Is Benny right about Jan 6th?

[Juxtapose]

Just watch the first 5 minutes and you will get the general gist.

[Billlewis]

The whole thing was a setup from the outset. Some reports have determined that as many as a dozen federal agents were present as plainclothed undercover purveyors of mayhem, with the obvious goal of framing the conservative attendees as vandals and rioting miscreants. The KGB style media even went so far as to blatantly lie about the death of police officer Brian Sicknick, deceitfully reporting that he was killed in the supposed Keller, when in fact, he passed away several days later, of a completely unrelated illness.

[Juxtapose]

And those cops who supposedly committed suicide later on? They knew too much and were killed.

[Juxtapose]

You are spot-on.

[OddBeMe]

Wow what an annoying intro. I’m not surprised you fucks celebrate Justice Thomas’ corruption instead of being pissed about it.

But this appears one of dozens of issues they’re taking up. Like Trump’s immunity, I doubt the Supremes would vote anti Jan 6.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-january-6-case-obstruction-federal-judge/

[Juxtapose]

CBS is a far left, biased propaganda outlet.

You want to lock up people that were invited in by the police and actually led a prayer praising the police. That shaman guy was completely peaceful and there's no reason to lock him up.

"But he disrupted Congressional business!"

The capital is public property and people are free to walk into it. Also you fuckers did nothing when that black Democrat pulled the fire alarm on purpose to disrupt Congressional proceedings intentionally lol.

[OddBeMe]

I’m just gonna keep linking shit and ignore whatever bullshit you say about the network. Because I’ve warned you about journalism vs commentary before. And never sticks in that batter you call your brain.

[Juxtapose]

https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI?si=ybhBRwvbuKysOYip

Yeah, sure.. they're sssooooo trustworthy xD

Go kick rocks.

[OddBeMe]

Again…that’s the Sinclair Group who bought out 50 or so local stations. A right wing media company.

Dumbass.

[Juxtapose]

Have you been ignoring all the times I have told you about the deep state and the uni party? I keep telling you the corporate cocksuckers like Mitt Romney and Joe Biden work for the same damn people dude.

[Juxtapose]

Just because I like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders does not mean I support the corporate, deep state cocksuckers within their political party.

[OddBeMe]

Did you watch the Trumpers clip? You’d like those cocksuckers? Same stupid ideas.

[Juxtapose]

I don't need to, I know that there are stupid people of every political persuasion. There are extremely stupid people who support Bernie Sanders but does that detract from Bernie Sanders in the slightest?

There's people who literally pray to Trump and act like total morons. Then there is Biden supporters who literally think Trump is the Antichrist. I would know, one of them is a friend of mine.

[OddBeMe]

Funny that not that many Christians are against the thrice married, paid off a pornstar, 91 count indicted candidate.

[Dongie]

Sing it bother.🎉🇺🇸

[Dongie]

Sing it brother.🎉🇺🇸

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yes, he could be right?

[BoopBoopBeep]

It's never a bad idea to remind people who know you that you are in fact not suicidal and you enjoy life.

[jimmy2]

Jan 6 are political prisoners no fact only politicians like Nancy and Chuck put them in jail
Free Jan 6

[exitseven]

Yes, all those political prisoners should be freed. They should each be given a million dollars too.

[Dongie]

I didn't bother listening but I'm pretty sure he doesn't even believe his own words.

[Drewtate]

Absolutely right.

[normalice]

Probably not if you're posting it 🤷

[Juxtapose]

Believe what you want, I already know you are a lost cause.

[normalice]

It is true I will never be brainwashed by the far right into advocating against my own self interests.

[Juxtapose]

Good, as you should be worried about the far left as well. They both work for the same people.

[normalice]

That was surprisingly astute of you. Indeed I've long been saying the far left is largely a false flag propped up by the far right to radicalize normal left wingers, since they won't radicalize on their own and a bothsides narrative can't benefit republicans as intended if there are no optics to go with it. I'm just a little shocked you knew as well but still play along.

[Juxtapose]

You are really obsessed about this left versus right thing when it's more authoritarian versus libertarian.

