obama, then palin. oh boy.
death from above
whatever their views, mccain and biden have the goods.
but, in our celebrity crazed age, we get people like obama and palin
all because of their youthful looks, 'charisma', and style. has
hollywood taken over politics?
it's like watching a stupid TV series.
and, it's getting funny. obama side is accusing palin of lack of
experience. hmmm.
and the mccain team, which made fun of obama's celebrity appeal, went
with a babe doll.
Howard Brazee
<cerebur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>and, it's getting funny. obama side is accusing palin of lack of
>experience. hmmm.
>and the mccain team, which made fun of obama's celebrity appeal, went
>with a babe doll.
McCain has been on TV shows *lots* more than Obama has. He's the
Hollywood celebrity. Obama picked his running mate because of
McCain's experience ads. McCain picked his to get dissatisfied
Clinton supporters and to bolster his big oil arguments.
Both picked running mates for the single purpose of trying to get
elected.
Her opening "speech" appears to be designed to show her as "folk".
Certainly they can't compete with Obama as orators, but Reagan showed
how to win as folk, and GWB followed that pattern.
Derek Janssen
>
> and, it's getting funny. obama side is accusing palin of lack of
> experience. hmmm.
> and the mccain team, which made fun of obama's celebrity appeal, went
> with a babe doll.
<clicks stopwatch>
(Yep: Three-day Gaza consciousness lag, right on schedule--
Can I clock 'em, or what?)
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Marv Soloff
controllers. Six years in the Hanoi Hilton had to produce some mental
aberation. Who is he really working for?
Marv
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
*PLONK*
--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.
It's an explanation, not an excuse!
tmk
> and, it's getting funny. obama side is accusing palin of lack of
> experience. hmmm.
Obama was a State Senator in a very populous state and a US Senator
for four years.
Palin has been Governor of a state with a population about the size of
Cleveland's for a year and a half. Before that, she was a mayor of a
town about the size of Mayberry. Also, the Republicans like to boast
about her local PTA time, and count that as part of her experience.
TBerk
wrote:
> call me a fogey, but i like experienced old men for the presidency.
You forgot the word 'white' in there. Obviously getting elected is a
game unto itself but apparently, one way or another, we shall either
have multi-ethnic President or a Female VP.
Because the two sides are trying to trump each other, does that
Automatically disqualify the players though?
btw- Gaza, you are like our crazy Uncle in the Attic. Don't ever
change... (just stop posting the racist crap, ok?)
TBerk
Marv Soloff
Marv
David Oberman
>Palin has been Governor of a state with a population about the size of
>Cleveland's for a year and a half.
Yes, but that state is the most seismically active state in the Union.
The biggest quakes that rock the nation rock Alaska. And the tsunamis,
oh, man! The tsunamis. . . . up & down Cook Inlet & Prince William
Sound, not to mention Lituya Bay, the Aleutians, &c. . . .
mack
"tmk" <tmk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b767e3c4-6632-4c93...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> and, it's getting funny. obama side is accusing palin of lack of
> experience. hmmm.
Obama was a State Senator in a very populous state and a US Senator
for four years.
Palin has been Governor of a state with a population about the size of
Cleveland's for a year and a half. Before that, she was a mayor of a
town about the size of Mayberry. Also, the Republicans like to boast
about her local PTA time, and count that as part of her experience.
I'm so happy to hear about Mrs. Palin's experience.
I guess that
1. since I have soloed in a Cessna 150, that should make me an Air Ace.
2. I went to church at Christmas to hear the carols one year so I can be
called a theologian
3. I worked in a gas station as a kid and once took the running boards off
my jalopy, so I clearly qualify as an automotive engineer AND designer!
4. I've made my own sandwiches and occasionally spaghetti and salad, so of
course, I'm a master chef.
5. I've occasionally made love to my wife over the years, so I'm clearly a
sexologist, second only to Kinsey.
6. I do my own income taxes, so I'm a CPA
7. I shave, therefore I'm a barber to the king, and the king of barbers.
8. I pick up my newspaper from the driveway, so I know all about the field
of journalism.
9. I can write my name, so I'm a calligrapher.
etc. Damn, what a talented guy I am!
Jason Gaylor
obama, then palin. oh boy.
Group: rec.arts.movies.past-films Date: Fri, Aug 29, 2008, 6:33pm
(EDT-3) From: cerebur...@hotmail.com (death from above)
I disagree. I think Obama has enough experience and he's certainly not
as clueless as John McCain when it comes to what the middle and working
class people are going through in this country right now. He worked with
Inner City Youths for years and saw what they had to go through. It was
McCain that said he didn't know much about the economy and didn't even
know how many houses he had. Also McCain comparing "Obama" to Britney
Spears and Paris Hilton shows just how naive he is. Obama is very
intelligent and articulate and can speak from the heart unlike McCain
who has to read a teleprompter or a speech on a piece of paper written
for him. And by the way...Palin is the wife of an oil executive and
she's for getting rid of "separation of church and state" which is gonna
do her and McCain no favors. I am sick of old, uptight, conservative,
conformist suits screwing over the middle and working class. We need a
good change and hopefully with my vote it will happen. Jason
mack
"Jason Gaylor" <metalh...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22390-48B...@storefull-3353.bay.webtv.net...
Oh, that separation of church and state is such a pesky old thing. What we
need is more prayer at the beginnings and endings of all meetings, whether
school classes, pilates sessions, orgies, ball games, and so on.
As for her stance on abortion, evidently she would endorse a policy of no
abortions any time for any reason. So a 12 year old girl, a victim of rape,
would be told to suck it up and have the offspring. Nice
I am sick of old, uptight, conservative,
conformist suits screwing over the middle and working class. We need a
good change and hopefully with my vote it will happen. Jason
yep, with ALL our votes it will happen and our eight year long nightmare may
come to a blessed end. whew.
leno...@yahoo.com
"Two decades ago, the late Elizabeth Janeway, an intellectual doyenne
of the women's movement, fantasized the first woman president. She
would be a vice president chosen to 'balance' the ticket, a
conservative Republican who ascends to the Oval Office denying any
connection to feminism."
If you want to see the details of Janeway's prediction (VERY close to
who Palin is, in fact!), it was in Goodman's book, "Keeping in Touch,"
which your library should be able to get. Janeway made the prediction
in 1982. It was on page 279 of my edition, titled "Fantasy of the
First Female President."
Janeway said: "I won't vote for her, but I will welcome her presence."
Lenona.
moviePig
Perhaps she could head FEMA...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
David Oberman
>Perhaps she could head FEMA...
Fine -- as long as she keeps her paws off the WCATWC (West Coast &
Alaska Tsunami Warning Center): http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/
calvin
What's wrong with her paws? She seems to be a capable
and accomplished woman. The foolish and dumb woman
with power right now is named Pelosi.
David Oberman
>What's wrong with her paws? She seems to be a capable
>and accomplished woman.
Nothing's wrong with her, I say. But she isn't a seismologist or a
tsunami scientist, & operating & procedural decisions at the WCATWC
should be made by scientists, not politicians. (Same goes for the
Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii.)
> The foolish and dumb woman
>with power right now is named Pelosi.
Oh, she's awful! Can you imagine having her for a boss? Egad.
Voltronicus
> Both picked running mates for the single purpose of trying to get
> elected.
That is not exactly anything new, it has been going on since the
adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804.
Derek Janssen
> On Aug 30, 8:31 pm, David Oberman <dober...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps she could head FEMA...
>>
>>Fine -- as long as she keeps her paws off the WCATWC (West Coast &
>>Alaska Tsunami Warning Center):
>
> http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/
>
> What's wrong with her paws? She seems to be a capable
> and accomplished woman.
But, in terms of Presidential Succession, even the Republicans still see
her as the biggest "Human bullet-proof vest" since the Q-man...
Derek Janssen (yep, Cal's smelled the "Usenet Halloween-costume" money
again, clear the dance floor for the next few weeks) 9_9
eja...@verizon.net
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > What's wrong with her paws? She seems to be a capable
> > and accomplished woman.
>
> But, in terms of Presidential Succession, even the Republicans still see
> her as the biggest "Human bullet-proof vest" since the Q-man...
I don't think you have accurately read the Republicans on this.
> (yep, Cal's smelled the "Usenet Halloween-costume" money
> again, clear the dance floor for the next few weeks)
Nor have you accurately read me, ever.
Howard Brazee
<fwd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Both picked running mates for the single purpose of trying to get
>> elected.
>
>That is not exactly anything new, it has been going on since the
>adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804.
Sure. It's interesting though that the balancing is less geographic
based than it has in the past.
Steven L.
> call me a fogey, but i like experienced old men for the presidency.
>
> whatever their views, mccain and biden have the goods.
>
> but, in our celebrity crazed age, we get people like obama and palin
> all because of their youthful looks, 'charisma', and style. has
> hollywood taken over politics?
The youngest President ever was Theodore Roosevelt, inaugurated at age
43. Next youngest was John F. Kennedy, a few months older than Roosevelt.
Bill Clinton was 46 years old when he was inaugurated.
Sarah Palin will be 45 years old in 2009.
Barack Obama will be 48 years old in 2009.
So Sarah Palin is actually older than Theodore Roosevelt and John F.
Kennedy. She just wears it well. :-)
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
steve
On 29-Aug-2008, death from above <cerebur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> and the mccain team, which made fun of obama's celebrity appeal, went
> with a babe doll.
Of the 4 people (and I use the term loosely) on the major party tickets, she
would be my first choice.
steve
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
calvin
> On 29-Aug-2008, death from above <cerebureaucr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > and the mccain team, which made fun of obama's celebrity appeal, went
> > with a babe doll.
