Jump to content






Photo

Guliani is Scary


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 29 October 2007 - 09:30 PM

If Giuliani gets the nomination he will defeat Clinton next year.


As the saying goes, "From your mouth to God's ear."

Barbara

That's a new one on me. I hope it's true. :) The man is incredibly tough and should take New York State. Clinton absolutely needs to carry New York to win. I do not like him very much, regardless, but the U.S. can't afford another Clinton.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#22 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,965 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 29 October 2007 - 09:56 PM

The best way to find out what a candidate stands for is to read detailed journalism about his positions, not go by out of context snippets on an Oist board. My understanding of Giuliani's positions from having read journalism --NYT, CSM, National Review, WSJ, etc -- is quite different from that of the other posters on this board....and, no, I don't want to debate it on the level of chat list back and forth one liners ... and cherry-picked, out of context quotes.

Just go do some reading and quote actual journalism in your posts instead of this "chat list" one liners style.

When you do that, you may find that Giuliani is not a "fascist", any more than the other Republicans running, any more than were other law and order and strong national defense conservative Republicans from Goldwater to Reagan.

Does that mean that an Objectivist would agree with all of their positions or find some of them violate individual rights? Well, what do you think?

Just to be clear: "fascist" is a term with a very precise historical meaning which involves the advocacy of a *totalitarian government* in which the government controls every significant area of life. It is a very extreme, smear term and I wouldn't want to debate anyone who is so careless as to use it for a mainstream candidate, whether the smear is coming from purported leftists or purported right-wingbers emulating their intellectual sloppiness.

And, no, just because you are posting on an informal discussion list, that is no excuse for not bringing your most precise and careful thiking.

Do not emulate Lindsay Perigo or Diana H. in their casual, offhand use of the most horrendous, foul smear terms for everyone who angers you or with whom you strongly disagree. I would have thought that observing the websites of those people would teach a lesson in bending over backwards to avoid imitation.

As Francisco said,

"You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning."

[msn encarta - fascism = any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism]


Excellent post sir. "You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning." is one of my favorite Francisco quotes. As an original Goldwater person, I was infuriated with the "cutsey" slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right." and working the trenches in NY City in 1963, we left ourselves open to a very logical counter-attack which was "Yea, but in your mind/brain you know he's wrong."

Having lived through the Giuliani administration, I will state that he was effective and efficient in changing my city into a reasonably safe, clean and functioning city. My very smart Grandmother used to explain to me that Mussilini was also effective, he did "make the trains run on time", but she explained that that was not a sufficient trade for freedom.

Using "fascist" to describe Rudy is patently false. His "plan" for America is certainly not fascist. He does raise legitimate concerns as to where he would consider subordinating certain "individual" constitutional rights, but it does not even begin to rise to the level that the "Manachurian Candidate"
Hilarie Rodham Clinton would reach with her communist assumptions.

Well done.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#23 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 03:42 AM

Excellent post sir. "You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning." is one of my favorite Francisco quotes. As an original Goldwater person, I was infuriated with the "cutsey" slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right." and working the trenches in NY City in 1963, we left ourselves open to a very logical counter-attack which was "Yea, but in your mind/brain you know he's wrong."


But words rarely have an exact meaning which is Good News and Bad News. It is Good News in that language has subtlety and flexibility. It is Bad News when ambiguity is not properly resolved. Many of our words are homonyms, i.e. have multiple meanings depending on intent and context. Look up the word "fair" in the O.E.D.. That simple word has many meanings and some of them are not compatible with each other. There are precising* definitions for some of our words and phrases but many are ambiguous and context dependent and even then there is confusion. Francisco was wrong. He should have stuck to digging up copper and left semiotics and semantics to more competent folks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*Refer to either Kelly's or Copi's textbooks on logic for how such definitions work.
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#24 Chris Grieb

Chris Grieb

    Mr.

  • Members
  • 4,327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:History of Objectivism, American & World history, movies

Posted 30 October 2007 - 05:09 AM

I agree that calling someone a fascist is overdone and unnecessary. I wish Objectivists would not do it. I have grave problems with all of the candidates including Ron Paul. Four years of Hillary does make me feel good either.

#25 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,387 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 October 2007 - 05:22 AM

*Refer to either Kelly's or Copi's textbooks on logic for how such definitions work.

Bob,

I have not written one. I think you want Kelley.

:)

Michael

Know thyself...


