Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Re: Political C̶e̶n̶s̶o̶r̶s̶h̶i̶p̶Troll Garbage

by Clarkmod » Tue Jun 04, 2024 8:05 pm

Bob Butler wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2024 6:06 pm
Clarkmod wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:16 pm
You were given the opportunity to show that your post in the news thread was something other than a flimsy political attack ad, and your response doesn't meet the rigor required to put your original post back into the news thread, to put it politely.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, McCain aired an ad similar to the one you posted about Trump, after which Sarah Palin upped the ante, saying, "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Trump no more pals around with communists than Obama pals around with terrorists. This kind of flimsy, deviant nonsense will be moderated. You can buy an ad if John wants to sell you one.
I suspect any post here will be described by someone who disagrees with it as a “flimsy political attack ad”. It is merely a matter of whether you disagree with it or not. I can see moderators legitimately cleaning up foul language, but not censoring people’s political options that they happen to disagree with. That is what this is. Your censorship according to where you disagree with their political opinion is very much illegitimate.

Trump doesn’t pal around with every communist, but he does with Putin and Kim Jong Ill. The best of all possible world leaders? Can you justify Sarah’s Payton’s comment by naming two similar terrorists that Obama pals around with?
Bob,

Feel free to post your political troll garbage in your own thread. The history of you posting troll garbage is well known and longstanding; rest assured, nothing will change in John's absence, so you should continue to feel quite at home here too.
John wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:38 am
** 04-Jan-2021 World View: Ideological garbage
Bob Butler wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:08 am
> The stuff you call garbage? It is no more garbage than what you
> present. It is ideological. It is more about where it is being
> presented. An area intensely concentrated on one perspective
> rejects the other perspective. I am rejected here much as you
> were rejected on MyBB. A place where ideas can constructively
> collide is in many ways to be preferred.
This is a lie, as you're well aware.

I set up the GenerationalDynamics.com web site in 2003 as an
experiment, as I stated at the time. Most people who claim they had
been right about something are simply lying about their previous
views. So I would make analyses, forecasts and predictions, and post
them in articles on that web site. If the predictions turned out to
be right, then I would continue. The predictions would be there for
all time. I couldn't conveniently say that I used to believe such and
such, since that was always verifiable. If the predictions turned out
to be wrong, then I would abandon it. There was no ideology involved
whatsoever, as you're well aware.

So today I can point to a large body of work -- over 6,000 articles
containing thousands of analyses and predictions on hundreds of
countries, all of which are either true or trending true. I've also
written five books. There have been several examples where I was
literally almost the only person in the world making a prediction, and
my prediction turned out to be right, and everyone else's turned out
to be wrong. So the experiment that I set up in 2003 has been a
spectacular success. There is no web site in the world with a better
successful forecasting and analysis record than mine. These are 6,000
data points and five books that prove the validity of generational
theory and Generational Dynamics. That has nothing to do with
ideology.

So you come into this forum, and flood it with posts describing my
work as ideological garbage. You fabricate lies, and claim that
what you post is the same as mine.

Have you ever written and posted a real article? If you, please
provide a link. I don't believe you're capable of writing a
well-researched article. You're nothing but an ignorant asshole who
gets enjoyment out of posting troll garbage.

This isn't some random forum. This forum is my home. If you can't
respect me and my work in my own home, then you shouldn't be here.
Leave.

Political Censorship

by Bob Butler » Tue Jun 04, 2024 6:06 pm

Clarkmod wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:16 pm
You were given the opportunity to show that your post in the news thread was something other than a flimsy political attack ad, and your response doesn't meet the rigor required to put your original post back into the news thread, to put it politely.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, McCain aired an ad similar to the one you posted about Trump, after which Sarah Palin upped the ante, saying, "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Trump no more pals around with communists than Obama pals around with terrorists. This kind of flimsy, deviant nonsense will be moderated. You can buy an ad if John wants to sell you one.
I suspect any post here will be described by someone who disagrees with it as a “flimsy political attack ad”. It is merely a matter of whether you disagree with it or not. I can see moderators legitimately cleaning up foul language, but not censoring people’s political options that they happen to disagree with. That is what this is. Your censorship according to where you disagree with their political opinion is very much illegitimate.

Trump doesn’t pal around with every communist, but he does with Putin and Kim Jong Ill. The best of all possible world leaders? Can you justify Sarah’s Payton’s comment by naming two similar terrorists that Obama pals around with?