>
> Of the 4 people (and I use the term loosely) on the major party tickets, she
> would be my first choice.
She has more executive experience than the other three
combined, and is more of a true conservative than McCain.
David Oberman
>She has more executive experience than the other three
>combined, and is more of a true conservative than McCain.
On the other hand, what is "experience" really worth, anyway? It's
worth a great deal in my heart surgeon, but does it really benefit all
politicians & businessmen? (The executives that run McClatchy
Corporation all have plenty of "experience," but they still ruined the
company.)
Personal characteristics -- integrity, intelligence, mordant wit,
proper respect for my money -- are more important to me than
everyone's CV. I'm disillusioned with the Newt Romneys & Mitt McCains
in Washington -- all their hundreds of years of experience amount to
pandering or corruption.
nick
So what you're saying is that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be
President than John McCain, Joe Biden or Barak Obama? What is it
about conservatives and blind hero worship (or for that matter, their
constant fascination with "executive experience")?
And when you use phrases like "true conservative" you sound like old
school communists praising a good party member for having idealogical
correctness. Besides, she kills animals and wears fur. I thought
that'd be enough to make you at least leery since I always took you
for someone more mature than a lot of these Palin supporteres who are
*turned on* by that sort of thing.
calvin
Nobody's perfect.
tree...@yahoo.com
the US. HOW can such a person be the Vice Pres of the US? It doesn't
make sense! She needs to run from VP of Alaska, not US.
steve
On 1-Sep-2008, David Oberman <dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >She has more executive experience than the other three
> >combined, and is more of a true conservative than McCain.
>
> On the other hand, what is "experience" really worth, anyway? It's
> worth a great deal in my heart surgeon, but does it really benefit all
> politicians & businessmen? (The executives that run McClatchy
> Corporation all have plenty of "experience," but they still ruined the
> company.)
I agree. Dober. Id rather have someone who has some measure of common sense
and a reasonable (i.e. pro-liberty) political philosophy (perhaps I should
say "leanings' or "attitude", since so few politicians actually have a
political philosophy) than someone with a shitload of experience but little
respect for liberty or impractical ideas about how to proceed. Obama and
Biden are out on the liberty count. His obvious pro-govt, anti-liberty
agenda aside, Obamas attempt to use the justice department to intimidate
some of his detractors should cause everyone serious concern (what would he
do if he actually ran the justice department?..and the IRS?). McCain has
far more respect for liberty, but not nearly enough earn my respect. He
will get my vote, however, as the lesser of two evils.
On the "good" side, McCain would be more likely to nominate SC Justices that
would respect the constitution. That's a huge issue, IMO. The only way
that govt will relinquish power is if the SC puts on the brakes.
As for businessmen, I think experience is clearly an asset. Businessmen
dont make moral decisions that directly affect my life (so long as they
operate within reasonable laws), or appoint judges who make decisions that
can affect the lives of generations to come.
> Personal characteristics -- integrity, intelligence, mordant wit,
> proper respect for my money -- are more important to me than
> everyone's CV. I'm disillusioned with the Newt Romneys & Mitt McCains
> in Washington -- all their hundreds of years of experience amount to
> pandering or corruption.
Thanks for a new word (mordant), though I dont think wit has anything to do
with it.
"proper respect for my money"
Yup. A rare commodity in Washington. Along those lines, I fear an Obama
admin with a democrat majority in congress, because the likely result is
govt run health care. That type of program would become the 800 lb gorilla
of govt programs, would be (or eventually become) hugely expensive,
inefficient, and restrictive (serious liberty issues). Once in place, it
would never go away.
steve
On 1-Sep-2008, nick <nickmacp...@aol.com> wrote:
> And when you use phrases like "true conservative" you sound like old
> school communists praising a good party member for having idealogical
> correctness.
So? All ideologies are not equal. Adherence to an ideology that respects
liberty is something to be lauded, even if adherence to an authoritarian
ideology (communism) is not. "True conservatives" (as I understand the
term, i.e. a tendency to respect constitutional limits, less govt
regulation, lower taxes and spending) dont respect liberty in all areas, but
they do so far more than "liberals" and most "independants".
Ideological correctness is as good or as bad as the particular ideology.
WF Buckley used to point out that there is a moral difference between
pushing an old lady out of the path of an oncoming bus and pushing and old
lady INTO the path of that bus, even they both involve pushing old ladies
around.
> Besides, she kills animals and wears fur.
Two positives.
And she smoked weed, her husband was caught drunk driving, her 17 year old
daughter is pregnant, and they shoot guns and ride motorcycles. I want to
party with this family!
moviePig
You might not like the hangover. E.g., weed and booze are fine, and
so are sex, guns, and motorcycles. But, mixing column A with column B
can cause inconveniences... like birth, or death...
Meanwhile, 'ideological correctness' is like a computer program: it's
predictable, fast, and, when things get tricky, a hopelessly poor
substitute for a thinking person.
steve
On 2-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, 'ideological correctness' is like a computer program: it's
> predictable, fast, and, when things get tricky, a hopelessly poor
> substitute for a thinking person.
This is an attitude that I dont get. In my mind, a lack of a political
philosophy is the result of failing to think. Before you can decide how
govt should act (or not act) in any partcular case, it's necessary to
determine what the role of govt should be and the extent of legitimate govt
power. Once those questions are resolved, the application to any particular
case then follows (though not necessarily in trivial fashion). Starting in
the middle results in an incoherent mess and institutionalized error,
usually motivated by an emotionally (rather than logically) driven decision
process.
That bing said, getting the first step wrong (like Marx, for example) would
be no better, but the potential to get it wrong doesnt eliminate the
necessity of the exercize. Fortunately, the founding fathers got it
substantially right. Our folly has been in abandoning or misapplying thier
sound principles. That folly is partly the result of failing to think, and
partly of incorrect thinking.
Jason Gaylor
Re: obama, then palin. oh boy.
Group: rec.arts.movies.past-films Date: Tue, Sep 2, 2008, 1:53pm (EDT+4)
From: st...@steve.com (steve)
Thanks! This here is a prime example as to why I am "liberal". Jason
steve
On 2-Sep-2008, metalh...@webtv.net (Jason Gaylor) wrote:
> Be a clueless, white trash, redneck with no common sense or values?
Not an accurate description, IMO.
> This here is a prime example as to why I am "liberal". Jason
What do you mean?
Sure,Not
> death from above wrote:
> > call me a fogey, but i like experienced old men for the presidency.
>
> > whatever their views, mccain and biden have the goods.
>
> > all because of their youthful looks, 'charisma', and style. has
> > hollywood taken over politics?
>
>
> > experience. hmmm.
> > and the mccain team, which made fun ofobama'scelebrity appeal, went
> > with a babe doll.
>
> Jes wait and see what McCain (The Manchurian Candidate) does for his
> controllers. Six years in the Hanoi Hilton had to produce some mental
> aberation. Who is he really working for?
>
> Marv- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Moron.
Sure,Not
> > and, it's getting funny. obamaside is accusing palin of lack of
> > experience. hmmm.
>
> for four years.
>
> Palin has been Governor of a state with a population about the size of
> town about the size of Mayberry. Also, the Republicans like to boast
> about her local PTA time, and count that as part of her experience.
>
>
>
> > and the mccain team, which made fun ofobama'scelebrity appeal, went
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Obama was a State Senator in a very populous state and a US Senator
> for four years
Was? I think he is still a senator, so you mean "is". Obama has
accomplished nothing.
moviePig
In the Beginning, there was Instinct ...and Ogg, son of Wogg (and god
knows who) saw that it was Good. But, as his tribe grew, it was
necessary for elders to create rules-of-thumb to *suppress*
Instinct... so that, e.g., everyday momentary altercations didn't
decimate the warrior class. Ogg, however, realized that these rules
were merely primate-made, and he Instinctively continued stomping the
living shikzit out of smaller tribal members who crossed him. The
elders saw such violations, and soon revealed that the rules-of-thumb
were sent down from Heaven... which selfsame rules would thenceforth
be known as "political philosophy", and blind obedience to them must
be absolute. And Ogg obeyed... faithfully... right up until the day
he declined to stomp the living shikzit out of Ugg... (who that day
got out of bed murderous, and *not* so politically wise...)
Sure,Not
> (EDT-3) From: cerebureaucr...@hotmail.com (death from above)
> call me a fogey, but i like experienced old men for the presidency.
> whatever their views, mccain and biden have the goods.
> but, in our celebrity crazed age, we get people likeobamaand palin all
> because of their youthful looks, 'charisma', and style. has
> hollywood taken over politics?
> it's like watching a stupid TV series.
> experience. hmmm.
> I disagree. I thinkObamahas enough experience and he's certainly not
> as clueless as John McCain when it comes to what the middle and working
> class people are going through in this country right now. He worked with
> Inner City Youths for years and saw what they had to go through. It was
> McCain that said he didn't know much about the economy and didn't even
> know how many houses he had. Also McCain comparing "Obama" to Britney
> Spears and Paris Hilton shows just how naive he is.Obamais very
> intelligent and articulate and can speak from the heart unlike McCain
> who has to read a teleprompter or a speech on a piece of paper written
> for him. And by the way...Palin is the wife of an oil executive and
> she's for getting rid of "separation of church and state" which is gonna
> do her and McCain no favors. I am sick of old, uptight, conservative,
> conformist suits screwing over the middle and working class. We need a
> good change and hopefully with my vote it will happen. Jason
Exactly what are the middle and working class going through right
now? What defines middle class and working class? I am middle class
and I work my ass off.
steve
On 2-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> In the Beginning, there was Instinct ...and Ogg, son of Wogg (and god
> knows who) saw that it was Good. But, as his tribe grew, it was
> necessary for elders to create rules-of-thumb to *suppress*
> Instinct... so that, e.g., everyday momentary altercations didn't
> decimate the warrior class. Ogg, however, realized that these rules
> were merely primate-made, and he Instinctively continued stomping the
> living shikzit out of smaller tribal members who crossed him. The
> elders saw such violations, and soon revealed that the rules-of-thumb
> were sent down from Heaven... which selfsame rules would thenceforth
> be known as "political philosophy", and blind obedience to them must
> be absolute. And Ogg obeyed... faithfully... right up until the day
> he declined to stomp the living shikzit out of Ugg... (who that day
> got out of bed murderous, and *not* so politically wise...)