#26 Bill P

Bill P

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,688 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shanghai, China
  • Interests:Chess, reading, philosophical discussions, grandchildren

Posted 30 October 2007 - 06:14 AM

Martin; Can you cite a source for your statement that Objectivists are supporting Guliani? I hope Objectivist would think before supporting anyone for President of the United States.


Some Objectivists are supporting Guliani. I'd be interested in which candidate in the Republican primary you think they should support instead. Or even which candidate you think they should support, instead. Got some insights for us?

Alfonso

#27 Gigi P. Morton

Gigi P. Morton
  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI

Posted 30 October 2007 - 08:47 AM

Alphonso,
Bracewell and Giuliani represent Cintra ,the spanish investment firm who will own the super highway. As we know, the Council on foreign relations, Robert Pastor, the Prime Minister of Canada , the President of Mexico and our President , have been working on the North American Union together ,which would seem a conflict of interest for someone in Giuliani's position or any President elect , who's job it would be to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. I would look into Ron Paul's positions if you care about maintaining this Constitutional Republic.

How do people like the term "socialist dictators" ?

Gigi

#28 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 09:27 AM

Alphonso,
Bracewell and Giuliani represent Cintra ,the spanish investment firm who will own the super highway. As we know, the Council on foreign relations, Robert Pastor, the Prime Minister of Canada , the President of Mexico and our President , have been working on the North American Union together ,which would seem a conflict of interest for someone in Giuliani's position or any President elect , who's job it would be to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. I would look into Ron Paul's positions if you care about maintaining this Constitutional Republic.

How do people like the term "socialist dictators" ?

Gigi


You left out The Bilderburgers, The Illuminati and The Free Masons. And the Constitutional Republic has been dead since Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not sooner. The last nail was hammered into the coffin with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The latter removed the last vestige of the Sovereignty of the States.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#29 Gigi P. Morton

Gigi P. Morton
  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI

Posted 30 October 2007 - 10:09 AM

Alphonso,
Bracewell and Giuliani represent Cintra ,the spanish investment firm who will own the super highway. As we know, the Council on foreign relations, Robert Pastor, the Prime Minister of Canada , the President of Mexico and our President , have been working on the North American Union together ,which would seem a conflict of interest for someone in Giuliani's position or any President elect , who's job it would be to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. I would look into Ron Paul's positions if you care about maintaining this Constitutional Republic.

How do people like the term "socialist dictators" ?

Gigi


You left out The Bilderburgers, The Illuminati and The Free Masons. And the Constitutional Republic has been dead since Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not sooner. The last nail was hammered into the coffin with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The latter removed the last vestige of the Sovereignty of the States.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Okay Ba'al Chatzaf, How do you think we should procede ? Without a congress or senate ? Who has a say when we are not consulted on this NAU proposition ? What do you see as a perfect system ? Hugely curious, Gigi

#30 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,965 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 10:10 AM

Alphonso,
Bracewell and Giuliani represent Cintra ,the spanish investment firm who will own the super highway. As we know, the Council on foreign relations, Robert Pastor, the Prime Minister of Canada , the President of Mexico and our President , have been working on the North American Union together ,which would seem a conflict of interest for someone in Giuliani's position or any President elect , who's job it would be to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. I would look into Ron Paul's positions if you care about maintaining this Constitutional Republic.

How do people like the term "socialist dictators" ?

Gigi


You left out The Bilderburgers, The Illuminati and The Free Masons. And the Constitutional Republic has been dead since Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not sooner. The last nail was hammered into the coffin with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The latter removed the last vestige of the Sovereignty of the States.

Ba'al Chatzaf


Ba'al it is amazing how you selectively pick out pieces of one of the most complex Constitutional systems in history and attempt to squeeze them into a generalization.

FYI - the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure in use for over 100 years which recognized a "federal common law" was overturned by Eirie Railroad vs. Thompson 1937 [see http://en.wikipedia....Co._v._Tompkins] many Constitutional experts consistently see this case as the nexus of the elimination of elements of common law and our representative Constitutional Republic.

Moreover, is not the amendment process what made and makes our Constitution a "living breathing document?" Word do have meanings and in any argumentation, the first part of reason is identifying and defining terms from which to argue from.

I would also refer you to Charles McElwain's Constitutionalism Ancient and Modern.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#31 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 10:39 AM

Ba'al it is amazing how you selectively pick out pieces of one of the most complex Constitutional systems in history and attempt to squeeze them into a generalization.


