Bob Beckel refers to our president repeatedly as Comrade Trump on The Five 2/20/2017

I was already furious with the ravings of Shepherd Smith after our president's press conference last week, but at least Shepherd was respectful of the office.

For those of you who missed it, this tough guy, who continues his "dry drunk" repeatedly referred to our president as "Comrade Trump". This picture captures the look on Eric Bolling's face when he said it. In fact, Eric and Kimberly asked him to stop. He wouldn't.

I think for me, it's not only the fake news that offends me, it's the lack of respect the news media holds for this president. Does anyone recall the immediate outrage after this event at a Missouri rodeo?

The uproar was fast and furious, and I think the clown was banned for awhile from performing on the circuit.

Trump has thick skin, and in funny ways, what ever they throw at him, is absorbed and thrown back. Maybe for the Russian people, comments like this will endear Trump to them, but for me I've had enough.

I turned off Fox last night FOR GOOD. Done. No more. I'll watch FBN, that is vastly more informative, TCM or repeats of 30 by 30 on Netflix. That channel stays off until Beckel and Shepherd Smith are off for good.

Since you asked here is something I was working on and never finished; I tend to have to many interests and focusing sometimes is hard. Long, but hope it answers question about government. “Good men are unwilling to rule, either for money's sake or for honor. They have no wish to be called mercenary for demanding to be paid, or thieves for making a secret profit from their office; nor yet will honors tempt them for they are not ambitious. So they must be forced to consent to rule under threat of penalty; that may be why a readiness to accept power under no constraints is thought to be discreditable. And the heaviest penalty for declining to rule, is to be ruled by some inferior to yourself. That is the fear, I believe, that makes decent people accept power.” This is one of my favorite quotes attributed to Socrates. Allow me to break it down. Good men are unwilling to rule. The three main parts of this quote are; good men, unwilling, and rule. Socrates believed that it was possible for philosopher kings to exist. A philosopher king is a person of incorruptible integrity and 'just' or maximally efficient action. These people recognize that being the authority is an extreme burden, one, no reasonable human would want, therefore the worthy members of a society would not of their own accord seek such a position. Back in the day and not so long ago, the two most important characteristics to a person, were word and honor (reputation), this is known as credibility. ‘Good men’ to Socrates were afraid of what would happen to their credibility, their reputations. Why is that you might ask? It is because we are the same humans that existed at the time of Socrates, and before. The only difference between humans, past and present, is a larger database of knowledge and the more crap we have today. Behavioral-wise we are the same. It becomes obvious, since Socrates is discussing this issue, and based on our knowledge of the Greek state at the time of Socrates. The government leadership was then, as it is now, full of corruption, incompetence and outright stupidity. ‘Good men’, Socrates believed were self-contained and self-confident. They do not require recognition or praise and they are not motivated by power or monetary profit. These men were already successful in whatever it was that they chose to do and ruling was not one of the choices they made. These men and women would tend to stay as far away from the corrupted as possible, not wanting to be contaminated. Socrates goes further to state that ‘Good Men’ must be forced to serve. I believe Socrates’s use of the word ‘force’ is premised on the idea of logic and the goal of maximum efficiency. The ‘force’ that ‘Good Men’ will recognize is; that if the worthy and able do not lead, the incompetent will and everyone suffers. This last is the condition here in the United States. Human societies, for reasons, and a discussion that we will not get into here, tend to make use of an administrative body or group, which should for the most part be janitors maintaining the public good. There should be honor in service and service should be done out of a sense of duty. That does not equate to service being a place of honor, above and beyond. The greatest social guide is also the greatest servant. Many in the past and there are even a few here in the present, that recognized and shared the knowledge of when an individual maximizes his or her efficiency, everyone benefits. They do this without seeking any return; they believe that truth is a gift. I need not name the sages of the past who spoke of individuality and liberty; to then be persecuted by those in ‘power’. This is well documented. When an individual went against the established ‘status quo’ it could lead to that person’s death. This has never changed in human history. No human owes any other human anything simply because the other exists. No matter what you believe, I believe your health and well-being are not my job to maintain. For a clearer understanding of this I refer, the reader to an essay by John Stuart Mill entitled “On Liberty”. Let me just say, that there is no debt created on any individual’s birth. Courtesy is given, respect is earned. Socrates recognized the value of the individual, but that many individuals did