A New World Order - Balance of Power?

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 11:13:27

*I agree (and Sean Hannity too ... god what a pompous <expletive deleted>).

Okay, that's two calling for greater division in the name of unity. :;):

What's more important, national unity or individual ideals? Answer that and your path is clear.

EDIT::

More clearly, are you willing to sacrifice your deepest held ideals in the name of unity? And if not, on what grounds can you oppose the same choice by others?

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1106241357

Palomar · 2005-01-20 11:23:51

*I agree (and Sean Hannity too ... god what a pompous <expletive deleted>).
Okay, that's two calling for greater division in the name of unity. :;):
What's more important, national unity or individual ideals? Answer that and your path is clear.
EDIT::
More clearly, are you willing to sacrifice your deepest held ideals in the name of unity? And if not, on what grounds can you oppose the same choice by others?

*A house divided against itself cannot stand.

No one's calling for censorship or banishment. However, a "come-uppance" in the form of a challenge by a bigger kid on the block (Bill's idea of the President doing this) might be in order.

Incendiaries like Coulter don't want to -help- the nation. A doctor can make an incision to heal -or- can use the scalpel like a weapon and mutilate the patient. The more rabid elements of either political persuasion in today's popular media are doing the latter, IMO.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-20 11:26:53

That door swings both ways. Recognizing it is the first step toward unity and it can't be blamed entirely on the opposition. We're all half the problem in that respect.

True.

But when Tom Delay refuses to let Democratic members of the Senate and House attend meetings where key decisions are made, and then those decisions are announced to the nation as final, why should we start talking nice first?

Besides, the winner should have obligation to extend their hand first.

Edited By BWhite on 1106242130

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 11:30:29

*A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Proverbs again...

No one's calling for censorship or banishment. However, a "come-uppance" in the form of a challenge by a bigger kid on the block (Bill's idea of the President doing this) might be in order.

Only it would be an utter waste of effort and capital on his own side. Every time he tries to reach out he gets his hand bit off. It just isn't going to happen, but the idea will continue to be held up as credible becasue all too often when the Left speaks of "bi-partisanship" or "reaching out" they mean "giving us what we want."

American political discourse was never a big love-fest, division is part of the game.

Gennaro · 2005-01-20 11:34:18

Universalism can be traced back to the natural rights tradition embraced by Locke, so in that sense, US Neocon imperialism is firmly Lockesian, not Hobbesian, although in the sense the terms are being used here I see what you are talking about.

Again the reasoning about the European demographic "bomb", as given from a certain CIA report, is being referred to here.
Other than 'mechanization trumping human labour' everytime, I haven't got any really good arguments against its implications, can only say that partly it appears to express the hopes and wishes of certain headstrong anti-European Americans. Like Gandalf puts it, "it feels wrong somehow".

Whatever the case, it's interesting that Europeans themselves do not appear entirely worried about the prospects. We have other problems, some that might just be intimately linked to the drop in birth rates. Who knows, the demographic problem might even go away when the future again will seem brighter?
We've been there before, you see. In the post WWI era, the same phenomenon appeared and concerns were raised. Back then, it was a case of widespread poverty, hopelessness and a lack of predictabilty with regards to the future and secure 'nesting' conditions. Yet, when institutions were created to accomodate the needs of the social to an industrialized, capitalist environment, birth rates again soared during the '40's, '50's and '60's (in some countries, like Sweden and Germany, such social engineering started even earlier). That structure, however, has largelly been dismantled today, starting in the '70's.

Thing is, in my opinion, you don't need to be rich to have children, but I believe there needs to exist a certain sense of long-term socio-cultural security and predictability in society, at least in a culture that is founded on investing in its offspring rather than pure quantity. In that sense, out-crowding immigration, cultural conflict and certain unsettling ideas endorsed by the establishment, like Feminist extremism, aren't helpful.