What is all this supposed to mean, Pig-man?
Marv Soloff
Try this: http://www.farfromglory.com/john_s_mccain.htm
Then reconsider your answer - I just might be right.
Marv
steve
On 2-Sep-2008, Marv Soloff <mso...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Try this: http://www.farfromglory.com/john_s_mccain.htm
>
> Then reconsider your answer - I just might be right.
I have no idea if anything on that site is credible, and much of the
negative is silly and unpersuasive even if taken as fact. That being said,
Im interested in what a McCain presidency will mean for liberty relative to
an Obama presidency. McCain has a long track record as senator, and that is
probably the best indication. Am I at all enthusiastic about McCain? No
freakin way. Obama, OTOH, has a short political history and we have to read
between the lines to divine much of what he is and what he will be as as
president. I dont like the lines OR what's between them.
steve
Marv Soloff
Politics is a horse race. You may be right, I may be right. We'll find
out November 4th.
Marv
moviePig
(I suppose it means I should leave parables to holy men...) For a
thinking individual, any ideology is useful only as a time-saver in
approximating first guesses at solutions to non-textbook problems
(...aka the real world).
steve
On 2-Sep-2008, Marv Soloff <mso...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Politics is a horse race. You may be right, I may be right. We'll find
> out November 4th.
Well...mostly after Nov 4th...but, yea.
Sure,Not
> "tmk" <tmk1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b767e3c4-6632-4c93...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > and, it's getting funny. obama side is accusing palin of lack of
> > experience. hmmm.
>
> Obama was a State Senator in a very populous state and a US Senator
>
> Palin has been Governor of a state with a population about the size of
> Cleveland's for a year and a half. Before that, she was a mayor of a
> town about the size of Mayberry. Also, the Republicans like to boast
> about her local PTA time, and count that as part of her experience.
>
>
> I guess that
> 1. since I have soloed in a Cessna 150, that should make me an Air Ace.
> 2. I went to church at Christmas to hear the carols one year so I can be
> called a theologian
> 3. I worked in a gas station as a kid and once took the running boards off
> my jalopy, so I clearly qualify as an automotive engineer AND designer!
> 4. I've made my own sandwiches and occasionally spaghetti and salad, so of
> course, I'm a master chef.
> 5. I've occasionally made love to my wife over the years, so I'm clearly a
> sexologist, second only to Kinsey.
> 6. I do my own income taxes, so I'm a CPA
> 7. I shave, therefore I'm a barber to the king, and the king of barbers.
> 8. I pick up my newspaper from the driveway, so I know all about the field
> of journalism.
> 9. I can write my name, so I'm a calligrapher.
>
> etc. Damn, what a talented guy I am!
Substitute Obama and Biden for McCain and Palin and answer the same
questions.
Sure,Not
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:33:43 -0700 (PDT), death from above
>
> <cerebureaucr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >and, it's getting funny. obama side is accusing palin of lack of
> >experience. hmmm.
> >with a babe doll.
>
> McCainhas been on TV shows *lots* more than Obama has. He's the
> Hollywood celebrity. Obama picked hisrunningmatebecause ofMcCain'sexperience ads. McCainpicked his to get dissatisfied
> Clinton supporters and to bolster his big oil arguments.
>
> Both pickedrunningmates for the single purpose of trying to get
> elected.
>
> Her opening "speech" appears to be designed to show her as "folk".
> Certainly they can't compete with Obama as orators, but Reagan showed
> how to win as folk, and GWB followed that pattern.
Are you implying that Obama is a good Orator? Obama speaks like a 5th
grader.
steve
On 2-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > What is all this supposed to mean, Pig-man?
>
> (I suppose it means I should leave parables to holy men...) For a
> thinking individual, any ideology is useful only as a time-saver in
> approximating first guesses at solutions to non-textbook problems
> (...aka the real world).
Can't an ideology be the result of careful thought, and a valuable guide to
positive results? Why is the thought over if one applies general principles
to new problems? And do you suggest that a pop;litical philosophy must be
so ideallistic as to be blind to the practical limitations of the "real
world"? If so, read some Hayek or Barnett to be disabused ofthat notion.
And if, for example, Marx's ideas are demonstrated to be arbitrary nonsense
(easily done), shouldnt you then confidently reject the application of those
ideas to economic/political issues?
If you know (for yet another example) that markets are the most efficient
means of allocating resources and creating wealth, and that command and
control economies necessarily result in widespread hardship and poverty,
then do you feel obliged to consider every specific proposed form of command
and control each time an economic issue is raised? Or can you apply that
general principle in rejecting any form of C&C economy in favor of markets?
In short, I dont understand your outright rejection of principle.
What method do you use in examining political issues? Pleasure and pain?
Majoritarian rule? Inspirations of conscience? How you feel when you roll
out of bed? What?
steve
Derek Janssen
> On Sep 2, 2:24 pm, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In the Beginning, there was Instinct ...and Ogg, son of Wogg (and god
>>>knows who) saw that it was Good. But, as his tribe grew, it was
>>>necessary for elders to create rules-of-thumb to *suppress*
>>>Instinct... so that, e.g., everyday momentary altercations didn't
>>>decimate the warrior class. Ogg, however, realized that these rules
>>>were merely primate-made, and he Instinctively continued stomping the
>>>living shikzit out of smaller tribal members who crossed him. The
>>>elders saw such violations, and soon revealed that the rules-of-thumb
>>>were sent down from Heaven... which selfsame rules would thenceforth
>>>be known as "political philosophy", and blind obedience to them must
>>>be absolute. And Ogg obeyed... faithfully... right up until the day
>>>he declined to stomp the living shikzit out of Ugg... (who that day
>>>got out of bed murderous, and *not* so politically wise...)
>>
>>What is all this supposed to mean, Pig-man?
>
> (I suppose it means I should leave parables to holy men...)
IOW, he'd been watching Roger Corman's "Teenage Caveman" again, and came
up with the brilliant inspiration of using Ogg as symbol for All World
Belief Everywhere, Integrated Into Oppressive Political Systems.
(Yes, Pig, your thoughts are Not Unique. Very few of Athies' ever are.
The "I'm the first person on Planet Earth to think this!" mentality is
part and parcel of the belief system, and takes tragic tolls on the
Creativity and Curiosity genes.) :)
Derek Janssen (the word is the law)
eja...@verizon.net
moviePig
I was trying to answer Steve's question, not develop a Unique theory
of anything. In fact, quite the contrary of uniqueness, I was trying
to present something he'd find recognizable and intuitive. Meanwhile.
though, whence your claim that Atheists' thoughts are inherently less
creative than non-Atheists'? Is it because, say, they don't cut their
baby-teeth on devising new gods and practices... and rationales for
them?
moviePig
Indeed, an ideology can certainly be the result of careful
thought ...but even an extraordinary amount of such thought will only
get you maybe two moves further insight into the average chess game
(...maybe good enough to win, but not nearly enough to write a related
book of laws). So, you can honor "principles" by looking to them
first... but one's wits, if he has them, must still have the last
word.
I'm not aware that Marx is "arbitrary nonsense" ...only that he seems
ill-suited to human beings. Also, afaik, it took real-world
experiments to make that latter fact pretty much unarguable.
I suspect that free markets are still the efficiency leader in both
laboratory and real-world experiments. But I'm less clear about what
happens when those markets come at odds with the welfare of 'we the
people'. E.g., a free market solution would improve our species'
biological strength by letting every defective child die... but our
solution space seems to include more, and more complex, parameters
that don't allow that.
Derek Janssen
> Meanwhile.
> though, whence your claim that Atheists' thoughts are inherently less
> creative than non-Atheists'? Is it because, say, they don't cut their
> baby-teeth on devising new gods and practices... and rationales for
> them?
No, it's because their headline-fed cynical inner-demon of "WHY am I the
only smart person left in our modern world?" creates a fear of checking
their answers...
Always used to run into trouble with that, back in sixth-grade
algebra--Teacher used to make us check them every time, and I wished for
the days when I'd be a big smart grownup and wouldn't HAVE to check my
answers, because I'd always be right.
Derek Janssen (who can be allegorical, too ^_^ )
eja...@verizon.net
calvin
> ...
> I'm not aware that Marx is "arbitrary nonsense" ...only that he seems
> ill-suited to human beings. Also, afaik, it took real-world
> experiments to make that latter fact pretty much unarguable.
The only Marx that I've read is the Communist Manifesto,
but in it Marx simply assumes that capitalism (in 1849) is
destructive. Employment is exploitation, he asserts, without
the slightest justification given. And the workers are as
qualified to run things as the owners of the means of
production, he thinks, so he proposes a continual rotation
of the workers through management, and the managers
through labor. He sounds as naive as a wild-eyed college
freshman.