not recognize their own value. What is worse, many saw themselves as more valuable than they actually were, the Sophists. The following is taken from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ‘The sophists were itinerant professional teachers and intellectuals who frequented Athens and other Greek cities in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. In return for a fee, the sophists offered young wealthy Greek men an education in aretē (virtue or excellence), thereby attaining wealth and fame while also arousing significant antipathy. Prior to the fifth century B.C.E., aretē was predominately associated with aristocratic warrior virtues such as courage and physical strength. In democratic Athens of the latter fifth century B.C.E., however, aretē was increasingly understood in terms of the ability to influence one’s fellow citizens in political gatherings through rhetorical persuasion; the sophistic education both grew out of and exploited this shift. The most famous representatives of the sophistic movement are Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, Hippias, Prodicus and Thrasymachus.’ Without getting to an extremely long discourse here, allow me to summarize. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle viewed the sophists essentially as parasitic. Parasites on society. It appears, that the methods of the Sophists, the intended recipients of their instruction, as well the Sophist’s own motivations and goals; is what agitates the three named above. The influence of Socrates and his followers would lead to the current definition of ‘Sophistry’: ‘The use of language for the purpose of misleading, deceiving or confusing.’ In this sense, politicians, lawyers and talking heads (media) are today’s Sophists. Am I being too harsh here? Think about it. What skill do these individuals possess? What actions do they display? When looking into today’s political atmosphere. If you look closely and look into the past, you will find that the atmosphere has not changed. The rhetoric used 3,500 years ago, is still in use today. It has never changed. Just as, that which is correct, and just, and maximally efficient, is still the same. You build the best individual you can, the Greeks and their cousins understood this as evidenced by their histories of intense physical training to which, was added intense mental training. Socrates believed the Philosopher King was to aide in the efficient flow of society, but not to dictate that flow. Individuality and liberty must be preserved. All humans are made the same way, but humans are not equal, and you cannot make them equal, you cannot take from one man and give to another to create equality. It is a ludicrous idea that one could think that society should be able to take the fruits of one human’s labor and give it to someone else to create this equality. This is a misplaced sense of value. The real value is in the talent that is revealed in the labor, that is the source of production, and that is not something that can be re-distributed. This action, of taking, is the beginning of all negative action that subsequently occurs. I do not care who you are, if someone comes to take what you worked hard for and value a great deal, you will not like that person. This is the first negativity, the first inefficiency. The source of all concepts of value is in human individuality. It is in the formation of our value opinions that the human being integrates the intangible with the tangible. This is where human feelings (fuzzy data - the metaphysical, etc) mesh, engage, with the tangible components (hard data – time/space/place of objects) in human existence. Like mechanical gears, human feelings and human reality are individual components that work together. Like with gears, it should be a human need to maximize efficiency in all their interactions. In your existence, there are two things one should never do to another and that is commit theft or assault. All of what we view as ‘real’ crime; is predicated on one of these two acts or a combination of both. To wrap it up, when you go decided upon a guide for your society in this recent election cycle. Did you look closely at the people involved. What have they done, where do they come from, what is their motivation? In my opinion, in one way or another, none of today’s choices are worthy of being the 'best' guide needed to administer our society. One does come close. Good luck, President Trump. I sincerely mean that. America, because we are at a cusp in time, it will only get better or worse. In a recent article, Norm Chomsky related an observation that I feel is noteworthy. He compares the 1930’s to today and notes a key difference, in the 30’s we had hope. I believe, I think similar to the way he does, on this; that many or our society’s ills stems from a lack of hope. Now there is a glimmer of hope in the electorate, the people are awakening. Maybe if the people make a sincere, honest and sustained effort in participating in their government. The people’s “will”, will be done, and the current swamp in Washington D.C. will be drained, the corruption and contamination removed. In closing, a direct answer to Mr and Mrs Politician. With an emphatic, Yes! All individuals, while in service to the people, should be held to a higher and very strict standard. For far too long now those elected have acted like princes and princesses, when you are not. You cost society more then you provide. Damn see what happens with too much coffee.