Anyway, with all the disadvantages Europe might have, it has one advantage that's possibly overlooked, namely the new member countries in central and eastern Europe. They will act both as a tremendous demand generator and a cheap, educated labour supply for the foreseeable future. I don't see any equivalent to this in the United States.

As for restoring US-European relations, you would achieve this by electing Patrick J. Buchanan as president.
:;):

Oh, by the way, speaking as Emperor Gennaro I of Europa, I also support Hugo Chavez's government in Venezuela.

Palomar · 2005-01-20 11:36:49

*A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Proverbs again...

American political discourse was never a big love-fest, division is part of the game.

*Some proverbs are apt and fitting. And they're concise, too.

Yes, division is part of the game. But would you agree that
too much divisiveness is not a good thing?

Not enough division wouldn't be healthy...too much division isn't healthy either.

We're seeing too much division in the nation today. Nearly every frickin' opinion poll is divided 50/50 or 49/51. It seems like deadlock, and that's not a good thing. Why is this happening? IMO, because too many Americans are letting The Talking Heads on TV (and in books) do their thinking for them. Thanks to all the cable TV news networks, we have more media celebrities (I've -never- seen opinion polls so consistently divided down the middle in my life, as they are today and for the past 4 years).

Coulter, Hannity, rabid leftists are only in it for ego and $. It's a racket for them. The health of our nation, in the meantime, suffers.

BTW...your Storm Trooper uniform -doesn't- intimidate me in the least. :;):

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 11:59:32

Besides, the winner should have obligation to extend their hand first.

Ted Kennedy was brought in to write much of the education bill, Senate committee control was shared despite a slim Republican majority (of one, Cheney), Bush has given buttloads of money to fight AIDS in Africa (a cause the Left claims to actually give a shit about), he tried meeting them halfway and it never matters. Why keep trying with no prospect for succeeding in anything but weakening your own support?

As for restoring US European relations, you would achieve this by electing Patrick J. Buchanan as president.

I can see your point. Things might get a little dicey over here however.

BTW...your Storm Trooper uniform -doesn't- intimidate me in the least.

It seemed appropriate given where this is going.

BWhite · 2005-01-20 12:01:54

Universalism can be traced back to the natural rights tradition embraced by Locke, so in that sense, US Neocon imperialism is firmly Lockesian, not Hobbesian, although in the sense the terms are being used here I see what you are talking about.

Lockesian in public rhetoric, Hobbesian in the hearts of the neo-cons who do not believe (IMHO) that all men (humans) are created equal.

Or, perhaps equality of all humans can only come after the return of Jesus and the infidels are disposed of. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 12:10:14

Lockesian in public rhetoric, Hobbesian in the hearts of the neo-cons who do not believe (IMHO) that all men (humans) are created equal.

I question the sincerity of the belief in equality deep in the hearts of much of the Left as well. These are after all the people who think we need the government to take care of our healthcare, retirement, and general welfare; presumably becaue we're too stupid to do it for ourselves and only through their benign leadership can we survive.

Bah, at least some king or dictator sticking a gun in my face isn't so patronizing while trampling liberty.

Gennaro · 2005-01-20 12:16:14

Lockesian in public rhetoric, Hobbesian in the hearts of the neo-cons who do not believe (IMHO) that all men (humans) are created equal.

Indeed, that's a third, distinctly possible alternative. In matters of the Spirit it is often meaningless to exclude several viewpoints on a phenomenon, even though they might appear contradictory, since the opinions held always differ between every individual.

By the way, if any of you are to watch any movie in the near future, you've got to see "Team America". The entire script is wittingly based solely on Hollywood clichés. I laughed myself through the whole thing.

Palomar · 2005-01-20 12:23:58

Or, perhaps equality of all humans can only come after the return of Jesus and the infidels are disposed of. :;):

*According to a news article I read yesterday, more Americans are withdrawing their support for the Iraq war.

