[BadKosh]

Until we close the borders WHO KNOWS who is here illegally, without papers etc, so the NSA is snooping on everyone. I don't trust the current NSA or their tools as it hasn't done squat for how much they've spent. That doesn't change the fact we can't get caught with our pants down.

[subego]

@Greg,

I was talking specifically about politicians.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The primary origin point of the small government philosophies is skepticism of the government. The Republicans' silent support of these extreme policies, even in the face of the vast opportunity to make political hay, indicates to me we're talking about a philosophical origin on the opposite side of skepticism. They're behaving like it's what government is for.

Now that's what strikes me as communist.

I'm not sure I see the difference between this and what you posted earlier. This is more of a Police State thing. (And it falls inline with people who think if you are an innocent person you shouldn't have anything to hide)

[subego]

Do you accept the premise there is a big-small government axis?

If so, how can "police state" fit on the "small government" side of center?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do you accept the premise there is a big-small government axis?

If so, how can "police state" fit on the "small government" side of center?

This completely ignores that I'm calling you out on labeling this communism or communistic. Explain that to me.

[subego]

Ironically, I'd say you're ignoring my multiple attempts to revise my statement to reflect the validity of your challenge.

I'd be doing a better job if you worked with me a little.

[subego]

An explanation: I can be prone to hyperbole at times. My bad.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Ironically, I'd say you're ignoring my multiple attempts to revise my statement to reflect the validity of your challenge.

Well as I was posting I was thinking "Yes, he did back track" but then you dropped the term again in a reformulated manner. So you negated your revision.

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd be doing a better job if you worked with me a little.

I'm here to win elections, not bipartisanship. (After getting the talking down to by ebuddy about communism, you've struck a nerve)

[subego]

Wut?

Do you support these commie-ass surveillance laws or something?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wut?

Do you support these commie-ass surveillance laws or something?

I'd tag babies like endangered seals I could. Club them too

[subego]

Seriously.

Why is the idea the communists raised the idea of police state to a high art and should get some ownership credit bothersome?

Is it purely because communists are left and you don't want that idea associated with the left?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Seriously.

Why is the idea the communists raised the idea of police state to a high art and should get some ownership credit bothersome?

So your eschewing greater accuracy for hyperbole by your own admission?

Originally Posted by subego 

Is it purely because communists are left and you don't want that idea associated with the left?

How do I put this. I believe strongly in things like disability and welfare which are the hallmark of communism. The problem is the term is almost never introduced because it is accurate but to illicit fear and reactionary responses. I mean has any high profile politician ever admitted that the United States has a responsibility or has willingly or successfully integrated and maintained communist programs or ideas as a part of our government and country for the past 50+ years?

As I pointed out in another thread, some of the people who most abhor this communism or socialism are the ones clamoring to "keep the government out of my medicare." If those who bandy the term about so cavalierly were to go on record that the American people both believe in and already hold dear communist programs, I might have a little more tolerance for open discussion about how much is too much.

I mean, out of Authoritarianism, Police State, and Communism, what do you think most accurately labels this NSA bullshit? And if its not communism, why do you think you jumped to that?

[subego]

I'm actually that person who has no problem calling things we need commie if they're commie. Welfare is commie IME, but we obviously need welfare. I've said many times the military is socialist. I'm a huge military supporter.

So, you've basically given me leave to call the NSA stuff commie.

Ultimately though, this is all kinda cart before the horse.

Let me ask you. Do you think there's value to coming up with (relatively) concrete framework for what right and left wing really mean? Independent of things like what a particular party says they are, or what country you're in, or what period of history you're talking about?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm actually that person who has no problem calling things we need commie if they're commie. Welfare is commie IME, but we obviously need welfare. I've said many times the military is socialist. I'm a huge military supporter.

So, you've basically given me leave to call the NSA stuff commie.

Not really. If you're one of the only people on this forum that treats it by its reality rather than as a scareword, than your posts will only be reasonable when read by you.

Originally Posted by subego 

Let me ask you. Do you think there's value to coming up with (relatively) concrete framework for what right and left wing really mean? Independent of things like what a particular party says they are, or what country you're in, or what period of history you're talking about?

I tend to separate the terms conservative and liberal from Republican and Democrat because it does a disservice to peoples various aims or their actions and opinions on record. I fully admit I'm liberal. I will never accept I'm a Democrat.

[subego]

Shit. Half the time I don't understand own posts, and that's when I'm not using loaded language.