trying to see if formatting stuck this time. Since you asked here is something I was working on and never finished; I tend to have to many interests and focusing sometimes is hard. Long, but hope it answers question about government. “Good men are unwilling to rule, either for money's sake or for honor. They have no wish to be called mercenary for demanding to be paid, or thieves for making a secret profit from their office; nor yet will honors tempt them for they are not ambitious. So they must be forced to consent to rule under threat of penalty; that may be why a readiness to accept power under no constraints is thought to be discreditable. And the heaviest penalty for declining to rule, is to be ruled by some inferior to yourself. That is the fear, I believe, that makes decent people accept power.” This is one of my favorite quotes attributed to Socrates. Allow me to break it down. Good men are unwilling to rule. The three main parts of this quote are; good men, unwilling, and rule. Socrates believed that it was possible for philosopher kings to exist. A philosopher king is a person of incorruptible integrity and 'just' or maximally efficient action. These people recognize that being the authority is an extreme burden, one, no reasonable human would want, therefore the worthy members of a society would not of their own accord seek such a position. Back in the day and not so long ago, the two most important characteristics to a person, were word and honor (reputation), this is known as credibility. ‘Good men’ to Socrates were afraid of what would happen to their credibility, their reputations. Why is that you might ask? It is because we are the same humans that existed at the time of Socrates, and before. The only difference between humans, past and present, is a larger database of knowledge and the more crap we have today. Behavioral-wise we are the same. It becomes obvious, since Socrates is discussing this issue, and based on our knowledge of the Greek state at the time of Socrates. The government leadership was then, as it is now, full of corruption, incompetence and outright stupidity. ‘Good men’, Socrates believed were self-contained and self-confident. They do not require recognition or praise and they are not motivated by power or monetary profit. These men were already successful in whatever it was that they chose to do and ruling was not one of the choices they made. These men and women would tend to stay as far away from the corrupted as possible, not wanting to be contaminated. Socrates goes further to state that ‘Good Men’ must be forced to serve. I believe Socrates’s use of the word ‘force’ is premised on the idea of logic, and the goal of maximum efficiency. The ‘force’ that ‘Good Men’ will recognize is; that if the worthy and able do not lead, the incompetent will and everyone suffers. This last is the condition here in the United States. Human societies, for reasons, and a discussion that we will not get into here, tend to make use of an administrative body or group, which should for the most part be janitors maintaining the public good. There should be honor in service and service should be done out of a sense of duty. That does not equate to service being a place of honor, above and beyond. The greatest social guide is also the greatest servant. Many in the past and there are even a few here in the present, that recognized and shared the knowledge of when an individual maximizes his or her efficiency, everyone benefits. They do this without seeking any return; they believe that truth is a gift. I need not name the sages of the past who spoke of individuality and liberty; to then be persecuted by those in ‘power’. This is well documented. When an individual went against the established ‘status quo’ it could lead to that person’s death. This has never changed in human history. No human owes any other human anything simply because the other exists. No matter what you believe, I believe your health and well-being are not my job to maintain. For a clearer understanding of this I refer, the reader to an essay by John Stuart Mill entitled “On Liberty”. Let me just say, that there is no debt created on any individual’s birth. Courtesy is given, respect is earned. Socrates recognized the value of the individual, but that many individuals did not recognize their own value. What is worse, many saw themselves as more valuable than they actually were, the Sophists. The following is taken from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ‘The sophists were itinerant professional teachers and intellectuals who frequented Athens and other Greek cities in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. In return for a fee, the sophists offered young wealthy Greek men an education in aretē (virtue or excellence), thereby attaining wealth and fame while also arousing significant antipathy. Prior to the fifth century B.C.E., aretē was predominately associated with aristocratic warrior virtues such as courage and physical strength. In democratic Athens of the latter fifth century B.C.E., however, aretē was increasingly understood in terms of the ability to influence one’s fellow citizens in political gatherings through rhetorical persuasion; the sophistic education both grew out of and exploited this shift. The most famous representatives of the sophistic movement are Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, Hippias, Prodicus and Thrasymachus.’ Without getting to an extremely long discourse here, allow me to summarize. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle viewed the sophists essentially as parasitic. Parasites on society. It appears, that the methods of the Sophists, the intended recipients of their instruction, as well the Sophist’s own motivations and goals; is what agitates the three named above. The influence of Socrates and his followers would lead to the current definition of ‘Sophistry’: ‘The use of language for the purpose of misleading, deceiving or confusing.’ In this sense, politicians, lawyers and talking heads (media) are today’s Sophists. Am I being too harsh here? Think about it. What skill do these individuals possess? What actions do they display? When looking into today’s political atmosphere. If you look closely and look into the past, you will find that the atmosphere has not changed. The rhetoric used 3,500 years ago, is still in use today. It has never changed. Just as, that which is correct, and just, and maximally efficient, is still the same. You build the best individual you can, the Greeks and their cousins understood this as evidenced by their histories of intense physical training to which, was added intense mental training. Socrates believed the Philosopher King was to aide in the efficient flow of society, but not to dictate that flow. Individuality and liberty must be preserved. All humans are made the same way, but humans are not equal, and you cannot make them equal, you cannot take from one man and give to another to create equality. It is a ludicrous idea that one could think that society should be able to take the fruits of one human’s labor and give it to someone else to create this equality. This is a misplaced sense of value. The real value is in the talent that is revealed in the labor, that is the source of production, and that is not something that can be re-distributed. This action, of taking, is the beginning of all negative action that subsequently occurs. I do not care who you are, if someone comes to take what you worked hard for and value a great deal, you will not like that person. This is the first negativity, the first inefficiency. The source of all concepts of value is in human individuality. It is in the formation of our value opinions that the human being integrates the intangible with the tangible. This is where human feelings (fuzzy data - the metaphysical, etc) mesh, engage, with the tangible components (hard data – time/space/place of objects) in human existence. Like mechanical gears, human feelings and human reality are individual components that work together. Like with gears, it should be a human need to maximize efficiency in all their interactions. In your existence, there are two things one should never do to another, and that is commit theft or assault. All of what we view as ‘real’ crime; is predicated on one of these two acts or a combination of both. To wrap it up, when you decided upon a guide for your society in this recent election cycle. Did you look closely at the people involved. What have they done, where do they come from, what is their motivation? In my opinion, in one way or another, none of today’s choices are worthy of being labeled the 'best' guide needed to administer our society. One does come close. Good luck, President Trump. I sincerely mean that. America, because we are at a cusp in time, it will only get better or worse. In a recent article, Norm Chomsky related an observation that I feel is noteworthy. He compares the 1930’s to today and notes a key difference, in the 30’s we had hope. I believe, I think similar to the way he does, on this; that many or our society’s ills stems from a lack of hope. Now, there is a glimmer of hope in the electorate, the people are awakening. Maybe if the people make a sincere, honest and sustained effort in participating in their government. The people’s “will”, will be done, and the current swamp in Washington D.C. will be drained, the corruption and contamination removed. In closing, a direct answer to Mr and Mrs Politician. With an emphatic, Yes! All individuals, while in service to the people, should be held to a higher and very strict standard. For far too long now those elected have acted like princes and princesses, when you are not. You cost society more then you provide. Damn see what happens with too much coffee. Trying to see if spacing stuck this time