I selectively pick out the really rotten parts. Where am I mistaken? By putting the central power of taxation in Congress and removing the States from the election of Senators the -Federal Republic- as envisioned by the Founders was undone. It was a gradual process that got into full motion following the Civil War. We have had National Government since the post Civil War period. This is antithetical to -Federal Government- which spreads sovereignty and puts only global national powers in the hands of Congress. Under National Government, Congress and the burocrats are not only into our bank accounts but up our rectums.

Going for the essentials is not over simplification. It is identification of the central problems and issues.

We don't need no steeeenking lawyers and journals for that.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#32 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,965 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:13 AM

Ba'al it is amazing how you selectively pick out pieces of one of the most complex Constitutional systems in history and attempt to squeeze them into a generalization.


I selectively pick out the really rotten parts. Where am I mistaken? By putting the central power of taxation in Congress and removing the States from the election of Senators the -Federal Republic- as envisioned by the Founders was undone. It was a gradual process that got into full motion following the Civil War. We have had National Government since the post Civil War period. This is antithetical to -Federal Government- which spreads sovereignty and puts only global national powers in the hands of Congress. Under National Government, Congress and the burocrats are not only into our bank accounts but up our rectums.

Going for the essentials is not over simplification. It is identification of the central problems and issues.

We don't need no steeeenking lawyers and journals for that.

Ba'al Chatzaf


And spoken with such a calm manner! Last time I checked, Congress passed the law on the evil progressive income tax. The Amendment process was ratified. As a representative Constitutional Republic both of those actions were completely proper as to the authority and power that was delegated to the Congress and the Amendment process.

I blame each of us for continuing to comply with immoral laws. A less radical and dangerous method would be to actively begin repealing the Congressional Act or starting the Amendment process to repeal those amendments.

It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize instead of putting on the pads and getting in the game.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#33 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:20 AM

And spoken with such a calm manner! Last time I checked, Congress passed the law on the evil progressive income tax. The Amendment process was ratified. As a representative Constitutional Republic both of those actions were completely proper as to the authority and power that was delegated to the Congress and the Amendment process.

I blame each of us for continuing to comply with immoral laws. A less radical and dangerous method would be to actively begin repealing the Congressional Act or starting the Amendment process to repeal those amendments.

It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize instead of putting on the pads and getting in the game.


Congress (both houses) is a haven of crooks, scoundrels, liars, thieves and (in some cases) sexual perverts. The nation is in its greatest peril when Congress is in session.

The game is fixed. Americans love their welfare state and their handouts. The Constitution of the Founders is dead and has been dead for some time. I am not going to play a game I cannot win. Let someone younger and stronger than I try their luck. I will simply stand here and tell the Emperor that he is bare ass naked. That is my Mission. If someone listens, good. If not so be it. You go and play the game and see where it gets you. Rots of ruck.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#34 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,965 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:44 AM

And spoken with such a calm manner! Last time I checked, Congress passed the law on the evil progressive income tax. The Amendment process was ratified. As a representative Constitutional Republic both of those actions were completely proper as to the authority and power that was delegated to the Congress and the Amendment process.

I blame each of us for continuing to comply with immoral laws. A less radical and dangerous method would be to actively begin repealing the Congressional Act or starting the Amendment process to repeal those amendments.

It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize instead of putting on the pads and getting in the game.


Congress (both houses) is a haven of crooks, scoundrels, liars, thieves and (in some cases) sexual perverts. The nation is in its greatest peril when Congress is in session.

The game is fixed. Americans love their welfare state and their handouts. The Constitution of the Founders is dead and has been dead for some time. I am not going to play a game I cannot win. Let someone younger and stronger than I try their luck. I will simply stand here and tell the Emperor that he is bare ass naked. That is my Mission. If someone listens, good. If not so be it. You go and play the game and see where it gets you. Rots of ruck.

Ba'al Chatzaf


Excuse me, I don't think in your tautologies. I was merely attempting to enlighten you as to your poor argumentation. I added the two options. I did not suggest that you pick the second. I understand your anger. However, being involved in electing an "open-minded Objectivist" [which I understand is a phrase heavily disputed on this forum] to the local school board will slow down the rush to collectivized statism. All politics is local.

Finally, I believe I remember on your profile that you are active with a special needs situation. When I was on my school board we began the concept of mainstreaming and special education. I tried hard to put sunsets in the resolution, so that the program would be reviewed and re-passed every three years[length of time of the elected school board], but I couldn't get that 5th vote. Unfortunately, special education has become a fiscal nightmare. However, when we started the program, children with special needs were basically locked up in basements.

