It will be a sad day not only for America, but for the whole world if Bush is re-elected! If you think otherwise, I feel sad for you too!

Atta Boy :)

I don't really care if he wins or not, but I hope he does just because it will amuse me to see people like you having conniptions about it. Go Bush!! I feel sad for you too, btw.

I feel very confidant he going to win the presidency again.

the united states will just end. we will lose what little respect we have left in the world. everyone else will hate us. a possible WW3 but i doubt it. If bush wins im moving to Canada.

And you so properly characterize the difference, Vlad. I mean, look at you, hoping for a bad outcome in order to feel mean-spirited glee?

That's just sick.

Remember, it's if Bush is elected, not re-elected.

I don't really care if he wins or not, but I hope he does just because it will amuse me to see people like you having conniptions about it. Go Bush!! I feel sad for you too, btw.

If Bush wins re-election, I won't feel to sad about how sad you're going to feel when he decides to attack Iran and/or North Korea........If re-elected, he will!

Atta Boy :)

If Bush wins re-election, I won't feel to sad about how sad you're going to feel when he decides to attack Iran and/or North Korea........If re-elected, he will!

Atta Boy :)

I will feel happy if he decides to attack Iran. But the way Kerry has been talking of late, he sounds more likely to attack Iran than Bush. Apparently Bush has been too soft on Iran.

And you so properly characterize the difference, Vlad. I mean, look at you, hoping for a bad outcome in order to feel mean-spirited glee?

That's just sick.

No I don't think Bush wining will be a bad outcome. I think it will be a good one. It's just that I don't care whether America recieves a good or a bad outcome. But I'll have a good laugh over all you funny people that think it actually makes a difference.

It will be a sad day not only for America, but for the whole world if Bush is re-elected! If you think otherwise, I feel sad for you too!
True 'sad' is so much closer to your home than you're possibly able to imagine.

Now, that's sad.

I will feel happy if he decides to attack Iran. But the way Kerry has been talking of late, he sounds more likely to attack Iran than Bush. Apparently Bush has been too soft on Iran.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind going to Iraq and walk a street in Bagdad wearing "I Love The USA" T-shirt or "I Love Bush"...Right?...Right! If you still around with your head still on your shoulders, then you can give the rest of us an update on the love you generated while you were in Iraq........

Atta Boy :)

True 'sad' is so much closer to your home than you're possibly able to imagine.

Now, that's sad.

Sounds like you need to volunteer some of your so-called intelligence to help fight the war in Iraq........However, it sounds like you haven't got too much intelligence, so you probably wouldn't last to long over there anyway.......But by the looks of it, it's turning out to be a pretty stupid war, so you'd fit right in.

Atta Boy :)

why go to iraq, if bush gets re-elcted im going to canada and fighting those american bastards on their home turf

if? .. more like when Bush is re-elected

i'm going to enjoy reading Indymedia's report on how it was a big fraud, and their call to "nation-wide 'uprising'" which will result in nation-wide arrests of 200 tattooed self-proclaimed anarchists with pierced tongues, nipples and eyebrows

um, what is supposed to be a fraud?

GW's victory is better for the USA in the long run. It may wake people up to see the rot. Bush Light i.e. JFK's presidency will just prolong dormancy for a while. It will change nothing. Who could shake things better if not a brainless puppet with messianic complexes?

No I don't think Bush wining will be a bad outcome. I think it will be a good one.

A matter of perspective, and quite revealing at that. Remember, there are some people in the world who think what happened at the World Trade Center was a good thing.

Calling the legitimization of a lying, warmongering puppet bent on leading the world into a new cycle of warfare a good thing ... well, what, really, do we expect of you?

Do you think, as the last call went out, and the firefighters in New York knew they wouldn't make the street in time, they told themselves over and over, "This is a good thing, this is a good thing ...."

Like I said, Vlad ... sick.

if you want this " the united states will just end. we will lose what little respect we have left in the world. everyone else will hate us. a possible WW3" vote Kerry.