When you say that Marxism is ill-suited to human beings,
you seem to be implying that his exquisite theory is just
too good and pure for the flawed human race; but anyone
should have guessed (it seems to me in hindsight) that
trying to implement such a system of forced equality onto a
country (and he wanted all countries to buy into it) would
bring on calamity, as it did.
The CM is only 62 pages, and worth a refresher reading
now and then, IMO, before extolling the ethereal purity
of Marxism.
moviePig
You're free to characterize the human race as "flawed"... rather than
"human" as I did. Meanwhile, though, my very light grasp of Marx
tells me merely that he underestimates individual self-interest...
both as a source of inevitable corruption, and as an exploitable
engine of progress. ( And that's all ...so talk to someone else about
your night-terrors of "ethereal purity", etc.)
moviePig
(One can only look forward to that. ^_^) By "headlines", I assume you
mean such as 'Fundie Mother Lets Daughter Die of Common
Cold' ...sorry, but I don't frequent that supermarket. Meanwhile, I
think you'd find that, far from believing himself the "only smart
person left", a long-standing atheist takes no more 'pride' in his non-
belief than he does in having once been weaned. (Moreover, I'm afraid
I don't see how all this fits into the discussion where you injected
it.)
steve
On 2-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Indeed, an ideology can certainly be the result of careful
> thought ...but even an extraordinary amount of such thought will only
> get you maybe two moves further insight into the average chess game
> (...maybe good enough to win, but not nearly enough to write a related
> book of laws). So, you can honor "principles" by looking to them
> first... but one's wits, if he has them, must still have the last
> word.
Two things: First, how close you can come to an answer depends of the nature
of the question and it's relationship to principles developed and
discovered. You cannot say with any confidence just how careful forthought
can bring you to answering a yet unasked question. Second, part of
developing and discovering principles is a requirement that you understand
the nature of limits within which those principles apply. To apply them
blindly where they are not relevant is an error that must be avoided. Wits
are not to be abandoned at any time, but neither are sound principles.
> I'm not aware that Marx is "arbitrary nonsense" ...only that he seems
> ill-suited to human beings. Also, afaik, it took real-world
> experiments to make that latter fact pretty much unarguable.
LOL. Sorry, but the notion that a political and economic theory that is
"ill-suited to human beings" can in any way be of value is an absurdity on
its face ("I call oxy-moron"). But beyond that quip, Marx's attempt to
define an objective value of goods and services, and to quantify
exploitation by comparing that to market prices is the demonstable nonsense
Im talking about. The reasoning behind it is clearly motivated by the
conclusion. Not surprisingly, he made some efforts to preserve his bogus
conclusion by introducing spurious distinctions (value vs "exchange value",
for example), when the right answer (value is a subjective concept, making
any attempt at defining an objective measure of value an imposible exercize)
stared him in the face. He also assumed, rather than demonstrated, that the
market corrections, price fluctuations, business successes and failures
(i.e. precisely those market mechanisms that make markets superior to
command and control economies in allocating resources) were evidence that
markets dont work. Talk about missing the obvious. At the same time, he
never even suggested how C&C economies would solve the problems of
allocation of resources. I put it to you that no real world experiment was
necessary to show the folly of C&C, because the shortcomings of C&C are
knowable without experimentation. Of course, the abandonment of C&C (in
limited areas) by Lenin and now by China (in much larger areas), and the
superior performance of markets even within these regimes is welcome
evidence of the superiority of markets, but it should be unnecessary to
those who use thier wits.
> I suspect that free markets are still the efficiency leader in both
> laboratory and real-world experiments. But I'm less clear about what
> happens when those markets come at odds with the welfare of 'we the
> people'. E.g., a free market solution would improve our species'
> biological strength by letting every defective child die...
Uh...where on earth do you come up with that last notion? That is not even
an issue relating to markets (though a more affluent society would have more
resources to care for/cure/ prevent the defect). And if you want real world
evidence that markets are not at odds with the welfare of the prople, open
your eyes. And where markets seem to fail to provide, such as the fast
rising cost of college and health care, you will find the heavy hand of govt
distorting and mitigating market forces. Thiose who dont understanmd
economic pronciples (there's that word again) will likely reverse cause and
effect and claim the govt is attempting to solve the problem inherent in the
market, rather than actually creating the problem.
> but our
> solution space seems to include more, and more complex, parameters
> that don't allow that.
Absolutely. Only the solution space you're talking about isnt related to
the question space at issue.
Actually your example here angers me. Especially since it's the same govts
that impose C&C economies that also show the disdain for human life that you
gratuitously toss at the feet of free markets. As Ricky said so often to
Lucy "You got some 'splainin' to do."
calvin
But I didn't. You did, or so it seemed. You know very well
that I didn't, so you're being (transparently) devious.
> Meanwhile, though, my very light grasp of Marx
That's why I recommended reading, or re-reading, The
Communist Manifesto.
> tells me merely that he underestimates individual self-interest...
> both as a source of inevitable corruption, and as an exploitable
> engine of progress.
As for the first, he certainly does not. He sees individual
self-interest as a corruption in itself.
As for the second, you may be part right. He may underestimate
self-interest as an engine of progress; but he certainly doesn't
do so on the 'exploitable' point, because, as I said, he believes
that employment is exploitation.
( And that's all ...so talk to someone else about
> your night-terrors of "ethereal purity", etc.)
I was responding reasonably to what you seemed to be
saying. There are no 'night terrors' involved. Your
personal condescending insult is totally uncalled for here.
I'm aware that your conversation is with steve, but you
have defended your own butting in, so you ought to be
able to accept mine, which was done respectfully.
George Peatty
wrote:
>(One can only look forward to that. ^_^) By "headlines", I assume you
>mean such as 'Fundie Mother Lets Daughter Die of Common
>Cold' ...sorry, but I don't frequent that supermarket. Meanwhile, I
>think you'd find that, far from believing himself the "only smart
>person left", a long-standing atheist takes no more 'pride' in his non-
>belief than he does in having once been weaned. (Moreover, I'm afraid
>I don't see how all this fits into the discussion where you injected
>it.)
You obviously haven't spent any time in alt.atheism ..
steve
On 2-Sep-2008, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> The CM is only 62 pages, and worth a refresher reading
> now and then, IMO, before extolling the ethereal purity
> of Marxism.
I would also recommend "Marxism" by Thomas Sowell.
http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Philosophy-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688064264
> The only Marx that I've read is the Communist Manifesto,
> but in it Marx simply assumes that capitalism (in 1849) is
> destructive. Employment is exploitation, he asserts, without
> the slightest justification given. And the workers are as
> qualified to run things as the owners of the means of
> production, he thinks, so he proposes a continual rotation
> of the workers through management, and the managers
> through labor. He sounds as naive as a wild-eyed college
> freshman.
> When you say that Marxism is ill-suited to human beings,
> you seem to be implying that his exquisite theory is just
> too good and pure for the flawed human race; but anyone
> should have guessed (it seems to me in hindsight) that
> trying to implement such a system of forced equality onto a
> country (and he wanted all countries to buy into it) would
> bring on calamity, as it did.
Well put, Calvin. If only so many of those wild eyed freshman were not at
the mercy of lefty elitists, but instead were taught sound economics and the
virtues of liberty, then the world might be moving in a better direction.
But the heavy hand of govt is all over education, and know-nothing profs can
live in thier insular world and spout nonsense with impunity...while we are
all forced pay for it. Insult added to injury (or vice versa).
steve
On 3-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, though, my very light grasp of Marx
For a firm grasp, let me repeat my recommendation below. You can get this
book in used paperback for a song, and it is a relatively quick read (as I
recall I got through it in a weekend). It is not a line by line
denouncement of Marx, but a survey of his ideas, influences, and
contemporaries... followed by a crushing critique.
"Marxism" by Thomas Sowell.
http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Philosophy-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688064264
steve
calvin
> I would also recommend "Marxism" by Thomas Sowell.
Thanks. I ordered it.
moviePig
I have no trouble with "butting in", per se. Never have, never
will ...and do more than my share of it, with alacrity. As for any
"condescending insult", it was you who tried to spectre-ize me as some
kind of Marxian idealist ...whom I must thus assume to be a long-
standing bogeyman you're on constant alert for, as with a recurring
nightmare. Meanwhile, I'll take your word for it that Marx
anticipates and demonizes 'individual self-interest' ...but it's the
inevitability of such self-interest -- i.e., as an essence of human
nature, and thus beyond good or evil -- that I'm presuming he
underestimates.
steve
On 3-Sep-2008, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > I would also recommend "Marxism" by Thomas Sowell.
>
> Thanks. I ordered it.
Cool. Lets hope Pig-man does the same.
moviePig
> On 2-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, an ideology can certainly be the result of careful
> > thought ...but even an extraordinary amount of such thought will only
> > get you maybe two moves further insight into the average chess game
> > (...maybe good enough to win, but not nearly enough to write a related
> > book of laws). So, you can honor "principles" by looking to them
> > first... but one's wits, if he has them, must still have the last
> > word.
>
> Two things: First, how close you can come to an answer depends of the nature
> of the question and it's relationship to principles developed and
> discovered. You cannot say with any confidence just how careful forthought
> can bring you to answering a yet unasked question. Second, part of
> developing and discovering principles is a requirement that you understand
> the nature of limits within which those principles apply. To apply them
> blindly where they are not relevant is an error that must be avoided. Wits
> are not to be abandoned at any time, but neither are sound principles.
The only discord I see here is (perhaps) my belief that, outside of
math, *every* problem tries to wriggle free, with at least *some*
success, of *any* principle previously purported to solve it.
> > I'm not aware that Marx is "arbitrary nonsense" ...only that he seems
> > ill-suited to human beings. Also, afaik, it took real-world
> > experiments to make that latter fact pretty much unarguable.
