Interesting Eisenhower Quote on war

[IcarusAngel]

"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." --Dwight D. Eisenhower


Is this true? This isn't a communist or a socialist saying this, this is Dwight Eisenhower, somewhat of an icon of the Republican Party.

I think it's accurate, at least for a capitalist system or really any other government. I imagine we've all seen the statistics that show "with money spent on Bush's war, we could feed this many children" or "with some percentage reduction of the military budget, we could send this many more kids to school."

But, instead of providing aid to the poor, we have a military budget past cold war levels.

Instead of coming up with new ideas, our scientists are figuring out how to make a missile 8mm more accurate and so on, to the point where the US, previously the world's leader in technology, is beginning to lose its edge to European countries and the Japanese.

But would congress increase spending on social issues if they decreased the military budget? Maybe not. I've always thought we should vote on where our taxes should go in capitalism. It's closer to socialism that way, and it'd help shut libertarians up who keep claiming the government is stealing, wasting money etc. People voted for it and supported it. Most likely funding for environmental protection and education would go up, and military and things like that would go down. Any advanced society should be doing something like this already.

He continues "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."

This is also blatantly true; never before has human life been so threatened because of hegemony.

[pusher robot]

Yes, in a sense, his quote is true; however, I believe he meant as a condemnation of humanity for the very fact that military forces are necessary in the first place, rather than any particular ideology or nation. If he was condemning an ideology, it would be any that would use force of arms to force itself on others.

I think most capitalists would agree that in a world with no threats, a standing military is a waste of resources. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world and are unlikely to any time soon.


Most likely funding for environmental protection and education would go up, and military and things like that would go down.

It depends on the country. I highly doubt this is true in the U.S.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by STJ+May 31, 2007 03:13 pm--> (STJ @ May 31, 2007 03:13 pm)
pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 05:42 am

I think most capitalists would agree that in a world with no threats, a standing military is a waste of resources. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world and are unlikely to any time soon.

Really what country do you think is a threat to America? [/b]
I think you're missing the point. Few countries can actually threaten America - because we have a massive standing military force. Without it, we would be hard pressed to even fight off pirates on the high seas, and any country with a military force and the willingness to use it would be able to bully us around.

[luxemburg89]

Few countries can actually threaten America - because we have a massive standing military force. Without it, we would be hard pressed to even fight off pirates on the high seas, and any country with a military force and the willingness to use it would be able to bully us around.


Yes but a unification of many countries would easily defeat the USArse. That's the problem with you capitalists you miss the bigger picture and always think of individual 'problems' rather than a mounting group of 'problems'. Well that and you're probably all paedophiles. (And that's p A e d o p h i l e s) before you try and criticise my typing :D

[colonelguppy]

it's the classic guns vs. butter dichotomy. if society spends reources on defense, that's less they can spend on economic infrastructure.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by STJ+May 31, 2007 01:37 pm--> (STJ @ May 31, 2007 01:37 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 03:36 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:13 pm

pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 05:42 am

I think most capitalists would agree that in a world with no threats, a standing military is a waste of resources. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world and are unlikely to any time soon.

Really what country do you think is a threat to America?
I think you're missing the point. Few countries can actually threaten America - because we have a massive standing military force. Without it, we would be hard pressed to even fight off pirates on the high seas, and any country with a military force and the willingness to use it would be able to bully us around.
The idea that there is country out there that is threat to America is a joke. There is no need for the huge military. [/b]
True. The notion that the United States's political and military hegemony rests on a large standing army is a joke. It has to do with bombs and money. But mostly money.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 31, 2007 03:36 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 31, 2007 03:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:13 pm

pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 05:42 am

I think most capitalists would agree that in a world with no threats, a standing military is a waste of resources. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world and are unlikely to any time soon.

Really what country do you think is a threat to America?
I think you're missing the point. Few countries can actually threaten America - because we have a massive standing military force. Without it, we would be hard pressed to even fight off pirates on the high seas, and any country with a military force and the willingness to use it would be able to bully us around. [/b]
How much of the US army used solely for defending the country?