Mis-t-highs

Perhaps I miss your point. Given a choice between someone like Bush, who aims to reject American history, tradition, and principle--those things which give us prestige in the first place--I don't see how a vote for someone aiming to preserve those things is the guarantee that we will lose them.

Of course, there is the big difference of Kerry being a classic politician and Bush being something else, something new. But somehow I'm not encouraged by a celebration and escalation of everything bad about classic politicians, and hence discouraged at the thought of legitimizing Bush.

The terrorists will most likely hit us again in the future regardless of who is in the Oval Office. With Bush around, it will be harder--nearly impossible, in fact--to claim that attack unprovoked.

Of course, you appear to have different priorities than I do. Which would go a long way toward explaining why you would preserve American security, prestige, and dignity by voting against the candidate who would preserve these things, thus encouraging the election of the candidate who despises them.

I think it’s a fact that another 4 of GWB is going to make the US the most unpopular state to grace this Earth since its forefather the USSR. The US under Bush will guarantee it will no longer be a world power, America the idiotic expending the powers that she barely has in order to get a phallus high, and her Viagra pills known as Chinese treasury bills. That’s what it is America is on a high, a Viagra high, exciting, fun, risky, and powerful, but when the pill runs out of steam (like the US will soon enough). Dark reality hits, you’re still impotent against your enemy. So GO BUSH!

A matter of perspective, and quite revealing at that. Remember, there are some people in the world who think what happened at the World Trade Center was a good thing.

Calling the legitimization of a lying, warmongering puppet bent on leading the world into a new cycle of warfare a good thing ... well, what, really, do we expect of you?

Do you think, as the last call went out, and the firefighters in New York knew they wouldn't make the street in time, they told themselves over and over, "This is a good thing, this is a good thing ...."

Like I said, Vlad ... sick.

Well, it seems Bush is leading in the Polls! Are you an American? It looks like most of your country kin aren't so mindlessly cynical! Go Bush!!

I think it’s a fact that another 4 of GWB is going to make the US the most unpopular state to grace this Earth since its forefather the USSR. The US under Bush will guarantee it will no longer be a world power, America the idiotic expending the powers that she barely has in order to get a phallus high, and her Viagra pills known as Chinese treasury bills. That’s what it is America is on a high, a Viagra high, exciting, fun, risky, and powerful, but when the pill runs out of steam (like the US will soon enough). Dark reality hits, you’re still impotent against your enemy. So GO BUSH!

Probably all democrats and many Republications regard Bush as an "Idiot". Once re-elected, he will most certainly demonstrate his enormous stupidy again by wanting to invade other countries like Iran or North Korea. Bush has said he wants to be the "Peace President"........He's also said he's not to concerned about Osama Ben Laden too! I guess the joke will be on you once he's re-elected, if he's re-elected and right that's a big "IF"!

Atta Boy :)

Well, it seems Bush is leading in the Polls! Are you an American? It looks like most of your country kin aren't so mindlessly cynical! Go Bush!!

Like you, many people in this country are not as informed as they should be in order to make these decisions.

One Bush supporter at Sciforums, for instance, fears Kerry will blow up the world with nukes. Of course, this Bush supporter hasn't paused to consider that the Bush administration, on the one hand, flatly refused to rule out nuclear attack as a response to 9/11, and to the other has been developing "small" nuclear weapons in hopes of deploying them with less objections from our allies and neighbors. I can't do much for that sort of ignorance except try to inform that poster. But that poster doesn't care. That poster wants war for the sake of war, and wants that idea to represent America.

And so, too, do you seem to be cheering for that outcome.

Get a clue, Vlad. Stop celebrating the descent of the American vision into fascism.

It's at time like this I wish I had the power to force people to ignore each other.

tiassa: You see Vlad as evil neocon asshole, what you need to see is that he will never understand you and thus not worthy of your time to listen or speak too.

Vlad: You see tiassa as pussy liberal tree-hugger, what you need to see is that he will never understand you and thus not worthy of your time to listen or speak too.

Like you, many people in this country are not as informed as they should be in order to make these decisions.

One Bush supporter at Sciforums, for instance, fears Kerry will blow up the world with nukes. Of course, this Bush supporter hasn't paused to consider that the Bush administration, on the one hand, flatly refused to rule out nuclear attack as a response to 9/11, and to the other has been developing "small" nuclear weapons in hopes of deploying them with less objections from our allies and neighbors. I can't do much for that sort of ignorance except try to inform that poster. But that poster doesn't care. That poster wants war for the sake of war, and wants that idea to represent America.

And so, too, do you seem to be cheering for that outcome.

Get a clue, Vlad. Stop celebrating the descent of the American vision into fascism.


Well, if America becomes a fascist state that will make a nice change from the monochrome, unheroic state Liberals have been fighting for. Never the less, the whole 'amerika' chomskyite charge is a little bit of paranoia that's been rahashed by leftists for the last 60 years. It's as false now as it was then. As for the benighted masses that can't see your rays of shining wisdom..oh jesus, it must be a nice old world when everything is so simple. You are right, they are wrong, you are enlightened, they are ignorant. I see. Have you ever considered that it might be values that divide people politically? Like maybe, conservatives are not smarter than Liberals, or vice versa, but people just appraise the world differently?

Vlad: You see tiassa as pussy liberal tree-hugger, what you need to see is that he will never understand you and thus not worthy of your time to listen or speak too.

Yes, but WCF, I'm afraid that my dislike of tiassa is based on the fact that I DO understand him. :(

Have you ever considered that it might be values that divide people politically? Like maybe, conservatives are not smarter than Liberals, or vice versa, but people just appraise the world differently?

That's an awful liberal idea. Sound's like moral relativism to me. Don't get all wishy washy on us, Vlad.

Like maybe, conservatives are not smarter than Liberals, or vice versa, but people just appraise the world differently?

The word "just" is problematic. The problem with conservatism is that it's to self-involved to stop and think of other people. Conservatism in America appeals ad hominem to the notion of "I". Liberalism starts from a presumption of "We". After all, this is a community.

Yes, we can say the difference is just one of perspective, but what are the effects of that perspective?

Conservatism looks to an archaic necessity of competition, Liberalism looks to the obvious necessity of cooperation.

Yes, we can say the difference is just one of perspective, but what are the effects of that perspective?

Conservatism looks to an archaic necessity of competition, Liberalism looks to the obvious necessity of cooperation.

People are I. Everything great experienced in life is 'I'. To say otherwise is self-negation.

Why exactly is cooperation a necessity? It is necessary in terms of social contracts between governments and citizens and citizens and other citizens as a means of safeguarding society from collapse, but be clear, that's NOT the sort cooperation Liberals talk about. They want us all to cooperatively band together holding hands to form some sort of egalitarian utopia - a utopia that strikes me as unnatural (not repeated in the natural world), and life hating. So much of Liberal ‘morality’ strikes me, to use trite Nietzschean terms, as ‘slave morality’. So yes what of those perspectives? I prefer the individualist, ambitious, life-affirming values, over the collectivist ones. But that's not a statement of laying claim to intellectual superiority, just individual values. I wish more people, conservatives an liberals alike, would do this.

that's NOT the sort cooperation Liberals talk about

Depends on the liberal. Liberals are most popularly defined by the conservatives who revile them.

They want us all to cooperatively hold band together holding hands to form some sort of egalitarian utopia - a utopia that strikes me as unnatural (not repeated in the natural world), and life hating

(1) Something else that is not repeated in the natural world is humanity itself.
(2) Life hating? How so? Is that hyperbole or just a specialized definition? You know, kind of like how, "You haven't lived until you've parachuted/bungee-jumped/had transdimensional sex on MDMA/&c."?

