AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2013 14:16:01 GMT -5
* Keep your comments confined to the topic under discussion, paul. You know the rules. Follow them. - mmhmm, P&M Moderator
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 14:44:53 GMT -5
* As per my comment in the previous post, let's keep comments confined to the topic under discussion. - mmhmm, P&M Moderator
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2013 14:46:32 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 14:49:44 GMT -5
How Pollyannaesque of you. At the end of FY 2011 the government owed the Social Security Trust Fund around $2.68 trillion - money it had robbed from the fund to cover its operations elsewhere off-budget. I don't agree that it will have to get fixed, because I find persuasive the examples both of history and the present day. If we agree that the situation is that the current debt trajectory is unsustainable and that the current debt level is fearsomely high - and we might not, I grant, but I think we do - then it is apparent that this current state has evolved from pre-existing states from which this one were predictable. California's Legislative Analyst observes likely future states arising from a maintenance or worsening of the current debt trajectory. The response of California's Governor to a specious projected budget surplus in the current fiscal year is to propose spending increases of 26.2% over the next four years. at the rate of inflation for the last half century, the budget would have to go up 16.2% just to keep up with cost. so, this translates to 10% "real growth". but before you say "see, i told you so" keep in mind that there has been real SHRINKAGE in the budget the last (3) years. so, i think this proposal translates to ZERO real growth in the (6) year period ending 2016. but furthermore, i would add that the budget it not final, yet.This illustrates that it is currently possible for elected politicians to disregard off-budget problems that are non-immediate and exacerbate them with on-budget solutions to problems that are immediate. If this is currently the case, no worsening of the off-budget problems will change the political calculus in future, just as it hasn't in the past. The era of the perpetual campaign rationally favors a focus on the short-term, and exactly the same airy response you're making to the long-term: SOMEBODY will have to fix it, but we've got YEARS before we reach the point of having to address it as an immediate concern.
It's a house of cards. now, there we disagree. i think there is some mortar and wood in there somewhere.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 14:51:27 GMT -5
About First Principles First Principles is the web journal of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). In order to further ISI’s mission of “educating for liberty,” it publishes, three times per week, new essays, articles, comments, and reviews related to six broad areas of inquiry: Western civilization, the American experience, free markets and civil society, America’s security, the conservative intellectual tradition, and higher education. First Principles also regularly publishes classic articles from ISI’s massive archive of journal articles. Furthermore, each of the approximately 4,800 pieces to have appeared in past issues of the Intercollegiate Review, Modern Age, and the Political Science Reviewer eventually will be available on First Principles in searchable form. Other unique features of this web journal include the frequent publication of entries from ISI Books’ landmark reference volume, American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, institutional profiles from ISI’s college guides, excerpts from new ISI Books titles, and fresh pieces from current ISI journal issues. oh yeah. i am going to listen to ANOTHER incredibly biased conservative telling me what i am. right. as if.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2013 14:53:38 GMT -5
mmhmm or chiver may want to take more drastic action. I'm going to file a harshly-worded resolution that asks both parties to cease enriched ad hominemium production at once. Don't make me inspect your inboxes. Seriously, though. Stop attacks now, or the whole exchange gets trashed. - Mod
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2013 15:01:43 GMT -5
To Wit: Ouch. DJ? DJ, what are you doing with that nail gun? Put it down. Put it down, man! It isn't worth it!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 15:09:41 GMT -5
To Wit: Ouch. DJ? DJ, what are you doing with that nail gun? Put it down. Put it down, man! It isn't worth it! they are conflating liberalism with socialism, in the McCarthy tradition. how droll.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2013 15:20:51 GMT -5
They're saying that most Americans ascribing to the label "liberal" are in fact socialists.
They're agreeing with you that the two are in no way synonymous. The only difference between you is that they're willing to use the co-opted definition, recognizing that the misnomer is so pervasive that Americans--even those calling themselves liberals--equate the term "liberal" to socialism.
It's the same thesis I've hammered away at in our many arguments. Your counterargument has always been that since "liberalism = socialism" isn't in any dictionary, that mustn't be how Americans use the term.
