Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jah

Neoliberalism is the real enemy

Recommended Posts

Standard Response to Bill's Personal attacks.

 

I have no problem with people attacking my ideas. I'm quite open to intellectual arguments.

 

However, I have not and will not address someones person.

 

If I characterize someones ideas in a way that offends them, so be it.

 

I disrespect peoples ideas constantly, but never the person speaking. I respect their right to express their stupidity.

 

However, when an intellectual counterargument is absent and name calling is a person's only recourse, everyone knows who is correct and who is not.

 

Go ahead, keep calling me names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard Response to Bill's Personal attacks.

 

I have no problem with people attacking my ideas. I'm quite open to intellectual arguments.

 

However, I have not and will not address someones person.

 

If I characterize someones ideas in a way that offends them, so be it.

 

I disrespect peoples ideas constantly, but never the person speaking. I respect their right to express their stupidity.

 

However, when an intellectual counterargument is absent and name calling is a person's only recourse, everyone knows who is correct and who is not.

 

Go ahead, keep calling me names.

 

You make false accusations as a standard course. You have done nothing but make personal attacks since you arrived, so it isn't difficult to see you are both hypocritical and dishonest.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What are Libertarian personal/social issues and foreign policy issues?

 

 

 

.

 

Well, that is a great definition for criticism, but, it's certainly not the definition of fear mongering I asked for.

 

Let's place this off base discussion back into it's original context.

 

You said:

 

"So it is your opinion that a President Trump will not become President-For-Life Trump. It is my opinion that there will very likely be no election for president in 2020, with Trump at the helm. Or, a so-called election will be rigged, airtight, in Trump's favor."

 

I then called that Fear-mongering and said it is exactly what conservatives said about Obama in 2008.

 

I see your statement as "a deliberate use of fear based tactics including exaggeration and usually repetition to influence the public in order to achieve a desired outcome".

 

You disagree? You see your statement as "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes"?

 

Is that correct? It seems you have abandoned your earlier assertion that a political component is necessary.

 

If the intention of your statement was to get people to vote against Trump, if it uses fear of dictatorship, is exaggerated and or repeated in order to influence others; it is a special type of criticism we call fear-mongering.

 

When Republicans made the same statements about Obama in 2008, I bet you referred to that as fear-mongering.

 

Maybe when Republicans do it, it's fear-mongering; but if you do it, it's criticism?

 

I think we have another word for that.

 

 

A refusal to see the forest for the trees.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/can-t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees

 

can't see the forest for the trees definition

An expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that he couldn't see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”

 

Can you not see big differences between Trump and Obama? Are you not aware of the the Right Wing Noise Machine that produces fiction and disinformation for its own political convenience? Do you not recognize the difference between manufacturing widespread fear (fear mongering) and speculation about how an individual might be expected to act, based on existing facts (criticism).

 

It is interesting that someone claiming to be in possession of a boundless, open mind, is so ego-driven that it become inconceivable to admit a small point. Someone who always has to be correcting others but can brook no correction.

 

Someone so pedantic that nearly every post points out to others, the error of their ways.

pedantic
or pedantical
[puh-dan-tik]
adjective
1.
ostentatious in one's learning.
2.
overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

 

 

And someone so tone-deaf as to be unaware of alienating nearly everyone by their pretentious, long-winded presentation of of ideas.

 

There are many Liberals who refuse to vote for Hillary, on principle, but I haven't run into one yet, that plans to vote for Trump. Most see the monster he is. If one is Left of center, it's hard to miss. But here, we seem to have an anomaly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A refusal to see the forest for the trees.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/can-t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees

 

 

Can you not see big differences between Trump and Obama? Are you not aware of the the Right Wing Noise Machine that produces fiction and disinformation for its own political convenience? Do you not recognize the difference between manufacturing widespread fear (fear mongering) and speculation about how an individual might be expected to act, based on existing facts (criticism).

 

It is interesting that someone claiming to be in possession of a boundless, open mind, is so ego-driven that it become inconceivable to admit a small point. Someone who always has to be correcting others but can brook no correction.

 

Someone so pedantic that nearly every post points out to others, the error of their ways.

 

And someone so tone-deaf as to be unaware of alienating nearly everyone by their pretentious, long-winded presentation of of ideas.

 

There are many Liberals who refuse to vote for Hillary, on principle, but I haven't run into one yet, that plans to vote for Trump. Most see the monster he is. If one is Left of center, it's hard to miss. But here, we seem to have an anomaly.

