The right to abort

[Unbeliever]

No, we're playing word games. And words don't even exist, except as immaterial, abstract constructs in the brains of humans. That's what human brains do, we pull concepts from the abstract realm and make them temporarily real. Some, like words, are only ephemerally real, while other things, like, say, buildings, last a little longer.

[Cavebear]

Rhetoric.  We aren't playing nerf ball.

But that's the standard Republican (notice I use their full party name) line.  They WILL call all Democratic candidates "socialist".  They are already doing it.

[Cavebear]

No, we're playing word games. And words don't even exist, except as immaterial, abstract constructs in the brains of humans. That's what human brains do, we pull concepts from the abstract realm and make them temporarily real. Some, like words, are only ephemerally real, while other things, like, say, buildings, last a little longer.

Not to upset you, but you are agreeing with Baruch.  He was talking about logograms in another thread.  Or this one earlier; it's hard to keep track.

[Baruch]

But that's the standard Republican (notice I use their full party name) line.  They WILL call all Democratic candidates "socialist".  They are already doing it.

Not true.  Some of you are anarchists ;-).  Actually Republicans are more likely to be anarchist, but anarchism bridged the L-R gap.

And no, I don't use a weasel word like "progressive" or "socialist".  I don't care for "cultural Marxist" either.  Back in the 50s people still knew what those words meant.  Russian/Chinese 5th column.  I just use "communist".  But 21st century Marxism is different than 20th century Marxism, which is different from 19th century Marxism which is different from 18th century Marxism (aka French Revolutionaries).  I am more of an Edmund Burke guy.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

He was sympathetic to the complaints of the American Colonies, but opposed to the French Revolutionaries.

[Baruch]

Not to upset you, but you are agreeing with Baruch.  He was talking about logograms in another thread.  Or this one earlier; it's hard to keep track.

Different string.  And I may have had a Spoonerism vis a vis logograms.

[Cavebear]

Not true.  Some of you are anarchists ;-).  Actually Republicans are more likely to be anarchist, but anarchism bridged the L-R gap.

And no, I don't use a weasel word like "progressive" or "socialist".  I don't care for "cultural Marxist" either.  Back in the 50s people still knew what those words meant.  Russian/Chinese 5th column.  I just use "communist".  But 21st century Marxism is different than 20th century Marxism, which is different from 19th century Marxism which is different from 18th century Marxism (aka French Revolutionaries).  I am more of an Edmund Burke guy.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

He was sympathetic to the complaints of the American Colonies, but opposed to the French Revolutionaries.

Nice of you to admit that Republicans are more likely to be anarchists.  It is true in the current political spectrum.

But anarchists are not really a problem.  They can't organize very well almost by definition.

I read an interesting article in 'The Washington Post' the other day that suggested that the true political differences in the US are not so much Rep/Dem (though we are forced to vote that way) so much as Conservative/Classical Liberal Theory vs Progressivism.  The idea being that Reps/Dems both believe in holding on to gains through limited govt while Progressives want to advance society via deliberate change into unknown territory using govt to implement new programs.

In that, I am a Progressive.  I trust deliberate and thoughtful improvement while Reps/Dems cling to the past.  As examples, I would be on a neutral de-gerrymandering committee.  I wouldn't be a mMyor, I would be a City Manager.

[Baruch]

Nice of you to admit that Republicans are more likely to be anarchists.  It is true in the current political spectrum.

But anarchists are not really a problem.  They can't organize very well almost by definition.

I read an interesting article in 'The Washington Post' the other day that suggested that the true political differences in the US are not so much Rep/Dem (though we are forced to vote that way) so much as Conservative/Classical Liberal Theory vs Progressivism.  The idea being that Reps/Dems both believe in holding on to gains through limited govt while Progressives want to advance society via deliberate change into unknown territory using govt to implement new programs.

In that, I am a Progressive.  I trust deliberate and thoughtful improvement while Reps/Dems cling to the past.  As examples, I would be on a neutral de-gerrymandering committee.  I wouldn't be a mMyor, I would be a City Manager.

This is 100 years old.  Progressives were originally Scandinavian Americans circa 1920.

[Unbeliever]

Not to upset you, but you are agreeing with Baruch.  He was talking about logograms in another thread.  Or this one earlier; it's hard to keep track.

Well, Baruch's not always wrong, but when he is, it's a doozy! LOL

[Baruch]

Well, Baruch's not always wrong, but when he is, it's a doozy! LOL

If you care too, please go back and quote, in order (if multiple).  When I am doing a posting storm, it is hard to keep track.

[Cavebear]

This is 100 years old.  Progressives were originally Scandinavian Americans circa 1920.

No law against learning from other people...

[Cavebear]

Not true.  Some of you are anarchists ;-).  Actually Republicans are more likely to be anarchist, but anarchism bridged the L-R gap.

And no, I don't use a weasel word like "progressive" or "socialist".  I don't care for "cultural Marxist" either.  Back in the 50s people still knew what those words meant.  Russian/Chinese 5th column.  I just use "communist".  But 21st century Marxism is different than 20th century Marxism, which is different from 19th century Marxism which is different from 18th century Marxism (aka French Revolutionaries).  I am more of an Edmund Burke guy.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

He was sympathetic to the complaints of the American Colonies, but opposed to the French Revolutionaries.

So, you want to eliminate all the awkward degrees of political thought so that you can have a clear dichotomy (yes redundant) to support your conspiracy ideas.  OK.  But stop bothering me with it.  I see multitudes of ideas.

[Baruch]

So, you want to eliminate all the awkward degrees of political thought so that you can have a clear dichotomy (yes redundant) to support your conspiracy ideas.  OK.  But stop bothering me with it.  I see multitudes of ideas.

If you want to claim to be the LBGT equivalent of political ideology (not gender fluid but political fluid) do so, but nobody will understand where you stand.  You are not as ideological as other posters, so I don't see your reason for complaining.