What is our 4T contest about? Can we see it differently?

[Marypoza]

(02-10-2017, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 01:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 12:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: And... there's nothing wrong with tossing chum in to see what sorts of lunkers are to be had.

Well, I disagree with this.  There is something wrong with tossing chum if people care about having serious conversations.  Toss chum on your own thread, please.  Don't go about sabotaging attempts at real conversation.

[/understatement] Now, I have my share of disagreements with Eric.  [/understatement]  However, in this case i think he is raising a serious point.  I am dismayed that the first and strongest answering posts took it immediately to personal attacks, and he has drawn little comment other than personal attacks.  That is one reason why conversations on this board and many others go absolutely nowhere.

--uh, mebbe bcuz Eric is guilty of alot of this shit? Maybe that's why ppl here aren't taking this thread seriously? When l posted my original response above l had just come off a thread where Eric called somebody deluded bcuz their pov was different from his. But you have a point, Bob. This thread s/b taken seriously. Sometimes it's just hard to take Eric seriously

Can't argue with this.  If an extreme partisan does little but throw chum, would anyone expect or notice a serious attempt at conversation?  If the water is loaded with blood and chum, what is a poor shark to do?  I seriously sympathize with a desire to change the conversation, to find a new angle, but a lot of folks are so extremely committed to the old angles that they have squandered any potential to have anyone with conflicting values take them seriously.

-- good analogy about angles. When Eric pisses ppl off, how much of that has to do with their old angles? Not his

Bob Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 01:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

Bob Wrote:It would help to throw less chum.

--mebbe chum is the wrong term. How about devil's advocate? To get a discussion going?

Better.  I don't think our problem is starting discussions, though.  The problem is getting serious conversations with both sides listening.  Controversy for controversy's sake might not be the way to go at this point.

-- perhaps. But mebbe if a discussion has pretty much stopped, or devolved, throwing the devil's advocate wrench in there can sometimes get it going again

[Mikebert]

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We face a polarization and conflict in our country. Though essentially beyond the partisan labels, it does cluster around Republicans and Democrats, which we now call red and blue.

What is this contest, or conflict?

I like to see it on many levels. I prefer most of the time to frame it as a contest between ideas, not people. The people on the other side are not my enemies, I like to think. It's the ideas, the delusions and deceptions they hold that must be dispelled.

Bob Butler likes to frame it as a contest between values; we can't hold the values of those we oppose, so we must accept this and accept that people have different values.

I think there's some truth in that, but on the other hand, framing it this way makes it harder to resolve; it says things can't be changed, because values are too hard to change. Whereas if one has a delusion or has been deceived, all one has to do is wake up from it.

Of course, framing the conflict in terms of deceptive ideas, also has its problems. Reading me saying to dispell the deceptions, sounds like I'm saying that I am right and the other person is wrong. Once in a while, a person can be in what's called a contemplative mode, and is willing to listen. In our society today, it appears that less than 10% of the people are capable or willing to listen to the other side. The rest have their minds made up.

When I speak of deceptive ideas, it is not just my ego speaking, because it is not only myself who "knows the truth" and others who don't. It is myself and many others, opposing another and many others. And I like to say that, if I know the truth, it is because I have been open and willing to listen. But the divide remains. If another person is not in contemplative mode, there is little chance I can convince them that I know the truth, and that they are deluded. And they may take is as an insult if I tell them that they have been deceived, and that I know the truth and they don't.

Let's see in my next post if I can frame the contest we are in a little differently.

You are sensing the issue correctly, IMO.  I do not agree with Bob that the issue is about values.  I think Americans for the most part agree of values.  Both sides want to "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". The question has always been (and is) how? 

How do you provide of the common defense?  Through American global leadership and an expansive force projection of 700+ overseas bases (the "empire") or through narrow definition of homeland defense through a hemispherical naval doctrine and border defenses against illicit entry?  Or something in between?

How do you promote the general Welfare?   Through a moderately regulated, but otherwise laissez faire capitalism plus a safety net to prevent extreme deprivation, or through a less regulated, but governed, capitalism such as existed from 1942-1965? Or something in between?

How do you secure the blessing of Liberty in a world of creeping authoritarianism (in both parties) in a world than contains ISIS?

[Eric the Green]

It seems to me, that there is a whole lot of deception and delusion going on in America today. It has to be exposed. We may disagree on who is deluded, and we do; and there have been some episodes and examples of fake news from my side of the debate, and that includes deception from the far left about center-left candidates too, and probably vice-versa too. But we can't deceive ourselves that no deception is going on. Those of us who care need to be willing to take a look and see the truth.