Libertarian leftists and libertarian rightists are both on the same side ultimately.

Authoritarians are on the same side as well and actively working to subjugate the population.

[normalice]

Did the libertarians tell you that? Don't be a moron 😅

[Juxtapose]

Do you not know the distinction of libertarian leftism versus authoritarian leftism? Have you never heard of the political compass?

[normalice]

That dumb chart was made by a libertarian to trick people into thinking they are libertarians. The problem the far right had was it was easy to get religious people to vote to give more money to the rich, because religious people are gullible, but they didn't know how to appeal to non-religious people. The libertarian party is what the came up with. Lure left-ish people in with promises of legal weed and no taxes, then bombard them with far right grievance culture. It is the Stockholm syndrome weaponized to give more money to the rich. That's all.

[Juxtapose]

Do you have any sort of evidence to this? Because political spectrums do deviate in terms of how authoritarian people are within said political spectrums.

And saying that libertarianism only exists to give handouts to the rich when libertarian leftists are the most hostile to corporations out of all political affiliations is laughable.

[Juxtapose]

@nightdrot you are well versed in politics, perhaps you could shed light on this?

[normalice]

If by "most hostile" you mean "will give them all the power in the world if they just tell them the guy in the dress is a guy" sure 😅

[Juxtapose]

You're talking about people like George Carlin, Bill Maher, Tomas Jefferson, Daryl Davis, Glen Greenwald and Bernie Sanders lol.

[Juxtapose]

You really need to work on your strawmen by the way, that was a really weak one.

[normalice]

No. Bill Maher is even quoted as saying "I didn't leave the libertarian party the libertarian party left me." I did mispeak, however - the libertarian party wasn't "came up with," it was hijacked.

[Juxtapose]

I am not talking about a political party. I am talking about a subsect in political affiliations that distinguishes authoritarians from libertarians.

Again, not a political party. Not like you will read this though if my message gets too long xD

[normalice]

Yeah that's what pretty much everyone in the libertarian party says.

[Juxtapose]

You have wild conspiracy theories about anyone to the right of you so no I don't believe you.

[nightdrot]

Well, I tried to ferret out this discussion and it is a little obscure. The problem is that you are both using terminology that does not mean what it meant historically.

"Left" and "right," for example, used in a political context, comes from the French Revolution. Supporters of the monarchy sat to the right of the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly. Opponents sat to the left.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

This then being simply a shorthand. The right in supporting the monarchy also supported the Church, social traditionalism, the aristocracy and so forth. The left supported the revolutionaries who, themselves, broke into two groups. Those who saw the state as an instrument of social reform - referred to as the radicals. (Note, the term "radical" here does NOT mean what it means in contemporary usage. Rather it refers to how the ancient Greeks used the term, i. e' meaning "to the root of.") The others who argued - to oversimplify a bit - "that government is best which governs least. The "classical liberals" from whom the libertarians derive there own viewpoint.

Strictly speaking, these are all subdivisions of what might be called the "left." Though today we call the minimal government types "conservatives" and the activist government types as "liberals." Conservatives who used to sit to the right of the Speaker's chair are now called classical conservatives.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

You see classical conservatives in Europe, but not so much in the United States, given the latter's origins in the Enlightenment. In the USA, the debate is really, tracing back their philosophic origins, between classical and radical liberals, although in the USA the classical liberals (conservatives) have a strand of social traditionalism stemming from their intellectual and historical ties to the Protestant Reformation. (If you are looking for an American classical conservative - other than me - read George F. Will's book, "Statecraft as Soulcraft.")

One last thing, one of you referred to left and right wing libertarians. You are right that libertarians are basically the same thing and in fact, classifying them as left or right wing really has no historical pedigree. In terms of intellectual history, libertarians we all be classified as the left.

Anyhow, not sure if that helps. I am happy to answer other questions if you need it - that is if you are not ready to cry "uncle" after what I just wrote. Also, as I will be in and out today, if you do follow up, please be patient as I may not be able to respond right away.

