0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 02:46 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
There is no such thing as a right or wrong definition. I do however think ican's definitions to be contrary to popular understanding of the words he is atempting to define.


Exactly! There is no such thing as a "right or wrong definition."

Right again! My definitions are contrary to popular understanding of the words I am defining.

However, I think my definitions are more realistic definitions. They are practical substitutes for cutting away the misleading, confusing, and often propagandizing euphemistic definitions in current vogue. I claim the real battle is between those who want everyone to have more--neo-rightists--and those who want everyone to have less (that is, everyone except those seeking to enforce everyone having less)--neo-leftists.


You could drop the neos then, as there is no regular left or right to differentiate from.

I don't find your definitions very usefull though. People and parties align themselves acording to their wiews on egalitarianism, making it the natural unit by which to mesure one's position in the political spectrum. By your definitions the "neo-right" would occupy both ends of the traditional political spectrum, each demonizing the other, with the traditional totalitarian left denying belonging to the "neo-right" (leninist rethorick doesn't match your "neo-right" definition). The traditional definitions has nobody objecting to their position on the spectrum, and correctly display political allegiances.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 04:58 pm
Fresh bottle of Jose Querva Dys? Smile
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 07:08 pm
And some lime with that, Señor?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 07:31 pm
Hey Ican,

If the neo rightists want everyone to have more, then why did the company that I work for just announce that beginning 1 Jan, 2005, hourly workers will no longer receive employer match to the 401K plan. This came during a time of relative prosperity for the company.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I might think it had to do with the relaxing of "top heavy rules" for qualified plans. Top heavy rules were put in place to keep greedy bastards from designing plans that benefit themselves disproportionately.

Now back to Iraq and the normally scheduled program.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 08:37 pm
revel wrote:
I think the whole argument of 'neo left' is screwed up from the get go anyway.
I think the whole argument of left versus right, and the whole argument of liberal versus conservative are screwed up.

There are actions whose consequences limit what people accomplish, and their are actions whose consequences enhance what people accomplish. I have so far arbitrarily chosen to call those people whose actions generally limit what others accomplish neo-leftists, and those people whose actions generally enhance what people accomplish neo-rightists.

Call them what you like--I actually prefer limitersversus enhancersmyself--the human conflict that matters now is between those people who, regardless of their motives, take actions that limit what people can accomplish and those people regardless of their motives that take actions that enhance what people can accomplish.

Limiters do not necessarily seek to limit people and may in fact often seek to enable them. However, what limiters actually accomplish is the limitation of human accomplishment. For example, limiting school choice for some parents leads to the growth of adults who as parents limit the accomplishments of their own children (e.g., criminals breeding criminals).

Enhancers do not necessarily seek to enhance people and may in fact often seek to limit them. However, what enhancers actually accomplish is the enhancement of human accomplishment. For example, taking actions which enhancing one's own accomplishments without regard to what others accomplish can nonetheless present others greater opportunity to accomplish more (e.g., an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur's employees, an entrepreneur's customers, and an entrepreneur's competitors).

I think limiting liberty of innocent people limits what they can accomplish, and enhancing the liberty of innocent people enhances what they can accomplish.

Requiring people to give away some of the fruits of their actions to others, limits the liberty of both those who are forced to give and those who receive what others have been forced to give.

People who call themselves liberal democrats favor a government that limits liberty and thereby actually hurts the common workers and people that work in factories and shift like jobs. People who call themselves conservative republicans favor a government that enhances liberty and thereby actually helps the common workers and people that work in factories and shift like jobs get better jobs and job rewards.

People wo call themselves liberal democrats favor programs to help those that need it but succeed mainly in entrapping such people in generation after generation of dependency on the preferences of others. People who call themselves conservative republicans favor a government that secures everyone's liberty and thereby frees people to depend on themselves and not be subjected to the preferences of others.

Much of the tax money that goes into government goes into the pockets of government employees or is used by politicians to buy votes. Only a relatively small portion goes into the national defense system, the civil and criminal justice systems, and the collision avoidance systems.

Saddam and Al Qaeda constitute a group of limiters. George Bush and his administration constitute a group of enhancers.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 08:54 pm
mesquite wrote:
Hey Ican,

If the neo rightists want everyone to have more, then why did the company that I work for just announce that beginning 1 Jan, 2005, hourly workers will no longer receive employer match to the 401K plan. This came during a time of relative prosperity for the company.
Perhaps because your company's owners are actually neo-leftists. Or perhaps because your company's relative prosperity is an illusion.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 09:27 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Perhaps because your company's owners are actually neo-leftists. Or perhaps because your company's relative prosperity is an illusion.