Meanwhile, other rightist agendas are actually gaining support (banning gay marriages, moving to overturn Roe v Wade, the swift defeat of a prominent atheist challenging something to do with "God"/separation of church and state issue, etc.).

America just gets weirder. :-\

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-20 12:24:15

Lockesian in public rhetoric, Hobbesian in the hearts of the neo-cons who do not believe (IMHO) that all men (humans) are created equal.
I question the sincerity of the belief in equality deep in the hearts of much of the Left as well. These are after all the people who think we need the government to take care of our healthcare, retirement, and general welfare; presumably becaue we're too stupid to do it for ourselves and only through their benign leadership can we survive.
Bah, at least some king or dictator sticking a gun in my face isn't so patronizing while trampling liberty.

That's why I am not a true member of the Left ™.

That's also why I believe Hillary as Senate majority leader, Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Kerry as President would NOT be a good thing.

Less disastrous than the reverse, but still bad. :;):

= = =

My number one criticism of Bush is his distortion of the nature of the al Qaeda threat and wraping himself in the flag as a means of pummelling his political opponents. Karl Rove said as much quite openly and fomenting foreign wars to quash internal dissent is a time honored tool of tyrants.

Related to that is the Condi Rice fixation on state sponsors of terror. al Qaeda is NOT state sponsored by anyone - - but it furthers the accomplishment of the agenda described above by deceiving us to believe that Iraq regime change and now Iran regime change helps avenge 9/11 or helps protect us against future 9/11s.

Gennaro · 2005-01-20 12:24:32

I can see your point. Things might get a little dicey over here however.

In what way, would you suggest? Purely hypothetically speaking of course and provided there's anything you might think of from the top of your head.

Palomar · 2005-01-20 12:27:40

That's also why I believe Hillary as Senate majority leader, Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Kerry as President would NOT be a good thing.

*Did I read that right? ???

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-20 12:30:36

Lockesian in public rhetoric, Hobbesian in the hearts of the neo-cons who do not believe (IMHO) that all men (humans) are created equal.
Indeed, that's a third, distinctly possible alternative. In matters of the Spirit it is often meaningless to exclude several viewpoints on a phenomenon, even though they might appear contradictory, since the opinions held always differ between every individual.
By the way, if any of you are to watch any movie in the near future, you've got to see "Team America". The entire script is wittingly based solely on Hollywood clichés. I laughed myself through the whole thing.

This is why Bush enrages me.

I was taught to treat words like "Liberty" and "Freedom" and "Justice" as sacred - - words and ideas we tread around with caution and respect and aspire to implement. Words we approach with humility.

He whores those words as campaign soundbites, like his Bible thumping, even though I have read Bush actually does not attend church all that often.

Never assert proudly that God or Justice is on our side.

Always ask, humbly, are we on the side of Justice?

BWhite · 2005-01-20 12:32:24

That's also why I believe Hillary as Senate majority leader, Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Kerry as President would NOT be a good thing.
*Did I read that right? ???
--Cindy

Yes.

Bill Clinton was a better president after he lost Congress in 1994.

= = =

Hillary, Pelosi and Bush would have had real potential to be a good combination if George were willing to be pragmatic and horse trade.

= = =

Bigger picture, the Left and the Right have issues that need to be negotiated and compromised. Both sides need to learn they cannot win, long term, therefore compromise is essential.

Edited By BWhite on 1106246114

Palomar · 2005-01-20 12:36:34

*Okay, nevermind...

(Why don't I just stick to astronomy and science related stuff? I dunno...)

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 12:39:59

In what way, would you suggest? Purely hypothetically speaking of course and provided there's anything you might think of from the top of your head.

For me it wouldn't be so bad, except for Evangelicals bugging the hell out of me on a regular basis. But the far-Christian-kook-Right would be greatly emboldened while the Left would be whipped into an irrational frenzy even by their standards. Smug people believing God is on their side versus fanatical utopians makes for one hell of a mess.