[Juxtapose]

@nightdrot he won't read all that I guarantee it xD But you did make a good point about libertarians being of the left persuasion. "Liberal" as a concept is about liberty.

normalice believes libertarians were made by right wingers as part of some conspiracy to screw over the left.

[normalice]

@nightdrot nothing about the modern left or right "stems from" traditional versions unless some modicum of both sides are aware of all this history. Which I think is safe to say is not the case and, in fact, has never been the case. New people are perpetually hijacking the group names of old people. That's all. It is interesting to know origins of something but it's only a practical thing to know if one can explainnhow it has resulted in what has become of it. That's not really the case with modern left and right because the right was hijacked 40 years ago by a focus on message quality for the purpose of obscuring true intentions, rather than the more traditional approach of focusing on how best to explain why one homestly believes their own intentions are "better". things have changed (rapidly, one might even say) in a way disconnected from history since then.

[normalice]

@Juxtapose oh, I read people who haven't trashed their credibility because everything they say wouldn't be out of place coming out of the mouth of a homeless person yelling from a busy street corner, as you have. You are proud of your contradictions instead of making efforts to reconcil them. If you are not simply trolling then you are so thoroughly detached from the basic concepts of logic and reason that I don't think there is any real chance of communicating with you effectively over the internet unless you count telling you whatever you have been preprogrammed to like hearing as "communication," which it isn't. It's not even the comeraderie you seem to take it for. It's brainwashing..

That isn't to say nightdrot isn't like that. I simply don't know because I don't remember him. Everyone gets good faith to start off with. You have simply exhausted yours. Nightdrot hasn't. And even his reply here, while maybe not quite as on topic as I'd like for how much he wrote, hasn't exhausted his starting good faith here - Indeed he hasn't spent any of it at all.

[nightdrot]

Not correct, @normalice. What you have is generations who are the inheritors of ideas of which they are not necessarily self-aware. However, those ideas do have a pedigree.

To repeat, the "right" as used today, is really a branch of what would have been "the left" back when those terms were first coined. American conservatives are the intellectual descendants of the classical liberal tradition, albeit with an admixture of social traditionalism rooted in the Protestant Reformation.

Even then, the Protestant Reformation was itself what would be described, though not at the time, as a "left wing" idea. It was a rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church, which even today defines man as a social being. This in contrast to the Protestants and classical liberals who saw man as radically alone and individual.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

The emphasis of the Catholic Church - and classical conservatives - emphasizing the importance of social institutions as shaping human character and being in turn shaped by it. Whereas the left sees social institutions as corrupting human nature. The classical liberals and libertarians then arguing that if you minimize social institutions, the spontaneous virtue of the individual will be allowed to flourish. (In this they differ from the radical liberals - today's liberals - who argue that society has so corrupted human nature that a state - run by experts - is needed to reform society and compensate for its' errors, thereby reforming man.)

Again, I recommend to you reading George Will's "Statecraft as Soulcraft." Among more classical authors I recommend Aquinas, Edmund Burke, and Chesterton. Also Lincoln. (Indeed, it is a great historical "what if" had Lincoln lived and the radical Republicans not taken control of the newly formed GOP)

NOTE to @Juxtapose, I will provide this one (two part) answer to simplify this discussion. I am sorry my last response was so long - and even then I had to edit it down from the original. Sorry, but you guys are having a complex discussion and this format - though I love it - does have its' limits.

[normalice]

@nightdrot you say "not correct" but then basically just reiterated what I said, or at least the point i was trying to get across, and then went into more historical context.

[nightdrot]

Well, my point was that the historical context matters. You came to an approximation of the right conclusion, but by more or less implying - for lack of a better term - an elaborate conspiracy theory.

My point being that we got to where we are not based on deception or nefarious motives, but by historical and sociological processes that, to be fair, most Americans are no aware of. My objection being that we would have a more dispassionate and sensible political debate if people understood the pedigree of their ideas.

This was the distinction I was attempting to draw. I will also add that because of space limits - I received, in writing all that I wrote, four notices that my responses were too long - I was forced to edit some of what I wrote. Thus, where we may have talked past each other.