Liberal ‘morality’ strikes me, to use trite Nietzschean terms, as ‘slave morality’.

I never thought of acknowledging the unavoidable fact that other human beings exist as slavery.

I never thought of the consent of the governed as slavery.

It never occurred to me that empowering people to be happy was slavery.

I prefer the individualist, ambitious, life-affirming values, over the collectivist ones.

In other words, you'll take part in society as long as it's convenient to your immediate desires?

People are I. Everything great experienced in life is 'I'. To say otherwise is self-negation.

Question: When does 1 + 1 = 3?

Depends on the liberal. Liberals are most popularly defined by the conservatives who revile them.

I have defined Liberals according to their overarching principle. That's simply what a Liberal is.



(1) Something else that is not repeated in the natural world is humanity itself.

Niether have snakes been repeated, or froggs, everthing is unique, yet eveything is the same in that it all belongs to the natural world.

(2) Life hating? How so? Is that hyperbole or just a specialized definition?

That's my opinion of Liberal ethics - life hating. I think this because Liberalism is artificial, opposed to the individualist aspects of life from which life draws its very meaning.

I never thought of acknowledging the unavoidable fact that other human beings exist as slavery.

Everybody exists, that is just empirically true. But Liberals want to define peoples relationship to each other, and destroy the natural differences that come between them.

I never thought of the consent of the governed as slavery.

it's not. That's a utilitarian choice based the fact that government ultimately provided the best scenario for the individual than no government.

It never occurred to me that empowering people to be happy was slavery.

It's not up to you to empower others to be happy. That is up to them.

In other words, you'll take part in society as long as it's convenient to your immediate desires?

Yes.

I have defined Liberals according to their overarching principle. That's simply what a Liberal is.

You'd have to do a better job than merely claiming an overarching principle.

Niether have snakes been repeated, or froggs, everthing is unique, yet eveything is the same in that it all belongs to the natural world.

True, but has it occurred to you what humanity has that is unique compared to all other organisms known to us in the Universe?

That's my opinion of Liberal ethics - life hating. I think this because Liberalism is artificial, opposed to the individualist aspects of life from which life draws its very meaning.

That ... well, that wasn't very helpful.

What do you mean by "life hating"?

Everybody exists, that is just empirically true. But Liberals want to define peoples relationship to each other, and destroy the natural differences that come between them.

I think that's a very narrow way of looking at it, and lacking an understanding of liberalism.

it's not. That's a utilitarian choice based the fact that government ultimately provided the best scenario for the individual than no government

Yet individuals coming together define government. In other words, government is a symptom of individuals choosing to cooperate.

It's not up to you to empower others to be happy. That is up to them.

I'm an American. It's an obligation:

• "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html))

• "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (The Constitution of the United States of America (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html))

Pay attention to both. The first we fought a war over. The second is our means of achieving what we claim as our right as human beings.

You, too, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the 18th century, Americans invented a government that was supposed to deliver those rights.

Yes

And if you're inconvenient to society, does that mean you should stop using its roads, eating its food, and otherwise taxing its resources?

There is the appearance of a classic conservative dishonesty in your response. But there's also a classic libertarian myth in there as well.

At any rate, did you come up with an answer?

• Question: When does 1 + 1 = 3?

Well, it seems Bush is leading in the Polls! Are you an American? It looks like most of your country kin aren't so mindlessly cynical! Go Bush!!

Cynical? I prefer patriotic.

Besides, Bush isn't up in the polls, it's a dead heat. If you check out a reliable source such as Zogby (http://www.zogby.com), instead of Newsweek or Time or Fox News, where their profession is polling, you'd see that for the last three days, it has been a direct tie. Before that, it wasn't more than a few points up for Bush.

Most undecided voters are leaning Kerry, and I think we will see a victory from him.

You'd have to do a better job than merely claiming an overarching principle.

Why? I understand the spirit of Liberalism, I need to know nothing more.



