiricist.



That's a genuinely strange statement to me, to be honest.

As @Fawlty can vouch, I named him as the most functionally libertarian poster on the board, which he disclaimed under the impression that I was calling him a right-libertarian.

There are rhetorical libertarians like Greoric and Cubo, and that kind of libertarianism is at best meaningless and at worst openly contradictory. But I would say that, functionally, Fawlty is or strives to be the most libertarian poster on this board.
Don't think I should diagnose myself to this level, but I would say that I've become a lot more conservative in my thinking (not with respect to the American right). For instance, I want better data now, and rely less on gut feeling and folk wisdom and "common sense." In years past, I would accept some cynical one-liner as wisdom, but now I wanna see the receipts. Most of that has to do with getting an education and coming to an understanding that a lot of what makes sense to us is really just compatible with our biases (especially, learning that our assumptions about what constitutes "significant" are often way off the mark). And ironically, when your thinking becomes conservative in that way, you begin to see that a lot of "conservative" positions are something like bullshit that your grandparents tell you. There's often some kernel of truth, but only a kernel - it's deep wisdom because you have to dig past a lot of rot to find it - and it moves you in a generally progressive policy direction because you see that the old ways are wrong.
 
(I'm being playful, by the way; I know you're smart af)

I did a paper on LEED certifications in college. It's all aesthetic, lol.

:D

It's better than nothin, I for one welcome as many dual semiconductor RDTE centers and fabrication plants as can be fit into the available acreage. The last campus Intel put up here recycles 90% of its solid waste and the solar array covered parking lot is pretty dope too, bit of a hulking beast that's difficult to miss though.

image.png

image.png


R1.png

R2.png


Impact.png


Wages.png


3601.png

3602.png


It's strange how @Gandhi is just the best person ever. Like a soft-skinned matronly Slavic woman.

But I would be honestly curious to know. I really do despise the CPS, although I have begrudging respect for Xi's political acumen.

170629182543-01-xi-jinping-hong-kong-full-169.jpg


I've mentioned before that China feels like it's in a third phase of sorts under Xi that's firmly steeped in neither Maoism nor Dengism. CCP would seem poised to retain the latter in the sense of economic development and modernization under the governance of a one-party state, and that probably wasn't ever going to change. On the otherhand, they've broken from Deng policy in two major ways: a nudge back towards a form of totalitarian insitutional imprint and in the geopolitical sense, a rejection of soft power foreign policy. The last one was probably an even bigger misstep.
 
Also, US manufacturing is not coming back to wreck shit. And if it could, we wouldn't want it. I think @Rod1 has talked about this subject and how, with the new international economic order, the benefits that manufacturing yielded for the US during the 20th century (unprecedented bargaining rights, unprecedented wages, etc.) are no longer available if the sector is to be internationally viable.

I said manufacturing jobs arent coming back, manufacturing itself never really "left".

I think @NoDak has done a great job to ram the point towards the idiots who think NAFTA and other deals drained American manufacturing away.

The issue isnt that manufacturing went away, simply that automation, high tech manufacturing and bulk manufacturing represent now the majority of American industry.

So what's your reasoning? For what it's worth, I think the CPC is, in terms of the full global and historical order, by far the worst result of Leninism

Thanks to Deng Xiaoping, because Maoism is probably the worst communism had to offer. And considerin Taiwan, China would be in a far better place if Mao had lost the civil war.

but short-lasting. Cuba has, I think, ultimately been a beacon of hope in a lot of ways.

As it plunges into a crisis due to the lack of Venezuelan oil? the only "hope" Cuba brings is the fact that it serves as a reminder of the dangers of socialism.
 

Similar threads

Replies
734
Views
30K
Back
Top