[Juxtapose]

@normalice you're an extremely rude and unpleasant person. I hope you step on something in the middle of the night.

@nightdrot normalice is crazy and thinks CNN is part of a conservative plot to make the left look bad. He thinks the modern left is just fine and dandy and every other political persuasion is dog shit.

As for what use said, thank you for providing that information. Especially the important differences between classical liberals and radical liberals.

[Juxtapose]

People frequently mistake me for being a conservative simply because I'm a classical liberal rather than a radical liberal. I have strong beliefs centered on liberty and think the modern left focus on immutable characteristics is a disgrace.

[Juxtapose]

*modern left's focus

[Juxtapose]

DEI and such.. disgraceful.

[normalice]

@nightdrot not really a conspiracy theory so much as a business model.

[nightdrot]

Well, either way, a gross oversimplification of a far more nuanced and complex historical, sociological, cultural and intellectual process of which much of the public is not sufficiently aware or historically educated.

[Juxtapose]

@nightdrot what is?

[nightdrot]

He said he saw all of this as not so much a conspiracy theory as a business model. I was saying to him that either view is an oversimplification of a much more complex historical reality. We - our parties and the like - did not get here because of nefarious motives or mere cost/benefit analysis. Rather it is the interplay of culture, historical events, changing social standards, and so on.

That is what I was saying in response to his comment.

[Juxtapose]

@nightdrot well almost every organization that is created is very quickly corrupted. Machiavellian, narcissistic sociopaths are very efficient and sneaky.

George Carlin described this pretty well. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, they all want the same thing and they are doing it out in the open. The people in power are all in one big club and you and I ain't in it.

[normalice]

@nightdrot a business model is a conspiracy to make money. All of them are. The word "conspiracy" has somehow been given some magic connotations but it's just opaque cooperation. I don't dispute anything you wrote and you don't seem, to have disputed anything i wrote, so... That's refreshing.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose To both of you, as I noted above, you trust but verify. That said, if the starting premise is that all institutions are corrupt and none to be trusted, then you are left with little but nihilism. As Walter Bagehot famously said, "A diffuse distrust and an indiscriminate suspicion are characteristic of a semi-barbarous people."

Which sums it up in the question: What will the iconoclasts do when the last icon has been smashed? Once there is nothing left to believe in, people will believe in anything. Suffice to say that history shows that bad things result when that happens to a society.

It also being wise to recall Disraeli's words, "A nation's liberties are embodied in its institutions. The march of intellect is not enough."

You must strike the balance between distrust of power and the need for institutions as the tools by which we secure liberty.

[Juxtapose]

@nightdrot I only tolerate these corrupt institutions because the alternative of anarchy would be worse. That's the extent I believe in these institutions. They have not a single speck of compassion or empathy for me.

[Juxtapose]

[nightdrot]

In response to your last question, a question. What did Aristotle say are the first questions of politics? How does that relate to your complaint - or does it?

[laly520]

doubt

[Juxtapose]

Why?

[laly520]

didn't he also said "I've never seen a Republican be violent" ?
thats how a propagandist would talk

[Juxtapose]

Timestamp?

[Billlewis]

Who shot Steve Scalise? Who destroyed hundreds of acres of urban shopping districts and burned down hundreds upon hundreds of homes across the country? Conservatives? If you're bent on exacting retribution for the largely symbolic judicial verdict two years ago, then by all means, pull that lever and in so doing contribute your influence to destroy the entire nation. But know this -- you're younger than many of us, and once you've succeeded in reducing your homeland to a pile of smoking rubble, you'll still have to live here for another 40 or 50 years, maybe longer. I'd keep that in the back of my mind if I were you.

[Juxtapose]

@Billlewis yep!

Would have conservatives done? A few bomb threats for abortion clinics here and there vs BLM & Antifa terrorizing the nation?

[Billlewis]

Yeah. Unfortunately, the current generation receives only leftist regressive propaganda for the entirety of their formative years. By the time they reach their mid twenties, they've been indoctrinated for more than two decades as reliably leftist agitators, erroneously believing that their destiny will be fulfilled by tearing down America. SMH...