The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

From the mouth
of a 100 year old world observer…

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-great-strategist-henry-kissinger-turns-100-china-ukraine-realpolitik-81b6f3bb?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

mtierney said:

From the mouth
of a 100 year old world observer…

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-great-strategist-henry-kissinger-turns-100-china-ukraine-realpolitik-81b6f3bb?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

"Hear the latest from Henry Kissinger" is not a great incentive to pay for that subscription, either.

mtierney said:

From the mouth
of a 100 year old world observer…

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-great-strategist-henry-kissinger-turns-100-china-ukraine-realpolitik-81b6f3bb?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

don't you mean 100 year old war criminal?

Kissinger making it to 100 is strong evidence that it is the good who die young. 

And not to mention, traitor

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Your response proves that you can not provide evidence for your allegations.  Most recent evidence requested:  evidence to prove/demonstrate that NR supports white supremacy.  I await a substantive response from you, GoSlugs.

it's easy to google "National Review" and "white supremacy." The first bunch of articles that surface are criticisms of anti-racism. The first one that comes up is a minimization of the threat of white supremacist terrorism.  That's pretty decent evidence that the NR skews toward making apologies for white supremacists, if not giving them outright support. If you really wanted to learn the answer to your question and not just be argumentative, it was super simple to find.

Hey thanks for your response.  I was more interested in a response from GoSlugs. As GoSlugs has a habit of making allegations without evidence.

sometimes it's really not necessary to provide "evidence." If one peruses the NR site it's self-evident what their stance is on race in the U.S.

Do you have a definition for "white supremacy" that you use when examining NR?

minimizing the threat from white supremacy that U.S. security agencies are warning about is enough for me. It's pretty easy to be anti-white supremacy. But the NR can't seem to bring themselves to do that. 

Is there a level of acceptance of white supremacists that you think is OK?

Question is do you have a definition for white supremacy?

For example, is advocating for color-blindness with regard to race a form of white supremacy (under your definition)?

It’s such a murky ideology that definitions are quite inadequate to explain it. If you believe your white race is in danger of being extinct, due to the “invasion of your country by non white peoples”…. Who are being controlled by Soros and the Jews…. Then you are actually practicing “white supremacy”….so you can save your white race. No need for all the dumb questions and deflections that your messiah uses. The hardest part of being a racist is actually admitting that you’re a racist.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Your response proves that you can not provide evidence for your allegations.  Most recent evidence requested:  evidence to prove/demonstrate that NR supports white supremacy.  I await a substantive response from you, GoSlugs.

it's easy to google "National Review" and "white supremacy." The first bunch of articles that surface are criticisms of anti-racism. The first one that comes up is a minimization of the threat of white supremacist terrorism.  That's pretty decent evidence that the NR skews toward making apologies for white supremacists, if not giving them outright support. If you really wanted to learn the answer to your question and not just be argumentative, it was super simple to find.

Hey thanks for your response.  I was more interested in a response from GoSlugs. As GoSlugs has a habit of making allegations without evidence.

sometimes it's really not necessary to provide "evidence." If one peruses the NR site it's self-evident what their stance is on race in the U.S.

Do you have a definition for "white supremacy" that you use when examining NR?

minimizing the threat from white supremacy that U.S. security agencies are warning about is enough for me. It's pretty easy to be anti-white supremacy. But the NR can't seem to bring themselves to do that. 

Is there a level of acceptance of white supremacists that you think is OK?

Question is do you have a definition for white supremacy?

For example, is advocating for color-blindness with regard to race a form of white supremacy (under your definition)?

how do you answer your latter question?

for the most part, people who consider non-white people to be inferior to white people, the people who think non-white people are coming to the U.S, to "replace" white people are white supremacists. The ones that the DHS and FBI identify as violent threats are the ones willing to start a "race war" to fight back against that replacement.

It's really not that hard to discern who are white supremacists. 

what's your definition, because it seems like you're being pretty obtuse about this.

I'd consider this guy a white supremacist (his protestations notwithstanding) 

Tucker Carlson, Promoter of Racist “Replacement” Theory, Insists He’s Not a Racist

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Your response proves that you can not provide evidence for your allegations.  Most recent evidence requested:  evidence to prove/demonstrate that NR supports white supremacy.  I await a substantive response from you, GoSlugs.

it's easy to google "National Review" and "white supremacy." The first bunch of articles that surface are criticisms of anti-racism. The first one that comes up is a minimization of the threat of white supremacist terrorism.  That's pretty decent evidence that the NR skews toward making apologies for white supremacists, if not giving them outright support. If you really wanted to learn the answer to your question and not just be argumentative, it was super simple to find.