>
> LOL. Sorry, but the notion that a political and economic theory that is
> "ill-suited to human beings" can in any way be of value is an absurdity on
> its face ("I call oxy-moron").
Not at all. Think of if as forever-pure (i.e., never-applicable)
math... or, if you like, as a thought experiment that reduces the
population of right-answer candidates.
> But beyond that quip, Marx's attempt to
> define an objective value of goods and services, and to quantify
> exploitation by comparing that to market prices is the demonstable nonsense
> Im talking about. The reasoning behind it is clearly motivated by the
> conclusion. Not surprisingly, he made some efforts to preserve his bogus
> conclusion by introducing spurious distinctions (value vs "exchange value",
> for example), when the right answer (value is a subjective concept, making
> any attempt at defining an objective measure of value an imposible exercize)
> stared him in the face. He also assumed, rather than demonstrated, that the
> market corrections, price fluctuations, business successes and failures
> (i.e. precisely those market mechanisms that make markets superior to
> command and control economies in allocating resources) were evidence that
> markets dont work. Talk about missing the obvious. At the same time, he
> never even suggested how C&C economies would solve the problems of
> allocation of resources. I put it to you that no real world experiment was
> necessary to show the folly of C&C, because the shortcomings of C&C are
> knowable without experimentation. Of course, the abandonment of C&C (in
> limited areas) by Lenin and now by China (in much larger areas), and the
> superior performance of markets even within these regimes is welcome
> evidence of the superiority of markets, but it should be unnecessary to
> those who use thier wits.
Even without being sure what 'C&C' means ("collectivism &
centalization"?), I think I follow ...albeit into foreign land for
me. I might object only to your hindsight assumption about what
should've been "obvious" at the time.
> > I suspect that free markets are still the efficiency leader in both
> > laboratory and real-world experiments. But I'm less clear about what
> > happens when those markets come at odds with the welfare of 'we the
> > people'. E.g., a free market solution would improve our species'
> > biological strength by letting every defective child die...
>
> Uh...where on earth do you come up with that last notion? That is not even
> an issue relating to markets (though a more affluent society would have more
> resources to care for/cure/ prevent the defect). And if you want real world
> evidence that markets are not at odds with the welfare of the prople, open
> your eyes. And where markets seem to fail to provide, such as the fast
> rising cost of college and health care, you will find the heavy hand of govt
> distorting and mitigating market forces. Thiose who dont understanmd
> economic pronciples (there's that word again) will likely reverse cause and
> effect and claim the govt is attempting to solve the problem inherent in the
> market, rather than actually creating the problem.
>
> > but our
> > solution space seems to include more, and more complex, parameters
> > that don't allow that.
>
> Absolutely. Only the solution space you're talking about isnt related to
> the question space at issue.
>
> Actually your example here angers me. Especially since it's the same govts
> that impose C&C economies that also show the disdain for human life that you
> gratuitously toss at the feet of free markets. As Ricky said so often to
> Lucy "You got some 'splainin' to do."
I'm assuming that "survival of the fittest" is among "free market"
principles... and is, moreover, a very sound principle certainly worth
honoring in all endeavors and situations, *except* for those closest
to us. My example above was an illustration of when wits must
supercede blind adherence to principle. (It wasn't, say, a commentary
on the politics of world hunger.)
moviePig
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 06:11:37 -0700 (PDT), moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com>
None, ever. But I can't help wondering why you have.
George Peatty
wrote:
>> You obviously haven't spent any time in alt.atheism ..
>None, ever. But I can't help wondering why you have.
I get a lot of their drivel in crossposted flames. Those clowns are
notorious for crossposting into OT newsgroups, denying they've done it, then
accusing us of instigating the flames. I've caught them at it several
times.
And, trust me, if you want to know where the atheists are, hang out in the
religious newsgroups. alt.bible is full of them, so much so that they
poison the well for any of us seeking a "fellowship of kindred minds"
moviePig
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 07:36:06 -0700 (PDT), moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com>
I can imagine that's where atheists are, although I'd hope not "the"
atheists. Meanwhile, although I don't know what goes on in those
various groups, I've always been personally fond of the observation
that there's no more devout Believer than a Blasphemer...
steve
On 3-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > Two things: First, how close you can come to an answer depends of the
> > nature
> > of the question and it's relationship to principles developed and
> > discovered. You cannot say with any confidence just how careful
> > forthought
> > can bring you to answering a yet unasked question. Second, part of
> > developing and discovering principles is a requirement that you
> > understand
> > the nature of limits within which those principles apply. To apply them
> > blindly where they are not relevant is an error that must be avoided.
> > Wits
> > are not to be abandoned at any time, but neither are sound principles.
>
> The only discord I see here is (perhaps) my belief that, outside of
> math, *every* problem tries to wriggle free, with at least *some*
> success, of *any* principle previously purported to solve it.
I'd say your caution is warrented, but your blanket rejection is overkill.
If you read Hayek or Barnett, you will see that the issue of incomplete (and
even unknowable) information is a key part of thier theory. It is central,
in fact, to establishing the superiority of markets over Command and Control
(C&C) economies.
> > LOL. Sorry, but the notion that a political and economic theory that is
> > "ill-suited to human beings" can in any way be of value is an absurdity
> > on
> > its face ("I call oxy-moron").
>
> Not at all. Think of if as forever-pure (i.e., never-applicable)
> math... or, if you like, as a thought experiment that reduces the
> population of right-answer candidates.
But you seem to be doing exactly that which you are ostensibly so careful to
avoid in general, that is to apply principles/concepts where they are not
applicable. Human beings are the very subject, so if Marxism is ill suited
to humans, it's an absurdity.
> Even without being sure what 'C&C' means ("collectivism &
> centalization"?), I think I follow ...albeit into foreign land for
> me. I might object only to your hindsight assumption about what
> should've been "obvious" at the time.
Interestingly, Marx was quite familiar with the invisible hand arguments of
Adam Smith and liberty arguments of the early libertarians (John Locke,
Mill, etc.), and he explicitly acknowleged the superior workings of the 19th
century US economy over that of less free states (but claimed it was in for
an inevitable and irrevocable downfall). It was all there before him, and
he either chose not to see it, or couldnt see it. My hindsight was the
foresight of his contemporaries.
> > Actually your example here angers me. Especially since it's the same
> > govts
> > that impose C&C economies that also show the disdain for human life that
> > you
> > gratuitously toss at the feet of free markets. As Ricky said so often
> > to
> > Lucy "You got some 'splainin' to do."
>
> I'm assuming that "survival of the fittest" is among "free market"
> principles... and is, moreover, a very sound principle certainly worth
> honoring in all endeavors and situations, *except* for those closest
> to us.
Arrrgghh. I hear this type of nonsense all the time, but I simply dont
understand it. A free market is not a rejection of human values. In fact
it is en extension of the highest form of recognition of and respect for
human values, i.e. liberty. And by providing greater wealth it allows a
freer expression of those values than any other economic system. Markets,
by their voluntary nature, facilitate the satisfaction of human needs and
desires. Somehow extending markets to a rejection of human values is
absolutely unsupported pure raving nonsense.
> and is, moreover, a very sound principle certainly worth
> honoring in all endeavors and situations, *except* for those closest
> to us. My example above was an illustration of when wits must
> supercede blind adherence to principle.
And who has advocated a "blind adherence to principle?", especially when
that adherence is beyond the scope of that principle. You have ignored my
insistence that principle be properly applied, and the limits of that
application must be part and parcel of it's derivation. Your wits must be
used to properly apply what you know, but that is not the same as rejecting
the ability to know anything in the abstract. I have been clear about this,
and so are the intellectual heros that I recommend you investigate.
steve
Jason Gaylor
Re: obama, then palin. oh boy.
Group: rec.arts.movies.past-films Date: Tue, Sep 2, 2008, 10:58am
(EDT-3) From: bambe...@gmail.com (Sure,Not)
On Aug 30, 11:43 am, tmk <tmk1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
and, it's getting funny. obamaside is accusing palin of lack of
experience. hmmm.
Obamawas a State Senator in a very populous state and a US Senator for
four years.
Palin has been Governor of a state with a population about the size of
Cleveland's for a year and a half. Before that, she was a mayor of a
town about the size of Mayberry. Also, the Republicans like to boast
about her local PTA time, and count that as part of her experience.
a babe doll.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
four years
is still a senator, so you mean "is". Obama has
accomplished nothing. --
BS. Do your homework. Obama has accomplished more in his few years than
McCain has during his entire long tenure. Jason
Jason Gaylor
Re: obama, then palin. oh boy.
(EDT-3) From: bambe...@gmail.com (Sure,Not)
Group: rec.arts.movies.past-films Date: Fri, Aug 29, 2008, 6:33pm
(EDT-3) From: cerebureaucr...@hotmail.com (death from above) call me
a fogey, but i like experienced old men for the presidency. whatever
their views, mccain and biden have the goods. but, in our celebrity
crazed age, we get people likeobamaand palin all because of their
youthful looks, 'charisma', and style. has hollywood taken over
politics?
it's like watching a stupid TV series.
experience. hmmm.
I disagree. I thinkObamahas enough experience and he's certainly not as
clueless as John McCain when it comes to what the middle and working
class people are going through in this country right now. He worked with
Inner City Youths for years and saw what they had to go through. It was
McCain that said he didn't know much about the economy and didn't even
know how many houses he had. Also McCain comparing "Obama" to Britney
Spears and Paris Hilton shows just how naive he is.Obamais very
intelligent and articulate and can speak from the heart unlike McCain
who has to read a teleprompter or a speech on a piece of paper written
for him. And by the way...Palin is the wife of an oil executive and
she's for getting rid of "separation of church and state" which is gonna
do her and McCain no favors. I am sick of old, uptight, conservative,
conformist suits screwing over the middle and working class. We need a
good change and hopefully with my vote it will happen. Jason
-- Exactly what are
the middle and working class going through right now? What defines
middle class and working class? I am middle class and I work my ass off.