Perhaps there really is a tooth fairy.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 12:47 am
People on this thread make the mistake of arguing with Ican. It can't be done. Ican is like one of those toys with the inane grin and the big ass which always pops up when you knock it down.
But the toys are amusing and more instructive.

There was a satirical programme on TV here last night, on the subject of the US elections, which said

"Sponsored by Fox News- "Keeping America in fear since 1996""
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 07:34 am
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
I think the whole argument of 'neo left' is screwed up from the get go anyway.
I think the whole argument of left versus right, and the whole argument of liberal versus conservative are screwed up.

There are actions whose consequences limit what people accomplish, and their are actions whose consequences enhance what people accomplish. I have so far arbitrarily chosen to call those people whose actions generally limit what others accomplish neo-leftists, and those people whose actions generally enhance what people accomplish neo-rightists.

Call them what you like--I actually prefer limitersversus enhancersmyself--the human conflict that matters now is between those people who, regardless of their motives, take actions that limit what people can accomplish and those people regardless of their motives that take actions that enhance what people can accomplish.

Limiters do not necessarily seek to limit people and may in fact often seek to enable them. However, what limiters actually accomplish is the limitation of human accomplishment. For example, limiting school choice for some parents leads to the growth of adults who as parents limit the accomplishments of their own children (e.g., criminals breeding criminals).

Enhancers do not necessarily seek to enhance people and may in fact often seek to limit them. However, what enhancers actually accomplish is the enhancement of human accomplishment. For example, taking actions which enhancing one's own accomplishments without regard to what others accomplish can nonetheless present others greater opportunity to accomplish more (e.g., an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur's employees, an entrepreneur's customers, and an entrepreneur's competitors).

I think limiting liberty of innocent people limits what they can accomplish, and enhancing the liberty of innocent people enhances what they can accomplish.

Requiring people to give away some of the fruits of their actions to others, limits the liberty of both those who are forced to give and those who receive what others have been forced to give.

People who call themselves liberal democrats favor a government that limits liberty and thereby actually hurts the common workers and people that work in factories and shift like jobs. People who call themselves conservative republicans favor a government that enhances liberty and thereby actually helps the common workers and people that work in factories and shift like jobs get better jobs and job rewards.

People wo call themselves liberal democrats favor programs to help those that need it but succeed mainly in entrapping such people in generation after generation of dependency on the preferences of others. People who call themselves conservative republicans favor a government that secures everyone's liberty and thereby frees people to depend on themselves and not be subjected to the preferences of others.

Much of the tax money that goes into government goes into the pockets of government employees or is used by politicians to buy votes. Only a relatively small portion goes into the national defense system, the civil and criminal justice systems, and the collision avoidance systems.

Saddam and Al Qaeda constitute a group of limiters. George Bush and his administration constitute a group of enhancers.


From what I can tell the only differences between the limiters and the enhancers is that the enhancers do the same things as the limiters they just don't want to pay for it.

The reason for that being is that when it comes right down to it, the majority of Americans do not want to do away with programs but they want lower taxes so George Bush plays up that unpractical wish.

On the whole Americans do not want to do away with Social Security or unemployment checks. When asked, I bet they don't want to do away with welfare. I imagine that they do not want to do away with public schools or head start or law enforcement or the military.

But if you ask them if they want "more freedom" by having "less taxes" they will say "yes."

Those ideas that really do draw a distinction between republicans and democrats have been unpopular. Such as trying to take away over time pay and not raising the minimum wage.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 09:44 am
Mctag writes
Quote:
People on this thread make the mistake of arguing with Ican. It can't be done


Of course it can. Most of you do. Your challenge is, however, that you have to use realities of the way things are, not the way the neoleftists (or the neocons for that matter) spin things, to formulate an argument against his that won't look foolish, incompetent, uneducated, or blindly partisan. Those with a personal agenda try to fit realities into their arguments to further that agenda and often in the process will distort or ignore the realities. The intellectually honest rarely do that.

I put Ican in the intellectually honest camp. He has a long time on earth, a blessing of having most of his marbles left, and a fantastic knowledge and sense of history on his side.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 09:47 am
Why don't Ican bring up some actual policies we can debate? I'm getting tired of this game of making up lables.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 10:05 am
I don't like debating lables either Einherjar. I like debating the realities of an issue. I think there is plenty of room for multiple points of view on any issue, and if we all allow for different points of view to be put out there, the intellectually honest of us will usually agree on one as the most accurate.

The issue of the Iraq war is probably an exception, however. I can sympathise with those who did not want us to invade Iraq. (I was one of them). I since then have seen what they found when they went in and, for me, that was sufficient justification for the invasion. I will not accept that George Bush acted rashly or imprudently when he had consulted appropriately and had a huge majority consenting to the decision at the time it was made.