The devil has enough advocates at this point. But keeping discussion going is more interesting to a forum, even though too often it creates more heat than light.

At this point, people who are open to listening are likely to only be about 20%-25% of the population. That's just where we are. And the majority of those willing to listen today are likely, it seems to me, to be in the category of "center-left" in a relatively right-leaning country. It's questionable in today's media environment how many of the right-wing can be shown what lies beyond fear and prejudice. It's a tall order. We can hope and pray that it's possible.

See again the video I posted on the "big lie" thread from mediamatters.
https://youtu.be/WveSEL-BhKI

I like to explore ideas, even if they might be different from ideas that I spout forth elsewhere. That's just who I am. This thread is not about which post or poster might be deceived, or unwilling to listen. This thread is not intended by me as a rebuttal or argument against any particular post or forum poster.

[Marypoza]

Maybe it's not so much red vs blue as this:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/332/CaitlinJohnstone

A century ago (& more) it was proletariat vs the owner class. Same old same old. Different century

[Mikebert]

(02-10-2017, 03:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It seems to me, that there is a whole lot of deception and delusion going on in America today. It has to be exposed. We may disagree on who is deluded, and we do; and there have been some episodes and examples of fake news from my side of the debate, and that includes deception from the far left about center-left candidates too, and probably vice-versa too. But we can't deceive ourselves that no deception is going on. Those of us who care need to be willing to take a look and see the truth.

The devil has enough advocates at this point. But keeping discussion going is more interesting to a forum, even though too often it creates more heat than light.

At this point, people who are open to listening are likely to only be about 20%-25% of the population. That's just where we are. And the majority of those willing to listen today are likely, it seems to me, to be in the category of "center-left" in a relatively right-leaning country. It's questionable in today's media environment how many of the right-wing can be shown what lies beyond fear and prejudice. It's a tall order. We can hope and pray that it's possible.

See again the video I posted on the "big lie" thread from mediamatters.
https://youtu.be/WveSEL-BhKI

I like to explore ideas, even if they might be different from ideas that I spout forth elsewhere. That's just who I am. This thread is not about which post or poster might be deceived, or unwilling to listen. This thread is not intended by me as a rebuttal or argument against any particular post or forum poster.

The video describes a theme proposed 15 years ago, back when we thought the 4T started in 2001.  The idea was that the 4T would be a "virtual 4T" in which messaging, fakes news etc. would play a major role.  The basic idea was based on the then-accepted (by me) idea of a mild British 4T in the mid 19th century. The idea that a modern 4T might never become a "real thing" as my work colleague Dan put it--there would be no internal war, financial panic, etc.  The 4T would be decided on whose marketing campaign/branding was better.

But then, to my surprise, in 2008 we had an old-fashioned financial panic.  Turns out, it still can rain shit in a 4T.  And so, we will have to do this thing old school.

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2017, 04:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Maybe it's not so much red vs blue as this:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/332/CaitlinJohnstone

A century ago (& more) it was proletariat vs the owner class. Same old same old. Different century

What we have is something like that, in my opinion. The neo-liberals are the owner class and those who favor it. The proletariat are those who suffer under trickle-down Reaganomics = neoliberalism. Trump is primarily a neo-liberal defending the interests of his class. Democrats and liberals usually favor policies that help the proletariat, and they work, whereas the neo-liberal pro-upper class policies do not work, except for the upper class, perhaps. That's red vs. blue.

Anti-globalization is a mixed brew. It is easy to see through the deceptive rhetoric about globalism. It is basically the right values: we are all one people on one planet, and we need to build bridges and not walls. National borders are just lines on a map.

The genuine liberal point of view (as opposed to the Trump demagoguery) says globalization can be a good thing, except that multi-national neo-liberal corporations don't care about the people or any nation's interests. They use globalization to create "free trade," which essentially means bringing advanced nations down to the level of poor nations so that companies can send jobs and factories abroad where there is cheap labor and no regulations or taxes. That is good for business, but bad for workers in the advanced countries.

The deception which Trump has pulled is to appeal to workers on the trade issue, while at the same time putting forth neo-liberalism trickle-down economics on steroids that will hurt workers. That's why Trump and Sanders really share very little in common; perhaps only the trade issue. So that website is wrong.

