Started by viocjit, July 05, 2019, 04:47:12 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 03:24:45 PMRhetoric. We aren't playing nerf ball.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:32:07 PMNo, we're playing word games. And words don't even exist, except as immaterial, abstract constructs in the brains of humans. That's what human brains do, we pull concepts from the abstract realm and make them temporarily real. Some, like words, are only ephemerally real, while other things, like, say, buildings, last a little longer.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:35:40 PMBut that's the standard Republican (notice I use their full party name) line. They WILL call all Democratic candidates "socialist". They are already doing it.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:37:53 PM Not to upset you, but you are agreeing with Baruch. He was talking about logograms in another thread. Or this one earlier; it's hard to keep track.
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 03:42:22 AMNot true. Some of you are anarchists ;-). Actually Republicans are more likely to be anarchist, but anarchism bridged the L-R gap.And no, I don't use a weasel word like "progressive" or "socialist". I don't care for "cultural Marxist" either. Back in the 50s people still knew what those words meant. Russian/Chinese 5th column. I just use "communist". But 21st century Marxism is different than 20th century Marxism, which is different from 19th century Marxism which is different from 18th century Marxism (aka French Revolutionaries). I am more of an Edmund Burke guy."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burkehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_BurkeHe was sympathetic to the complaints of the American Colonies, but opposed to the French Revolutionaries.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 12:27:57 PMNice of you to admit that Republicans are more likely to be anarchists. It is true in the current political spectrum.But anarchists are not really a problem. They can't organize very well almost by definition.I read an interesting article in 'The Washington Post' the other day that suggested that the true political differences in the US are not so much Rep/Dem (though we are forced to vote that way) so much as Conservative/Classical Liberal Theory vs Progressivism. The idea being that Reps/Dems both believe in holding on to gains through limited govt while Progressives want to advance society via deliberate change into unknown territory using govt to implement new programs.In that, I am a Progressive. I trust deliberate and thoughtful improvement while Reps/Dems cling to the past. As examples, I would be on a neutral de-gerrymandering committee. I wouldn't be a mMyor, I would be a City Manager.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 05, 2019, 07:21:33 PMWell, Baruch's not always wrong, but when he is, it's a doozy! LOL
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 07:19:47 PMThis is 100 years old. Progressives were originally Scandinavian Americans circa 1920.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 12:34:55 PMSo, you want to eliminate all the awkward degrees of political thought so that you can have a clear dichotomy (yes redundant) to support your conspiracy ideas. OK. But stop bothering me with it. I see multitudes of ideas.