Much of it is designed to go abroad and attack other countries. The US army is designed to be an offensive army. You can not justify it simply in terms of self defence.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 31, 2007 09:45 pm--> (Demogorgon @ May 31, 2007 09:45 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 03:36 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:13 pm

pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 05:42 am

I think most capitalists would agree that in a world with no threats, a standing military is a waste of resources. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world and are unlikely to any time soon.

Really what country do you think is a threat to America?
I think you're missing the point. Few countries can actually threaten America - because we have a massive standing military force. Without it, we would be hard pressed to even fight off pirates on the high seas, and any country with a military force and the willingness to use it would be able to bully us around.
How much of the US army used solely for defending the country?

Much of it is designed to go abroad and attack other countries. The US army is designed to be an offensive army. You can not justify it simply in terms of self defence. [/b]
Sure you can. The only way to defeat an enemy engaged in total war is to destroy his ability and his will to wage war. From a purely practical point of view, any effective military will have primarily offensive, not defensive capabilities. Leaving aside, of course, the deterrant effect that a large offensive capability has.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If the determining factor is the size of the standing Army, then why isn't China the most powerful country in the world?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 09:53 pm

Sure you can. The only way to defeat an enemy engaged in total war is to destroy his ability and his will to wage war. From a purely practical point of view, any effective military will have primarily offensive, not defensive capabilities. Leaving aside, of course, the deterrant effect that a large offensive capability has.
There are armies that are designed primarilly for self defence and are not used for attacking other countries. America's army is different. When America attacks Iraq or Vietnam or whatever, it is not doing what it needs to do to defend itself, it is attacking another country for gain, not for defence.

It is a simple fact that certain countries, America and Britain amongst them, do not use armies for defence but rather to go abroad and cause trouble, it is delusional to say it is simply needed for defence.

[pusher robot]

There are armies that are designed primarilly for self defence and are not used for attacking other countries.

Correct, and those armies are objectively weaker and less able to defeat any threat.


America's army is different. When America attacks Iraq or Vietnam or whatever, it is not doing what it needs to do to defend itself, it is attacking another country for gain, not for defence.

That may be true, but the army is simply a tool. How it's used is a different matter. To be an effective tool for any use, an army must have substantial offensive capability.

Just because an assassin can use a pistol to murder his enemy, does not mean that pistols are not also effective for defense.


It is a simple fact that certain countries, America and Britain amongst them, do not use armies for defence but rather to go abroad and cause trouble, it is delusional to say it is simply needed for defence.

I'm not arguing that we do not use our offensive capabilities for expeditionary purposes; clearly, we do. I am simply arguing that such capabilities, while necessary for expeditionary uses, are also necessary for effective defensive purposes.


If the determining factor is the size of the standing Army, then why isn't China the most powerful country in the world?
Who ever said size was the determining factor? Capability is the most important factor. One nuclear-tipped ICBM with zero soldiers has a huge offensive capability.


Cuz once again the idea that there is country that is threat to us is joke. It's not a joke. Let me ask you this, do you believe that there are no nations that would hurt or bully us if they were able to? That if we just disbanded the military, North Korea and Iran would be our friends?

[luxemburg89]

Who ever said size was the determining factor?

You did, you stupid fuck:


Few countries can actually threaten America - because we have a massive standing military force.

Dr Rosenpenis, feel free to gloat.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:16 pm

Who ever said size was the determining factor?

You did, you stupid fuck:


Few countries can actually threaten America - because we have a massive standing military force.

Dr Rosenpenis, feel free to gloat.
For obvious reasons, "force" does not linearly correlate with "number of troops."

[luxemburg89]

Well military force would represent the troops. Artillary would be the weapons and Naval would be sea, and air-force would be planes. So, while we're on pedantic definitions...

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 11:13 pm

Correct, and those armies are objectively weaker and less able to defeat any threat.

Which is why successive generations of military strategists fealt that Switzerland was the best defended country in Europe/

[Entrails Konfetti]

Hmm, so a standing millitary is to make sure there are no threats, but however if there were no threats they'd be completely useless, so they get threats made by pissing off countries with less millitary might. If the millitary were to stop pissing people off, then they be totally useless because they'd have no reason to defend anything. Wow, its purpose is totally circular, parasitic, and self-perpetuating.

[pusher robot]

Wow, its purpose is totally circular, parasitic, and self-perpetuating.