-- Well,
I'll tell you. Not all but most of the middle/working class folks are
having a rough time because of fluctuating gas prices, high food prices,
and a weak economy that is stretching them thin. Wouldn't you like a
little more money to make sure your bills are paid and have some left
over to buy a few things you and your family need or want? Obama will
cut taxes on the middle/working class and therefore familys will have
that extra money they need and deserve. McCain will cut taxes for large
corporations and the wealthy but will increase taxes on you making you
have even less money to live comfortably while the fat cat's get richer
at the little guy's expense. Understand? Jason
moviePig
Marxism is ill-suited to humans as we believe them to be... but
perfectly suited to humans as Marx believed them to be.
> > Even without being sure what 'C&C' means ("collectivism &
> > centalization"?), I think I follow ...albeit into foreign land for
> > me. I might object only to your hindsight assumption about what
> > should've been "obvious" at the time.
>
> Interestingly, Marx was quite familiar with the invisible hand arguments of
> Adam Smith and liberty arguments of the early libertarians (John Locke,
> Mill, etc.), and he explicitly acknowleged the superior workings of the 19th
> century US economy over that of less free states (but claimed it was in for
> an inevitable and irrevocable downfall). It was all there before him, and
> he either chose not to see it, or couldnt see it. My hindsight was the
> foresight of his contemporaries.
And, indeed, your point of view seems to deserve more than a glib
observation that "the winners write history". I'm just leery of
disparaging as moronic any once-widely accepted serious doctrine,
however wrong it's since been shown.
> > > Actually your example here angers me. Especially since it's the same
> > > govts
> > > that impose C&C economies that also show the disdain for human life that
> > > you
> > > gratuitously toss at the feet of free markets. As Ricky said so often
> > > to
> > > Lucy "You got some 'splainin' to do."
>
> > I'm assuming that "survival of the fittest" is among "free market"
> > principles... and is, moreover, a very sound principle certainly worth
> > honoring in all endeavors and situations, *except* for those closest
> > to us.
>
> Arrrgghh. I hear this type of nonsense all the time, but I simply dont
> understand it. A free market is not a rejection of human values. In fact
> it is en extension of the highest form of recognition of and respect for
> human values, i.e. liberty. And by providing greater wealth it allows a
> freer expression of those values than any other economic system. Markets,
> by their voluntary nature, facilitate the satisfaction of human needs and
> desires. Somehow extending markets to a rejection of human values is
> absolutely unsupported pure raving nonsense.
A free market is a construct for determining the 'worth' of
things ...wherein 'worth' is defined as the value assigned by a free
market. In a way, it's a direct expression of democracy and
collective wisdom. But it comes a-cropper where 'worth' takes on
intransigent or absolute values ...e.g., "Nothing is worth more than
the sanctity of human life."
> > and is, moreover, a very sound principle certainly worth
> > honoring in all endeavors and situations, *except* for those closest
> > to us. My example above was an illustration of when wits must
> > supercede blind adherence to principle.
>
> And who has advocated a "blind adherence to principle?", especially when
> that adherence is beyond the scope of that principle. You have ignored my
> insistence that principle be properly applied, and the limits of that
> application must be part and parcel of it's derivation. Your wits must be
> used to properly apply what you know, but that is not the same as rejecting
> the ability to know anything in the abstract. I have been clear about this,
> and so are the intellectual heros that I recommend you investigate.
No, I certainly didn't ignore that insistence, and am unaware that,
once you made it, I raised the point again. What you've responded to
directly above is merely me characterizing my earlier example... not
reiterative polemic (however it may sound).
Victor Velazquez
> and is more of a true conservative
What the hell does that even mean anymore?
calvin
A fragment quoted out of context doesn't
mean anything to anybody.
Jason Gaylor
Re: obama, then palin. oh boy.
From: bambe...@gmail.com (Sure,Not)
On Aug 29, 9:56 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:33:43 -0700 (PDT), death from above
<cerebureaucr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
and, it's getting funny. obama side is accusing palin of lack of
experience. hmmm.
and themccainteam, which made fun of obama's celebrity appeal, went with
a babe doll.
McCainhas been on TV shows *lots* more than Obama has. He's the
Hollywood celebrity. Obama picked hisrunningmatebecause
ofMcCain'sexperience ads. McCainpicked his to get dissatisfied
Clinton supporters and to bolster his big oil arguments.
Both pickedrunningmates for the single purpose of trying to get elected.
Her opening "speech" appears to be designed to show her as "folk".
Certainly they can't compete with Obama as orators, but Reagan showed
how to win as folk, and GWB followed that pattern.
-- Are you
implying that Obama is a good Orator? Obama speaks like a 5th grader.
-- If
that's the case, McCain must be in preschool because he's a terrible
speaker. Obama doesn't have to constantly read a teleprompter or a
speech off a piece of paper that has been written for him. The point is,
Obama can speak from the heart which McCain has a hard time doing and it
makes McCain seem phony while people are able to relate to Obama. Get
it. Jason
Victor Velazquez
In this case, I fail to see how the context matters.
calvin
Oh. Then I gather you want my definition of 'true
conservative'. I'll just list a few things that I think
are important:
1) appreciation of, and defense of, capitalism
2) appreciation of, and defense of, established social values
3) appreciation of, and defense of, the U.S.A.
4) appreciation of, and defense of, the Allies in WWII
5) understanding of, and refutation of, socialism
6) understanding of, and refutation of, communism
7) understanding of, and appreciation of, these primary virtues:
a) independence
b) integrity
c) productiveness
d) honesty
e) justice
f) pride
8) fundamental, but not obsessive, separation of church and state
9) understanding of, and appreciation of, the U.S. Constitution
10) understanding of the need for a Constitutional approach
to the judicial system, especially the Supreme Court.
I could go on, but that should give you an idea of what I
mean by 'true conservative'.
George Peatty
wrote:
>I could go on, but that should give you an idea of what I
>mean by 'true conservative'.
[*keeper file*]
Well said, sir ..
calvin
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:43:41 -0700 (PDT), calvin <cri...@windstream.net>
> wrote:
> > I could go on, but that should give you an idea of what I
> > mean by 'true conservative'.
>
> [*keeper file*]
>
> Well said, sir ..
Thanks. I should add that the list of six virtues did not
originate with me.
steve
On 3-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Marxism is ill-suited to humans as we believe them to be... but
> perfectly suited to humans as Marx believed them to be.
That's a bit tautological, but I guess I can see what you mean. Even so,
his def of value and quantitative calculation of exploitation are
independant of the characterization of man, so your statement can only
extend to his more general philosophical statements (alienation, etc.).
> And, indeed, your point of view seems to deserve more than a glib
> observation that "the winners write history". I'm just leery of
> disparaging as moronic any once-widely accepted serious doctrine,
> however wrong it's since been shown.
Well, since Maxism was used as a justification for the slaughter and
oppression of countless millions, is still widely well regarded in the
insular world of higher education, and I see what may be evidence of his
ideas in film and literiture, Id say it's more important to get it right
than to spare the feelings of the ghost of Karl Marx. Moreover, his
rhetoric is seemingly intentionally confusing, so I even wonder if he
himself knew it was unsupportable and atempted to obviscate his own error.
It was a revelation to me to learn that Marx read Adam Smith et al, as I had
assumed his bogus economic theories came out of sheer ignorance. I will not
credit him for an achievement when he simply undid the good work of others
(with which he was familiar), and inspired such massive murder and
starvation. He did not contribute. He misunderstood or maliciously
contradicted the good work thet cam before him. He was (and still is, to
some extent) a purely destructive force.
> A free market is a construct for determining the 'worth' of
> things ...wherein 'worth' is defined as the value assigned by a free
> market.
More accurately, a free market is a mechanism for allocating resources and
creating and/or bringing goods and services to consumers. It was Marx's
error to focus on value (worth, as you put it) as a concept. A price has no
objective meaning, but it does carry information (highly distilled and
encoded) regarding subjective preferences and the availability of resources.
No further meaning should be read into it, and certainly no philosophical
or moral judgements depend upon it.
> No, I certainly didn't ignore that insistence, and am unaware that,
> once you made it, I raised the point again. What you've responded to
> directly above is merely me characterizing my earlier example... not
> reiterative polemic (however it may sound).
Fair enough. I missed that. As long as we agree that "blind adherence" is
error, the question becomes one of careful application. Can I now conclude
that we both agree on the potential value, there? And, if so, isnt it then
a question, as I said up front, of the correctness of the particular
ideology and not of application of ideologies in general?
Derek Janssen
> (One can only look forward to that. ^_^) By "headlines", I assume you
> mean such as 'Fundie Mother Lets Daughter Die of Common
> Cold' ...sorry, but I don't frequent that supermarket.
Yes. Exactly like those.
Only nowadays, they're not at the supermarket, they're on CNN, who knows
they can play to those who LIKE to wring their hands raw about the Bush era.
> Meanwhile, I
> think you'd find that, far from believing himself the "only smart
> person left", a long-standing atheist takes no more 'pride' in his non-
> belief than he does in having once been weaned.
Oh, it's pride, all right--It's that sort of backward-looped "Fear me,
world, I'm CYNICAL!" martyr-wannabe self-worth that demands attention
when it can't get sympathy, and then turns it into shock value when
those easy ratings seem tastier.