I can't convince you to give up the battle, but I can tell you that the sooner you do, the sooner your debates about dominant political ideologies in the US can transcend quibbling about word definitions.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 15:35:48 GMT -5
They're saying that most Americans ascribing to the label "liberal" are in fact socialists. they should work on that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 15:37:06 GMT -5
I can't convince you to give up the battle, but I can tell you that the sooner you do, the sooner your debates about dominant political ideologies in the US can transcend quibbling about word definitions. to paraphrase you: why can't we have both?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2013 16:06:26 GMT -5
I know quite a few liberals; albeit, not many in my part of the country. However, I can't say most of those I know claim themselves to be socialists any more than most of the conservatives I know (lots of those locally) claim themselves to be facists. I tend to let people decide for themselves how they think and what they are. I sometimes wonder how one who is not a liberal knows so much about how liberals think of themselves, though.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 16:34:15 GMT -5
I know quite a few liberals; albeit, not many in my part of the country. However, I can't say most of those I know claim themselves to be socialists any more than most of the conservatives I know (lots of those locally) claim themselves to be facists. I tend to let people decide for themselves how they think and what they are. I sometimes wonder how one who is not a liberal knows so much about how liberals think of themselves, though. i will repeat this again, for sake of those that didn't see it last time. i started a thread titled "Was Stalin A Liberal" on an old board that some of you long-timers will remember. it was an amazing thread. it exposed a LOT of misconceptions. but one of the most interesting ones was the inability of those on either extreme of the political spectrum to separate centrists from extremists. in other words, if you are on the extreme left, the center looks like the extreme right to you, generally speaking. same is true of right-left perceptions. they are way way off. ONLY centrists can properly judge where people fall in the political spectrum. those on the extremes are totally unfit to judge where others fall.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 8:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 17:10:13 GMT -5
How is it that with all that spending, CA still has the highest poverty rate in the US? actually, i don't think those things are contradictory at all, if you consider the tax base. ie: if half your tax base is below poverty level, there is no way you are ever going to get your budget to balance. Which one is the chicken, and which one is the egg?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 17:34:59 GMT -5
actually, i don't think those things are contradictory at all, if you consider the tax base. ie: if half your tax base is below poverty level, there is no way you are ever going to get your budget to balance. Which one is the chicken, and which one is the egg? impossible to say, right? but it is a death spiral, if it happens.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 8:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 18:09:39 GMT -5
But wait, didn't Paul say we were going to be the first domino in the cascade of states declaring bankruptcy. I'm so confused now. I have all these guns in my garage next to my canned goods and composting toilet... what am I supposed to do now? ur still good for the zombie 'pocalypse
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2013 18:15:23 GMT -5
I never said CA was going to be the first, but it is inextricably in a financial death spiral- a nose dive from which it can never pull up out of.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2013 18:27:57 GMT -5
I know quite a few liberals; albeit, not many in my part of the country. However, I can't say most of those I know claim themselves to be socialists any more than most of the conservatives I know (lots of those locally) claim themselves to be facists. I tend to let people decide for themselves how they think and what they are. I sometimes wonder how one who is not a liberal knows so much about how liberals think of themselves, though. This is why I prefer the terms "Utopian" or "Statist" because the point is that ANY ideology that would subordinate the rights of the individual to the state to achieve ANY collectivist goal is NOT classical liberalism. Our founders were liberals. Today's liberals despise our founders. They dismiss them as archaic old white slave owners who stole land from the natives. Woodrow Wilson and FDR embody modern liberalism, they both dismissed the Constitution- they have to in order to achieve their ends, they have to get our founding principles, and our highest law- the Constitution out of the way.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2013 19:14:55 GMT -5
I sometimes wonder how one who is not a liberal knows so much about how liberals think of themselves, though. He need only take note what certain people call themselves (which may or may not include "liberal"), and then observe which policies, ideologies, etc. these people support. That's the crux of the ISI article: the cohort of Americans that support socialist policies overwhelmingly self-identify as "liberals", leading to an interchangeability of the terms "socialist" and "liberal" in North American politics in spite of the incongruity between their classical definitions. Thus the US has embraced the very thing you've suggested: letting people call themselves what they want to, and embracing the misnomers for sake of expediency. DJ is the language puritan guarding the door of "liberal", insisting that it apply only to the increasingly esoteric classical definition. ETA: Paul's approach of using "statist", "socialist", etc. rather than "liberal" is exactly opposite the "let people decide for themselves what they are" approach. A statist can decide he's a "liberal", but Paul isn't going to respect the label.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2013 19:18:09 GMT -5
Do you actually think you see, expressed here, all the policies, ideologies, etc. posters support, Virgil? I'd beg to differ. If people don't call themselves "liberals", who are you to decide to call them "liberals"? People have every right to decide for themselves who they are and what they support. You have absolutely no right to do it for them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2013 19:24:44 GMT -5
Do you actually think you see, expressed here, all the policies, ideologies, etc. posters support, Virgil? I'd beg to differ. If people don't call themselves "liberals", who are you to decide to call them "liberals"? People have every right to decide for themselves who they are and what they support. You have absolutely no right to do it for them. I don't see what this has to do with ISI article or the present debate. The article is talking about Americans who self-identify as liberals.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2013 19:53:17 GMT -5
Do you actually think you see, expressed here, all the policies, ideologies, etc. posters support, Virgil? I'd beg to differ. If people don't call themselves "liberals", who are you to decide to call them "liberals"? People have every right to decide for themselves who they are and what they support. You have absolutely no right to do it for them. I don't see what this has to do with ISI article or the present debate. The article is talking about Americans who self-identify as liberals. You're the one who proclaimed " ... most Americans ascribing to the label "liberal" are in fact socialists." I did not. That isn't people self-identifying, Virgil. That's you identifying for them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2013 20:11:14 GMT -5
I don't see what this has to do with ISI article or the present debate. The article is talking about Americans who self-identify as liberals. You're the one who proclaimed " ... most Americans ascribing to the label "liberal" are in fact socialists." I did not. That isn't people self-identifying, Virgil. That's you identifying for them. - The ISI article is making the claim. I just happen to agree with it.