True, but has it occurred to you what humanity has that is unique compared to all other organisms known to us in the Universe?

Not really. Perhaps you could enlighten me?




What do you mean by "life hating"?

I explained it quite clearly already.



I think that's a very narrow way of looking at it, and lacking an understanding of liberalism.

So what is the true liberalism I'm missing?


Yet individuals coming together define government. In other words, government is a symptom of individuals choosing to cooperate.

People cooperate. That I've already noted. What I reject is the liberal understanding of the phenomenon of cooperation which deems it means to a goal of egalitarianism. A goal that I view it as both unworkable and undesirable.



I'm an American. It's an obligation:



Pay attention to both. The first we fought a war over. The second is our means of achieving what we claim as our right as human beings.

You, too, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the 18th century, Americans invented a government that was supposed to deliver those rights.

I am mildly impressed by the Lockean rhetoric of the constitution. If this is your mantra I believe you are embracing some lowly fruits of life. I am not a constitutionalist, therefore not, as I've said, a conservative. America is not my ideal. It’s a long way from it. But nothing could be further than my ideals that Liberalism.


And if you're inconvenient to society, does that mean you should stop using its roads, eating its food, and otherwise taxing its resources?

I am happy happy happy to bay for those things. I don't want to pay for the state to own hospitals, schools, ect and I don’t want to support the unemployed. Simple.


At any rate, did you come up with an answer?

• Question: When does 1 + 1 = 3?
[/QUOTE]

1 + 1 does not equal three.

Of course, you appear to have different priorities than I do. Which would go a long way toward explaining why you would preserve American security, prestige, and dignity by voting against the candidate who would preserve these things, thus encouraging the election of the candidate who despises them.
Kerry will preserve the security, prestige, and dignity of our nation? I suspect (and pray I never find out) that Kerry would be even worse than Jimmy Carter, if such a thing is possible.

Conservatism in America appeals ad hominem to the notion of "I". Liberalism starts from a presumption of "We". After all, this is a community.
Yes, conservatives strive to set up conditions under which individuals (the evil "I" you speak of) can thrive and, in so doing, benefit the nation as a whole. Liberals divide the nation into primitive tribes pitting one group against the other (the blacks against the whites, the elderly against the young, etc) and try to convince each individual that he's helpless without the protective umbrella of the state.

Question: When does 1 + 1 = 3?

The first answer that comes to mind is during sexual reproduction. However, I believe you are speaking more metaphorically of a whole being greater than the sum of it's parts. As in when a group working together can accomplish more than what they would have accomplished, in total, working seperately. Say, for instance, in a society.

True, but has it occurred to you what humanity has that is unique compared to all other organisms known to us in the Universe?

Sentience, self awareness, intellect. All qualities of the individual.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --

You, too, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the 18th century, Americans invented a government that was supposed to deliver those rights.

The salient point here is that governments are instituted to secure rights that already exist, rights that are intrinsic to the nature of man (inalienable). These rights are not given to us (delivered) by the government. They are a part of our nature. Certainly governments can choose to ignore these rights, but that renders them illegitimate.

Why? I understand the spirit of Liberalism, I need to know nothing more.

Yep. Just like Tom Metzger knew the spirit of the Negro.

Not really. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I'll give a nod to Madanthonywayne, despite his prevailing sense of denial.

Within sentience, self-awareness, and intellect there are a number of obvious points:

• Human develop very specific sentimental values--largely subjective--that go well beyond suicidal, grieving chimpanzees.
• Human beings are, obviously, stronger in collectives than they are as individuals.
• No modern human can owe their entire self inwardly; people are products of the communities and cultures around them.

Look in history. See what sentience, self-awareness, and intellect get a human being on its own. Ask the Spartans. They get the individual nothing until social arrangements--be it family, clan, tribe, nation, or otherwise--assists in the development of self-awareness and intellect.

Human beings are social creatures. Societal arrangements are part of what we do.

