monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Two, for contingency.

The missus would be ropeable if she couldn't hit the hair dryer at will.

As opposed to Cheney's sinister malice, and Clinton's murderous glee.

First thing, there actually is a phenomenon to which the term "movement conservatism" has been applied and employed by people who study the political system in the USA. So I don't see where the charge of "hypocrisy" enters the picture. What fading enemy did the left perceive which necessitated the invention of "movement conservatism"?

Since my post is primarily the writing of someone else I don't take its approval personally. The author gets the credit. But really, I don't see why you (and Finn) get so worked up over people occasionally stating approval or disapproval of someone's contribution. It would seem to be a pretty natural outgrowth of message boards in general, as they promote discussion between people. Stating agreement or disagreement seems like a reasonable response. I've seen you compliment people like layman. Why do you choose to find it objectionable in this case?

Movement Conservatism

I'm fond of you george. But not this part of you. As regards movement conservatism, you spend far more energy resisting ideas and learning than the opposite.

You've resisted and complained about my use of the term even while I have provided examples of conservative voices who self-identify specifically as movement conservatives or as being part of the conservative movement. Instances of this are countless. The terms "conservative movement" or "movement conservatism" originated within the community itself, not elsewhere. All you've needed to do for some years now is to just take an hour or less, using google and wikipedia, in order to better understand this history. You obviously have not.

A few weeks ago, I suggested that you likely would not know two key figures in this movement, Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie. And you admitted you do not. I'd wager you do not know the roles played in funding the movement by Coors, the Scaifes, the Bradleys, the Olins, the DeVos family or even the Koch brothers. Modern conservatism in the US has been profoundly influenced by a history of which you seem to be almost entirely unaware.

I'm sorry but I no longer have patience with you on this subject because you don't deserve it.

Edit: I should add that the same holds true as regards the term/concept of "propaganda". You have been unwilling to even give a minimally comprehensive and coherent definition of what is or is not propaganda.

Thus when you criticize my use of either of these terms, I no longer see any purpose or value in responding. I'm truly sorry about this but I'm tired of wasting my time.

I'm building a deck for a friend here. The supports and beams are (actual) 6" by 6" yellow cedar and I have them in 16' lengths. They are godawful heavy. And I'm working on an uneven surface covered in river rock.

I'm 70. Why the **** am I putting myself through this kind of misery?

it'll feel good when you're done...

carpentry is still one of the arts that allow us to fully be involved with the total creative process and fully sense the materials used. I still plow dados and cut dovetails by hand and I get a real charge out of it. (My family is very patient as they become the proud owners of the stuff I make.

I missed the entire story of "movement Conservatism", could you please give me the bumper sticker version of what it is you mean (remember my ADD)

odd/not odd that the person you are responding to denies knowledge of movement conservatism. about 10 years ago, the hard-core old skool conservatives were worried that movement conservatism had lost control of the GOP (there were a fair few writing about it in 2008/2009)

never mind. I read Hightors clip and its a new bottle for an old wine. Its the Buckley boys with some new gizmos .
Ive always wondered why the Evangelicals have backed Trump like an unshakable mob that worships this evil personified.

Carry on, Im going back to the evolution thread where nothing makes sense

^^^^^^
From your link
Krugman is a hack.

There are well-organized groups and individuals advocating a host of political views across this country ( and perhaps Canada as well) - as many here on the left and right of the political spectrum ( even that term is an oversimplification of a more complex reality).

Conservative, Liberal, and Progressive are terms used over a long period to represent often changing political realities. Liberal once referred to those who favored limited government and what are now called libertarian views regarding individual freedoms. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican was one of the first American Presidents who labeled himself a Progressive. The implied meaning of both terms has changed over the past ~ century as the changes in the issues at hand evolved, and the issues themselves involved embraced changing segments of the population.

In the current era there are identifiable leaders who explicitly associate themselves with Liberal, Progressive , and Conservative policies and political platforms. There are, as well, wealthy donors, private organizations, and political associations that support each. Conservatism, Movement or otherwise, is hardly unique in this respect, though Blatham consistently argues that it is, assigning dark overtones to "Movement Conservatism" and its supporters, and doing so with the implicit implication that there isn't anything among self styled Progressives or Liberals that corresponds to it. In fact the similarities and parallelisms among the various political movements in this country are obvious to all. Blatham's listing of those who advocate conservative views, in a context implying there is nothing analogous among their opponents, is laughably deceptive.

This is the central issue on which I disagree with the approach Blatham ( an otherwise agreeable guy) takes here. I find strident Progressives and Conservatives to be equally tiresome, precisely because of their stridency. I generally favor more conservative views, but don't believe they are necessarily the only or permanent solution to political & economic issues. I would equally abhor the long term domination of either strident segment in American politics. I believe our social, political and economic challenges are far more complex than the doctrines of all such strident advocates imply. The optimal course generally involves elements of each and the best ( from my perspective) mixture changes over time.

Say hi to Vlad for me. After he's killed your father of course.

Yes.


Good news, it is one of his promises. Maybe Democrats can use this for an issue in the midterms.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/feds-will-close-74-refugee-offices-during-the-course-of-this-year/

Dipshit makes dipshit apology
TPM

Passive voice, a visual example

Yeah, like an amputation.

I think the only stuff I've done that people are proud to own have been art things. As a woodworker, I'd class myself as advanced handy. I'm more competent at rough work than fine joinery and finishing, mostly because that's what circumstance has demanded of me. But yeah, I like working with wood a lot. It's amazing stuff. Metal, not so much. Too damned hard, that stuff. Imagine all those dudes who, up until fairly recently I suppose, cut diamonds by hand. It seems to me there might be relationship between OCD and sainthood.

"Former first lady Barbara Bush is in 'failing health' and won't seek additional medical treatment."

http://apnews.com/9804008f08264beca767dc3f400cd0b3/Spokesman:-Former-first-lady-Barbara-Bush-in-failing-health