Serenity AS Constitution? by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Serenity AS Constitution?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 05:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4371
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:34 PM

Finn,

I agree completely.

The major rights violation that will possibly effect my life is actually not that I will be swept to guatanamo, though that concerns me, torture, execution, no trial. But the new emminent domain law is an absurd violation. The liberals on the court just handed Alito the nod with that decision. This court, too conservative? are you nuts? Okay. So, a little rightward shift might be a little more towards balance. Anyway, I agree with Finn on the Joss stuff too.

That ruling has already turned into ethnic cleansing in New Orleans. Gee, that didn't take long. Now they say 80% of black homeowners will not be allowed back in the city and will lose their property. Home owners. People who own their own homes. Or used to. These were employed folk with lives and homes that they purchased with their own labor and WTF has the govt. done? I think we're now officially living in a kleptocracy.

Telephones and airplanes are passe anyways.

Quote:
Only thing worse than a Liberal Looter is a Neocon Hawk.

Amen to this. The only thing i would add is that there are Liberal Hawks and Neocon Looters also. Or is it Neolib? Can we a agree on a term here. Is neolib a word? No one likes my "Team Evil" declaration, but there gotta be a word for what Hillary and all is. I'm up for Neolib if everyone's in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:14 PM

FLETCH2

Panderer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 4:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Dreatrove- I respect your opinion greatly but this "Team Evil" thing is off-base. If you want to know whether people have a common agenda, just follow the money. The Clintons (both of them) are very much pro-international capital: big supporters of NAFTA and international banks, supporters of the UN, supporters of publically-held businesses. Thus, they had the support of corps like Microsoft and IBM, and the support of shareholders. I think Bill Clinton had a heartfelt belief that international trade would advance the human condition. I think it's a stupid belief and one of the many points I disagreed with him on, but the internationalists liked him because he stabilized the dollar and didn't rock to boat.

The Bush famiy is very much pro-privately-held business and pro-family business: Halliburton, Blackwater, KB&R, GE, oil companies, the Saudis etc. Many internationalists dislike Bush. He foments war and destabilizes the dollar, which is bad for everyone except specific businesses like military contractors and oil speculators. He has not been successful in realizing many international trade agreements, and has appointed one of the most abrasive people you can find in DC to the UN and to the World Bank (Bolton).

I truly dislike Hillary and I would probably be vehemently against most of her plans. Were she to be in power, you would hear me griping long and loud. And I truly dislike Bush -I think he's one of the few unmitigated disasters in our history. But except for the fact that I think they are both disasterous in their different ways they have no connection to each other bc their backers are very different and in some ways antithetical. I think what you're seeing is not Team Evil but the internationalists and stock-holders pulling the plug on the Bush admin.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 5:51 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:

Dreatrove- I respect your opinion greatly but this "Team Evil" thing is off-base. If you want to know whether people have a common agenda, just follow the money. The Clintons (both of them) are very much pro-international capital: big supporters of NAFTA and international banks, supporters of the UN, supporters of publically-held businesses. Thus, they had the support of corps like Microsoft and IBM, and the support of shareholders. I think Bill Clinton had a heartfelt belief that international trade would advance the human condition. I think it's a stupid belief and one of the many points I disagreed with him on, but the internationalists liked him because he stabilized the dollar and didn't rock to boat.

For once I totally disagree with everything you just said.

1. I thought I laid out the Team Evil thing very well. Hillary, DiFi, Lieberman and Ben Nelson are *not* corrupt politicians. They are Shachtmanite ideologues with close personal ties to the republican Shachtmanite ideologues currently in office.

2. NAFTA and international banks, the UN and publically-held businesses are *all* socialist institutions that Max Shachtman thought were essential to a global social revolution, ie. new world order. None of these have any interest in advancing trade, and they are all completely unnecessary towards that end. In fact, they directly conflict with that end.