Anti-globalization is also another code word for xenophobia and racism. Fear of immigrants and refugees; calls for walls and stronger borders. Stoking fears that a national, traditional civilization is being infiltrated and ruined by dangerous furiners. Anti one-world/new world order, anti-UN conspiracy theories and frenzies. This is what Trump and Brexit and Le Pen are all about. It is nothing worth supporting; it must be opposed.

Globalization in this sense is the liberal, positive alternative. Not that there should be no borders to regulate the speed at which immigration occurs. Globalization does not mean no borders at all. It means we recognize that we are all humans on one planet, and global solutions and institutions are needed in many fields. It means more of a global federation in which nation-states do not become the basis for warlike nationalism, prejudice and narrow-mindedness, which have caused nine world wars and many smaller wars in the last many hundreds of years.

The saeculum is doing its work. After a lifetime, people tend to forget what happened in the last go-round. Nationalists and anti-globalists today forget that their ideas led to World Wars I and II, the worst disaster in human history. That's why the EU evolved. But, people forget. Forget they're hiding....

[Marypoza]

(02-10-2017, 04:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 04:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Maybe it's not so much red vs blue as this:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/332/CaitlinJohnstone

A century ago (& more) it was proletariat vs the owner class. Same old same old. Different century

What we have is something like that, in my opinion. The neo-liberals are the owner class and those who favor it. The proletariat are those who suffer under trickle-down Reaganomics = neoliberalism. Trump is primarily a neo-liberal defending the interests of his class. Democrats and liberals usually favor policies that help the proletariat, and they work, whereas the neo-liberal pro-upper class policies do not work, except for the upper class, perhaps. That's red vs. blue.

Anti-globalization is a mixed brew. It is easy to see through the deceptive rhetoric about globalism. It is basically the right values: we are all one people on one planet, and we need to build bridges and not walls. National borders are just lines on a map.

The genuine liberal point of view (as opposed to the Trump demagoguery) says globalization can be a good thing, except that multi-national neo-liberal corporations don't care about the people or any nation's interests. They use globalization to create "free trade," which essentially means bringing advanced nations down to the level of poor nations so that companies can send jobs and factories abroad where there is cheap labor and no regulations or taxes. That is good for business, but bad for workers in the advanced countries.

The deception which Trump has pulled is to appeal to workers on the trade issue, while at the same time putting forth neo-liberalism trickle-down economics on steroids that will hurt workers. That's why Trump and Sanders really share very little in common; perhaps only the trade issue. So that website is wrong.

Anti-globalization is also another code word for xenophobia and racism. Fear of immigrants and refugees; calls for walls and stronger borders. Stoking fears that a national, traditional civilization is being infiltrated and ruined by dangerous furiners. Anti one-world/new world order, anti-UN conspiracy theories and frenzies. This is what Trump and Brexit and Le Pen are all about. It is nothing worth supporting; it must be opposed.

Globalization in this sense is the liberal, positive alternative. Not that there should be no borders to regulate the speed at which immigration occurs. Globalization does not mean no borders at all. It means we recognize that we are all humans on one planet, and global solutions and institutions are needed in many fields. It means more of a global federation in which nation-states do not become the basis for warlike nationalism, prejudice and narrow-mindedness, which have caused nine world wars and many smaller wars in the last many hundreds of years.

The saeculum is doing its work. After a lifetime, people tend to forget what happened in the last go-round. Nationalists and anti-globalists today forget that their ideas led to World Wars I and II, the worst disaster in human history. That's why the EU evolved. But, people forget. Forget they're hiding....

-- yeah but l think what the author is saying is we need to reach out to the antiglobalist Trumpistas, reach out & form a big antiglobalist movement. Just like Marx said the workers of the world should unite

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2017, 05:28 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 04:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 04:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Maybe it's not so much red vs blue as this:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/332/CaitlinJohnstone

A century ago (& more) it was proletariat vs the owner class. Same old same old. Different century

What we have is something like that, in my opinion. The neo-liberals are the owner class and those who favor it. The proletariat are those who suffer under trickle-down Reaganomics = neoliberalism. Trump is primarily a neo-liberal defending the interests of his class. Democrats and liberals usually favor policies that help the proletariat, and they work, whereas the neo-liberal pro-upper class policies do not work, except for the upper class, perhaps. That's red vs. blue.

Anti-globalization is a mixed brew. It is easy to see through the deceptive rhetoric about globalism. It is basically the right values: we are all one people on one planet, and we need to build bridges and not walls. National borders are just lines on a map.

