Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[Guest]

The conservative troublemakers actively abuse violence. The lesser conservative troublemakers merely support the violence. Kill the different, rah, rah, rah?

Examples, please?

[FullMoon]

I don't see the current crisis violence as a progressive excuse. The murdering cops, spree killers and insurrectionists are more responsible for the three issues you quote than anything the progressives did. If there was no surge in violence, the progressives would not have to react to stop it. Those three issues were created by the violent.

Bob is correct. It is correct we define the actions of the Left previously outlined but also encompassing an overall nihilism that seems to have a desire to destroy anything existing in the hopes that something better will be reborn. Like 'burn it all down ' and then assume that the people who just did such a heinous thing could help make the world a better place. No.
It will be rebuilt by PROVEN and knowable structures. NOT radical and destructive ideologues. Or it might just all fall apart and chaos reigns during the darkest time is written history. Which is the direction we're rapidly stumbling into.

[Bob Butler]

The conservative troublemakers actively abuse violence. The lesser conservative troublemakers merely support the violence. Kill the different, rah, rah, rah?

Examples, please?

Your own 3 examples of murdering racist cops, spree killers and insurrections will do for the troublemakers. For the cowards who talk big but don't act, try looking in a mirror.

[Bob Butler]

I don't see the current crisis violence as a progressive excuse. The murdering cops, spree killers and insurrectionists are more responsible for the three issues you quote than anything the progressives did. If there was no surge in violence, the progressives would not have to react to stop it. Those three issues were created by the violent.

Bob is correct. It is correct we define the actions of the Left previously outlined but also encompassing an overall nihilism that seems to have a desire to destroy anything existing in the hopes that something better will be reborn. Like 'burn it all down ' and then assume that the people who just did such a heinous thing could help make the world a better place. No.

It will be rebuilt by PROVEN and knowable structures. NOT radical and destructive ideologues. Or it might just all fall apart and chaos reigns during the darkest time is written history. Which is the direction we're rapidly stumbling into.

I see it less as a hope that something better will be reborn than removing old flaws. The Agricultural Age was a mess. Removing noble privilege, colonial imperialism, slavery and adding containment and government regulation of the economy were immediate attempts to remove faults that already existed. They were obvious in their time. Are you saying these changes should not have happened? Murdering minorities, spree killing with weapons of war and insurrections are also undesirable events that many would as soon remove. Do you welcome them?

What events were removed from the culture during a crisis that you would rather cling to? Slavery? Murder? Forcing your religion on others?

If the next awakening goes as I anticipate, corporate excessive profits and elite influence over government will be overcome by a vastly increased values of environmentalism and conservation. I suppose that could be seen as involving a newish progressive value. It is also involves a flaw in the culture that has existed for a long time. Neither prohibits the other.

The difference is in recognizing the flaws, and creating the new pattern. Neither seeing the flaws nor how to eliminate them is hard. It is just that those who profit from the flaws will resist the change: the nobles, the slaveowners, the dictators, the religious fanatics, the bigots and so forth. This might be why John suddenly doesn't want to see the changes. The conservative side constantly wants to resist removing real flaws.

[Guest]

The conservative troublemakers actively abuse violence. The lesser conservative troublemakers merely support the violence. Kill the different, rah, rah, rah?

Examples, please?

Your own 3 examples of murdering racist cops, spree killers and insurrections will do for the troublemakers. For the cowards who talk big but don't act, try looking in a mirror.

You’re very dishonest. Spree killers are Democrats. Disarm all democrats and murder rate drops by 90 percent.

[Bob Butler]

You’re very dishonest. Spree killers are Democrats. Disarm all democrats and murder rate drops by 90 percent.

Source? I think it is you who are being very dishonest, making stuff up out of whole cloth. Not all spree killers are politically motivated. Some who are target minority and unusual sexual group gathering places, making them conservative.

[Guest]

Some who are target minority and unusual sexual group gathering places, making them conservative.

Source here? And specific examples? Is this wide spread?

That’s a bizarre claim, but accuse the other side of what you’re doing explains your comment.

It’s democrats that are trafficking children underage minorities and at a large scale. DNA tests are no longer required to prove immigrants are related to their traffickers/destination. Democrats ended this requirement.

[Bob Butler]

Yes, both occur, but they are not every day events. (Not quite every day. Almost if you follow the wiki link below.) LGBQ spree killings include Colorado Springs Club Q. The Pulse club in Orlando Florida during a ‘Latin Night’ is another. Wikipedia has a list of mass shooting in 2022 which gives a solid idea of how common the events are but a less clear indication of motive. If you really want to become familiar with the problem, be prepared to spend some time with google and chase web pages. I am not inclined to do your research for you. Still, for starters…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... es_in_2022

Strauss and Howe have a crisis occurring roughly every for score and seven years. The solution to the crisis problem becomes a new set of values which transforms the nation. The conservative side attempts to continue exploiting a flaw in the culture, the progressive side tries and succeeds in getting rid of it. Past flaws include colonial imperialism with the revolution, with the resultant value of independence. In Lincoln’s time the flaw was slavery with abolition resulting. In FDR’s time it was government control of the economy and containment. This time there is an attempt by the white supremacist religious fanatics and bigots to impose their cultural pattern on others who want nothing to do with it.

You gave three good examples. Black Lives Matter protested bad cops murdering minorities. The gun control advocates are trying to keep weapons of war out of the hands of the insane. The insurrection tried to use violence to maintain political power. As with prior crises, can these not be seen as flaws? Is it a problem that people try to stop murder and protect the Constitution? Do you favor death and criminality?

You try to give the impression that the progressives are trying to do something nasty. I see them as trying to remove flaws. Can you be more specific than your usual? What flaw are the progressives promoting? What flaw are the conservatives attempting to get rid of? Can you figure out how to present the conservatives as the good guys?

[spottybrowncow]

Not all spree killers are politically motivated. Some who are target minority and unusual sexual group gathering places, making them conservative.

Why don't people want to talk more about the semi-epidemic of mass school shooters who identify as "trans?" Never mind, we all know why.

I really don't hold it against the trans kids, they are being abused, pawns for the globalist agenda. I have come to believe that there may actually be an increase in children who "feel" like the other gender, possibly because of hormone-like environmental contaminants that may affect brain gender development, separately from non-brain morphologic development. I don't know if that's actually true, but it sounds like something that should not be dismissed out of hand. However, if it is true, I'm pretty sure that telling them they can transition to their "preferred" gender is not the "primum non nocere" option. Rather, this option is what Rahm Emanuel would describe as "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

[Higgenbotham]

Status has been granted, but rarely used in the news thread (where there is most of the controversy).

My other thought is that some people and posts are concerned with insults and disparaging people. Such posts are much more concerned with the poster's ideas that the person insulted. Perhaps they should be moved to the poster's thread rather than the one being insulted? They certainly don't reflect my own ideas. You shouldn't use the moderator role to support attacks.

I was just about to ask John if he wanted me to move the foregoing posts out of the news thread to your thread. Whether you felt you were insulted or not, that's where they belong.