Yes! I agree! That is exactly the point Eisenhower was making. However, without global cooperation, there is no way out of this particular catch-22.

[Rawthentic]

Eisenhower was a socialist, so get over it y'all fucking parasites.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:23 am
"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." --Dwight D. Eisenhower


Is this true? This isn't a communist or a socialist saying this, this is Dwight Eisenhower, somewhat of an icon of the Republican Party.

I think it's accurate, at least for a capitalist system or really any other government. I imagine we've all seen the statistics that show "with money spent on Bush's war, we could feed this many children" or "with some percentage reduction of the military budget, we could send this many more kids to school."

But, instead of providing aid to the poor, we have a military budget past cold war levels.

Instead of coming up with new ideas, our scientists are figuring out how to make a missile 8mm more accurate and so on, to the point where the US, previously the world's leader in technology, is beginning to lose its edge to European countries and the Japanese.

But would congress increase spending on social issues if they decreased the military budget? Maybe not. I've always thought we should vote on where our taxes should go in capitalism. It's closer to socialism that way, and it'd help shut libertarians up who keep claiming the government is stealing, wasting money etc. People voted for it and supported it. Most likely funding for environmental protection and education would go up, and military and things like that would go down. Any advanced society should be doing something like this already.

He continues "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."

This is also blatantly true; never before has human life been so threatened because of hegemony.
A very good quote.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 01, 2007 03:33 am
Eisenhower was a socialist, so get over it y'all fucking parasites.
:lol: That couldn't be futher from the truth.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, the quote is used kind of as a guide line in a documentary I recently saw called Why We Fight where it says Eisenhower also apparently noted that spending a certain amount on missile x could have fed so many people, so I think my interpretation was correct. I give the documentary 3 1/2 stars. It was OK.

Other recommended reading might be War is a Racket by Smedley Butler who certainly did become a Socialist, but was also America's most decorated war veteran at the time.

Eisenhower also said that he hopes that if the military-industrial complex does start to grow that there will be a president who has as much knowledge about the military as he does. I'll let people infer what the next point is here.

[RGacky3]

Einsenhower I think was an honest man, and I think its noteworthy to point out that he was a Republican, even though the Republicans and Democrats are both imperialist capitalist parties, there are many people in both that are honest people that really do want to help, his speach about the military-industrial complex, and that term has become a standard term for leftists, and I think thats a good thing. I don't like the Liberal idea of Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad, I think its more like this Democrat and Republican Parites = Bad, American political system = BAD, most individual Democrats and Republicans = Generally good decent honest people.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I imagine we've all seen the statistics that show "with money spent on Bush's war, we could feed this many children" or "with some percentage reduction of the military budget, we could send this many more kids to school."

National defense is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Those other things are not.

[Rawthentic]

Those other things are not.
Because "national defense" is more important than education and the welfare of the masses.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17, 2007 09:14 pm

I imagine we've all seen the statistics that show "with money spent on Bush's war, we could feed this many children" or "with some percentage reduction of the military budget, we could send this many more kids to school."

National defense is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Those other things are not.
"Defence" and what the U$ does are two different concepts entirely. Unless you count the defence of bourgeois interests abroad - which is something I'm not sure is explicitly written in the puffed-up Andrex* that is your constitution.

*A brand of toilet paper.

[Ol' Dirty]

"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." --Dwight D. Eisenhower

The body politic of any heterogeneous entity -whether that polity is family, clan, tribe, commune, nation, whatever- when at war or peace, is the deciding force in logistical concerns for that entity. When a nation is in a state of war, however, it is the responsibility of that body to provide recources to fit the needs of both the armed forces of that people and those people themselves. Simply put, when there is a war on, the recources of a people are taxed to their limits, and, when a state is given the coice between saving its skin and the skins of its people, it will opt for security for the ruling class of individuals. Because of the inherent class stratification of any "civilization" -in the classical sense, mind you, that being "a sedentary society with a division of labor,"-the hardships of the upkeep of that civilization are felt much more in a state of conflict.

More simply put:

"We've got money for war, but we can't feed the poor."

--Tupac Shakur :lol:

[Faux Real]

Republicans we're a little different back during Eisenhower's era than how they are today. During his life and administration saw the passing of old traditions and social structures in favor of new hyper production, consumption, and militarization. He also obviously foresaw the future of the dangers of these things.