Not that Buchanan would get elected. Unless he ran on a Democrat ticket against George Bush, of course. :;):

I was taught to treat words like "Liberty" and "Freedom" and "Justice" as sacred - - words and ideas we tread around with caution and respect and aspire to implement. Words we approach with humility.

Early in life I learned that words mean different things to different people and "Justice", "Freedom" and "Liberty" don't necessarily travel together.

Bigger picture, the Left and the Right have issues that need to be negotiated and compromised. Both sides need to learn they cannot win, long term, therefore compromise is essential.

Which first requires agreement on the meaning of "compromise", and some things should not be compromised.

BWhite · 2005-01-20 12:43:54

Lockesian in public rhetoric, Hobbesian in the hearts of the neo-cons who do not believe (IMHO) that all men (humans) are created equal.
I question the sincerity of the belief in equality deep in the hearts of much of the Left as well. These are after all the people who think we need the government to take care of our healthcare, retirement, and general welfare; presumably becaue we're too stupid to do it for ourselves and only through their benign leadership can we survive.

I want the government to do it because I fear the sharp rascals like those at Enron will steal our accounts blind and then step over my family (laughing) as they lie starving in the street.

The static socialistic society you fear is legitimate to fear.

On the other extreme is a society where uber-wealthy robber barons steal the honey made by the worker bees. Refusing to mitigate such conditions leads to French Revolution style upheavals.

Some services are best handled as public utilities. And everyone benefits from a social safety net as that fosters stability.

Gennaro · 2005-01-20 12:49:32

Some services are best handled as public utilities. And everyone benefits from a social safety net as that fosters stability.

I agree with this, but then again I'm "Euro-trash".

For me it wouldn't be so bad, except for Evangelicals bugging the hell out of me on a regular basis. But the far-Christian-kook-Right would be greatly emboldened while the Left would be whipped into an irrational frenzy even by their standards. Smug people believing God is on their side versus fanatical utopians makes for one hell of a mess.

Cobra, would you say Buchanan's main support is from creationist, bible-thumping, evangelical righties? I thought they voted for Bush. What I have read by Mr Buchanan, an old fashioned Conservative type, has largelly made sense to me and I couldn't discover any evangelical agenda.

Um, did I go wrong here? ???

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 12:54:39

Some services are best handled as public utilities. And everyone benefits from a social safety net as that fosters stability.

Only to a point and even then paying for a social safety net one does not use breeds resentment and undermines the basis of government by taking from the many with visible gain only to the few.

"I called the cops an hour ago and you show up now! What am I paying taxes for!?"

We can maximize opportunity and put in place social services for those needing them without seizing citizens' wages at serf levels to pay for the pet-projects of elected officials while telling them that it's for the greater good.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 13:02:55

Cobra, would you say Buchanan's main support is from creationist, bible-thumping, evangelical righties? I thought they voted for Bush. What I have read by Mr Buchanan, an old fashioned Conservative type, has largelly made sense to me and I couldn't discover any evangelical agenda.
Um, did I go wrong here?

Sort of... On some issues Buchanan makes a good deal of sense. He's also very much in line with the creationist types, not leading them but certainly not outright opposing their agenda, much of which he ardently supports. Were he elected to the Presidency I can't say with certainty how strongly he'd support the evangelical agenda, but he would not inhibit it.

The Left, in typical form, would potray him as either an evil mastermind intent on establishing a theocracy or as a bumbling fool controlled by an evil mastermind trying to establish a theocracy.

But call 'em "pinkos" and they flip.

Though he's definately an "old school" conservative, unlike Bush.

BWhite · 2005-01-20 13:07:51

Some services are best handled as public utilities. And everyone benefits from a social safety net as that fosters stability.
Only to a point and even then paying for a social safety net one does not use breeds resentment and undermines the basis of government by taking from the many with visible gain only to the few.
"I called the cops an hour ago and you show up now! What am I paying taxes for!?"
We can maximize opportunity and put in place social services for those needing them without seizing citizens' wages at serf levels to pay for the pet-projects of elected officials while telling them that it's for the greater good.