Hey thanks for your response.  I was more interested in a response from GoSlugs. As GoSlugs has a habit of making allegations without evidence.

sometimes it's really not necessary to provide "evidence." If one peruses the NR site it's self-evident what their stance is on race in the U.S.

Do you have a definition for "white supremacy" that you use when examining NR?

minimizing the threat from white supremacy that U.S. security agencies are warning about is enough for me. It's pretty easy to be anti-white supremacy. But the NR can't seem to bring themselves to do that. 

Is there a level of acceptance of white supremacists that you think is OK?

Question is do you have a definition for white supremacy?

For example, is advocating for color-blindness with regard to race a form of white supremacy (under your definition)?

how do you answer your latter question?

for the most part, people who consider non-white people to be inferior to white people, the people who think non-white people are coming to the U.S, to "replace" white people are white supremacists. The ones that the DHS and FBI identify as violent threats are the ones willing to start a "race war" to fight back against that replacement.

It's really not that hard to discern who are white supremacists. 

what's your definition, because it seems like you're being pretty obtuse about this.

I am trying to understand how you arrive at your conclusions.  Based on your prior posts, you are comfortable hurling the term, 'white supremacy", without evidence and without a definition for "white supremacy."  Let me know if my understanding of your POV/thought-process is inaccurate or incomplete.  Thanks.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Your response proves that you can not provide evidence for your allegations.  Most recent evidence requested:  evidence to prove/demonstrate that NR supports white supremacy.  I await a substantive response from you, GoSlugs.

it's easy to google "National Review" and "white supremacy." The first bunch of articles that surface are criticisms of anti-racism. The first one that comes up is a minimization of the threat of white supremacist terrorism.  That's pretty decent evidence that the NR skews toward making apologies for white supremacists, if not giving them outright support. If you really wanted to learn the answer to your question and not just be argumentative, it was super simple to find.

Hey thanks for your response.  I was more interested in a response from GoSlugs. As GoSlugs has a habit of making allegations without evidence.

sometimes it's really not necessary to provide "evidence." If one peruses the NR site it's self-evident what their stance is on race in the U.S.

Do you have a definition for "white supremacy" that you use when examining NR?

minimizing the threat from white supremacy that U.S. security agencies are warning about is enough for me. It's pretty easy to be anti-white supremacy. But the NR can't seem to bring themselves to do that. 

Is there a level of acceptance of white supremacists that you think is OK?

Question is do you have a definition for white supremacy?

For example, is advocating for color-blindness with regard to race a form of white supremacy (under your definition)?

Advocating for color-blindness is mostly about denialism , hypocrisy and stupidity.

Getting a progressive liberal, who is living and working in very high end MOL communities, to read something which cost a dollar a week, is a modern day conundrum! 

Dining out frequently is doable, as is the cost of takeout food. Deploring the lack of housing under $500,000, spending $$$ for an auto that exceeds the cost of your first/present abode, bemoaning the cost of a rental on LBI, etc.  is OK.

However, to give your minds a small window into how other folks think, believe, or feel, is way to expensive!

Conservatism is not Covid, there are no masks or vaccines to take — with only  old-fashioned blinders to protect your POV. Only you can open your hearts, purses, and minds to the wider world — I don’t think you can afford not to.

mtierney said:

 Only you can open your hearts, purses, and minds to the wider world

But then you wouldn't be a MAGA conservative.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Your response proves that you can not provide evidence for your allegations.  Most recent evidence requested:  evidence to prove/demonstrate that NR supports white supremacy.  I await a substantive response from you, GoSlugs.

it's easy to google "National Review" and "white supremacy." The first bunch of articles that surface are criticisms of anti-racism. The first one that comes up is a minimization of the threat of white supremacist terrorism.  That's pretty decent evidence that the NR skews toward making apologies for white supremacists, if not giving them outright support. If you really wanted to learn the answer to your question and not just be argumentative, it was super simple to find.

Hey thanks for your response.  I was more interested in a response from GoSlugs. As GoSlugs has a habit of making allegations without evidence.

sometimes it's really not necessary to provide "evidence." If one peruses the NR site it's self-evident what their stance is on race in the U.S.

Do you have a definition for "white supremacy" that you use when examining NR?

minimizing the threat from white supremacy that U.S. security agencies are warning about is enough for me. It's pretty easy to be anti-white supremacy. But the NR can't seem to bring themselves to do that. 

Is there a level of acceptance of white supremacists that you think is OK?

Question is do you have a definition for white supremacy?

For example, is advocating for color-blindness with regard to race a form of white supremacy (under your definition)?

how do you answer your latter question?

for the most part, people who consider non-white people to be inferior to white people, the people who think non-white people are coming to the U.S, to "replace" white people are white supremacists. The ones that the DHS and FBI identify as violent threats are the ones willing to start a "race war" to fight back against that replacement.