 

 

You failed to address the issue once again.

 

The definition of fear-mongering remains unchallenged as I have presented it.

 

Your statement:

"So it is your opinion that a President Trump will not become President-For-Life Trump. It is my opinion that there will very likely be no election for president in 2020, with Trump at the helm. Or, a so-called election will be rigged, airtight, in Trump's favor."

 

Is by definition, fear-mongering.

 

Fear mongering or scaremongering is the deliberate use of fear based tactics including exaggeration and usually repetition to influence the public in order to achieve a desired outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.../Fear_mongering

 

fearmonger ‎(third-person singular simple present fearmongers, present participle fearmongering, simple past and past participle fearmongered)

  1. To spread fear.
  2. https://en.wiktionar...wiki/fearmonger

 

Scaremonger

noun
1.
a person who creates or spreads alarming news. Also called fearmonger

http://www.dictionar...owse/fearmonger

 

scaremonger

(ˈskɛəˌmʌŋɡə)

n

a person who delights in spreading rumours of disaster

 

It is what it is.

 

It is exactly what Republicans said about Obama.

 

They are still doing it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Address what I say, not my person.

 

Now the moderator of this form is calling me names.

 

You should be removed for not being able to follow rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my opinion that Donald Trump will not become President-For-Life Trump because—much to your seeming consternation—he will never be elected. Were the unthinkable catastrophe that all (but you) seem to fear actually transpire, I think out system is strong enough to make sure no president-for-life fulfilled unconstitutional dreams.

 

But we'd be a nation in constant crisis. With military leaders and others likely defying illegal orders, and an impeachment and removal from office being the most likely eventuality in this hypothetical situation that will never happen. Try not to be too disappointed.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So it is your opinion that a President Trump will not become President-For-Life Trump. It is my opinion that there will very likely be no election for president in 2020, with Trump at the helm. Or, a so-called election will be rigged, airtight, in Trump's favor."

 

Is by definition, fear-mongering.

 

Manufacturing widespread fear of other groups, as Trump has done, is fear mongering. Speculation about how an individual might be expected to act, based on existing facts is criticism. Painting large segments of the population with a negative brush, cannot properly be called criticism because the individuals comprising any group vary widely. Attempting to describe the character, motivations and probable behavior of one individual, based on observation, cannot properly be called fear mongering.

 

Please don't cling to my idea that Trump would attempt to become president for life, once installed. I merely think it's one of the possibilities, based on his personality and past behavior. It is a hypothetical. I roughly agree with the previous poster that

 

"we'd be a nation in constant crisis. With military leaders and others likely defying illegal orders, and an impeachment and removal from office being the most likely eventuality in this hypothetical situation that will never happen."

 

I happen to a agree that Trump will, most likely, never be elected.

 

Here are a few of the factors on which I base my criticism of Trump.

 

1.Wanting to ban ALL Muslims from US.

2.Wanting to use uber-surveillance on mosques.

3. Declaring he would date Ivanka Trump if she wasnt his daughter.

4.Insulting a six year prisoner of war.

5. Insulting and mocking a disabled person.

6.Downplaying Saddam Husseins murderous pogroms.

7.Insulting a Mexican-American judge.

8 Lying about David Duke.

9.The plethora of anti-semitic re-tweets.

10.Saying his daughter and the Clintons daughter should not be friends.

11.Threatening support of Nato.

12.His bizarre and reckless support of Putin, Saddam, Mussolini, North Koreas dictator, Hitlers speeches, sexist puke Roger Ailes.

13.Referring to Megyn Kellys menstrual cycle.

14.Promoting violence at his 'rallies'

15. Insulting a Gold Star mother

16. Trump U. scam.

17. Mafia ties

18. Unscrupulous business dealings

19. Union busting while claiming to support labor

20. Beauty pageant scandal. Insults, rape and abuse.

21. Racial housing discrimination in NYC( Federal indictment)

22. Tenant intimidation for eviction. Tore down walls. Cut off heat and hot water.

23. The four bankruptcies.

24. The undocumented Polish workers

25. Alleged marital rape .... Ivana Trump.

26. Breaking casino rules .... Was fined in several states.

27. Anti-trust violations

28. Has brought 3,500 lawsuits, many trivial .... Many thrown out .... Many against those who could not fight back, financially.

29. Condo hotel shenanigans. New York, Florida, Mexico

30. Corey Lewandowski

31. Suing journalist Tim O'brien for libel because book criticized Trump. Suit was thrown out.

32. Refusing to pay workers and contractors

33. Keeping his tax information secret from the public

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that when the thread is entitled "neoliberalism is the real enemy", we end up bickering with one another about semantics?

 

Neoliberalism is a serious enemy, and one that is, in my humble opinion, being currently personified by Hillary Clinton. She has been placed upon the throne of the nomination by the corporate powers that be, in an attempt to continue the subversion of the people whom she is supposed to be representing, but fails repeatedly at. If a cheating, bought-out plutocrat who wants to continue the status quo, recognizes that global warming is a problem but refuses to act, says she doesn't want war but is consistent with her stance on intervention, and expects all liberals to fall in line because she's "pro-choice" isn't a neoliberal, then what is she? I hesitate to call her a libertarian. I certainly wouldn't call her a progressive. Republican doesn't fit. What other word can we use but neoliberal?

 

As far as fear-mongering is concerned, I do feel that it's being used by both sides, although obviously more so in the Republican camp. Why on the liberal side? Because any time anyone says that they want to vote third party, Democrats jump down their throat about voting for Trump. To be quite frank, this makes me (and I assume many other third-party voters) feel defensive, and sometimes angry. I have the right to vote for whomever I want without fear - of Trump OR of attack by fellow liberals. Also, if I criticize Hillary Clinton, it is not because I love Trump, it's because I disagree with Hillary's policies.

 

So if we want to have a conversation about neoliberalism, let's have it, but let's not mince words. The issue is the Democratic party, which is embracing neoliberalism and which has placed the neoliberal spokeswoman at it's head.

 

Let's get away from who is voting for whom, and get back to the question. How do you all feel that neoliberalism is rearing it's head? More importantly, what can we do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While each individual has a unique point of view, differing to some degree with all others, it is essential to be able to identify different advocacy movements, for different groups of beneficiaries.

 

The Democratic Party has split into two important groups: Liberals (Progressives) and Neo-Liberals (Corporatists). Each group's economic policy is radically different. But both groups are united in their support of social legislation in the areas of LGBT, racial, religious and ethnic equality.

 

Broadly speaking, Liberals or Progressives are in favor of legislation promoting a generous social safety net and the prevention of the concentration of wealth at the top. Neo-Liberals favor legislation in favor of corporations and plutocrats.

 

Money in politics has spurred the growth of Neo-Liberalism in government by legalized bribery of candidates, offered by the rich and powerful in return for favorable legislation. Once in office, lobbyists offer similar bribes to achieve the ends of their powerful clients. Since money wins elections over 90% of the time, the system perpetuates itself.

 

The first step toward defeating Neo-Liberalism and reversing the wealth gap is to get Big Money out of politics, as much as possible.

 

Some steps toward ending the influence of Big Money on legislation and policies:

(Far from a complete list)

- Shortened, standardized political campaigns.

- No Big contributions. Limited to: Matching funds for small donor contributions. Perhaps $3 public dollars for every dollar from a small donor.

- Lobbyists limited to no more access to congress than John/Jane Doe.

- Term limits. The president is already limited to eight years and twelve might be a good congressional limit.

- A constitutional amendment to overturn "Citizens United", holding that money is speech and corporations have the political rights of people.

- Full disclosure of all contributions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that when the thread is entitled "neoliberalism is the real enemy", we end up bickering with one another about semantics?

 

 

 

Easy, since Hillary Clinton isn't a proponent of neoliberalism.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are relativists and seek to maintain their established beliefs regardless of the evidence presented to them or the source of that information when that source is not their own mind.

 

Where should one look for an objective rather than a subjective meaning of something? The one place not to look is your own mind.

 

If anyone other than me can please source an objective definition of the term Fear-mongering, it may be helpful.

 

It seems I am the only person here with a search engine. I posted the first 4 that I found, but that doesn't seem to be good enough.


While each individual has a unique point of view, differing to some degree with all others, it is essential to be able to identify different advocacy movements, for different groups of beneficiaries.

 

The Democratic Party has split into two important groups: Liberals (Progressives) and Neo-Liberals (Corporatists). Each group's economic policy is radically different. But both groups are united in their support of social legislation in the areas of LGBT, racial, religious and ethnic equality.

 

Broadly speaking, Liberals or Progressives are in favor of legislation promoting a generous social safety net and the prevention of the concentration of wealth at the top. Neo-Liberals favor legislation in favor of corporations and plutocrats.

 

Money in politics has spurred the growth of Neo-Liberalism in government by legalized bribery of candidates, offered by the rich and powerful in return for favorable legislation. Once in office, lobbyists offer similar bribes to achieve the ends of their powerful clients. Since money wins elections over 90% of the time, the system perpetuates itself.

 

The first step toward defeating Neo-Liberalism and reversing the wealth gap is to get Big Money out of politics, as much as possible.

 

Some steps toward ending the influence of Big Money on legislation and policies:

(Far from a complete list)

- Shortened, standardized political campaigns.

- No Big contributions. Limited to: Matching funds for small donor contributions. Perhaps $3 public dollars for every dollar from a small donor.

- Lobbyists limited to no more access to congress than John/Jane Doe.

- Term limits. The president is already limited to eight years and twelve might be a good congressional limit.

- A constitutional amendment to overturn "Citizens United", holding that money is speech and corporations have the political rights of people.

- Full disclosure of all contributions.

 

I believe that is a great straightforward characterization of what is happening and what needs to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like more insults from "Jah."

 

How it feel to be accused of being relativist BD?

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devastated, I'm sure. But remember, he said he would never call anyone names :blink: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Easy, since Hillary Clinton isn't a proponent of neoliberalism.

 

Bill

 

You fail to respond to the meat of my post. Here, I'll repeat myself for you.

 

 

Neoliberalism is a serious enemy, and one that is, in my humble opinion, being currently personified by Hillary Clinton. She has been placed upon the throne of the nomination by the corporate powers that be, in an attempt to continue the subversion of the people whom she is supposed to be representing, but fails repeatedly at. If a cheating, bought-out plutocrat who wants to continue the status quo, recognizes that global warming is a problem but refuses to act, says she doesn't want war but is consistent with her stance on intervention, and expects all liberals to fall in line because she's "pro-choice" isn't a neoliberal, then what is she? I hesitate to call her a libertarian. I certainly wouldn't call her a progressive. Republican doesn't fit. What other word can we use but neoliberal?

 

 

So tell me, how is she not a proponent of neoliberalism? Try to use actual logic, not just some offensive one-liner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no argument. I haven't even provided an opinion to argue, simply objective research.

 

You chose to argue with my search engine. You did so armed with nothing but your own subjective opinion. Although you provided nothing objective to consider, you could have provided the opinions of notable respectable others to consider. That may have been useful.

 

However, the scientific method dictates that subjective opinion be dismissed when objective data is available.

 

When a person's subjective opinion deviates from reliable objective data, we typically adjust our cognitive schema to fit the data. That's how we learn, grow, and develop.

 

Now you can argue with the philosophy of the scientific method if you want, but that will be no more fruitful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You fail to respond to the meat of my post. Here, I'll repeat myself for you.

 

 

So tell me, how is she not a proponent of neoliberalism? Try to use actual logic, not just some offensive one-liner.

You give insults and think that's the hight road?

 

HRC is not a proponent of Austrian School Fconomics, so not a proponent of neoliberalism.

 

Simple. HRC is a liberal in the mainstream Democratic tradition.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no argument. I haven't even provided an opinion to argue, simply objective research.

 

You chose to argue with my search engine. You did so armed with nothing but your own subjective opinion. Although you provided nothing objective to consider, you could have provided the opinions of notable respectable others to consider. That may have been useful.

 

However, the scientific method dictates that subjective opinion be dismissed when objective data is available.

 

When a person's subjective opinion deviates from reliable objective data, we typically adjust our cognitive schema to fit the data. That's how we learn, grow, and develop.

 

Now you can argue with the philosophy of the scientific method if you want, but that will be no more fruitful.

 

Contrary to your claim, you don't own a search engine and you are not the only one here to have used one. Many of the so-called information sources gathered from search engines contradict each other in small and sometimes large ways. And often the so-called information is slanted or false. Very little is scientifically gathered. And once the user gets the information, he/she interprets it quite subjectively.

 

There is no science being done here. To claim the use of the "scientific method" is laughable. The data has not been gathered by observation or experiment but compiled and often created by others, from imagination. True science deals with the natural world/cosmos. Political Science is akin to Christian Science. Neither are science.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Simple Definition of science
  • : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

  • : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science

  • : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

Full Definition of science
  1. 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

  2. 2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

  3. 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methodb : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

  4. 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

  5. 5 capitalized : christian science

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...