I Found Tsuke or Anatta in the NR Comments

[Minister of Truth]

"None of this is honorable. It’s low and partisan. I don’t care how many war allusions you use..."

And most of us don't care, period. Fiscal "conservatives" chose their own personal pocketbooks and greed over the good of the nation when they linked arms with liberals and sold out white america with mass immigration. You create a situation involving bickering racial tribes and then act surprised and dismayed when partisanship and tribal conflict intensifies? Either you're willfully ignorant or actively malevolent, and neither of those is much better than the other.

You're the last people who should be crying about tribal warfare, as you enabled it in the first place.

Honestly, you lot make me sick. There's literally nothing honorable about anyone on the "right" if that right includes "people" like Bill Kristol and his associated neocon rabble or the people at the National Review that worship free trade like religious zealots. The time for authoritarianism is fast approaching, and constitutional arguments hold less and less weight with the average white man (and some women, Phyllis Schlafly is still sorely missed) on the right, who were largely the only people who ever gave a damn about it in the first place.

If you're looking for someone to blame, your first stop should be the mirror.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...nternet-debate

Not sure if you'll all be able to load comments. I can on my phone, but not from the desktop I've been using. Any way, this basically sums up the populist Trumptards and why they're not really conservatives (or patriots).

[Pappy Jones]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...nternet-debate

Not sure if you'll all be able to load comments. I can on my phone, but not from the desktop I've been using. Any way, this basically sums up the populist Trumptards and why they're not really conservatives (or patriots).

I have my browser set to block social media comments (in this case facebook) LOL, most websites I don't even see the icons, gotta love technology.

[anatta]

I don't use terms like this

sold out white america

it's insulting , worthless,and inflamatory without basis.
I do use terms like

Either you're willfully ignorant or actively malevolent, and neither of those is much better than the other.

that sounds exactly like how I write.

this too:

Bill Kristol and his associated neocon rabble or the people at the National Review that worship free trade like religious zealots

I f you want to question my patriotism - go right ahead. I have a frim grip on my vision of American values
which basically boils down to "we hang together or we hang separately" United we stand.

Partisanship without compromise for the good of the country is evil.

[Minister of Truth]

I don't use terms like this it's insulting , worthless,and inflamatory without basis.
I do use terms like that sounds exactly like how I write.

this too:

I f you want to question my patriotism - go right ahead. I have a frim grip on my vision of American values
which basically boils down to "we hang together or we hang separately" United we stand.

Partisanship without compromise for the good of the country is evil.

Well, Tsuke is the white nationalist, so I'm mostly questioning his patriotism, but, most of the words of that comment reflect your rhetoric. That being said, I have always viewed free(r) trade as being inherently in-line with American principles such as freedom of movement, natural rights, etc. Personally, I don't think that your view of America is all that consistent. It's been steady for the brief period of time that you have been on JPP, but, your whole voting record prior to about 2014(?) was solid Dem, which means that you were never really voting for your vision of America.

[anatta]

Well, Tsuke is the white nationalist, so I'm mostly questioning his patriotism, but, most of the words of that comment reflect your rhetoric. That being said, I have always viewed free(r) trade as being inherently in-line with American principles such as freedom of movement, natural rights, etc. Personally, I don't think that your view of America is all that consistent. It's been steady for the brief period of time that you have been on JPP, but, your whole voting record prior to about 2014(?) was solid Dem, which means that you were never really voting for your vision of America.

Trump said it best "fair trade".
O f course free trade is the way to go - but there is no virtue in being slavishly devoted to a concept.
When Trump save the Carrie jobs -the free traders went nuts like it was a sacrilege.
It was a one time deal,and it was a good deal -above all practicality is the measure, not some abstract principle.

The Dems were a different party. I don't really care about social issues from government
other then guarantees from discrimination.
But when they start talking about gender identity -not physical genders as some kina right for men to use the women's room ; it obvious they have become slaves to their abstract principles -sans reality based testing

[Minister of Truth]

Trump said it best "fair trade".
O f course free trade is the way to go - but there is no virtue in being slavishly devoted to a concept.
When Trump save the Carrie jobs -the free traders went nuts like it was a sacrilege.
It was a one time deal,and it was a good deal -above all practicality is the measure, not some abstract principle.

The Dems were a different party. I don't really care about social issues from government
other then guarantees from discrimination.
But when they start talking about gender identity -not physical genders as some kina right for men to use the women's room ; it obvious they have become slaves to their abstract principles -sans reality based testing

It seems to me, you being a foreign policy wonk, that the Dems really abandoned your view of foreign policy after the 60s. JFK's views may have prevailed if LBJ hadn't effed everything up. The leftists who took over Congress as Nixon imploded forced the unconstitutional War Powers Act, and the party steadily became the home of internationalists who desired to give the UN and NATO a greater role in our foreign policy. You could see it in Carter, in the moronic/suicidal nuclear freeze movement, and beyond.

[anatta]

It seems to me, you being a foreign policy wonk, that the Dems really abandoned your view of foreign policy after the 60s. JFK's views may have prevailed if LBJ hadn't effed everything up. The leftists who took over Congress as Nixon imploded forced the unconstitutional War Powers Act, and the party steadily became the home of internationalists who desired to give the UN and NATO a greater role in our foreign policy. You could see it in Carter, in the moronic/suicidal nuclear freeze movement, and beyond.

JFK was the Cold Warrior ( successful or not) but it wasn't just against the USSR or China it was against the ideology of Communism- where ever it cropped up worldwide-how we got into Vietnam with the Domino effect and such.

If you weren't alive you can't appreciate just how much the Vietnam war was part of everyday America.
It wasn't just Cronkite n the 6:00news.
It was the topic of conversation. Sooner or later any chatting got around to Vietnam
Everyone knew someone or knew of someone who was drafted,and almost everyone knew of someone that was killed. And it just got worse day by day and year by year, bt th people who thought it was esential to stop Communism got more and more shrill as the populace increasingly wanted out of the war,
Getting out of the war was EZ for anti-war folks like myself -just leave.
But there was always some general or politician that said we just can't leave -the consequences would be too dire.

I am telling you all this so you can see just how traumatic the war was for the whole country.
Thee was nothing like it since then.

Naturally the anti-war crowd was a big part of the Democratic Party-and hat influenced foreign policy until at least Reagan even though the draft was abolished. Anything that snacked of getting tied down in foreign war was uacceptable risk.

Unfortunately foreign policy in this country is tied to domestic policy, and all of our policies reactive to past policies.
So when yu think of the progression of foreign policy like NATO expansion - it's not just done on it's own merits;
it's reactive to rolling back the USSR -even though NATO expansion leads to Putin today.
And policy fashioning today is reactive to Putin by most - except for Trump-although I'm sure he will be pulled into the "Putin is a thug" reaction from McCain.
It's obvious for ex. that Cold War 2.0 is to be avoided on it's own merits.
But that doesn't matter when fashioning policy toward Russia -it's bound up in reacting to Putin today.

the rest you can fill in if you remember this- all of our actions today are reactive in some fashion to the past.
i

[anatta]

It seems to me, you being a foreign policy wonk, that the Dems really abandoned your view of foreign policy after the 60s. JFK's views may have prevailed if LBJ hadn't effed everything up. The leftists who took over Congress as Nixon imploded forced the unconstitutional War Powers Act, and the party steadily became the home of internationalists who desired to give the UN and NATO a greater role in our foreign policy. You could see it in Carter, in the moronic/suicidal nuclear freeze movement, and beyond.

JFK was the Cold Warrior ( successful or not) but it wasn't just against the USSR or China it was against the ideology of Communism- where ever it cropped up worldwide-how we got into Vietnam with the Domino effect and such.

If you weren't alive you can't appreciate just how much the Vietnam war was part of everyday America.
It wasn't just Cronkite on the 6:00news.
It was the topic of conversation. Sooner or later any chatting got around to Vietnam

Everyone knew someone or knew of someone who was drafted,and almost everyone knew of someone that was killed.
And it just got worse day by day and year by year, but the people who thought it was essential to stop Communism got more and more shrill as the populace increasingly wanted out of the war.

Getting out of the war was EZ for anti-war folks like myself -just leave.
But there was always some general or politician that said we just can't leave -the consequences would be too dire.

I am telling you all this so you can see just how traumatic the war was for the whole country.
There was nothing like it since then.

Naturally the anti-war crowd was a big part of the Democratic Party-and that influenced foreign policy until at least Reagan even though the draft was abolished.
Anything that snacked of getting tied down in foreign war was an unacceptable risk.

Unfortunately foreign policy in this country is tied to domestic policy, and all of our policies reactive to past policies.
So when you think of the progression of foreign policy like NATO expansion - it's not just done on it's own merits;
it's reactive to rolling back the USSR -even though NATO expansion leads to Putin today.

And policy fashioning today is reactive to Putin by most - except for Trump-although I'm sure he will be pulled into the "Putin is a thug" reaction from McCain.

It's obvious for ex. that Cold War 2.0 is to be avoided on it's own merits.
But that doesn't matter when fashioning policy toward Russia -it's bound up in reacting to Putin today.

the rest you can fill in if you remember this- all of our actions today are reactive in some fashion to the past.

[Minister of Truth]

JFK was the Cold Warrior ( successful or not) but it wasn't just against the USSR or China it was against the ideology of Communism- where ever it cropped up worldwide-how we got into Vietnam with the Domino effect and such.

If you weren't alive you can't appreciate just how much the Vietnam war was part of everyday America.
It wasn't just Cronkite on the 6:00news.
It was the topic of conversation. Sooner or later any chatting got around to Vietnam

Everyone knew someone or knew of someone who was drafted,and almost everyone knew of someone that was killed.
And it just got worse day by day and year by year, but the people who thought it was essential to stop Communism got more and more shrill as the populace increasingly wanted out of the war.

Getting out of the war was EZ for anti-war folks like myself -just leave.
But there was always some general or politician that said we just can't leave -the consequences would be too dire.

I am telling you all this so you can see just how traumatic the war was for the whole country.
There was nothing like it since then.

Naturally the anti-war crowd was a big part of the Democratic Party-and that influenced foreign policy until at least Reagan even though the draft was abolished.
Anything that snacked of getting tied down in foreign war was an unacceptable risk.

Unfortunately foreign policy in this country is tied to domestic policy, and all of our policies reactive to past policies.
So when you think of the progression of foreign policy like NATO expansion - it's not just done on it's own merits;
it's reactive to rolling back the USSR -even though NATO expansion leads to Putin today.

And policy fashioning today is reactive to Putin by most - except for Trump-although I'm sure he will be pulled into the "Putin is a thug" reaction from McCain.

It's obvious for ex. that Cold War 2.0 is to be avoided on it's own merits.
But that doesn't matter when fashioning policy toward Russia -it's bound up in reacting to Putin today.

the rest you can fill in if you remember this- all of our actions today are reactive in some fashion to the past.

Communists took their marching orders from Moscow, like good little idiots, and that was still true in JFK's day. Things changed due to the growing rift between Moscow and Beijing that was a result of Khrushchev's perceived cowardice.

I would say that the real difference between Vietnam and subsequent wars, is how blindsided the public was by it. Sure, there had been hostile public reaction to both WWI and Korea, the latter causing Truman to forsake any thought of seeking re-election. Because of Vietnam, the public enters into any conflict with a skeptical awareness that the situation could turn out really bad for us. The public on the 1960s was not prepared to deal with the fact that they were lied into a war than was subsequently mishandled to completely that it cost us more than we could imagine in terms of life, treasure, international prestige, etc. Post JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, most people automatically assume that the government is lying to them about everything.

It's not just that the antiwar crowd got ahold of the Democratic Party at that moment, but, all foreign policy notions within the party shifted away from American supremacy to internationalism, whether dove or hawk.

As for Russia, I think that barring weak leadership, the government would be very alarmed by NATO expansion, even if Putin were not the one in charge.

[jazz10]

I have my browser set to block social media comments (in this case facebook) LOL, most websites I don't even see the icons, gotta love technology.