The genuine liberal point of view (as opposed to the Trump demagoguery) says globalization can be a good thing, except that multi-national neo-liberal corporations don't care about the people or any nation's interests. They use globalization to create "free trade," which essentially means bringing advanced nations down to the level of poor nations so that companies can send jobs and factories abroad where there is cheap labor and no regulations or taxes. That is good for business, but bad for workers in the advanced countries.

The deception which Trump has pulled is to appeal to workers on the trade issue, while at the same time putting forth neo-liberalism trickle-down economics on steroids that will hurt workers. That's why Trump and Sanders really share very little in common; perhaps only the trade issue. So that website is wrong.

Anti-globalization is also another code word for xenophobia and racism. Fear of immigrants and refugees; calls for walls and stronger borders. Stoking fears that a national, traditional civilization is being infiltrated and ruined by dangerous furiners. Anti one-world/new world order, anti-UN conspiracy theories and frenzies. This is what Trump and Brexit and Le Pen are all about. It is nothing worth supporting; it must be opposed.

Globalization in this sense is the liberal, positive alternative. Not that there should be no borders to regulate the speed at which immigration occurs. Globalization does not mean no borders at all. It means we recognize that we are all humans on one planet, and global solutions and institutions are needed in many fields. It means more of a global federation in which nation-states do not become the basis for warlike nationalism, prejudice and narrow-mindedness, which have caused nine world wars and many smaller wars in the last many hundreds of years.

The saeculum is doing its work. After a lifetime, people tend to forget what happened in the last go-round. Nationalists and anti-globalists today forget that their ideas led to World Wars I and II, the worst disaster in human history. That's why the EU evolved. But, people forget. Forget they're hiding....

-- yeah but l think what the author is saying is we need to reach out to the antiglobalist Trumpistas, reach out & form a big antiglobalist movement. Just like Marx said the workers of the world should unite

We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

[Marypoza]

(02-10-2017, 05:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:28 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 04:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 04:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Maybe it's not so much red vs blue as this:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/332/CaitlinJohnstone

A century ago (& more) it was proletariat vs the owner class. Same old same old. Different century

What we have is something like that, in my opinion. The neo-liberals are the owner class and those who favor it. The proletariat are those who suffer under trickle-down Reaganomics = neoliberalism. Trump is primarily a neo-liberal defending the interests of his class. Democrats and liberals usually favor policies that help the proletariat, and they work, whereas the neo-liberal pro-upper class policies do not work, except for the upper class, perhaps. That's red vs. blue.

Anti-globalization is a mixed brew. It is easy to see through the deceptive rhetoric about globalism. It is basically the right values: we are all one people on one planet, and we need to build bridges and not walls. National borders are just lines on a map.

The genuine liberal point of view (as opposed to the Trump demagoguery) says globalization can be a good thing, except that multi-national neo-liberal corporations don't care about the people or any nation's interests. They use globalization to create "free trade," which essentially means bringing advanced nations down to the level of poor nations so that companies can send jobs and factories abroad where there is cheap labor and no regulations or taxes. That is good for business, but bad for workers in the advanced countries.

The deception which Trump has pulled is to appeal to workers on the trade issue, while at the same time putting forth neo-liberalism trickle-down economics on steroids that will hurt workers. That's why Trump and Sanders really share very little in common; perhaps only the trade issue. So that website is wrong.

Anti-globalization is also another code word for xenophobia and racism. Fear of immigrants and refugees; calls for walls and stronger borders. Stoking fears that a national, traditional civilization is being infiltrated and ruined by dangerous furiners. Anti one-world/new world order, anti-UN conspiracy theories and frenzies. This is what Trump and Brexit and Le Pen are all about. It is nothing worth supporting; it must be opposed.

Globalization in this sense is the liberal, positive alternative. Not that there should be no borders to regulate the speed at which immigration occurs. Globalization does not mean no borders at all. It means we recognize that we are all humans on one planet, and global solutions and institutions are needed in many fields. It means more of a global federation in which nation-states do not become the basis for warlike nationalism, prejudice and narrow-mindedness, which have caused nine world wars and many smaller wars in the last many hundreds of years.

The saeculum is doing its work. After a lifetime, people tend to forget what happened in the last go-round. Nationalists and anti-globalists today forget that their ideas led to World Wars I and II, the worst disaster in human history. That's why the EU evolved. But, people forget. Forget they're hiding....

