Winston Smith
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- 204
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, it doesnt. In fact, it doesnt address the issue in any way.
Goobieman said:Show that "war is always evil".
Goobieman said:This doesnt do anything to negate what I said.
This discussed the the threat pulic liberty, not 'damage" to the coutnry."Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it causes every other.
What -else- might cause taxes and debts, and might cause them to a greater degree?War is the cause of armies; from these are caused debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few
And that of those other causes of debts and taxes? These are outside of any discretion, immune from question and oversight. The power there is far more insidious. As such, war cannot be singled out, as you have done.War, too, causes the discretionary power of the Executive to be extended...
This is your defintion of evil? Remarkable, overtly secular - and impossibly self-serving.It's destructive rather than productive, and doubly so because of its large opportunity cost.
Not always.It's inherently inimical to democratic society for the reasons Madison pointed out.
Obviusly not.It directly negates it...
This discussed the the threat pulic liberty, not 'damage" to the coutnry.
Goobieman said:It also does not exclude or preclude other causes to that threat. As such, war cannot be singled out, as you have done.
To wit:
What -else- might cause taxes and debts, and might cause them to a greater degree?
Surely, you need no prompt to answer this, as there are numerous examples.
And that of those other causes of debts and taxes? These are outside of any discretion, immune from question and oversight. The power there is far more insidious. As such, war cannot be singled out, as you have done.
So, you have yet to support the idea that war is -the- cause of all the 'damage' done to the country.
Goobieman said:This is your defintion of evil? Remarkable, overtly secular - and impossibly self-serving.
Goobieman said:Aside from your questionable standard...
War, while certainly ofetn quite destructive, often creates opportunity for production, and is often productive in and of itself. To argue that war cannot have a productive component -- that is, a benefit to society -- simply denies the truth of history.
Goobieman said:Not always.
Goobieman said:Obviusly not.
Yes... but that's not the ONLY harm our country can experience, and war is not the ONLY way liberty can be harmed.Liberty is our foundation. What harms liberty harms the country.
Which IS the point. You're arguing that war is the be-all end-all cause of harm to this country, based on its affect on taxes/debt and the dangerouns consolidation of power. There are other things that create these conditions, to an extent greater than war, and as such, illustrate that war is not that be-all end-all cause of harm. This, alone, negates your position.Well, that's a different point, isn't it?
The welfare state does not have war at its root. This isnt even a good try on your part.Yes, there are other causes, but if you trace them back far enough you will almost always find war at the root.
You said that "war is always evil", and then backed that statement with the idea that "It's destructive rather than productive, and doubly so because of its large opportunity cost". This is flalse; significant progress in any number of useful, even essential, areas stem from war, bith directly and indirectly. This illustrates a "productive" side of war, as war prodiced these things, and thus negates your argument that war is "always evil".I simply mean that it's an evil, not the whole definition of evil and certainly not to the exclusion of religious definitions.
This has absolutely no relationship to what I said. Nice try, tho.Congratulations on out-Keynesing the Keynesians.
In many cases - examples of which you should be very familiar with - democtratic processes were not possible until the result of war bought the conditions that allowed such a society to exist.And why is that?
It MIGHT... if it were true. Its not true.The assertion that a society is tending to fascism doesn't negate the assertion that it's preserving its freedom?
Yes... but that's not the ONLY harm our country can experience, and war is not the ONLY way liberty can be harmed.
Which IS the point. You're arguing that war is the be-all end-all cause of harm to this country, based on its affect on taxes/debt and the dangerouns consolidation of power. There are other things that create these conditions, to an extent greater than war, and as such, illustrate that war is not that be-all end-all cause of harm. This, alone, negates your position.
The welfare state does not have war at its root. This isnt even a good try on your part.
You said that "war is always evil", and then backed that statement with the idea that "It's destructive rather than productive, and doubly so because of its large opportunity cost". This is flalse; significant progress in any number of useful, even essential, areas stem from war, bith directly and indirectly. This illustrates a "productive" side of war, as war prodiced these things, and thus negates your argument that war is "always evil".
This has absolutely no relationship to what I said. Nice try, tho.
In many cases - examples of which you should be very familiar with - democtratic processes were not possible until the result of war bought the conditions that allowed such a society to exist.
It MIGHT... if it were true. Its not true.
:roll:You're wasting my time and failing to counter the substance of my points.
Strange conservative-tea party reasoning.
Take your first definition of fascism and add : "and involves the merger of government and corporate power".
The bank bailout IS fascism, Obama's handling of the auto industry is fascism, letting insurance companies WRITE the health care bill is fascism, etc
Also, JUST BECAUSE Obama was elected and has the 'velvet glove' doesn't make him ANY less of a dictator... rather then the executor he's supposed to be... and when they kick him out in 2012 or 2016, then a new guy will come in and act as dictator...so, the dictatorship is in the OFFICE of the presidency, rather then the puppet sitting in the presidential chair.
Learn how the US system works before you make outlandish statements.
Obama'a only power is military, defense, veto, pardons, bill signing, and the bully pulpit.
ricksfolly
Oh come on ricksfolly, you forgot executive orders.
:roll:
As you run, make sure to tuck that tail nice and tight.
Given that you have given up defending your argument frim direct, valid criticism, you might as well...Oh, I'm not going anywhere.
Given that you have given up defending your argument frim direct, valid criticism, you might as well...
Stubborn? More like intellectually dishonest.Call me stubborn, but I'm holding out hope that some valid criticism may yet appear.
Strange conservative-tea party reasoning.
Learn how the US system works before you make outlandish statements.
Obama'a only power is military, defense, veto, pardons, bill signing, and the bully pulpit.
ricksfolly
I've thought about this some more and have come the conclusion that Americans have damaged the U.S. the most.
We have moved away from pluralism and have instead embraced majoritarianism.
The democratization of the electoral process, is most likely the culprit (aka, the people).
I've thought about this some more and have come the conclusion that Americans have damaged the U.S. the most.
We have moved away from pluralism and have instead embraced majoritarianism.
The democratization of the electoral process, is most likely the culprit (aka, the people).
You're right, the fault is the people, but not for the reasons you suggested. They're too afraid to do their usual buying, and the media keeps them afraid by only printing bad news. And those rare occasions when they do print good news, they always undermine it with "it could be better."
ricksfolly
None of the above.
What has Damaged America the Most?
The midnset that you are entitled to a certain standard of living, and that if you haven't been able to provide that standard for yourself, it's someone else's fault.
This is NOT a simple matter of 'low confidence'... the problem is systemic. Everything about the economy is simply wrong. America is hemorrhaging it's wealth and other countries are more then willing to lap up the wealth. People are doing their best to save themselves before this system of corruption collapses under it's own weight.
I only go by what I know now. Target, Walmart, and the all the other parking lots are full and traffic is heavier than it was last year. Those are the real signs, not predictions of what is happening undercover or tomorrow, six months from now or even next year. As I said, the problem is the overreacting media and gullible scaredy cats.
ricksfolly
I only go by what I know now. Target, Walmart, and the all the other parking lots are full and traffic is heavier than it was last year. Those are the real signs, not predictions of what is happening undercover or tomorrow, six months from now or even next year. As I said, the problem is the overreacting media and gullible scaredy cats.
ricksfolly
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?