- The ISI article's claim is well-supported.
- The relevant issue is whether or not socialists self-identify as socialists, not whether liberals self-identify as liberals.
- If x is a rigorously defined term (such as "socialist") based on observable criteria, the correctness or incorrectness of applying x to an individual has nothing to do with whether or not that individual believes x applies. For example, a man who insists he is a philanthropist but won't lift a finger to help anyone is in fact not a philanthropist. A man who denies being a fatalist but whose life philosophy is indistinguishable from fatalism is in fact a fatalist.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2013 20:51:03 GMT -5
Virgil, this really doesn't require a mathematical formula. Honest. It doesn't. If a person says they're a liberal, they're a liberal. You cannot redefine them as a socialist and just assume yourself correct in doing so. You'd need to find out FROM THAT PERSON what they mean when THEY say "liberal". We're talking people here, not mathematics. People don't fit into little, numbered boxes. I recall ... once upon a time ... you'd decided I was a liberal. Then came the revelation regarding my feelings about a national language. You ended up with your face in your porridge, ol' chap. People are curious critters. Yeah. They are.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2013 21:08:26 GMT -5
Virgil, this really doesn't require a mathematical formula. Honest. It doesn't. If a person says they're a liberal, they're a liberal. You cannot redefine them as a socialist and just assume yourself correct in doing so. You'd need to find out FROM THAT PERSON what they mean when THEY say "liberal". We're talking people here, not mathematics. People don't fit into little, numbered boxes. I recall ... once upon a time ... you'd decided I was a liberal. Then came the revelation regarding my feelings about a national language. You ended up with your face in your porridge, ol' chap. People are curious critters. Yeah. They are. I changed my mind because we agreed to use "liberal" in the classical sense, and your views didn't satisfy the criteria. It was a straightforward application of the very process I described above.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2013 21:15:34 GMT -5
Liberal is liberal. It's always been the same. I agree with dj, in that respect. Liberal does not equate to socialist just because the neocons have decided it does. As an aside, you can change your mind about something you don't know anything about in the first place, I suppose, Virgil; however, it wouldn't mean much either way. You don't know anything, really, about the way I think or about my politics; nor, do you know anything about how "most people" who self-identify as liberals actually think.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Nov 27, 2013 21:37:43 GMT -5
Liberal does not equate to socialist just because the neocons have decided it does. Presumably the neocons have all self-identified as such... But I am glad to hear you're in my corner on self-identifying, so allow me to state for the record that I do not self-identify as a member or supporter of hate groups, nor as a racist, nor is my dislike of presidential policies in any which way related to the president being of mixed race... glad that's settled once and for all.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2013 21:55:16 GMT -5
Liberal does not equate to socialist just because the neocons have decided it does. Presumably the neocons have all self-identified as such... But I am glad to hear you're in my corner on self-identifying, so allow me to state for the record that I do not self-identify as a member or supporter of hate groups, nor as a racist, nor is my dislike of presidential policies in any which way related to the president being of mixed race... glad that's settled once and for all. Don't have a clue whether the neocons have self-identified, or not, and I'm not about to presume anything. I'm not even sure I know who they are, so I can't really say how they identify, self-, or otherwise. As to your self-identity, I don't have a clue unless you choose to tell me. Of what you've said here, none of it surprises me. You hadn't given me any reason to think you were a supporter of any of that.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Nov 27, 2013 22:01:38 GMT -5
Don't have a clue whether the neocons have self-identified, or not, and I'm not about to presume anything. I'm not even sure I know who they are, so I can't really say how they identify, self-, or otherwise. Then why did you use the term neocons?As to your self-identity, I don't have a clue unless you choose to tell me. Of what you've said here, none of it surprises me. You hadn't given me any reason to think you were a supporter of any of that. Just clarifying to avoid future misunderstandings in general.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2013 22:10:41 GMT -5
Because it's the term for those who, from what I've read, feel liberal is equal to socialist/communist (take your pick or combine them, at your leisure). It's not my term. It appears to be the media's term. I just borrowed it. Substitute whatever you like. I'm pretty apolitical. It won't bother me.
I don't know why we'd have such misunderstandings. Until you told me, I had no opinion regarding your stance on those issues. I also had no real interest.
|
|