What World War III May Look Like

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Straw man arguments and arrogant "maybe you will have a better understanding of the subject matter if you..." statements don't amount to a rebuttal if you missed the point that was being made in the first place.

Even if they do take two hours to type...

When I am asked questions and I answer them, it is not a statement. It is an answer.

You mean the point that I am off topic or do you mean the point that if someone does not agree with your far-left, socialist, hate filled extremist views then they are arrogant straw men. Why are you filled with so much hate? All I point out is that these policies that you whole-heartedly advocate have failed every single time they have been tried. The definition of mental illness is when you keep trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It does not work no matter how much you feel in your heart that it should. Use your head man! Because I see only hate in your heart.

I was just giving Steven some reading material that may open his eyes a little. Sometimes the people that talk about having an open-mind, are the ones that have closed their minds the tightest. All the arguments that come out of the left play on peoples emotions and not their intelligence. These were not partisan books by any means. I know that Steven has some conservative views about family and relationships from another web-site. I am trying to get to the bottom of the disconnect between his politics and his family views. Sometimes it is from indoctrination and not critical thinking.

"Maybe you will have a better understanding of the subject matter if you keep an open mind. The media has blasted you with their messages for so long that you close your mind to the fact that they may be wrong. : " Is not meant to be an arrogant statement. For God's sake I put a smiley face after it!

My ancestors came from England to America in 1760. I hope that the number 2 that you spew out of your mouth Number 6, is not the feelings of the average Englishman. Because if it is, it tarnishes the pride that I have always felt towards the homeland of my ancestors. Your ideology is more at home in Cuba or Venezuela, then here in America or England.

Number 6 may God bless you and your family this coming New Year! B)

Edited January 3, 2008 by Don_Joy's Prince

[Peikko 1,575]

Is this 'the left is driven by feeling' the best you can do? Pathetic!

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Is this 'the left is driven by feeling' the best you can do? Pathetic!

No, I have more! Name an argument from the left that is not driven by emotion? Global-Warming, Class warfare, Poverty, Environmentalism, War....etc., are all emotion driven arguments. It is never are we solving the problems, are our policies working? It's all about the good intentions, guilt and sympathy. The left never cares if the problems get solved. If the problems get solved then their is no campaign issue for the next election. Liberalism is the most gutless choice a person can make. It never requires critical thinking, only feeling. You never have to explain what you think only that you feel. As long as you feel, it makes you feel that you are a good person. Even if the result of the policies that you advocate destroy the very people and things you claim to cherish and protect. Think about it. Then when they can't win an argument they resort to name calling.

Oh, and back to the topic. It is appeasement that will lead us into World War 3, not standing up for ourselves!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don,

Thanks for the thoughtful response, but perhaps you overlooked the part where I said I'm not asking those questions for you to answer but to expose the reality that the core principals or ideals that you outlined are open for debate, even among those who also agree with them. I'm sorry if that point got lost somehow and you certainly articulated your specific position on those issues, but again my point isn't to get into a discussion over how you interpret those core principles, but the mere fact that they leave a lot of room for many positions.

I'll give you an example. Take for instance your core principle of small government. How small is too small? How big does it have to be to no longer be small and comparitively speaking, was Clinton's presidency 'bigger' or 'smaller' than Bush's? Just on defining 'small government' alone, you'd find very compelling arguments made by traditional Conservatives who'd argue that Clinton's presidency was a 'smaller government' than Bush's. Small or big government is too ambiguous a term to stand on just on the basis that I don't think you'd find any candidate of either party say up front that they are in favor of 'big government'.

[natty bumppo 297]

Clinton's presidency size ... guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is ....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Straw man arguments and arrogant "maybe you will have a better understanding of the subject matter if you..." statements don't amount to a rebuttal if you missed the point that was being made in the first place.

Even if they do take two hours to type...

When I am asked questions and I answer them, it is not a statement. It is an answer.

You mean the point that I am off topic or do you mean the point that if someone does not agree with your far-left, socialist, hate filled extremist views then they are arrogant straw men. Why are you filled with so much hate? All I point out is that these policies that you whole-heartedly advocate have failed every single time they have been tried. The definition of mental illness is when you keep trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It does not work no matter how much you feel in your heart that it should. Use your head man! Because I see only hate in your heart.

I was just giving Steven some reading material that may open his eyes a little. Sometimes the people that talk about having an open-mind, are the ones that have closed their minds the tightest. All the arguments that come out of the left play on peoples emotions and not their intelligence. These were not partisan books by any means. I know that Steven has some conservative views about family and relationships from another web-site. I am trying to get to the bottom of the disconnect between his politics and his family views. Sometimes it is from indoctrination and not critical thinking.

"Maybe you will have a better understanding of the subject matter if you keep an open mind. The media has blasted you with their messages for so long that you close your mind to the fact that they may be wrong. : " Is not meant to be an arrogant statement. For God's sake I put a smiley face after it!

My ancestors came from England to America in 1760. I hope that the number 2 that you spew out of your mouth Number 6, is not the feelings of the average Englishman. Because if it is, it tarnishes the pride that I have always felt towards the homeland of my ancestors. Your ideology is more at home in Cuba or Venezuela, then here in America or England.