Look around in nature. There are animals that work in groups, and have specific hierarchies among them.

The difference between humans and the rest of the animals is subtle, but definitive. We move entire mountains, change the course of rivers, burn holes in the atmosphere.

So what is the true liberalism I'm missing?

The funny thing is that there was this guy who is alleged to pretty much have figured it out and told everybody about it. And then he got nailed to a tree. The sad thing about the funny thing is that the people who claim his prestige have forsaken what he told them.

Think of a simple scenario: there's not enough food to go around. Two opposing possible solutions:

(1) Lower the population--e.g. war for resources--until demand does not exceed supply.
(2) Increase the food resources. Find a way to feed people. We have the raw materials. We have the technology. What humanity lacks at present is the will.

Between Jesus Christ and Adam Smith, humanity made some great progress. Of course, progress is whatever took us farther from the determinism of the animal kingdom and empowered humanity to thrive amid nature.

Guess which of the above solutions is the conservative, and which is the liberal solution.

What I reject is the liberal understanding of the phenomenon of cooperation which deems it means to a goal of egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism is a natural consequence of cooperative society. Egalitarian sufficiency is empowerment to thrive.

A goal that I view it as both unworkable and undesirable.

Nobody promised a rose garden. Certainly it's complicated; humanity still hasn't figured it out properly.

If this is your mantra I believe you are embracing some lowly fruits of life.

To live securely? To be able to enjoy, with passion, even, one's means of participation? Nobody I know likes their job. That's rather sad. I take that back. The musicians I know like their jobs when they get to play music. The artists I know, in general, enjoy their jobs when they get to do their art. But few of them do it in order to empower their participation in society. They have day jobs. But if happiness is a lowly fruit of life, I'll take some of whatever you're smoking, snorting, or popping, because that's gotta be one hell of an artificial plateau.

But nothing could be further than my ideals that Liberalism.

Actually, there is one thing: the Liberalism you imagine.

I am happy happy happy to bay for those things. I don't want to pay for the state to own hospitals, schools, ect and I don’t want to support the unemployed. Simple.

• Healthcare: You're going to pay for other people no matter what. Unless you make enough money to pay cash up front for all your healthcare, you're going to pay for other people, privately or publicly.

• Education: It is a society's obligation to itself to educate its future generations. Humanity did not build all it has built just so our children can be such dullards as to piss it away.

• Unemployed: You'll pay for them one way or another. Think about it.

1 + 1 does not equal three

Again, I nod to Madanthonywayne, who hit on both counts. The direct answer is sexual reproduction. The importance of that answer is covered perfectly in his consideration of metaphor.

As to the idea that--

People are I. Everything great experienced in life is 'I'. To say otherwise is self-negation.

--no, not everything great in life is experienced as "I".

And hell, to take even a looser definition, one need not even reproduce. If you haven't had that good of sex, well, there's not much I can do to help you on that count.

Actually, take a look around. You'd be amazed at how much people claim for "we" instead of "I". Your thoughts are your own like your wristwatch: you have them. But they did not come to you independently of others.

"I" alone is the unnatural human condition.

In the Wind of the mind arises the turbulence called I.

It breaks; down shower the barren thoughts.

All life is choked.

This desert is the Abyss wherein is the Universe. The Stars are but thistles in that waste.

Yet this desert is but one spot accursèd in a world of bliss.

Now and again Travellers cross the desert; they come from the Great Sea, and to the Great Sea they go.

As they go they spill water; one day they will irrigate the desert, 'til it flower.

See! five footprints of a Camel! V. V. V. V. V

Perdurabo, Psalm 42 (http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/uncle_al/lies/45.html)

Oh, a born again. I'm not gonna try move that rock. But God bless.

Oh, a born again

That was useful. Is that your white flag? It's okay, Vlad. I won't make your brain hurt anymore.

I won't make your brain hurt anymore.

No, please don't.

Oooooooooooook :bugeye: I think this thread has run it course.