Where are all dem leftist terrorists? (another political thread)

[GingerV]

If you want left wing terrorists, you're more than welcome to have our animal rights activists. No box cutters or explosives from the ALF yet, but nail bombs qualify them nicely I think.

G

 

[amicus]

Joe, I wish you the best in your college years, but even you should recognize your posts come across a little wet behind the ears.

That is not a bad thing, we all must learn and to learn, means to begin at the beginning.

The transition from witchdoctors and priests of antiquity to a formal study of philosophy, a search for knowledge, outside the box of faith based assumptions was an important time is the history of mans quest.

You dismiss it much to lightly.


and your snotty brief, 'man must be governed' is an indication that you truly do not understand the nature of man.

Nor do I, perhaps, but at least I try.

amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

Wordplay; not punny.

I see so 'right make right' right?

You are confusing your terms. By this definition, I suppose you believe it is 'wrong' to use your *left hand. (It's not the *right hand after all.

Political Left and Political Right (also refered to as left wing and right wing) are *directions* ie, leaning to the left, leaning to the right.

I think you already know this, and your misuse of the word to make your point has undoubtedly not missed anyone's dicernment.

It's like saying the moon in the sky is the same as when you show someone your ass.

Or that the light that illuminates a room is the same as an object that isn't heavy or one that is low in callories. In fact it sort of reminds me of the misleading packaging practices manufacturers used (before it was regulated away) of calling a product 'lite' when they hadn't reduced fat or colloring, but had actually only lightened the coloring of the product. (another meaning of the word right.

I believe that you are attempting to purposly mislead with your definition distortion. Perhaps you are just trying to be clever. Whatever. Just because it sounds good doesn't make it correct.

Your 'definitions' or right and left are just flat out wrong. At least as applied to politics. Not only that, but it's rediculous.

As an educated man, you should know better.

Long ago, after completing course work at four universities, I began post graduate work with the intent of becoming a University instructor. My chosen field was Philosophy, namely the the Greeks from the time of Thales.

I had other minor interests, such as Political Science and Colonial American History.

The reason I put that quest aside is well illustrated by the bitter, vicious, subjective personal attacks on this forum thread.

American education, at all levels has a parasitic infestation of Marxist, anti-freedom teachers and professors. The method is quite similar regardless of where one goes. It deterioates from a disagreement in principle, to a level of petty academic bickering over semantics.

It is quite true that the development of political parties in the western world is complex and convoluted. Which is why I have never declared to 'be' an advocate of any party. As a few experts at political manipulation and intellectual chicanery on this forum know well, one can find statistics, meanings and even definitions to fit ones purpose.

Right and Left in terms of defining political viewpoints, does not serve well to engender understanding of the two opposite extremes in political thought.

Although I am fond of the word, 'right' and it is easy to use 'left' in opposition, it is, of course, not accurate.

That is not the point. Those of the left know exactly the mind set of control and regulation to which I refer. They also know, but will not face or admit, that it is a 'power' trip. The so called, 'intellectual snob' of the left looking down their noses at the unwashed 'collective' of lesser beings.

All the 'peace corps' freaks, the ecologists, the environmentalists, the altruistic 'do-gooders', social democrats, liberals, et al, ad nauseum, share one common goal, they wish to rule, to control, to guide, direct and manage the lives of others..

Perhaps instead of 'right' and 'left' I will revert to a more clear enunciation of the extremes, namely, 'free' and 'slave'.

In a fond farewell to that lovely word, 'Right', I offer, from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, The Unabridged edition:


right, adj:

1. In accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.

2. In conformity with fact, reason, or some standard of principle; correct, the right solution.

3. Correct in judgement, opinion, or action.

4. Sound or normal, as the mind; to be in one's right mind.


Now...there are 62 total examples of the use of the word, 'right' and I will not type them all, but you get the idea, I think.


Thus, since the liberal left wing kerryites in the Presidential campaign lack the courage to even advocate a party platform, or to express the principles of liberal politics, they have reverted to name calling and a pissing contest about military service. Kerry saluting the audience at the democrats convention, that video clip will haunt the party until Kerry is but a footnote.

So, no more right and left wing, no more conservatives, republicans or neocons, no more liberals, leff wing, democrats, social democrats, socialists, marxists....et cetera.

Free= (your definition)

Slave =(your definition)

Not that it matters....(the turtle in Neverending Story)


amicus...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

*gasp*

People are using their own definitions of words because its convenient, independant of their actual definition?

The devil you say...

 

[sweetnpetite]

*gasp*

People are using their own definitions of words because its convenient, independant of their actual definition?

The devil you say...

just about as bad as using archaic or acedemic definitions of words in a social situation, vs the accepted and valid usage of the 'common man.'

the devil I say...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
just about as bad as using archaic or acedemic definitions of words in a social situation, vs the accepted and valid usage of the 'common man.'

the devil I say...

Is it as bad as using dictionary definitions in an argument versus the highly subjective "common man" and "accepted" rule of thumb? I'd wager amicus has an argument for how common and accepted /his/ definitions are, too.

And isn't this a social situation? And aren't you appealing to basic academic definitions of "right"?

I must be confused. Looks like an argument, but I mistake those for "social situations" all the time.

(this is why scholarly communities in academia exist and why professional organizations actively use their lexicon, subjective language for preference is an unproductive annoyance)

The devil I say...

 

[Pure]

Amicus said,

Long ago, after completing course work at four universities, I began post graduate work with the intent of becoming a University instructor. My chosen field was Philosophy, namely the the Greeks from the time of Thales.

I had other minor interests, such as Political Science and Colonial American History.

The reason I put that quest aside is well illustrated by the bitter, vicious, subjective personal attacks on this forum thread.

American education, at all levels has a parasitic infestation of Marxist, anti-freedom teachers and professors. The method is quite similar regardless of where one goes. It deterioates from a disagreement in principle, to a level of petty academic bickering over semantics.

Let me translate.
Amicus started to study GreekPhilosophy at the graduate level. He couldn't hack it, and failed or was tossed out. He decided to blame "Marxists" since as we know, so many are in the field of ancient Greek philosophy! (NOT!)

It's also relevant to note that Amicus' hero, Ayn Rand, finds philosophy pre Plato, to be religious nonsense.

She finds Plato to be a fascist.

She admires only Aristotle among all this group (indeed amongst all well known philosophers).

One can see that this view might not sit well in a classical philosophy milieu--

even had Amicus been able to concentrate on Aristotle (whom, like Plato, he shows no evidence of having studied seriously....yeh, I know, the Marxists kept him from it....).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

he shows no evidence of having studied seriously...

That's for damn sure.

 

[amicus]

sweetnpetite....et al advocates of 'slavery'

The devil you say...thas cute...I like that...

Why doncha y'all just come out and stand up for your principles? Even in 'common' language?

Most of the world practiced and defended slavery at one time or another.

Why not just admit up front that you feel you have not only a 'right' but an obligation to tax the peasants and administer their needs for they are not capable?

I would accept that.

I would disagree and debate you, but at least you would have your principles in order.

As it is, you have no expressed principles, only specific issues.

Advocates of 'slavery' from time immemorial have justified their oppression in many ways, Divine Right, Rule of the Majority, MIght makes Right, Benevolent Dictator, Monarchical blood lines.

At least they had some justification for enslaving their fellow men.

I ask you again. What are your principles?

Or are they so self evident I am a fool to ask?


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Pure, ya ole twit or is that twat...

My post graduate work was in Colonial American History, not that it matters.......

And it is quite true, I am not a scholar, never was, never will be, do not aspire to be.

I notice you do not debate that 90 percent of college professors vote for the democrat party.

Stumbled on that statistic somewhere did you?

amicus chuckles...

 

[Pure]

Just out of idle curiousity, Amicus, What society, post 1700 do you consider to be the 'freest' as you define it (or the least infected with 'slavery.') State the society/country AND the time period.

What time and place most warms your little rightwing corporate heart?
(Even if only a rough aproximation to the roseate dreams of Ayn Rand.)

I'd suppose it's a time when corporations were recognized, but untrammeled with the niceties of laws limiting work to 12 hours a day, 7 days a week; ones keeping 5 year olds out of mineshafts, etc.

According to you, these laws mark the beginning of enslavement of the working person, no doubt

I guess that would make the best time, the late 19th century US, or mid 19th century England.

Of course I can hear it coming that things were pretty damn fine in the US, under the Articles of Confederation, if one ignores black slavery.

 

[amicus]

Just out of idle curiousity, Pure, as I am finally caught up on the mailbox...what is your real objection to a free society?

To answer your question, there is no particular age or era, country time or place that reflects a free society as I would envisage it.

The most exciting time might have been the period in the United States, between 1850 and about 1890. That period of time when the industrial revolution took root and machines began to take the place of human and animal labor.