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

by Guest » Mon Jun 03, 2024 7:34 pm

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an exclusive interview Friday with NBC News, called former President Donald Trump a "colorful individual" and said he can work with President Joe Biden.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nb ... k-n1270561

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

by Guest » Mon Jun 03, 2024 7:13 pm

President Vladimir Putin said that Russia would prefer to see U.S. President Joe Biden win a second term, describing him as more experienced and predictable than Donald Trump...
https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin ... 379a8a3bd3

Re: A rose, by any other name...

by Clarkmod » Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:16 pm

Bob Butler wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:24 pm
You have to define the various labels for the words to have any meaning.

Marxism existed primarily in theory, but proposed that the revolutionaries would support and enhance the people. In practice, you got communists who would support and enhance the communists, who were in effect the state. As the time of revolutions passed, the members of the communist party were replaced by the oligarchs. In Russia, the name changed. This did not change the essence. The same people did the same stuff.

In the Gilded Age, we had our Robber Barons. With people like Jobs and Musk, they pretty much still exist, though use of the name has faded. These are our equivalent of oligarchs. Different names. Similar ability to amass wealth and influence the government. If you count the name change as important, you can support your obscure academic. I look at reality rather than names.

Supposedly the old traditional Republicans were gung ho anti communists. They were all for strength, preparedness and containment. In practice, it was the Democrats who acted in Korea and Vietnam. Of late in the Trump era, not so much. Putin is a Trump friend, Trump tried to delay aid to Ukraine and is proposing to leave NATO. Whether the name change is important or not, the new Republicans seem to be against containment and in favor of what the Russian communists have become.

There is also the domestic divide. The Democrats are pro labor, the Republicans pro management. Note Biden walked the picket line with the auto union while Trump visited a non-union shop in response. As a matter of abstract principle, this echos revolutionary favoring of the people or the communists.

The proposition that the Democrats are Communist is this strange at several levels. As I see it, the communists were never for the people, but were in it for themselves. But the Democrats are for the people not the autocrats. Isn’t the government supposed to be for the people?

Speak for yourself. Stop quoting obscure academics who no one has heard of. While you are at it, stop censoring viewpoints favoring your own opinions.
You were given the opportunity to show that your post in the news thread was something other than a flimsy political attack ad, and your response doesn't meet the rigor required to put your original post back into the news thread, to put it politely.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, McCain aired an ad similar to the one you posted about Trump, after which Sarah Palin upped the ante, saying, "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Trump no more pals around with communists than Obama pals around with terrorists. This kind of flimsy, deviant nonsense will be moderated. You can buy an ad if John wants to sell you one.

A rose, by any other name...

by Bob Butler » Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:24 pm

You have to define the various labels for the words to have any meaning.

Marxism existed primarily in theory, but proposed that the revolutionaries would support and enhance the people. In practice, you got communists who would support and enhance the communists, who were in effect the state. As the time of revolutions passed, the members of the communist party were replaced by the oligarchs. In Russia, the name changed. This did not change the essence. The same people did the same stuff.

In the Gilded Age, we had our Robber Barons. With people like Jobs and Musk, they pretty much still exist, though use of the name has faded. These are our equivalent of oligarchs. Different names. Similar ability to amass wealth and influence the government. If you count the name change as important, you can support your obscure academic. I look at reality rather than names.

Supposedly the old traditional Republicans were gung ho anti communists. They were all for strength, preparedness and containment. In practice, it was the Democrats who acted in Korea and Vietnam. Of late in the Trump era, not so much. Putin is a Trump friend, Trump tried to delay aid to Ukraine and is proposing to leave NATO. Whether the name change is important or not, the new Republicans seem to be against containment and in favor of what the Russian communists have become.

There is also the domestic divide. The Democrats are pro labor, the Republicans pro management. Note Biden walked the picket line with the auto union while Trump visited a non-union shop in response. As a matter of abstract principle, this echos revolutionary favoring of the people or the communists.

The proposition that the Democrats are Communist is this strange at several levels. As I see it, the communists were never for the people, but were in it for themselves. But the Democrats are for the people not the autocrats. Isn’t the government supposed to be for the people?

Speak for yourself. Stop quoting obscure academics who no one has heard of. While you are at it, stop censoring viewpoints favoring your own opinions.