-- yeah but l think what the author is saying is we need to reach out to the antiglobalist Trumpistas, reach out & form a big antiglobalist movement. Just like Marx said the workers of the world should unite

We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2017, 08:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:28 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 04:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 04:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Maybe it's not so much red vs blue as this:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/332/CaitlinJohnstone

A century ago (& more) it was proletariat vs the owner class. Same old same old. Different century

What we have is something like that, in my opinion. The neo-liberals are the owner class and those who favor it. The proletariat are those who suffer under trickle-down Reaganomics = neoliberalism. Trump is primarily a neo-liberal defending the interests of his class. Democrats and liberals usually favor policies that help the proletariat, and they work, whereas the neo-liberal pro-upper class policies do not work, except for the upper class, perhaps. That's red vs. blue.

Anti-globalization is a mixed brew. It is easy to see through the deceptive rhetoric about globalism. It is basically the right values: we are all one people on one planet, and we need to build bridges and not walls. National borders are just lines on a map.

The genuine liberal point of view (as opposed to the Trump demagoguery) says globalization can be a good thing, except that multi-national neo-liberal corporations don't care about the people or any nation's interests. They use globalization to create "free trade," which essentially means bringing advanced nations down to the level of poor nations so that companies can send jobs and factories abroad where there is cheap labor and no regulations or taxes. That is good for business, but bad for workers in the advanced countries.

The deception which Trump has pulled is to appeal to workers on the trade issue, while at the same time putting forth neo-liberalism trickle-down economics on steroids that will hurt workers. That's why Trump and Sanders really share very little in common; perhaps only the trade issue. So that website is wrong.

Anti-globalization is also another code word for xenophobia and racism. Fear of immigrants and refugees; calls for walls and stronger borders. Stoking fears that a national, traditional civilization is being infiltrated and ruined by dangerous furiners. Anti one-world/new world order, anti-UN conspiracy theories and frenzies. This is what Trump and Brexit and Le Pen are all about. It is nothing worth supporting; it must be opposed.

Globalization in this sense is the liberal, positive alternative. Not that there should be no borders to regulate the speed at which immigration occurs. Globalization does not mean no borders at all. It means we recognize that we are all humans on one planet, and global solutions and institutions are needed in many fields. It means more of a global federation in which nation-states do not become the basis for warlike nationalism, prejudice and narrow-mindedness, which have caused nine world wars and many smaller wars in the last many hundreds of years.

The saeculum is doing its work. After a lifetime, people tend to forget what happened in the last go-round. Nationalists and anti-globalists today forget that their ideas led to World Wars I and II, the worst disaster in human history. That's why the EU evolved. But, people forget. Forget they're hiding....

-- yeah but l think what the author is saying is we need to reach out to the antiglobalist Trumpistas, reach out & form a big antiglobalist movement. Just like Marx said the workers of the world should unite

We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

That's the peace movement.

But yes, there needs to be a positive name. And "anti-globalism" as a meme needs to have the nationalism and xenophobia taken out. So what is the positive name for the movement against corporate global neo-liberalism? We'll need to work on that.

Fair trade is part of it. And equality. But the right-wingers can say that equality means everyone is equal financially, regardless of what they do or how lazy they are. So we say equality of opportunity. Not exactly spellbinding.... And Democratic socialism is pretty good, but socialism has a bad rep. We don't want the government to own and run everything. Justice and fairness, but folks like Rags don't like SJWs. So, what's the best name? I'm not sure.

[Marypoza]

(02-10-2017, 09:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 08:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:28 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 04:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What we have is something like that, in my opinion. The neo-liberals are the owner class and those who favor it. The proletariat are those who suffer under trickle-down Reaganomics = neoliberalism. Trump is primarily a neo-liberal defending the interests of his class. Democrats and liberals usually favor policies that help the proletariat, and they work, whereas the neo-liberal pro-upper class policies do not work, except for the upper class, perhaps. That's red vs. blue.

Anti-globalization is a mixed brew. It is easy to see through the deceptive rhetoric about globalism. It is basically the right values: we are all one people on one planet, and we need to build bridges and not walls. National borders are just lines on a map.

The genuine liberal point of view (as opposed to the Trump demagoguery) says globalization can be a good thing, except that multi-national neo-liberal corporations don't care about the people or any nation's interests. They use globalization to create "free trade," which essentially means bringing advanced nations down to the level of poor nations so that companies can send jobs and factories abroad where there is cheap labor and no regulations or taxes. That is good for business, but bad for workers in the advanced countries.

The deception which Trump has pulled is to appeal to workers on the trade issue, while at the same time putting forth neo-liberalism trickle-down economics on steroids that will hurt workers. That's why Trump and Sanders really share very little in common; perhaps only the trade issue. So that website is wrong.

Anti-globalization is also another code word for xenophobia and racism. Fear of immigrants and refugees; calls for walls and stronger borders. Stoking fears that a national, traditional civilization is being infiltrated and ruined by dangerous furiners. Anti one-world/new world order, anti-UN conspiracy theories and frenzies. This is what Trump and Brexit and Le Pen are all about. It is nothing worth supporting; it must be opposed.

Globalization in this sense is the liberal, positive alternative. Not that there should be no borders to regulate the speed at which immigration occurs. Globalization does not mean no borders at all. It means we recognize that we are all humans on one planet, and global solutions and institutions are needed in many fields. It means more of a global federation in which nation-states do not become the basis for warlike nationalism, prejudice and narrow-mindedness, which have caused nine world wars and many smaller wars in the last many hundreds of years.

The saeculum is doing its work. After a lifetime, people tend to forget what happened in the last go-round. Nationalists and anti-globalists today forget that their ideas led to World Wars I and II, the worst disaster in human history. That's why the EU evolved. But, people forget. Forget they're hiding....

-- yeah but l think what the author is saying is we need to reach out to the antiglobalist Trumpistas, reach out & form a big antiglobalist movement. Just like Marx said the workers of the world should unite

We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

That's the peace movement.

--yeah except they don't call themselves that.

Eric Wrote:But yes, there needs to be a positive name. And "anti-globalism" as a meme needs to have the nationalism and xenophobia taken out. So what is the positive name for the movement against corporate global neo-liberalism? We'll need to work on that.

Fair trade is part of it. And equality. But the right-wingers can say that equality means everyone is equal financially, regardless of what they do or how lazy they are. So we say equality of opportunity. Not exactly spellbinding.... And Democratic socialism is pretty good, but socialism has a bad rep. We don't want the government to own and run everything. Justice and fairness, but folks like Rags don't like SJWs. So, what's the best name? I'm not sure.

-- economic justice, economic democracy, economic freedom. True Liberals (as opposed to neoliberals, who aren't really liberals @ all)  Or maybe just Fair Traders, as opposed to Free Traders to the bottom 

Something will catch on

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2017, 11:26 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 09:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 08:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:28 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- yeah but l think what the author is saying is we need to reach out to the antiglobalist Trumpistas, reach out & form a big antiglobalist movement. Just like Marx said the workers of the world should unite

We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

That's the peace movement.

--yeah except they don't call themselves that.

Being in touch with the movement, I think they do. The "anti-war movement" was mainly the anti Vietnam War movement. Then there's the "Beyond War" group that had an impact. A bit better name, because the "beyond" word is pretty positive too, compared to "anti."

Quote:

Eric Wrote:But yes, there needs to be a positive name. And "anti-globalism" as a meme needs to have the nationalism and xenophobia taken out. So what is the positive name for the movement against corporate global neo-liberalism? We'll need to work on that.

Fair trade is part of it. And equality. But the right-wingers can say that equality means everyone is equal financially, regardless of what they do or how lazy they are. So we say equality of opportunity. Not exactly spellbinding.... And Democratic socialism is pretty good, but socialism has a bad rep. We don't want the government to own and run everything. Justice and fairness, but folks like Rags don't like SJWs. So, what's the best name? I'm not sure.

-- economic justice, economic democracy, economic freedom. True Liberals (as opposed to neoliberals, who aren't really liberals @ all)  Or maybe just Fair Traders, as opposed to Free Traders to the bottom 

Something will catch on

that's a bit better..... of course, economics is important to misled Trump voters (having been misled into voting for Trump), some of whom, at least, especially in the Rust Belt, have real problems as a result of free trade, automation, etc. Other issues are even more important to many liberals, especially the neo-sixties issues like ecology, peace, social justice; issues not to be forgotten about either. But "economic democracy" is a phrase from the seventies that is good.

[Marypoza]

(02-10-2017, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 11:26 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 09:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 08:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

That's the peace movement.

--yeah except they don't call themselves that.

Being in touch with the movement, I think they do. The "anti-war movement" was mainly the anti Vietnam War movement. Then there's the "Beyond War" group that had an impact. A bit better name, because the "beyond" word is pretty positive too, compared to "anti."

Quote:

Eric Wrote:But yes, there needs to be a positive name. And "anti-globalism" as a meme needs to have the nationalism and xenophobia taken out. So what is the positive name for the movement against corporate global neo-liberalism? We'll need to work on that.