Therefore, I understand your disgust with the political processm, but as Alan Drury pointed out, it is capable of honor. It is like any arte or techne as Aristotle divided them, you make a choice as a professional to practice morally and perform excellently. That applies to the arte and the techne of politics.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#35 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 12:16 PM

Therefore, I understand your disgust with the political processm, but as Alan Drury pointed out, it is capable of honor. It is like any arte or techne as Aristotle divided them, you make a choice as a professional to practice morally and perform excellently. That applies to the arte and the techne of politics.


In American 'arete is penalized. And if it looks like it will succeed, then its practicer will be murdered. The game is fixed.

In our Republic, virtue ('arete) is unloved and mostly ignored. America is one of the last places on earth where -The Nicomachean Ethics- will be put into practice. We are a free and crude people. Aristotle might even call us base (phaulos). We are barbarians.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#36 Philip Coates

Philip Coates

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:--Playing Sports (running, basketball, body surfing)
    --Literature and History
    --Art Museums
    --Rock 'n Roll, Classical, Country and Western
    --Epistemology
    --Travel
    --Classic Old Movies

Posted 30 October 2007 - 06:45 PM

(Me quoting Francisco) “You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning”.

(Baal Chatzaf) words rarely have an exact meaning...[1] language has subtlety and flexibility...[2] Many of our words...have multiple meanings...[3] but many are ambiguous...[4] and context dependent

My reply:

[1] Subtlety and flexibility do not make the meaning inexact. A good writer or thinker is required to use the subtle meaning –exactly- and with care.

[2] & [3] If a dictionary lists very different meanings for a word, each one of them is an exact meaning.

[4] The context in which a word is used imparts an exact and clear and precise meaning to anyone who grasps how context determines the meaning.

In any event, none of these points changes my original point: the inexact or 'smearing' use, of the word “fascist” to apply to those who do not advocate anything close to totalitarianism is a violation of the meaning of that word and an abuse of language.

In the way Francisco stated.

#37 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 30 October 2007 - 07:49 PM

(Me quoting Francisco) “You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning”.

In the way Francisco stated.


What is the -exact- meaning of the word "fair"? My American Heritage Dictionary gives 17 exact meanings. So Fransisco should have said "you ought to learn that words have exact meanings". Note the plural, please.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#38 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 31 October 2007 - 01:15 AM

(Me quoting Francisco) “You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning”.

In the way Francisco stated.


What is the -exact- meaning of the word "fair"? My American Heritage Dictionary gives 17 exact meanings. So Fransisco should have said "you ought to learn that words have exact meanings". Note the plural, please.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Exact meaning determined by context. She was right, after all. It's still "exact meanings" no matter how many. Note, that they seldom contradict each other; they are just different.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#39 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:38 AM

Exact meaning determined by context. She was right, after all. It's still "exact meanings" no matter how many. Note, that they seldom contradict each other; they are just different.

--Brant


That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?).

Did Francisco utter the word "context" to James Taggart when he was putting Taggart down?

As I said he should have stuck with copper smeltering machinery and should have left semiotics and semantics to the experts.

Exactness in language is important to clarity of thought.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#40 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,965 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 31 October 2007 - 06:34 AM

Exact meaning determined by context. She was right, after all. It's still "exact meanings" no matter how many. Note, that they seldom contradict each other; they are just different.

--Brant


That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?).

Did Francisco utter the word "context" to James Taggart when he was putting Taggart down?

As I said he should have stuck with copper smeltering machinery and should have left semiotics and semantics to the experts.

Exactness in language is important to clarity of thought.

Ba'al Chatzaf


"That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?)."

I am unsurpised that you do not know what you meant to say. You = message sender. It is a fact that you selected a multi-nuanced word. It amuses me that you would use one of the favorite words that an attorney [your prior profession wide condemnation of them comes to mind] uses in direct and cross examination - "fair". For example, "Sir, would it be fair to say that you did "x" when "y" did "z"? The person being asked that question should only answer "I don't know." because the word has, as you pointed out, "...17 exact meanings." Or, as I have trained witnesses to respond, "My answer would depend on which one of the seventeen (17) different nuances of fair you meant counselor."

Brant underlying statement was well stated. Unfortunately Brant, in my short time on this forum argumentation with "Ba'al" is useless when he has closed his mind on a specific issue. I guess you just have to pick only Ba'al's post that you agree with to engage in quality argumentation.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users