This made sense when we abolished the 70% rate bracket and then the 50% rate bracket back in the Reagan years. Today, the American tax burden is not that large except to those who want no taxes at all.

Look at the statistics concerning the concentration of wealth and income.

My father in law (who has NEVER voted for a Democrat in his life) is outraged that current top executives earn 1000 times the minimum wage. He says, no MBA is worth 1000 times or 5000 times the wages paid a worker on the line. That's theft!

Then he blames the Democrats.

Edited By BWhite on 1106248107

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-01-20 13:10:00

Ted Kennedy was brought in to write much of the education bill, Senate committee control was shared despite a slim Republican majority (of one, Cheney)

Ha ! and now they tell us that the current admin actually gives a damn about those folks in Africa, I hear Mr Apartheid ( Cheney ) wasn't too happy when he heard the old regime had to go, plus Mr Apartheid ( VP Dick ) wanted Mandela back in jail. But the funniest has to be GW who comes up with a new Bushism when he sometimes tries to be too PC or clever and refers to the folks on that continent as 'African-Americans'

True we see now the growth of Europe as an Economic superpower with the Euro and the Chinese are improving their technology and the China industrial output is growing rapidly.

Roll on the next 4 years...cos the next admin bet it Republican or Democrat surely can't be worse than the current one in the Whitehouse...more jobs lost since the days of the Great Depression :down:

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 13:23:59

This made sense when we abolished the 70% rate bracket and then the 50% rate bracket back in the Reagan years. Today, the American tax burden is not that large except to those who want no taxes at all.

If you add up all the taxes we pay: Fed, State and local, it's a big chunk. Over a third of total gross "income" is not uncommon even at low income levels, hence my "serf levels" comment. Higher up one can pay that in federal taxes alone. We do this to pay for this stabilizing safety net, yet when more basic services of government are not adequately provided or when one is driven towards needing that safety net in part because of the taxation that supports it, they have a legitimate grievance.

My father in law (who has NEVER voted for a Democrat in his life) is outraged that current top executives earn 1000 times the minimum wage. He says, no MBA is worth 1000 times or 5000 times the wages paid a worker on the line. That's theft!
Then he blames the Democrats.

I wasn't aware that political parties determined the pay structure in American corporations. :;):

Sounds like a cultural problem rather than a political one. Saying "you make too much" to the top while taking it from them is the wrong approach. Perhaps if the Left looked to narrow the wealth gap by raising the low instead of lowering the high they'd gain more ground. Unfortunately that can't be done by government decree and "minimum wage" legislation.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1106249100

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-01-20 11:13:27

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#27 2005-01-20 11:23:51

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#28 2005-01-20 11:26:53

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#29 2005-01-20 11:30:29

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#30 2005-01-20 11:34:18

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#31 2005-01-20 11:36:49

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#32 2005-01-20 11:59:32

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#33 2005-01-20 12:01:54

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#34 2005-01-20 12:10:14

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#35 2005-01-20 12:16:14

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#36 2005-01-20 12:23:58

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#37 2005-01-20 12:24:15

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#38 2005-01-20 12:24:32

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#39 2005-01-20 12:27:40

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#40 2005-01-20 12:30:36

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#41 2005-01-20 12:32:24

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#42 2005-01-20 12:36:34

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#43 2005-01-20 12:39:59

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#44 2005-01-20 12:43:54

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#45 2005-01-20 12:49:32

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#46 2005-01-20 12:54:39

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#47 2005-01-20 13:02:55

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#48 2005-01-20 13:07:51

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#49 2005-01-20 13:10:00

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#50 2005-01-20 13:23:59

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

Board footer