3. Clinton's support Microsoft and IBM? I'm sorry, I respect your opnion, I don't mean this to be hostile, but 1. Microsoft anti-trust suit. Not to mention Chrysler sale. Carter Chrysler bailout it yay America, go Carter. Carter sale to Daimler is WTF? Now I can't blame Clinton for this because Bush OK'ed it, but I think they're the same aministration, minus some corrupt energy policiy, but: Lenovo bought IBM PC. Lenovo is a 'favored company' which is Chinese for a 'defacto arm of the govt.'

4. Clinton had no heartfelt beliefs. He had good economic policy because of his deal with Perot, and possibly some good sense of his own to hire talented people. I think Perot particularly pushed for many of these people. Everyone does know that Clinton made the deal with Perot to let Perot set economic policy in order to get in to office, right? I hope this doesn't fall into the realm of conspiracy theory.

5. All you need to find the connection is to read back on each of these people personally, and on some of their friends. Then look at statements where they said the same thing, even if that idea was way outside the mainstream.

Everyone makes deals, and some people, like the Bushes and the Clintons sign those deals in blood. This is what advances them to power. Neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush is in a direct way a member of an evil conspiracy for global domination. But they are career people. They got a reputation for keeping to the secret deals they signed, and so evil people used them.

Both put into effect a whole series of things concocted by the wolfowitzes of the world. I don't think either president really cares about the NWO at all. But, they are men of their secret word. What made Clinton not an economic disaster was his secret deal with Perot, and his own not being a moron thing. Bush has the being a moron thing, and no Perot.

But again, and this is where it's worth digging into, the people make deals. Hillary has reworked the Bill deal, and this time it's pretty much pure Bush. If you look at the military agenda of Bush/Clinton there's not really a lot of change. Or any.

None of these people are internationalists. You mean globalists. It's subtle, but the internationalists believe in a table. T.Roosevelt/Taft created the doctring on internationalism, and it was based on the idea that there was a global table at which all disputes could be resolved. This table, by itself has no power. Ideally, it's a place where Osama Bin Laden can sit opposite Vladimir Putin and discuss the Russian school bombing without more than a chucked shoe. Globalist philosophy is almost 180 degrees away from that. It believes in a one world counsil made up of power players, usually in the form of multi-national entities like the EU and NAFTA, where the member states are required to abide by the decisions. This in effect it a move towards one world govt., which is the globalists ultimate objective. Internationalists believe in the self determination of each nation. I know they may look similar from the outside, but they are different extremes of a foreign policy political axis, as seriously as capitalism and communism are different ends of the economic axis.

Finally, I see many many signs that the Bush administration is intentionally engineering it's own defeat. It's morphing into Hillary. It's a bait and switch. I make unpopular policy, then I become anti-me, decry me, and people vote for me again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 6:53 AM

FLETCH2

SIGNYM, you made the mistake of assuming he's willing to listen.

Team Evil is attractive to him because it means that none of the bad stuff is actually being done by "good conservatives" or "true Republicans" it's all part of a socialist/capitalist conspiracy put together by a man that seems to have been so unable to work with others that he factionalised American Trotskyism into nothing (and that was the nicest thing I could find about him.)

It's like PN's absolute belief that "Jews" are reseponsable for everything. In the same was that PN will invent a Jewish link or Jewish lineage to fit with the "theory" DT will find some link to "Team Evil."

I believe that there are jokers in the pack when it comes to US politics, it can be proven that some of the same money backs both presidential canidates to ensure they have "access" no matter who wins. If you look at what Bush appointees have done at the UN you can not see anything that forwards a Globalist agenda, in fact I suspect that will cost the GOP down the road because international capital needs a stable world.

If DT's theory were correct it would be a conspiracy of dunces because what they DO actually goes against the TE theory. DT would probably suggest a double or tripple fake. My advice is to stop looking to creat a boogie man you can blame your own party's degenerate tendencies on, accept your new faith includes the same kinds of crooks your old one did and fix it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 8:06 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
I definitely don’t see Firefly as being Left-wing. I don’t see anything Left-wing about a guy who opposes a “progressive” (Joss’s word) Alliance and fights for his right to be the king in his own castle, instead of being another cog in a huge centralized political machinery.