Number 6 may God bless you and your family this coming New Year! B)

This is all rather ironic given your previous statement that "making emotional arguments" is somehow a disease of the left.

As far as being "full of hate" goes - I wonder what views of mine are the "hate-filled, extremist ones", or indeed what my ideology is that would make me at home in Venezuela or Cuba... Considering of course that I at least don't recall expressing my opinion on either of those countries. Perhaps you can enlighten me with regard to what it is that I said - because I seem to have forgotten it. Or perhaps it could be that I simply didn't say it - and that you've seen fit to typecast me and my views with some sort of cookie-cutter fits all interpretation. As I see it that's merely typical partisan hackery.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Don,

Thanks for the thoughtful response, but perhaps you overlooked the part where I said I'm not asking those questions for you to answer but to expose the reality that the core principals or ideals that you outlined are open for debate, even among those who also agree with them. I'm sorry if that point got lost somehow and you certainly articulated your specific position on those issues, but again my point isn't to get into a discussion over how you interpret those core principles, but the mere fact that they leave a lot of room for many positions.

I'll give you an example. Take for instance your core principle of small government. How small is too small? How big does it have to be to no longer be small and comparitively speaking, was Clinton's presidency 'bigger' or 'smaller' than Bush's? Just on defining 'small government' alone, you'd find very compelling arguments made by traditional Conservatives who'd argue that Clinton's presidency was a 'smaller government' than Bush's. Small or big government is too ambiguous a term to stand on just on the basis that I don't think you'd find any candidate of either party say up front that they are in favor of 'big government'.

Core principles are not up for debate or variable, or by definition they are not principles. By your logic that means Principles like, Abhorrence to Murder, Racism, Rape, Domination or abuse of women or even slavery are up for debate. I know in your core you don't want to debate such things and you know they are wrong. But If you don't believe there are any moral truths, then there will not be any. Mankind always degenerates to the lowest common denominator. If you set the your moral truths and principles up for a debate then they are not worth anything. That means that you do not believe in what your gut tells you is right, if somebody can change your beliefs by an argument.

As for Small Limited Government, The government should not be involved in anything the is not enumerated in the U.S.Constitution. It specifically states the powers granted to the Federal Government. All other powers are reserved to the states. Period! We need to follow the constitution. From which we have strayed for a long time. As for which government was too big? I Would say BOTH! I would contend the size of the Government has been out of compliance with the constitution since 1917 or so. I am not saying that WW1 was not necessary, but It started some forces rolling that have barely been curtailed since that time. So all governments have been too big for the majority of the 20th century.

By the way your girl is Pinay and so is mine. So I know that you have been there. When you were there did you think the government needs to give the poor one more corrupt government program after another or do you think they need to create an environment that is attractive to companies and private business. So as to create more jobs that would in turn cause more competition in the labor market so the Filipinos could be better paid for their labor. They are so bureaucratic and inefficient in many areas of their economy just to create "do very little jobs" that it drags down their whole standard of living. Couple that with such burdensome regulations that exist there, that it is business unfriendly. I mean like prison time for failing to give a receipt, here it only gets me a free burger. Capitalism is like a tree that must grow over the years. If the tree gets pulled out of the ground every few years it never bears fruit. The tree grows in the soil of uncorrupted rule of law, low taxes and a light hand on regulations (i.e. life, death and safety, not 30 hour weeks, hour breaks and one holiday every week or so). If the do not adopt these types of policies then they will remain mired in poverty, never fully empowered in their own destiny and ripe to be picked by corrupt politicians while waiting for a few crumbs from the governments table. It is impossible for any government to provide and control everything for the people. All we have to do is look at the Soviet Union to see the failure of this system. Not that they have fixed it since because they let corruption in. True we are all equal in such a system, equally miserable and hungry.

I pray for the Philippines.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Abhorrence to Murder, Racism, Rape, Domination or abuse of women or even slavery are not up for debate, but then again you're confusing these things with your aforementioned stated principles which amount to very general ideological terms. Within those ideological terms there is room for debate (hence the back and forth in our political system) - trying to compare those things with murder etc. seems a little invalid IMO.

In that vein - its been said that moral relativism is one of the biggest evils in the modern world. There's a difference between justifying and condoning immoral and criminal acts, and discussing how government should function. The only point at which those things would coincide is in things like McCarthyism, for example; or the suspension of due process in the judicial system; but that doesn't seem to be what you mean.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Number 6

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I think World War 3 is going to look like Israelis and Palestinians giving each other infinite reach-arounds while violently slapping each other on the asses.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

There are many possibilities.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno about the others - but at least in a Mad Max style post apocalyptic wasteland a man can still dress with a modicum of style.

[Peikko 1,575]

Mankind always degenerates to the lowest common denominator.

I don't know really what you meant by that, but if you mean that mankind is constantly struggling to retain ethical/moral standars, that's bullshite.

Mostly, people are law abiding and maintain a reasonable ethical/social standard. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, most people don't want to break laws, steal, murder, etc. People don't do these things, not because they are afraid of the consequences (literal or theological), but because they understand the importance of a social contract. They know, for example, that ownership only works if the majority participate in the notion of ownership.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The degeneration of mankind. Sounds like the theme of umpteen Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs novels.