Re: Censorship

by Clarkmod » Sun Jun 02, 2024 5:31 pm

Bob Butler wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2024 5:08 pm
Clarkmod wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2024 3:35 pm
Show us how the communists favor Trump. Which communists? How did they favor Trump? Who or what did they favor Trump over versus someone or something else? Do communists as a majority favor Trump?

If you can give us a deep dive showing communists favor Trump, I'll move this post back to the news thread.
Primarily Putin, but by implication the entire Russian administration. Putin's goal is to bring back the old Soviet Union. He is former KGB. His is the good pal of Trump. Trump opposed defending Ukraine. Putin is also as much into censorship as you guys, opposed to free speech.

Not a deep dive, but if you are at all into modern politics you know it is so.
To start, you would need to discuss who the "communists" are. Of course, there are many versions of this. One would be what respected and published academics who study communism generally accept as to who the communists are. For an example, consider the following:
Decades after its demise, world communism still casts a long, strange shadow
Berkeley scholar and author George Breslauer explores our preoccupations — and illusions — about the once-vast global threat

By Edward Lempinen
Today, there are just five communist states left — though China, with nearly one-fifth of the world’s population, is clearly a global power. But in the view of eminent UC Berkeley political scientist George W. Breslauer, if Karl Marx were alive today, he would not recognize the species of communism that survives there, or in Cuba, Laos, North Korea or Vietnam.
“Putin was born in 1952 — he was 39 when the regime collapsed,” Breslauer said. “He made his career in the KGB, and the KGB was about the protection of state authority against internal and external enemies. … He’s not a communist, but what he does maintain from his earlier career is the veneration of state authority.”
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/12/15/de ... ge-shadow/

If you can show that this particular academic is at odds with what is generally accepted as a communist or communist state today, then your comments may have merit. Alternatively, it may be that other posters you are communicating with have referred to Putin as a communist. In that case, you would need to provide quotes showing that they did that. I don't recall anyone in this forum referring to Putin as a communist, but I may be in error.

Aside from Putin, you still need to address China and the Chinese Communist Party, which is what Full Moon referred to when you responded to his post, implying it was these actors who favor Trump. It doesn't seem that either the Chinese Communist Party or any of its members have indicated that they favor Trump over any alternative. If they have, please enlighten the forum.

Censorship

by Bob Butler » Sun Jun 02, 2024 5:08 pm

Clarkmod wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2024 3:35 pm
Show us how the communists favor Trump. Which communists? How did they favor Trump? Who or what did they favor Trump over versus someone or something else? Do communists as a majority favor Trump?

If you can give us a deep dive showing communists favor Trump, I'll move this post back to the news thread.
Primarily Putin, but by implication the entire Russian administration. Putin's goal is to bring back the old Soviet Union. He is former KGB. His is the good pal of Trump. Trump opposed defending Ukraine. Putin is also as much into censorship as you guys, opposed to free speech.

Not a deep dive, but if you are at all into modern politics you know it is so.

Re: Communism

by Clarkmod » Sun Jun 02, 2024 3:35 pm

Bob Butler wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:49 pm
FullMoon wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2024 1:45 pm
Communists are defined by their state of mind.
Will Communism triumph in the Clash of Civilization or the basic tenets as put forth by the great documents created by the founders of the greatest country in history? Bob is on the wrong side and he'll ride the atom bomb all the way to the ground. Then be ground to bits in the gulags. That's just simple trajectory calculation together with historical precedent
You have it backwards. The communists favor invasion over containment, big money making the rules for the sake of big money, and of course Trump. The progressives disagree. The conservatives seem to favor the abuses.

Bob,

You said,
The communists favor ... of course Trump.
Show us how the communists favor Trump. Which communists? How did they favor Trump? Who or what did they favor Trump over versus someone or something else? Do communists as a majority favor Trump?

If you can give us a deep dive showing communists favor Trump, I'll move this post back to the news thread.

Communism

by Bob Butler » Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:49 pm

FullMoon wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2024 1:45 pm
Communists are defined by their state of mind.
Will Communism triumph in the Clash of Civilization or the basic tenets as put forth by the great documents created by the founders of the greatest country in history? Bob is on the wrong side and he'll ride the atom bomb all the way to the ground. Then be ground to bits in the gulags. That's just simple trajectory calculation together with historical precedent
You have it backwards. The communists favor invasion over containment, big money making the rules for the sake of big money, and of course Trump. The progressives disagree. The conservatives seem to favor the abuses.

Top