That's when it puts out its shingle "Don't any of you stupid people
wanna beat up on me, 'cause I'm so politically incorrect?...I'll say
something about Bush!"
> (Moreover, I'm afraid
> I don't see how all this fits into the discussion where you injected
> it.)
(Well, let's see, think the whole "Headline fantasy" discussion started
when you were suckered into THIS week's private month-long Calvin
discussion, because you believed that by taking on *one* sad
spotlight-starved nutcase, you were taking on The World, instead of just
one sad spotlight-starved nutcase.
Sort of makes Calvin glad to know he's your own private Loopy Red-State
teddy bear to hug, even when no one else will talk seriously to him for
the last two years now.)
Derek Janssen (see how it works?)
eja...@verizon.net
Derek Janssen
Which would be hard to do, now that Verizon has joined the servers that
have finally pulled their plug on the wild, barbarous lands of the
entire Altopia network.
Had to lose alt.video.dvd in the process, although can't speak for other
systems.
Derek Janssen (we lost so much Internet porn that day, but we learn to
move on)
eja...@verizon.net
Derek Janssen
>>
>>>>You obviously haven't spent any time in alt.atheism ..
>>>
>>>None, ever. But I can't help wondering why you have.
>>
>>And, trust me, if you want to know where the atheists are, hang out in the
>>religious newsgroups. alt.bible is full of them, so much so that they
>>poison the well for any of us seeking a "fellowship of kindred minds"
>
> I can imagine that's where atheists are, although I'd hope not "the"
> atheists. Meanwhile, although I don't know what goes on in those
> various groups, I've always been personally fond of the observation
> that there's no more devout Believer than a Blasphemer...
Athies not only believe that any two people talking about faith
constitute a Growing Fundamentalist Theocracy, but that said conspiracy
will gasp, reach for their smelling salts, and and try to burn them at
the stake if they trot out the same-ol'-lame-ol' Bill Maher jokes.
In fact, there seems to be almost an insecurity, to the point of
ungrounding *fear* on their part, that the Outside World might NOT be
like that, because then they'd be left outside the back door again,
which is why they hang around what they hope are happy-fundie-land
places where their fantasy can live safe and preserved:
Over on one of the other groups, one of the standard journeyman
Shock-hogs tried [OT]'ing this week's latest "Take that, Old Testament"
skeptic article--
I'd pointed out the obvious fact that 90% of most religions in this
country *don't* take the Old half at word value as opposed to
culture/metaphor, and it was, to coin a phrase, like telling them there
was no Santa Claus: Alric, for one, immediately responded with "No no
no, they do, they all do, it's true!--I had somebody at work like that!
And I saw it on the news!"...While another post wondered that because
I said something in world religion's defense, did that mean I wanted to
burn every homosexual at the stake, like he'd seen on the news?--Hah,
the very idea, saying that some people with normal faith were *good*, we
ALL know they're the lurking menace in our neighborhoods!
It's a truth about the human condition: Fear is addictive.
It's okay when you find yourself going to horror movies every week, but
when real fear of every anonymous human being outside your window *also*
becomes the one comforting anchor of your existence, that can ALSO
become a "deluded superstition" to pin one's entire moral belief about
the world upon, and to have the rug pulled out from underneath one's
psyche anytime reality intrudes.
And, well...those are *bad*, aren't they? ^_^
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
moviePig
Assuming I'm not more lost than I feel I am, I think we're good...
(*except* that an "incorrect" ideology seems much easier to prove than
a "correct" one... which you needn't tackle today...)
moviePig
I trust you mean to distinguish between "athies" and
atheists ...inasmuch as I approximate atheism much more closely than I
do any of the zealotry you describe. Meanwhile, if you're quoting
Alric from the Noah's-ark thread, it was crossposted to ramc-f ...and
what he said was that two of seven of his coworkers were Bible
literalists, and that it shocked him. And *I* was likewise shocked to
find some close family members (heavily religious) spreading the alarm
that Obama's a Muslim spy sworn in on the Koran. So, my (and maybe
Alric's) "paranoia" may be disproportionate, but it's not without
personal grounds.
moviePig
> moviePig wrote:
> > (One can only look forward to that. ^_^) By "headlines", I assume you
> > mean such as 'Fundie Mother Lets Daughter Die of Common
> > Cold' ...sorry, but I don't frequent that supermarket.
>
> Yes. Exactly like those.
> Only nowadays, they're not at the supermarket, they're on CNN, who knows
> they can play to those who LIKE to wring their hands raw about the Bush era.
>
> > Meanwhile, I
> > think you'd find that, far from believing himself the "only smart
> > person left", a long-standing atheist takes no more 'pride' in his non-
> > belief than he does in having once been weaned.
>
> Oh, it's pride, all right--It's that sort of backward-looped "Fear me,
> world, I'm CYNICAL!" martyr-wannabe self-worth that demands attention
> when it can't get sympathy, and then turns it into shock value when
> those easy ratings seem tastier.
> That's when it puts out its shingle "Don't any of you stupid people
> wanna beat up on me, 'cause I'm so politically incorrect?...I'll say
> something about Bush!"
I fear I'd need names and affidavits here. I'm not aware of any such
behavior by me or any of my usual Usenet correspondents. (And I'm the
most cynical person you'll find who can tie his own shoes.)
> > (Moreover, I'm afraid
> > I don't see how all this fits into the discussion where you injected
> > it.)
>
> (Well, let's see, think the whole "Headline fantasy" discussion started
> when you were suckered into THIS week's private month-long Calvin
> discussion, because you believed that by taking on *one* sad
> spotlight-starved nutcase, you were taking on The World, instead of just
> one sad spotlight-starved nutcase.
> Sort of makes Calvin glad to know he's your own private Loopy Red-State
> teddy bear to hug, even when no one else will talk seriously to him for
> the last two years now.)
>
> (see how it works?)
I don't know which "private conversation" (though none of them *is*,
of course) you're referring to. But if you imagine that I joust with
Calvin to symbolically vanquish "The World", then you are, as they
say, so far from right that you're not even wrong. I'm not about to
analyze here why anyone "talks to" anyone (including the *many* others
who, from time to time, also talk to Calvin)... but before you go
shooting from the hip, you might want to consider how many possible
targets there are in that gallery, even if you could hit one...
(E.g., maybe I'm jealous of Calvin's relationship with Bush... or with
Trotsky...)
Derek Janssen
>
> I don't know which "private conversation" (though none of them *is*,
> of course) you're referring to. But if you imagine that I joust with
> Calvin to symbolically vanquish "The World", then you are, as they
> say, so far from right that you're not even wrong.
Of course not--It's *not* about Calvin being your symbolic
Fundie-Bopping toy...
You LIKE it when posters turn any imaginable movie-related subject into
the exact same Marxism-vs.-capitalism discussion, and delve into
excruciating, repetitive detail with no end in sight.
EVERY WEEK. -_-
Derek Janssen (there's just so much to explore!)
eja...@verizon.net
steve
On 3-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Assuming I'm not more lost than I feel I am, I think we're good...
Id call that progress.
> (*except* that an "incorrect" ideology seems much easier to prove than
> a "correct" one... which you needn't tackle today...)
Yup. One step at a time.
moviePig
> moviePig wrote:
>
> > I don't know which "private conversation" (though none of them *is*,
> > of course) you're referring to. But if you imagine that I joust with
> > Calvin to symbolically vanquish "The World", then you are, as they
> > say, so far from right that you're not even wrong.
>
> Of course not--It's *not* about Calvin being your symbolic
> Fundie-Bopping toy...
> You LIKE it when posters turn any imaginable movie-related subject into
> the exact same Marxism-vs.-capitalism discussion, and delve into
> excruciating, repetitive detail with no end in sight.
>
> EVERY WEEK. -_-
>
And, of course, you yourself don't read these countless
dialogatribes ...which I suppose explains, e.g., why you don't know
that Calvin's not a Fundie and that I claim very little expertise on
Marxism or (as typically discussed) capitalism. But all of this does
thus raise a question about, say, the present 80-post thread
revealingly titled "obama then palin"... namely: What are you doing
here?
Derek Janssen
>>
>>>I don't know which "private conversation" (though none of them *is*,
>>>of course) you're referring to. But if you imagine that I joust with
>>>Calvin to symbolically vanquish "The World", then you are, as they
>>>say, so far from right that you're not even wrong.
>>
>>Of course not--It's *not* about Calvin being your symbolic
>>Fundie-Bopping toy...
>>You LIKE it when posters turn any imaginable movie-related subject into
>>the exact same Marxism-vs.-capitalism discussion, and delve into
>>excruciating, repetitive detail with no end in sight.
>>
>>EVERY WEEK. -_-
>>
>>(there's just so much to explore!)
>
> And, of course, you yourself don't read these countless
> dialogatribes ...which I suppose explains, e.g., why you don't know
> that Calvin's not a Fundie and that I claim very little expertise on
> Marxism or (as typically discussed) capitalism.
But he remains that comfortable, soothing psyche-reminder that as long
as their is still ONE nut-in-every-car on Usenet, the world's still full
of them, so Smart People can still be smug and paranoid of the entire
00's red-state world. Ahh. ^_^
(And given that Cal's already sensing that Rich-like desire to play
Neo-Cartoon Character as vaudeville-act for camp value and profit,
there'll always be a Supply and Demand.)
> But all of this does
> thus raise a question about, say, the present 80-post thread
> revealingly titled "obama then palin"... namely: What are you doing
> here?