Good morning, sorry I did not respond earlier. Somehow I got some ‘code’ in which appears to have messed up posts & my eye sight not what it used to be.

Thank you for kind words.

Regarding words, they are important, but NOT like ‘sticks or stones’.

Words are important as a conveyance of information, nothing more. Therefore, to me, it seems reasonable that the consistency of a ‘word’ would be important; in that if word meaning always changes, then the ‘value’ of the information is always changing. Which leads to, or is viewed as, chaos or ‘chaotic’.

Add to this the making up of words or word meanings; and we find the ‘state of confusion’ created. This confusion creates the need for some pseudo-intellectual to lead the masses from the ‘word fog’.

Regarding the word ‘race’ specifically.

First this word, if I remember correctly, did not appear on the scene until around the 16th century and it appears in writing as a ‘negative’.

Scientifically I can find no use for this word except in the ‘Imaginary Sciences’; things like, earth centric solar system, flat earth, climate change and political science.

Without going in the taxonomy and history of the understanding of living organisms etc. I could name for you many scientists starting with, modern day, E.O Wilson, who would find the concept of saying one human group was a different ‘race’ from another human group, implausible.

Anyway Google the word origins of ‘race’. unless some sophist has changed it you will find it quite enlightening.

Oh well, and on another ‘rant’ I am disappointed about the misuse and bastardization of the words ‘captial’ and ‘capitalism’ as well.

History is full of people manipulating and changing the ‘human narrative’.

It seems I cannot keep anything short anymore.

Have a good day

I needed to add this.

I forgot that when mentioning so called ‘experts’ it is often assumed that more credit is given then really is.

Since the concept of writing and editing has been created and used, we are subject to ‘error creep’ that enters into the reprinted material.

For example. In Ludwig Von Mises book ‘Socialism’; I read where others have found editorial differences between re-printings that in fact literally change the meaning of the author’s statements.

Add to this editorial license, the fact that many of the renown people (scientists) referred to in specific fields, are in some ways ‘nuttier then fruitcakes’ in other things. That even so called ‘experts’ need to be taken with a ‘grain of salt’. True polymaths are rare.

I believe ‘eccentric’ could and is the word that is often used to describe these individuals.

Specifically about E. O. Wilson and the word ‘race’. If you read Wilson which gets a little more difficult as he got older, you will find that he uses the word as well, but only because of it acceptance in society. Wilson like many in the past, was absolutely a great entomologist and scientist. However he too would use the word ‘race’ but it did not always have the same connotation and actually used it, when it required many other words to explain what he meant.

I try to make this my first thought; ‘just because I can do something, should I’. And this includes, to the best of my ability, word choice. The problem with this is, not everyone knows the same words and instead of taking the time to communicate properly we use ‘short-cut’ words. This can get a point across generally, but not concisely.

Good grief, I am sorry, again too much. Anyway have a good day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.