Fair trade is part of it. And equality. But the right-wingers can say that equality means everyone is equal financially, regardless of what they do or how lazy they are. So we say equality of opportunity. Not exactly spellbinding.... And Democratic socialism is pretty good, but socialism has a bad rep. We don't want the government to own and run everything. Justice and fairness, but folks like Rags don't like SJWs. So, what's the best name? I'm not sure.

-- economic justice, economic democracy, economic freedom. True Liberals (as opposed to neoliberals, who aren't really liberals @ all)  Or maybe just Fair Traders, as opposed to Free Traders to the bottom 

Something will catch on

that's a bit better..... of course, economics is important to misled Trump voters (having been misled into voting for Trump), some of whom, at least, especially in the Rust Belt, have real problems as a result of free trade, automation, etc. Other issues are even more important to many liberals, especially the neo-sixties issues like ecology, peace, social justice; issues not to be forgotten about either. But "economic democracy" is a phrase from the seventies thmat is good.

Eric, this is economic democracy

http://itsoureconomy.us/about-us/

[Eric the Green]

I'm on board with that (have been for decades of course). I like equal emphasis on "ecological democracy," but then I'm Eric you know who.

I like that you changed your signature to put Sherrod #1. That's at least someone I can support.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-10-2017, 09:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote pid='21058' dateline='1486766751']
We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

That's the peace movement.

But yes, there needs to be a positive name. And "anti-globalism" as a meme needs to have the nationalism and xenophobia taken out. So what is the positive name for the movement against corporate global neo-liberalism? We'll need to work on that.

Fair trade is part of it. And equality. But the right-wingers can say that equality means everyone is equal financially, regardless of what they do or how lazy they are. So we say equality of opportunity. Not exactly spellbinding.... And Democratic socialism is pretty good, but socialism has a bad rep. We don't want the government to own and run everything. Justice and fairness, but folks like Rags don't like SJWs. So, what's the best name? I'm not sure.
[/quote]

1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.
2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.
3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.
4. Justice/fairness: Really Eric? That's a broad topic. Essentially, it should just mean following the constitution. Justice demands that each individual, not group! have a fair shot to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. SJW's and snowflakes focus on group outcomes which do not equate to equal opportunity.  The same goes for religious freaks who likewise think everyone else is lacking in a certain "truth" they themselves only possess and insist on fobbing said "truths" on everyone else.  Essentially, how many people really like being nagged by self righteous morons?

[Marypoza]

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 09:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote pid='21058' dateline='1486766751']
We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

That's the peace movement.

But yes, there needs to be a positive name. And "anti-globalism" as a meme needs to have the nationalism and xenophobia taken out. So what is the positive name for the movement against corporate global neo-liberalism? We'll need to work on that.

Fair trade is part of it. And equality. But the right-wingers can say that equality means everyone is equal financially, regardless of what they do or how lazy they are. So we say equality of opportunity. Not exactly spellbinding.... And Democratic socialism is pretty good, but socialism has a bad rep. We don't want the government to own and run everything. Justice and fairness, but folks like Rags don't like SJWs. So, what's the best name? I'm not sure.

Rags Wrote:1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits

-- & economic democracy puts ppl above profits

Rags Wrote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

--agreed.

Rags Wrote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

-- most definitely agreed. Everybody s/b allowed to grow & smoke our buds in peace, & if some ppl wanna make some $ selling it, more power to them

Rags Wrote:4. Justice/fairness: Really Eric? That's a broad topic. Essentially, it should just mean following the constitution. Justice demands that each individual, not group! have a fair shot to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. SJW's and snowflakes focus on group outcomes which do not equate to equal opportunity.  The same goes for religious freaks who likewise think everyone else is lacking in a certain "truth" they themselves only possess and insist on fobbing said "truths" on everyone else.  Essentially, how many people really like being nagged by self righteous morons?

-- all good points Rags

[Marypoza]

(02-10-2017, 11:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'm on board with that (have been for decades of course). I like equal emphasis on "ecological democracy," but then I'm Eric you know who.

I like that you changed your signature to put Sherrod #1. That's at least someone I can support.

--yeah. M&L suggest he run in  2020 & being a loud proud buckeye kinda girl, of course l had to agree. We may have to draft him however, he doesn't appear to be positioning himself for a run, like say, Tulsi is

[Eric the Green]

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,

Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda. I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.

Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

Quote:4. Justice/fairness: Really Eric? That's a broad topic. Essentially, it should just mean following the constitution. Justice demands that each individual, not group! have a fair shot to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. SJW's and snowflakes focus on group outcomes which do not equate to equal opportunity.  The same goes for religious freaks who likewise think everyone else is lacking in a certain "truth" they themselves only possess and insist on fobbing said "truths" on everyone else.  Essentially, how many people really like being nagged by self righteous morons?

Of course, justice and fairness. Really. And that is more than the constitution; it's an inherent value. And we do need to focus on groups, but only because those who unjustly discriminate and profile focus on them. I don't have a problem with SJWs and snowflakes. I'm sorry you do, but it seems like a matter of taste regarding presentation, rather than a beef with justice itself. Anyone can go overboard with nagging and single-issue dogma. That has nothing to do with justice, right?

[Eric the Green]

(02-11-2017, 06:38 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 09:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote pid='21058' dateline='1486766751']
We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

That's the peace movement.

But yes, there needs to be a positive name. And "anti-globalism" as a meme needs to have the nationalism and xenophobia taken out. So what is the positive name for the movement against corporate global neo-liberalism? We'll need to work on that.

Fair trade is part of it. And equality. But the right-wingers can say that equality means everyone is equal financially, regardless of what they do or how lazy they are. So we say equality of opportunity. Not exactly spellbinding.... And Democratic socialism is pretty good, but socialism has a bad rep. We don't want the government to own and run everything. Justice and fairness, but folks like Rags don't like SJWs. So, what's the best name? I'm not sure.

Rags Wrote:1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits

-- & economic democracy puts ppl above profits

Rags Wrote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

--agreed.

Rags Wrote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

-- most definitely agreed. Everybody s/b allowed to grow & smoke our buds in peace, & if some ppl wanna make some $ selling it, more power to them

Rags Wrote:4. Justice/fairness: Really Eric? That's a broad topic. Essentially, it should just mean following the constitution. Justice demands that each individual, not group! have a fair shot to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. SJW's and snowflakes focus on group outcomes which do not equate to equal opportunity.  The same goes for religious freaks who likewise think everyone else is lacking in a certain "truth" they themselves only possess and insist on fobbing said "truths" on everyone else.  Essentially, how many people really like being nagged by self righteous morons?

-- all good points Rags

No, not quite all good points.

[Marypoza]

(02-11-2017, 03:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 06:38 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 09:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote pid='21058' dateline='1486766751']
We need to take a stronger stand on the trade issue, and make clear that the blue side and progressives support the interests of workers; and yes that's worldwide. Not an anti-globalist movement, because that is pure Trumpism; combining justified opposition to corporate "free trade" with xenophobic and racism nationalism and neo-liberal policies. Anti-globalist is not the right meme or slogan at all if we want to create the movement that will help the people.

Justice, peace, freedom, equality of opportunity for all, fair trade and fair policies. That's positive. Anti neo-liberal corporatism; that's the opposition meme.

--yeah you got a point there. The name of the movement s/b positive. Ppl don't realize the importance of words & framing their intentions. I went to a workshop about the Secret once & they said that was a big reason why the antiwar movement failed bcuz it was antiwar. So yeah you're right. The name needs to be positive. The antiwar movement needs to rename itself too

That's the peace movement.

But yes, there needs to be a positive name. And "anti-globalism" as a meme needs to have the nationalism and xenophobia taken out. So what is the positive name for the movement against corporate global neo-liberalism? We'll need to work on that.

Fair trade is part of it. And equality. But the right-wingers can say that equality means everyone is equal financially, regardless of what they do or how lazy they are. So we say equality of opportunity. Not exactly spellbinding.... And Democratic socialism is pretty good, but socialism has a bad rep. We don't want the government to own and run everything. Justice and fairness, but folks like Rags don't like SJWs. So, what's the best name? I'm not sure.

Rags Wrote:1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits

-- & economic democracy puts ppl above profits

Rags Wrote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

--agreed.

Rags Wrote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

-- most definitely agreed. Everybody s/b allowed to grow & smoke our buds in peace, & if some ppl wanna make some $ selling it, more power to them

Rags Wrote:4. Justice/fairness: Really Eric? That's a broad topic. Essentially, it should just mean following the constitution. Justice demands that each individual, not group! have a fair shot to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. SJW's and snowflakes focus on group outcomes which do not equate to equal opportunity.  The same goes for religious freaks who likewise think everyone else is lacking in a certain "truth" they themselves only possess and insist on fobbing said "truths" on everyone else.  Essentially, how many people really like being nagged by self righteous morons?

-- all good points Rags

No, not quite all good points.

[/quote]
-- ok which one don't you like?