I will accept that it has been a mess, but no more so than any other war has been. And I am in the camp that once we make the decision to go to war, the honorable national emphasis has to be for the well being and success of the troops. There is no other reasonable objective than to win the war and accomplish the objective. We can do that with our people behind the effort.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 10:20 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't like debating lables either Einherjar. I like debating the realities of an issue. I think there is plenty of room for multiple points of view on any issue, and if we all allow for different points of view to be put out there, the intellectually honest of us will usually agree on one as the most accurate.


Shocked I almost agree with that. I would add though that ofthen intelectually honest people have to settle for agreing to disagree, because of different emphasis on value judgements.

Quote:
The issue of the Iraq war is probably an exception, however. I can sympathise with those who did not want us to invade Iraq. (I was one of them). I since then have seen what they found when they went in and, for me, that was sufficient justification for the invasion. I will not accept that George Bush acted rashly or imprudently when he had consulted appropriately and had a huge majority consenting to the decision at the time it was made.


This issue has been debated enough already. Still, I cant help pointing out that GB didn't have a huge majority consenting to his desicion to invade Iraq at the time he made the desicion. That consent was conjured up while the troops were driving trough the desert.

Quote:
I will accept that it has been a mess, but no more so than any other war has been. And I am in the camp that once we make the decision to go to war, the honorable national emphasis has to be for the well being and success of the troops.


I can't express how much I disagree with that, my possition is that it is intelectually dishonest to have a different opinion of a war depending only on wether it is being fought or not.

Quote:
There is no other reasonable objective than to win the war and accomplish the objective. We can do that with our people behind the effort.


The objectives should stay unchanged regardless of wether or not a war has been engaged in.


But enough of Iraq, I agree with you that debating lables is silly, and wish for Ican to break his lables up innto issues which we can debate in detail.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 10:32 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Mctag writes
Quote:
People on this thread make the mistake of arguing with Ican. It can't be done


Of course it can. Most of you do. Your challenge is, however, that you have to use realities of the way things are, not the way the neoleftists (or the neocons for that matter) spin things, to formulate an argument against his that won't look foolish, incompetent, uneducated, or blindly partisan. Those with a personal agenda try to fit realities into their arguments to further that agenda and often in the process will distort or ignore the realities. The intellectually honest rarely do that.

I put Ican in the intellectually honest camp. He has a long time on earth, a blessing of having most of his marbles left, and a fantastic knowledge and sense of history on his side.


OK, foxfrye, I'll bite.

You gave us your admiration of Ican and put him in the "intellectually honest camp." I assume that you have those you consider to either be "intellectually dishonest" or just plain intellectually deficient that are here on this board in this particular thread since what prompted that glowing praise of Ican was McTag's assertion that to argue with Ican is a waste of time. You were not shy about saying who you thought was intellectually honest because he has a lot of years on this earth and has managed to keep his marbles. So maybe you won't be shy about who you feel on this thread is intellectually dishonest or who has lost their marbles and the reason for that opinion.

You may not be convinced that bush did not rush to war but a lot of other people disagree with your conviction. Their reasons are not a distortion of reality merely because their convictions are the opposite of yours or others who agree with you.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 10:36 am
Quote:
This issue has been debated enough already. Still, I cant help pointing out that GB didn't have a huge majority consenting to his desicion to invade Iraq at the time he made the desicion. That consent was conjured up while the troops were driving trough the desert.



Quote:
I can't express how much I disagree with that, my possition is that it is intelectually dishonest to have a different opinion of a war depending only on wether it is being fought or not.


Einherjar, those are interesting comments. The first is true, of course, and the second is compelling.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 10:40 am
Im just amazed that ican, even when pressed with evidence contrary to his belief, will merely evade the evidence and continue his belief. In that respect hes much like the Bush administration. Thhey are still arguing the WMD issue as if it were a fact. No skin off my nose, its just a lot of fun when most people try a new piece of data on him and he just rejects it . Thats not "intellectually honest" its something else that , politeness in mind, I cannot fully discuss.

BUT, It is funny.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 10:56 am
Hey, it was a joke; no emoticon admittedly, but really just an attempt to be rude and sarcastic at the expense of another human being. I should be ashamed of myself.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 11:28 am
We've all done that. At least you admit it and express regret.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 11:33 am
Kara wrote:
Quote:
This issue has been debated enough already. Still, I cant help pointing out that GB didn't have a huge majority consenting to his desicion to invade Iraq at the time he made the desicion. That consent was conjured up while the troops were driving trough the desert.



Quote:
I can't express how much I disagree with that, my possition is that it is intelectually dishonest to have a different opinion of a war depending only on wether it is being fought or not.


Einherjar, those are interesting comments. The first is true, of course, and the second is compelling.


Thanks Cool
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 01:30 pm
Ican is not without 'perception'.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/20/2025 at 04:48:59