[subego]

Is "liberal" really a political philosophy? Certainly not in the way "socialism" is a political philosophy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm actually that person who has no problem calling things we need commie if they're commie. Welfare is commie IME, but we obviously need welfare. I've said many times the military is socialist. I'm a huge military supporter.

IMO this policy or that can be socialist, but socialism is a pervasive economic model of governance; a transitional model of growth out of and away from free market capitalism. Some use the military in their arguments for socialism which is curious when you consider the quality of food, health care, living quarters, and degree of freedom enjoyed by the average person living under this model.

So, you've basically given me leave to call the NSA stuff commie.

So... commie is bad, then.

Ultimately though, this is all kinda cart before the horse.

Let me ask you. Do you think there's value to coming up with (relatively) concrete framework for what right and left wing really mean? Independent of things like what a particular party says they are, or what country you're in, or what period of history you're talking about?

IMO it's very simple in the US. Right-wing has become a derogatory term for people who oppose change that has little more than because they're doing it elsewhere, going for it.

[subego]

It's not communism, it's really government, period.

Government is like some kind of horrible, agressive cancer treatment. Probably a good idea when it comes to something as severe as cancer, but undeniably a bag of hurt.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Government is like some kind of horrible, agressive cancer treatment. Probably a good idea when it comes to something as severe as cancer, but undeniably a bag of hurt.

I've never heard anyone put it that way. That's a great analogy.

At what point does the treatment become worse then the disease?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is "liberal" really a political philosophy? Certainly not in the way "socialism" is a political philosophy.

I wasn't claiming liberal was a political philosophy.

[subego]

Then what objective political information am I supposed to glean about someone from the label "liberal"?

I posit the term is close to meaningless except as a slogan to show membership in a club of people who have wildly varying politics.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I've never heard anyone put it that way. That's a great analogy.

At what point does the treatment become worse then the disease?

Thank you.

I think it carries though the idea the small government position isn't* to abolish as much government you can get your hands on, it's that seeking a government solution should always make you squirm a little.

Even if, or perhaps especially if, it's something you support, be that the military, or welfare.


*At least, it shouldn't be that. There are many who espouse the small government position who are unclear on the concept.

[turtle777]

Goes along with this:

Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away [...].

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

-t

[The Final Shortcut]

Well that all depends on the circumstances I suppose....

But on a related note, within the next couple years us damned right-wing Canadians to the north will apparently have our smallest government in over 50 years. Cut, slice, burn!

[BadKosh]

It looks like the Democrats will have to take down their circus tent called Owe-bamacare before they leave town in 2016. 2014 looks like Disasterville for all the Democrats who voted for it without reading it. I think some of this was due to their snotty smugness when they passed it with all the tricks. It sure is fun to watch.

[subego]

[Whack! Bang!]

Trying to jump this mother****er. Got left out in the ruralish Pennsylvania cold all weekend.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

Then what objective political information am I supposed to glean about someone from the label "liberal"?

I posit the term is close to meaningless except as a slogan to show membership in a club of people who have wildly varying politics.

No chance on continuing this?

[The Final Dakar]

Oh sorry. I don't know what to say. I think when an American claims to be liberal there are certain assumptions that can be made about their positions on some topics. Ex: Pro-Choice, Supports gun control, believes in global warming.

I don't think that's a philosophy but I don't think its meaningless, either.

[subego]

Well, I said close to meaningless.

Right there you display (IMO) two entirely opposing philosophies. Pro-choice is based in allowing personal freedom. Gun control is restricting personal freedom.

Doesn't one clang against the other for you?

To be clear, I'm not saying there should be no gun control, but the idea is going to clang on my pro-personal freedom philosophical foundation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Right there you display (IMO) two entirely opposing philosophies. Pro-choice is based in allowing personal freedom. Gun control is restricting personal freedom.

But it is accurate, right?

[subego]

I'm not questioning the accuracy of the label, I'm questioning its value. As in, how much useful information is contained within?

As a label which comfortably holds entirely opposing viewpoints, I'm saying it doesn't contain much, and that's why I reject it as being one end of an axis.

Pro-choice and gun control come from entirely opposite ends of the spectrum, therefore they should be on opposite ends of the spectrum, regardless of how American political parties want to carve out real estate for their own self-serving purposes.


Sorry... got a little ranty at the end. Not aimed at you, but at the parties for the "language war" they participate in.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not questioning the accuracy of the label, I'm questioning its value. As in, how much useful information is contained within?

Quite a bit if you're trying to make some basic assumptions of their positions.

Originally Posted by subego 

As a label which comfortably holds entirely opposing viewpoints, I'm saying it doesn't contain much, and that's why I reject it as being one end of an axis.

Pro-choice and gun control come from entirely opposite ends of the spectrum, therefore they should be on opposite ends of the spectrum, regardless of how American political parties want to carve out real estate for their own self-serving purposes.

Well I'm sorry political reality shits on your theoretical spectrum.

[subego]

Even though I'm nationalistic to a fault, I'm not so nationalistic I see current political reality in the US as an adequate representation of "political reality".

[subego]

Of course, both parties are just thrilled you think that way. They spend a whole lot of money on it, and like to see return on investment.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Even though I'm nationalistic to a fault, I'm not so nationalistic I see current political reality in the US as an adequate representation of "political reality".

Adequate reality strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron in this context. Your real complaint is about logical consistency. Much like game theory, human nature has a way of subverting things.

Originally Posted by subego 

Of course, both parties are just thrilled you think that way. They spend a whole lot of money on it, and like to see return on investment.

You're really losing me here.

[BadKosh]

Yet another example..........

North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

[subego]

@Dakar,

Oh... I have many complaints.

My first complaint is what is meant by "logical consistency" is "consistency of reasoning".

My second complaint is there is no consistency of reasoning in the US representation of the political spectrum. A spectrum should have consistency of reasoning.

My third complaint is the US spectrum, apart from lacking consistency, is it's hopelessly narrow. Politics isn't just limited to the US.

My fourth complaint is the US spectrum changes over time, which ****s over consistency even more. A large about of the change is due to...

My fifth complaint is the US spectrum is ground zero for all out semantic war. The parties take massive advantage of the malleability of the spectrum to damage their opponent.

This is what I mean by the parties being thrilled by you thinking the political landscape starts and ends in the US. They spend lots of money to manipulate the perception of that spectrum, and it's not going to work unless people ascribe little value to the world of politics outside the "right now" in the US.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh sorry. I don't know what to say. I think when an American claims to be liberal there are certain assumptions that can be made about their positions on some topics. Ex: Pro-Choice, Supports gun control, believes in global warming.

I don't think that's a philosophy but I don't think its meaningless, either.

The difficulty, in many minds is where to place people who don't fit within the political rank-and-file, ex; Pro-Choice, supports gun ownership, believes in global warming, rejects government policing of morality. To me, that's a true "liberal"; a focus on individual freedom combined with laissez-faire economic views. Somehow we've gotten everything in this country all bollocksed up and lumped the statists and populists together as Liberals, and the Theocrats and "small L" libertarians as Conservatives. Individual freedoms have been divided along economic and social lines, and to me that's outrageously ****ed up. We call them "Independents", but the truth is they (we) make up a huge political block, though historically we're woefully underrepresented. So we have to choose between social liberty and financial independence, and to say that's frustrating is an understatement.

[subego]

Those positions you list above are consistent.

Why isn't that the end of an axis? Doesn't it make for a better anchor than the piñata of a spectrum we're using now?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Those positions you list above are consistent.

Why isn't that the end of an axis? Doesn't it make for a better anchor than the piñata of a spectrum we're using now?

You're touching on a complaint of mine as I've long maintained "this ain't your fathers' liberalism" and lamented the demise of "classic" or "traditional" liberalism. The US does fashion its own definitions of these terms, but then our paradigm or history is a little different. For example, Conservatives are slow-change to be sure which is consistent with a global understanding of the term in politics, but the system Conservatives are hesitant to change is probably the most liberal ideal of governance known to mankind upon its founding including the notion of States' rights and setting up a system that, when not abused, would by design discourage Executive fiat or Establishment rule; a small set of powers that apply to a Federal/Centralized Authority while leaving the remainder to you, me, and our enumerated States. What we have today is a sort of distorted liberalism, hijacked by contemporary Progressivism that has become the antithesis of itself in relegating Establishment Authority as the source of enlightenment and you, me, and our enumerated States the barbarians in need of civility.

[BadKosh]

And again.....

Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere | The Cable

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The difficulty, in many minds is where to place people who don't fit within the political rank-and-file, ex; Pro-Choice, supports gun ownership, believes in global warming, rejects government policing of morality. To me, that's a true "liberal"; a focus on individual freedom combined with laissez-faire economic views. Somehow we've gotten everything in this country all bollocksed up and lumped the statists and populists together as Liberals, and the Theocrats and "small L" libertarians as Conservatives. Individual freedoms have been divided along economic and social lines, and to me that's outrageously ****ed up. We call them "Independents", but the truth is they (we) make up a huge political block, though historically we're woefully underrepresented. So we have to choose between social liberty and financial independence, and to say that's frustrating is an understatement.

Originally Posted by subego 

Those positions you list above are consistent.

Why isn't that the end of an axis? Doesn't it make for a better anchor than the piñata of a spectrum we're using now?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're touching on a complaint of mine as I've long maintained "this ain't your fathers' liberalism" and lamented the demise of "classic" or "traditional" liberalism. The US does fashion its own definitions of these terms, but then our paradigm or history is a little different. For example, Conservatives are slow-change to be sure which is consistent with a global understanding of the term in politics, but the system Conservatives are hesitant to change is probably the most liberal ideal of governance known to mankind upon its founding including the notion of States' rights and setting up a system that, when not abused, would by design discourage Executive fiat or Establishment rule; a small set of powers that apply to a Federal/Centralized Authority while leaving the remainder to you, me, and our enumerated States. What we have today is a sort of distorted liberalism, hijacked by contemporary Progressivism that has become the antithesis of itself in relegating Establishment Authority as the source of enlightenment and you, me, and our enumerated States the barbarians in need of civility.

You guys are arguing semantics with reality. Literally doesn't mean literally anymore. I don't like it, but reality is literally now means figuratively. Its like arguing about how people use the term ironically. You're just wasting everyones time. What liberal should mean doesn't matter. There aren't enough "real " liberals to flip the definition back.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Dakar,

Oh... I have many complaints.

My first complaint is what is meant by "logical consistency" is "consistency of reasoning".

Originally Posted by subego 

My second complaint is there is no consistency of reasoning in the US representation of the political spectrum. A spectrum should have consistency of reasoning.

I think that's a logical desire but I think the reality would have dire consequences. If everyone was ideologically consistent I can't see how a civil war wouldn't result as everyone would be polar opposites.

Originally Posted by subego 

My third complaint is the US spectrum, apart from lacking consistency, is it's hopelessly narrow. Politics isn't just limited to the US.

The politics I discuss 99% is.

Originally Posted by subego 

My fourth complaint is the US spectrum changes over time, which ****s over consistency even more.

Isn't that the nature of history? Perspective is always relative. What is open and noble today was immoral and disgusting yesterday.

Originally Posted by subego 

My fifth complaint is the US spectrum is ground zero for all out semantic war. The parties take massive advantage of the malleability of the spectrum to damage their opponent.

I'd like to hear more.

Originally Posted by subego 

This is what I mean by the parties being thrilled by you thinking the political landscape starts and ends in the US. They spend lots of money to manipulate the perception of that spectrum, and it's not going to work unless people ascribe little value to the world of politics outside the "right now" in the US.

Keep going. If you're saying peoples use aren't being accurately represented by the political parties, we already had this discussion to some degree. Change the way you vote. The voting system is how the parties are holding onto power, not perception.

[The Final Dakar]

The difficulty, in many minds is where to place people who don't fit within the political rank-and-file, ex; Pro-Choice, supports gun ownership, believes in global warming, rejects government policing of morality. To me, that's a true "liberal"; a focus on individual freedom combined with laissez-faire economic views.

Don't we call these people libertarians?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't we call these people libertarians?

We call these people conservatives, though if you buy into the leftist propaganda machine you'd believe otherwise.

Libertarians (I would identify myself as a moderate libertarian/constitutional conservative) generally have a greater emphasis on individual freedoms regardless whereas conservatives generally refer to the constitution for legislative applications. A very subtle but notable difference, IMO. Of course, this is just the way I see things so take it with a grain.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We call these people conservatives, though if you buy into the leftist propaganda machine you'd believe otherwise.

Have you met buddy? Conservative, pro-life, against drug legalization, gay marriage legalization, etc.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The politics I discuss 99% is.

I appreciate your candor, but not really something you're proud of I presume.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I appreciate your candor, but not really something you're proud of I presume.

I have neither pride nor shame regarding the subject of my politics discussion.

On this very forum, aside from scandals do we discuss foreign politics? Not that I recall (bracing for the possibility of a semantic rebuttal)

[subego]

I'm sure the Europeans will be relieved to hear when they get slagged for being socialists, we're actually not discussing their politics.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm sure the Europeans will be relieved to hear when they get slagged for being socialists, we're actually not discussing their politics.

You know, you're not making my replies to you very rewarding.