It's really not that hard to discern who are white supremacists. 

what's your definition, because it seems like you're being pretty obtuse about this.

I am trying to understand how you arrive at your conclusions.  Based on your prior posts, you are comfortable hurling the term, 'white supremacy", without evidence and without a definition for "white supremacy."  Let me know if my understanding of your POV/thought-process is inaccurate or incomplete.  Thanks.

your "understanding" of my thoughts is always wrong. 

mtierney said:

Getting a progressive liberal, who is living and working in very high end MOL communities, to read something which cost a dollar a week, is a modern day conundrum! 

Dining out frequently is doable, as is the cost of takeout food. Deploring the lack of housing under $500,000, spending $$$ for an auto that exceeds the cost of your first/present abode, bemoaning the cost of a rental on LBI, etc.  is OK.

However, to give your minds a small window into how other folks think, believe, or feel, is way to expensive!

Conservatism is not Covid, there are no masks or vaccines to take — with only  old-fashioned blinders to protect your POV. Only you can open your hearts, purses, and minds to the wider world — I don’t think you can afford not to.

My mind is not closed, but my wallet is not open to funding the opinion journalism at National Review.

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Your response proves that you can not provide evidence for your allegations.  Most recent evidence requested:  evidence to prove/demonstrate that NR supports white supremacy.  I await a substantive response from you, GoSlugs.

it's easy to google "National Review" and "white supremacy." The first bunch of articles that surface are criticisms of anti-racism. The first one that comes up is a minimization of the threat of white supremacist terrorism.  That's pretty decent evidence that the NR skews toward making apologies for white supremacists, if not giving them outright support. If you really wanted to learn the answer to your question and not just be argumentative, it was super simple to find.

Hey thanks for your response.  I was more interested in a response from GoSlugs. As GoSlugs has a habit of making allegations without evidence.

sometimes it's really not necessary to provide "evidence." If one peruses the NR site it's self-evident what their stance is on race in the U.S.

Do you have a definition for "white supremacy" that you use when examining NR?

minimizing the threat from white supremacy that U.S. security agencies are warning about is enough for me. It's pretty easy to be anti-white supremacy. But the NR can't seem to bring themselves to do that. 

Is there a level of acceptance of white supremacists that you think is OK?

Question is do you have a definition for white supremacy?

For example, is advocating for color-blindness with regard to race a form of white supremacy (under your definition)?

how do you answer your latter question?

for the most part, people who consider non-white people to be inferior to white people, the people who think non-white people are coming to the U.S, to "replace" white people are white supremacists. The ones that the DHS and FBI identify as violent threats are the ones willing to start a "race war" to fight back against that replacement.

It's really not that hard to discern who are white supremacists. 

what's your definition, because it seems like you're being pretty obtuse about this.

I am trying to understand how you arrive at your conclusions.  Based on your prior posts, you are comfortable hurling the term, 'white supremacy", without evidence and without a definition for "white supremacy."  Let me know if my understanding of your POV/thought-process is inaccurate or incomplete.  Thanks.

your "understanding" of my thoughts is always wrong. 

Great!  Please explain how my understanding is wrong.  Many thanks.

RealityForAll said:

Great!  Please explain how my understanding is wrong.  Many thanks.

nope. 

Reread my posts with an open mind and then be honest with yourself and you'll get why your "understanding" is wrong. 

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Great!  Please explain how my understanding is wrong.  Many thanks.

nope. 

Reread my posts with an open mind and then be honest with yourself and you'll get why your "understanding" is wrong. 

The great obfuscator strikes again.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Great!  Please explain how my understanding is wrong.  Many thanks.

nope. 

Reread my posts with an open mind and then be honest with yourself and you'll get why your "understanding" is wrong. 

The great obfuscator strikes again.

dude, the posts are right here for you to read, so no obfuscation. 

my question for you is why you would conclude that anyone would call someone a white supremacist for no reason. It says more about yourself than you probably intend.

and this is the last of my comments to you in this tedious exchange.

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Great!  Please explain how my understanding is wrong.  Many thanks.

nope. 

Reread my posts with an open mind and then be honest with yourself and you'll get why your "understanding" is wrong. 

The great obfuscator strikes again.

dude, the posts are right here for you to read, so no obfuscation. 

my question for you is why you would conclude that anyone would call someone a white supremacist for no reason. It says more about yourself than you probably intend.

and this is the last of my comments to you in this tedious exchange.