If he really said this quote why he was an anti-communist and taking aggression towards Korea or other independence movements?

[The-Spark]

yeah, wasnt eisenhower president when U.S's anti-communist campaign was at a climax? i dont think he was a socialist

[pusher robot]

If he really said this quote why he was an anti-communist and taking aggression towards Korea or other independence movements?

That he recognized the situation as a tragedy did not mean he viewed it as unnecessary.

Sometimes there are no good options.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Because "national defense" is more important than education and the welfare of the masses.

That's not the point. There are certain duties of the FEDERAL government that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. State and Local governments provide the latter and are explicitly enumerated in their respective constitutions.

IMO, the USA and its people do a relatively good job in all three departments.

"We the People" isn't just space filler you know?



"We've got money for war, but we can't feed the poor."

We can feed the poor...WE being the People and not the government.


-Tupac Shakur

Now there's a role model that the youth can all look up to.

A drug-dealing, gun wielding thug that made millions by selling a good that produced nothing of positive value.


"Defence" and what the U$ does are two different concepts entirely. Unless you count the defence of bourgeois interests abroad - which is something I'm not sure is explicitly written in the puffed-up Andrex* that is your constitution.

Not only the bourgeois interests but every American's interest--regardless of one's status.

Aren't you tired of spouting the same ol' leftist cliches that add nothing to the debate?

YAWNS

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:53 pm

Because "national defense" is more important than education and the welfare of the masses.

That's not the point. There are certain duties of the FEDERAL government that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. State and Local governments provide the latter and are explicitly enumerated in their respective constitutions.

IMO, the USA and its people do a relatively good job in all three departments.

"We the People" isn't just space filler you know?




"We've got money for war, but we can't feed the poor."


We can feed the poor...WE being the People and not the government.

A government's primary concern should be the welfare of its people. That's basic contract theory. No, that's any theory except for divine right.


-Tupac Shakur


Now there's a role model that the youth can all look up to.

A drug-dealing, gun wielding thug that made millions by selling a good that produced nothing of positive value.

I disagree. Tupac's lyrics were politicaly charged, proggressive, and often had a lot of value to the people who listened to it. His music had great bearing on the lives of the urban poor, particularly poor people of color. He sold over 70 million records worldwide, so there were people who found his songs extremely important. Often, the gangster lifestyle Tupac used wasn't neccessary or appropriate, but it sold, so he did it.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

A government's primary concern should be the welfare of its people. That's basic contract theory. No, that's any theory except for divine right.

The federal government's primary duty is national defense and protection of natural rights. (See 1st Amendment and 10th Amendment.)

State and local governments are more about providing and promoting the "general welfare of the people".

Are you familiar with federalism at all?


His music had great bearing on the lives of the urban poor, particularly poor people of color.

Yeah, by exploiting it and making himself rich in the process. And do you honestly believe young, urban youth actually understand the underlying "social message" in his lyrics? Let alone, even cared?

(Middle-class and rich suburban white kids were the primary consumers of his product, by the way.)



Often, the gangster lifestyle Tupac used wasn't neccessary or appropriate, but it sold, so he did it.

Is this a promotion of capitalism?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20, 2007 05:25 pm

The federal government's primary duty is national defense and protection of natural rights. (See 1st Amendment and 10th Amendment.)

State and local governments are more about providing and promoting the "general welfare of the people".

Are you familiar with federalism at all?

Given that natural rights do not exist, but the American Government has lasted this long, we can safely conclude that the federal government can happily function without being tied to the outdated and plain wrong ideology in the constitution.

The nature of the American Government has changed several times since the constitution was ratified anyway. It is just a fiction to pretend it is the same kind of Government as the one that existed more than two hundred years ago.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+July 20, 2007 06:17 pm--> (Demogorgon @ July 20, 2007 06:17 pm)
Capitalist [email protected] 20, 2007 05:25 pm

The federal government's primary duty is national defense and protection of natural rights. (See 1st Amendment and 10th Amendment.)

State and local governments are more about providing and promoting the "general welfare of the people".

Are you familiar with federalism at all?

Given that natural rights do not exist, but the American Government has lasted this long, we can safely conclude that the federal government can happily function without being tied to the outdated and plain wrong ideology in the constitution.

The nature of the American Government has changed several times since the constitution was ratified anyway. It is just a fiction to pretend it is the same kind of Government as the one that existed more than two hundred years ago. [/b]
"natural rights do not exist"


I hope I am mis-reading that.

[Ol' Dirty]

A government's primary concern should be the welfare of its people. That's basic contract theory. No, that's any theory except for divine right.

The federal government's primary duty is national defense and protection of natural rights. (See 1st Amendment and 10th Amendment.)

State and local governments are more about providing and promoting the "general welfare of the people".

The federal government is not excempt from the responsiblities of the state and local governments.


Are you familiar with federalism at all?

Yes.



His music had great bearing on the lives of the urban poor, particularly poor people of color.

Yeah, by exploiting it and making himself rich in the process.

For every exploitive hip-hop artist you can name, I can name at least 10 exploitive individuals with classical liberal tendencies that don't rap are as well.

We'd have a great exchange of PM's if you wished.


And do you honestly believe young, urban youth actually understand the underlying "social message" in his lyrics?

Yes. Very sincerely.


Let alone, even cared?

Second verse is same as the first.


(Middle-class and rich suburban white kids were the primary consumers of his product, by the way.)

That is a classic example of dominant culture absorbing the traits of an exploited culture. Blues; Rock n' Roll, Hip Hop.




Often, the gangster lifestyle Tupac used wasn't neccessary or appropriate, but it sold, so he did it.

Is this a promotion of capitalism?

It is an acknoledgement of the very pervasive nature of global capital.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 20, 2007 06:20 pm
I hope I am mis-reading that.
If they exist, where are they? Where do they live?

Rights are defined by people, whether it be by compassion, common sense or a cynical attempt to serve ones own interests. They do not exist on their own

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The nature of the American Government has changed several times since the constitution was ratified anyway.

Exactly. If you want the federal government to provide health care, food, housing, etc.. to all, then draft a constitutional amendment and hopefully it'll get ratified. But reformism isn't your avenue, is it?

So why is a revolutionary communist so concerned about such reformist policies?



The federal government is not excempt from the responsiblities of the state and local governments.

Take a look at the 10th Amendment and then get back to me.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.




Rights are defined by people, whether it be by compassion, common sense or a cynical attempt to serve ones own interests. They do not exist on their own

Are you trying to bring the debate back to Pre-Enlightenment times?

Natural rights do exist and the government (all levels) is only the said protector of those rights (life, liberty and property) and is not the granter of such rights.


For every exploitive hip-hop artist you can name, I can name at least 10 exploitive individuals with classical liberal tendencies that don't rap are as well.

Lemme guess, Ken Lay of Enron is one of them?

Was he not prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law?

Or are you referring to anyone who owns capital and hires wage labor?


It is an acknoledgement of the very pervasive nature of global capital.

Why are you honestly against individual private ownership of capital?

According to communist principles, why is it flawed? Why is it evil?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 07:25 pm
Are you trying to bring the debate back to Pre-Enlightenment times?

Natural rights do exist and the government (all levels) is only the said protector of those rights (life, liberty and property) and is not the granter of such rights
I am trying to take the debate beyond the eighteenth century THe idea of natural rights being "self evident" is simply rhetoric from the seventeenth and eighteenth century and has no place in modern discourse.

If these rights exist independently of people; where are they? Who made them? How can you be so sure of them? Why do they so conveniently fall within the goals of a particular political faction of the time? Where are they when there are no humans? Just what are they anyway?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I am trying to take the debate beyond the eighteenth century THe idea of natural rights being "self evident" is simply rhetoric from the seventeenth and eighteenth century and has no place in modern discourse.

If these rights exist independently of people; where are they? Who made them? How can you be so sure of them? Why do they so conveniently fall within the goals of a particular political faction of the time? Where are they when there are no humans? Just what are they anyway?

Much, too much mental masturbation.

It's like asking someone if they believe in God:

"Do you believe in God?"

"No, because [insert any 45 minute, scientific nerd argument here] and that's why there is no God."

Natural law and rights: It just is.

