On 9/29/09 5:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:

"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.

I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In
the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in
my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the person.
I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things differently
than what the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes, you
have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good
example. A senator is, in some measure, elected to bring home the bacon
for the state, for example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild (sorry
for the extended metaphore). The civil rights movement is another
example... sometimes change needs to happen even though a particular
population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or better
or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?



It's racial. Really.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

H the K wrote:
On 9/29/09 5:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:

"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the
individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.

I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political
scale. In
the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into
groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national
position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on
this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold
philosophy in
my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been
fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree
that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's
own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the
person.
I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things differently
than what the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes, you
have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good
example. A senator is, in some measure, elected to bring home the bacon
for the state, for example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild (sorry
for the extended metaphore). The civil rights movement is another
example... sometimes change needs to happen even though a particular
population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or
better
or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?



It's racial. Really.

How do you figure that , **** for brains?

Jim wrote:
H the K wrote:
On 9/29/09 5:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:

"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the
individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines
those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.

I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political
scale. In
the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into
groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national
position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion
on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism,
and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold
philosophy in
my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family
that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't
know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been
fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree
that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on
the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's
own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the
person.
I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things
differently
than what the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes,
you
have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good
example. A senator is, in some measure, elected to bring home the
bacon
for the state, for example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild
(sorry
for the extended metaphore). The civil rights movement is another
example... sometimes change needs to happen even though a particular
population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or
better
or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?



It's racial. Really.

How do you figure that , **** for brains?

He is adopting Donny's method - don't think, just post and giggle.