Actually traditionally Liberals are anti centralised big government and pro personal freedoms and a secular state.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 10:11 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Actually traditionally Liberals are anti centralised big government and pro personal freedoms and a secular state.

Citizen. Sorry. You can't just redefine the word liberal here. I understand the confusion, we're not from the same country, so there's a confusion. Maybe you're right and we're wrong, but you need a qualifier, like I have often used things like "the American left" to describe a position.

The Liberal Democrats are a right-wing party. Liberal democrats in America are a left wing branch of a left wing party. In england, the Left wing is Labor.

To us, here in the us, liberal is a word meaning generous, and not a word meaning free. If we use a word to mean the political ideology of free, it's libertarian. Everyone on this forum is more or less a libertarian, which is why firefly appeals to us. Even people who come out and stomp for Bush have occassionally identified themselves as libertarians.

In particular, and this is the point, it was in reference to Finn's comment.

Finn here is completely correct. The court is divided into two camps, one called 'liberal', and the other called 'conservative'. This vote came to a left-right split. The conservative right said 4th amendment property rights were a guarantee and the liberal left said that local govts. should have the power to seize land. This not a mater of opinion, it's what happened.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 10:24 AM

CITIZEN

On the contrary dreamtrove, I am not the one redefining anything, the right owes it's roots to the Monarchists, that is where the term came from, they were pro- central government and church. I realise the right has changed.

However I said traditionally Liberal and this is thoroughly correct, if you don't believe me look up classical liberalism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 11:08 AM

FLETCH2

Bullshit!

You will NOT start this "liberal means generous, Libertarian means free" bullshit any more. 5 people told you that was rubbish, people who actually know latin explained to you in detail that it has the same root, we showed you the dictionary definitions from something that wasn't wiki and therefore is a credible source and you still ignore it.

Stop it right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 11:11 AM

CITIZEN

Are you talking to me?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 11:20 AM

FLETCH2

No to DT again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 3:00 PM

DREAMTROVE

No, one fletch did it over and over again. This time, Finn is right, ti was the liberals on the court and for Christs sake, Fletch, give it a rest.

You are never going to let go of your "conservatives are evil, all hail the socialist revolution, just give us the one ring, it's our precious, we needs it" stance, are you?

Words fail me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 3:06 PM

DREAMTROVE

And Fletch, as I already said, in English, Freedom and Freely both come from free, and yet mean generous and liberty correspondingly as well, so your same root word idea is bogus. I posted all the dictionary definitions I could find. I'm not wrong here. But that isn't really the point, is it? This about you and your alliance, your one ring, your all-seeing eye.

We, on the right, are not the enemy. I, am not the enemy. You don't ever seem to get it, and you don't ever give an inch. You have to win unconditional surrender on every point don't you, protecting the purity of your utopian ideal. I've had it, I really have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 3:55 PM

DREAMTROVE

Once again,

Liber - a roman God of wine merriment, generosity, the giver.

Liber, roman word for book, or free, and it's derivations (From ubc.ca University of British Columbia, the first hit I got on google for a latin dictionary)
liber libri : book.
liber libera, liberum : free, independent, unrestricted.
liberalis : courteous, generous, gentlemanly.
liberalitas : courtesy, kindness, generousity / a grant.
liberaliter : courteously, generously, honorably.
liberatio : release, liberation, acquittal, setting free.
libere : freely, openly, frankly.
libero : to liberate, set free.
libero : to lift (an obstacle), raise.
libero : to set free, deliver, liberate, release / exempt
libertas : freedom, liberty, independence / frankness, candor. Liberalis,

Liberal, from dictionary.com

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Tending to give freely; generous.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

From the same latin dictionary,

conservo : to preserve, conserve, maintain, keep, hold to.