[Ol' Dirty]

Rights are defined by people, whether it be by compassion, common sense or a cynical attempt to serve ones own interests. They do not exist on their own

Are you trying to bring the debate back to Pre-Enlightenment times?

Natural rights do exist and the government (all levels) is only the said protector of those rights (life, liberty and property) and is not the granter of such rights.

Rights exist only as social constructs. They're like race and god: they exist within our minds with no material evidence that they exist. I can't have an intelligent debate with a person who believes in natural, pre-defined rights as objects of essence just as I can't have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes in the toothfairy or race as actual, material things. Au revoir.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Lovely[email protected] 22, 2007 08:30 pm
I can't have an intelligent debate with a person who believes in natural, pre-defined rights as objects of essence just as I can't have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes in the toothfairy or race as actual, material things. Au revoir.
This is unfair and elitist... Why not enlighten these people?

Why can't rights be seen as ideals to work towards, objective or not, instead of something one claims is inherant and certainly rooted in biological and natural sciences? This is how I tend to view the problem, and it works out OK for me...

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22, 2007 05:49 pm

Much, too much mental masturbation.

It's like asking someone if they believe in God:

"Do you believe in God?"

"No, because [insert any 45 minute, scientific nerd argument here] and that's why there is no God."

Natural law and rights: It just is.
They just exist because you say so? :lol: What an argument!

I suppose by the same token they don't exist because I say so?

It is ironic that you criticise me for allegedly going back to pre-elightenment times when you are rejecting the core ideas of the enlightenmnet; logic, reason, not taking things for granted. Not that sort of thing.

At any rate if the only reason we have to suspect natural rights are your word, which really isn't very strong in the grand scheme of things, why should the rest of us go along with the idea?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:53 pm
At any rate if the only reason we have to suspect natural rights are your word, which really isn't very strong in the grand scheme of things, why should the rest of us go along with the idea?
Instead of asking about natural rights, why not concern yourself with ideal rights / conditions / etc.? Arguing back and forth about the existance of something that is a basis for many ideologies, both leftist and rightist, is apparently getting you nowhere here.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Dean+July 22, 2007 11:47 pm--> (Dean @ July 22, 2007 11:47 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 08:53 pm
At any rate if the only reason we have to suspect natural rights are your word, which really isn't very strong in the grand scheme of things, why should the rest of us go along with the idea?
Instead of asking about natural rights, why not concern yourself with ideal rights / conditions / etc.? Arguing back and forth about the existance of something that is a basis for many ideologies, both leftist and rightist, is apparently getting you nowhere here. [/b]
He is telling us the Government is about protecting natural rights. It seems rather essential then that we establish what and where these are in order to proceed

[Colonello Buendia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 04:20 pm


Yes but a unification of many countries would easily defeat the USArse. That's the problem with you capitalists you miss the bigger picture and always think of individual 'problems' rather than a mounting group of 'problems'. Well that and you're probably all paedophiles. (And that's p A e d o p h i l e s) before you try and criticise my typing :D
Yes but a unification of many countries would easily defeat the USArse. That's the problem with you capitalists you miss the bigger picture and always think of individual 'problems' rather than a mounting group of 'problems'. Well that and you're probably all paedophiles. (And that's p A e d o p h i l e s) before you try and criticise my typing biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by luxemburg89 on May 31, 2007 04:39 pm

so true! if those imperialist bastards in the Pentagon were to think things through intead of continuosly adding the bottom 10% of highschool classes to thier forces to send them to get killed in iraq then maybe no one would want to attack america because they posed no threat to them.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:48 am
He is telling us the Government is about protecting natural rights. It seems rather essential then that we establish what and where these are in order to proceed
I don't agree with his ideas, but I think it's more a diversion to the reality of the ideological differences to focus on the one issue than productive discussion. The government is not justified in its existance, certainly not in its current incarnation, even if natural rights DO exist and it is meant to protect them.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:30 pm
I can't have an intelligent debate with a person who believes in natural, pre-defined rights as objects of essence just as I can't have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes in the toothfairy or race as actual, material things. Au revoir.

This is unfair and elitist...

Why is my response unfair and "elitist?" How are you defining "elitism?"


Why not enlighten these people?

They obviously don't want to be "enlightened," whatever you mean by that.