Slinging the term, "white supremacist" without evidence and without a definition for "white supremacy" (that you will share or can enunciate) explains you best.  Again, if my understanding of your POV/thought-process is inacurrate or incomplete then please explain where I went wrong.  I am ever hopeful.  I am hoping that you will substantively respond this time.  

This is a community web forum where individuals can share ideas, opinions and POVs (my best understanding of the MOL purpose).  Please share your ideas, options and POVs in this forum regarding the definition and evidence supporting the conclusion of  "white supremacy" (here in a forum dedicated to such a dialogue). Thanks in advance.

RealityForAll said:

This is a community web forum where individuals can share ideas, opinions and POVs (my best understanding of the MOL purpose). Please share your ideas, options and POVs in this forum regarding the definition and evidence supporting the conclusion of "white supremacy" (here in a forum dedicated to such a dialogue). Thanks in advance.

It’s also a community web forum where individuals can disregard questions from others about their ideas, opinions and POVs and let those others think whatever they want to think about them.

In sum, a forum where advance thanks are just a tad presumptuous.

Reading RFA’s posts just makes me glad I decided not to participate in his willful “misunderstanding”. 

What a load of intellectually dishonest malarkey!

MT, I thought you were going to give a hoot and refrain from polluting. 

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Great!  Please explain how my understanding is wrong.  Many thanks.

nope. 

Reread my posts with an open mind and then be honest with yourself and you'll get why your "understanding" is wrong. 

The great obfuscator strikes again.

dude, the posts are right here for you to read, so no obfuscation. 

my question for you is why you would conclude that anyone would call someone a white supremacist for no reason. It says more about yourself than you probably intend.

and this is the last of my comments to you in this tedious exchange.

Slinging the term, "white supremacist" without evidence and without a definition for "white supremacy" (that you will share or can enunciate) explains you best.  Again, if my understanding of your POV/thought-process is inacurrate or incomplete then please explain where I went wrong.  I am ever hopeful.  I am hoping that you will substantively respond this time.  

This is a community web forum where individuals can share ideas, opinions and POVs (my best understanding of the MOL purpose).  Please share your ideas, options and POVs in this forum regarding the definition and evidence supporting the conclusion of  "white supremacy" (here in a forum dedicated to such a dialogue). Thanks in advance.

I said I was out. But I can't let that go. I **** did provide you a definition. I can't help it if you can't or won't read. 

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

This is a community web forum where individuals can share ideas, opinions and POVs (my best understanding of the MOL purpose). Please share your ideas, options and POVs in this forum regarding the definition and evidence supporting the conclusion of "white supremacy" (here in a forum dedicated to such a dialogue). Thanks in advance.

It’s also a community web forum where individuals can disregard questions from others about their ideas, opinions and POVs and let those others think whatever they want to think about them.

In sum, a forum where advance thanks are just a tad presumptuous.

it's also a forum where all our comments remain up for people to go back and read. There's no reason that we need to repeat ourselves ad nauseum for people who are just being obtuse and argumentative. 

ml1 said:

There's no reason that we need to repeat ourselves ad nauseum for people who are just being obtuse and argumentative. 

He’s tad eristic…or something to that effect…

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

This is a community web forum where individuals can share ideas, opinions and POVs (my best understanding of the MOL purpose). Please share your ideas, options and POVs in this forum regarding the definition and evidence supporting the conclusion of "white supremacy" (here in a forum dedicated to such a dialogue). Thanks in advance.

It’s also a community web forum where individuals can disregard questions from others about their ideas, opinions and POVs and let those others think whatever they want to think about them.

In sum, a forum where advance thanks are just a tad presumptuous.

it's also a forum where all our comments remain up for people to go back and read. There's no reason that we need to repeat ourselves ad nauseum for people who are just being obtuse and argumentative. 

Humor me.  Please, highlight in bold your definition of "white supremacy:" as set forth in the quote of our exchange of this subject (set forth above in green).  Alternatively, post the time and date of your post with the "white supremacy" definition.  Many thanks.

"

RealityForAll said:

Humor me.

Somebody. Anybody.

RealityForAll said:

Humor me.  Please, highlight in bold your definition of "white supremacy:" as set forth in the quote of our exchange of this subject (set forth above in green).  Alternatively, post the time and date of your post with the "white supremacy" definition.  Many thanks.

I'm feeling humorous, so I'm going to give the top another push and watch it spin a while longer.

ml1 said:

for the most part, people who consider non-white people to be inferior to white people, the people who think non-white people are coming to the U.S, to "replace" white people are white supremacists. The ones that the DHS and FBI identify as violent threats are the ones willing to start a "race war" to fight back against that replacement.

It's really not that hard to discern who are white supremacists.

what's your definition, because it seems like you're being pretty obtuse about this.