Trying to wrap things up for disposal, now that Calvin's got another
dog-and-bone thread he won't let go of in his teeth for the next few
weeks, and trying to persuade his last loyal lil' pal the futility of it
all, what else?
Derek Janssen (hey, *I* wasn't the one who started responding to the
Gaza thread!)
eja...@verizon.net
calvin
> > thus raise a question about, say, the present 80-post thread
> > revealingly titled "obama then palin"... namely: What are you doing
> > here?
>
> Trying to wrap things up for disposal, now that Calvin's got another
> dog-and-bone thread he won't let go of in his teeth for the next few
> weeks, and trying to persuade his last loyal lil' pal the futility of it
> all, what else?
But mainly trying to be the hall monitor for a hall
that doesn't have or need a monitor.
David Oberman
>I can imagine that's where atheists are, although I'd hope not "the"
>atheists.
"God is nowhere," said the atheist. But the child heard "God is now
here."
____
There's a coach comin' in!
-- "Paint Your Wagon"
Victor Velazquez
> On Sep 3, 1:05 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <k-can...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> calvin wrote:
>>> On Sep 3, 12:40 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <k-can...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> calvin wrote:
>>>>> and is more of a true conservative
>>>> What the hell does that even mean anymore?
>>> A fragment quoted out of context doesn't
>>> mean anything to anybody.
>>
>> In this case, I fail to see how the context matters.
>
> Oh. Then I gather you want my definition of 'true
> conservative'. I'll just list a few things that I think
> are important:
Thank you!
> 1) appreciation of, and defense of, capitalism
I would think all Americans could get behind this one, not just true
conservatives. I am aware of those who think they don't, of course, I just
wonder how they'd fare under a different economic system.
> 2) appreciation of, and defense of, established social values
Which are...? I mean, I think family is a terrific social value, so I think
gays should be able to get married and adopt. I'm guessing a true
conservative would disagree?
> 3) appreciation of, and defense of, the U.S.A.
Values, ideals, Constitution, geography...? Maybe it's just me but that
seems kind of vague.
> 4) appreciation of, and defense of, the Allies in WWII
Didn't FDR appreciate and defend America's WWII allies? I don't suspect
you'd categorize him as a true conservative.
> 5) understanding of, and refutation of, socialism
Socialism can mean so many things, though. Do true conservatives refute
Denmark, for example? Do democratic institutions mitigate socialism or is
it just A Bad Thing no matter how it's implemented?
> 6) understanding of, and refutation of, communism
Are people still talking about this? Outside of Cuba and North Korea, I
mean.
> 7) understanding of, and appreciation of, these primary virtues:
> a) independence
> b) integrity
> c) productiveness
> d) honesty
> e) justice
> f) pride
I don't think one needs to be a conservative (true or otherwise) to
appreciate those virtues. Well, except for pride. Isn't that a no-no in
The Good Book?
> 8) fundamental, but not obsessive, separation of church and state
Why not obsessive? It was Goldwater, after all, who said that extremism in
the defense of liberty is no vice. Was he not a true conservative? I'd
always imagined he was but maybe he no longer qualifies.
> 9) understanding of, and appreciation of, the U.S. Constitution
If only our current administration were true conservatives.
> 10) understanding of the need for a Constitutional approach
> to the judicial system, especially the Supreme Court.
See above.
> I could go on, but that should give you an idea of what I
> mean by 'true conservative'.
Again, thanks! "Conservative" is used to defend so many seemingly
non-conservative policies (like, say, the war in Iraq) that your elucidation
was helpful. It sounds to me like a true conservative is not much different
than a "true liberal" (whatever the hell that means).
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > Oh. Then I gather you want my definition of 'true
> > conservative'. I'll just list a few things that I think
> > are important:
>
> Thank you!
>
take them to be rhetorical. I don't want to argue
about each point.
Stone me
>
>> 7) understanding of, and appreciation of, these primary virtues:
>> a) independence
>> b) integrity
>> c) productiveness
>> d) honesty
>> e) justice
>> f) pride
>
> I don't think one needs to be a conservative (true or otherwise) to
> appreciate those virtues. Well, except for pride. Isn't that a no-no in
> The Good Book?
>
In almost every list pride (or hubris or vanity) is considered the original
and most serious
of the seven deadly sins.. (Wiki)
Re: Integrity,honesty and justice, etc.
What about compassion,forgiveness,charity,service,and duty?
Do we owe each other nothing, expecting nothing in return?
Are we to have the philosophy of Scrooge at the moral centre
of society?
Is there a "we"? is there a society? Should we consider ourselves as
the wandering family groups did, who never got to settle in the first
communities, 8000 years ago?
Has nothing changed or improved since then?
Stone me.
calvin
As I said in another post, this list of virtues did not
originate with me. Here are the headers that are
given for them:
(In what follows, the word "men" refers to humans,
not to the male gender specifically.)
INDEPENDENCE as a primary orientation to reality,
not to other men
INTEGRITY as loyalty to rational principles
HONESTY as the rejection of unreality
JUSTICE as rationality in the evaluation of men
PRODUCTIVENESS as the adjustment of nature to man
PRIDE as moral ambitiousness
moviePig
(Why do I feel a lightning bolt's about to give me tights and a cape?)
steve
On 4-Sep-2008, "Stone me" <the...@open.com> wrote:
> What about compassion,forgiveness,charity,service,and duty?
> Do we owe each other nothing, expecting nothing in return?
> Are we to have the philosophy of Scrooge at the moral centre
> of society?
Good questions, actually. Id say we owe each other respect for liberty.
That certainly isnt nothing, and, in fact, it is all too rare. But I
imagine few people will be happy without some measure of compassion,
forgiveness, and charity (plus the satisfaction of a few other human needs
and desires). Service and duty are obligations we choose to take upon
ourselves, usually out of a sense of honor and compassion.
There is, however, an important difference between what we can and should
compel of people, and what people may voluntarily choose to do. If someone
respects my liberty and wants to live in isolation, so be it. He fullfills
his obligation to me, and I will not require him to do more. That is how I
fulfill my obligation to him.
But I think an understanding of, and respect for liberty actually fosters
the voluntary expression of the values you ask about. A voluntary act of
compassion should be appreciated far more than one that is coerced (if true
compassion can be coerced, that is). And if someone respects my liberty, I
will be pleasantly disposed towards him for that respect. Respect for
liberty does not imply a rejection of human values, nor does it require an
atomistic existence. The benefits of liberty are greatest when we take
advantage of voluntary association (economic and social) with others.
steve
steve
On 4-Sep-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > INTEGRITY as loyalty to rational principles
> >
> > HONESTY as the rejection of unreality
> >
> > JUSTICE as rationality in the evaluation of men
> >
> > PRODUCTIVENESS as the adjustment of nature to man
> >
> > PRIDE as moral ambitiousness
>
> (Why do I feel a lightning bolt's about to give me tights and a cape?)
Truth, justice, and a really gay outfit. Up, up, and away!
Jason Gaylor
Re: obama, then palin. oh boy.
(EDT-3) From: cri...@windstream.net (calvin)
I would take out #7 and 10, they certainly don't apply. That leaves you
with a far right, square, conformist, conservative republican.
Basically, what I abhore. Jason
calvin
> From: cri...@windstream.net (calvin)
> > ...Then I gather you want my definition of 'true conservative'. I'll
> > just list a few things that I think are important:
> > 1) appreciation of, and defense of, capitalism
> > 2) appreciation of, and defense of, established social values
> > 3) appreciation of, and defense of, the U.S.A.
> > 4) appreciation of, and defense of, the Allies in WWII
> > 5) understanding of, and refutation of, socialism
> > 6) understanding of, and refutation of, communism
> > 7) understanding of, and appreciation of, these primary virtues:
> > a) independence
> > b) integrity
> > c) productiveness
> > d) honesty
> > e) justice
> > f) pride
> > 8) fundamental, but not obsessive, separation of church and state
> > 9) understanding of, and appreciation of, the U.S. Constitution
> >10) understanding of the need for a Constitutional approach to the
> > judicial system, especially the Supreme Court.
> > I could go on, but that should give you an idea of what I mean by 'true
> > conservative'. --
> I would take out #7 and 10, they certainly don't apply. That leaves you
> with a far right, square, conformist, conservative republican.
> Basically, what I abhore. Jason
None of the six items in #7 apply to the meaning of
'true conservative'? It's true that some, eg. honesty,
also apply (one would hope) to 'true liberal'. But
conservatives care much more about independence,
and the related meaning of 'individual', than do liberals,
who seem to revere the collective. Ted Kennedy, for
example, said that we need to stamp out individualism.
As for #10, you're totally out of touch with conservatives
if you don't understand how much activist judges and
justices are despised, and how much conservatives want
judges and justices who will interpret the law and the
Constitution, and not legislate from the bench. This
is arguably the most important point of all, for true
conservatives.
steve
On 4-Sep-2008, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> As for #10, you're totally out of touch with conservatives
> if you don't understand how much activist judges and
> justices are despised, and how much conservatives want
> judges and justices who will interpret the law and the
> Constitution, and not legislate from the bench. This
> is arguably the most important point of all, for true
> conservatives.
Hi Calvin.
I'd add something to your list about the free exchange of ideas and free
speech, which are also important conservative values. They were once values
shared by both the left and the right, but the left has abandoned the notion
in favor of what they see as justified prohibtions (hate speech laws, for
example, or Obama attempting to silence critics through the justice dept.)
and control (the "fairness doctrine"). It's important to draw this
distonction between left and right.
Of course, the Repub nominee is a champion of campaign finance laws, which
is an obvious attack on speech. The Maverick often strays when he should
stay home.
steve