Many things occured that cannot be applauded, the exploitation of imported labor, and yes, child labor. The unconcern for the land and the huge grants given railroad companines, the speculation by investors....and more...

This was a new and experimental time. Never before in the history of the world had such opportunities arisen.

Again, I have stated on other threads, I am not a scholar, I do not gain pleasure from a detailed myopic view of any one period of time. I truly enjoy considering the entire history of man, as well as it can be determined. And I am impressed by new ideas, as they occured at different times in world history.

I just reserve the right to think that human freedom, individual liberty and a free market place were responsible in raising the United States from Colonial Status to a world power in about a hundred years. That to me, was most impressive and attributle to an unfettered free market and a minimal amount of government influence.

Thanks for your post....amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

Is it as bad as using dictionary definitions in an argument versus the highly subjective "common man" and "accepted" rule of thumb? I'd wager amicus has an argument for how common and accepted /his/ definitions are, too.

And isn't this a social situation? And aren't you appealing to basic academic definitions of "right"?

I must be confused. Looks like an argument, but I mistake those for "social situations" all the time.

(this is why scholarly communities in academia exist and why professional organizations actively use their lexicon, subjective language for preference is an unproductive annoyance)

The devil I say...

I don't mean any common usage. I said 'valid and accepted' as in the ones in the dictionary that regular people use, not the 18th definition down, or the definition in specialized dictionaries ect.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Uh, duh!

Read my posts! When have I ever *not* stood up for my principles?

This *crap* about slavery is just that. A lot of bull-honkey.

I do not defend or employ slavery. I do not advocate it. I do not even advocate for *corporate slavery* in which the wage earner is slave to the corporation which employs it. (the hand that feeds)

IF you want to talk definitions-- I am a liberal. If you want to play your little word game with me here goes.

Tonight at dinner, serve yourself a conservative portion. Then serve your wife/dog/imaginary friend or whatever a nice *liberal* portion of food. Hmm. Wonder which one is better?

I wish neither to enslave nor to be enslaved. I practically a freakin' bohemian. I think we should all run around naked and pick food off the trees when we're hungry and smash all the clocks (which I do happen to think enslave us) and live and work and eat and play and die by the pull of the stars and the pull of our hearts.

I believe many more things too, and they are worn pretty much on my sleeve.

So show me where the hell I believe in slavery *just because I'm not a right wing libertarian*

OK< end rant.

sweetnpetite....et al advocates of 'slavery'

The devil you say...thas cute...I like that...

Why doncha y'all just come out and stand up for your principles? Even in 'common' language?

Most of the world practiced and defended slavery at one time or another.

Why not just admit up front that you feel you have not only a 'right' but an obligation to tax the peasants and administer their needs for they are not capable?

I would accept that.

I would disagree and debate you, but at least you would have your principles in order.

As it is, you have no expressed principles, only specific issues.

Advocates of 'slavery' from time immemorial have justified their oppression in many ways, Divine Right, Rule of the Majority, MIght makes Right, Benevolent Dictator, Monarchical blood lines.

At least they had some justification for enslaving their fellow men.

I ask you again. What are your principles?

Or are they so self evident I am a fool to ask?


amicus...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
not the 18th definition down, or the definition in specialized dictionaries ect.

Much agreed.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The devil I say...

The devil I am.

amicus, you're cute. And such a sexy little ass to boot. Just one question: Was Nixon a marxist for creating the EPA? Minor note: You remind me a lot of strong heroic Captain Ripper from "How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb".

Pure, Colly, sorry about the historical whoops. My bad. Probably best on my part to leave the point open and let both of you take care of the speculation.


P.S. Why is my thread being hijacked by the next episode of amicus pissing off the world? He's an anarchist in a business suit and will die soon. There is no point in arguing with him about that. Let's all give him a free copy of the Sex Pistols and be done with it.

 

[amicus]

Sweetnpetite...hip chick


"I wish neither to enslave nor to be enslaved. I practically a freakin' bohemian. I think we should all run around naked and pick food off the trees when we're hungry and smash all the clocks (which I do happen to think enslave us) and live and work and eat and play and die by the pull of the stars and the pull of our hearts."


I have a few times...once on an island in the bahamas and another by a lake in florida, near gainesville (courtesy of a co ed) lived the carefree life without a clock...or any other encumbrage of modern life.

But...I always came back...

I just had a 'liberal' portion of steak and eggs, much prefer that, thank you.

amicus