Conservative as it opposite of liberal, to keep vs. to give.

I recall you lost that argument before, no wonder you don't want it coming up again. Anyway, I didn't start it, citizen posted liberal as being libertarian.
My point here is that we are all libertarians. I am certainly NOT going to let you claim the freedom is a partisan issue.
You would love a world in which liberal meant freedom loving and by opposition conservative meant freedom hating, which would nicely suit your propaganda machine.
But this is simply not the case. Particularly, as the words are used in opposition, there is only one derivation in which they are in opposition, and that is the meaning intended.
We are the keepers, you are the givers. If you prefer to paint it negatively, feel free, we're uncle scrooge, and you are santa claus. So be it.
But you simply cannot turn things on their head to make us the enemies of freedom, and your side it's natural heirs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 6:12 PM

CHRISISALL

I say we start an international BROWNCOAT party, sort of middle-of-the road libertarian, and vote the scum on either side of the divider away.
(of course, the very act of creating a new party will inevitably invite new opportunistic scum to seep in to take new advantage...)

ARGHHHH!

Forget it, just vote on issues...

Hard burn Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 6:36 PM

FLETCH2

I didn't argue it at all Finn did and he actually won it. You don't "win" an argument by refusing to acknowledge when you lose it. As I recall the root of both words was Liberous (?) meaning "good enough for a free man." Free in this case being a citizen freed from slavery as opposed to one born free.

We also showed that anywhere in English that "liberal" was used to mean generous you could replace it with a variation of "free" and still be accurate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 7:13 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
You don't "win" an argument by refusing to acknowledge when you lose it.

Precisely what I was saying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 7:15 PM

DREAMTROVE

Chris, the third party would split whoever it was closest too, causing it's worst enemy, whichever that was, to always win. I like my be-our-own conspiracy idea, left and right working together to get better left and better right.

I also propose that pirate jenny is pirate news' new recruit to make him seem less alone. Maybe she's his wife.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 8:32 PM

DREAMTROVE

Anyway, my apologies Fletch. I was really annoyed, I didn't mean to go off like that, or if I did, I don't mean to now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 8:57 PM

FLETCH2

Well since Finn was the one you were arguing with if you really believe you won you need him to conceed. You can't claim victory in an argument with me if you had it with him. I can't concede for him (and incidentally he was right.)

For your information the reason I remember it so vividly is that it was in that argument that my opinion of you seriously fell. You argued that if the Oxford English dictionary didnt agree with your definition then it had obviously been "nobbled" by liberals, which is so out there as to seriously hit your credibility.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

tsk tsk. Fletch, Dreamtrove- You're both too bright to be engaging in trivial debate. Like many English words, "liberal" has multiple meanings.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:15 AM

DREAMTROVE

I apologzie for the OED comment, which was out of line, but I think also this may be one word where the word's meaning is different across the atlantic. Liberal to mean free just never showed up in my lifetime, my school studies, any dictionary or encyclopedia until someone posted it. I think it was you I was having the argument with and then Finn butted in. I don't remember and I can't find the thread now.

Anyway, at the time I thought that it was political spin to redefine to the word to claim freedom as belonging only to the political left, and I guess I still do. I guess my point, and I want to make it clear so that we don't continue this feud, is that 'liberal' as it opposes 'conservative' is generous and giving, as opposed to preverving and keeping. Conservative is not the opposite of freedom, which is my point, and the natural conclusion of liberal as the party of freedom.

As goes to the point of Kelo vs. the City of New London, which is what was at issue, the so called liberal judges of the supreme court did rule in favor of New London. I know it's not the proudest hour for liberals, esp. on the libertarian end of things, and I by no means are trying to dance around the fire and say look what you did! But, as re: Sam Alito, and the rightward shift of the court, the New London ruling is some sort of pro-govt. extreme leftism, as is the right to die ruling, maybe the court needs a rightward shift. What concerns me, the only thing that concerns me about Alito, is that the court maybe needs an anti-executive shift.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE