Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

emphasis added

Your mental myopia clogs your reasoning abilities since in any discussion, all you can do and do is post a blather of nonsense and expect to be taken seriously. Contrary to your assertion, you have not once engaged in any normal dialogue. Posting worthless links, images, and lyrics does not equate to proper dialogue, it equates to spamming. I don't know how self-absorbed and infatuated you may be with yourself, but this isn't the place where we are going to make an effort to understand that. We have even made an ankap thread to channel all such stuff to that direction. It seems all you are interested in is posting and reading your own posts, as this is the only avenue that you have found where you can post the regurgitated earth day politics incessantly and remind us in every thread. Since you began posting, you have been engaged in a one woman show of simply posting nothing except links and lyrics with highlighted text in between, often times to yourself, since no one else read or responded to your jibberish.

That seems ‘off topic’ by your criteria. Maybe that belongs in the vent thread? I'll trust that you feel that is on topic here. I’m sorry that you think that the links I provide are ‘worthless’ or irrelevant. They aren’t. I’m sure the fact that you despise ‘hippie and egalitarian’ types skews your perspective. I believe that, plus your issues with race (that I give you credit for at least being honest enough to admit) and unfettered capitalism biases blind you, as well. Who is really myopic?

So let's get to the many flaws and assumptions you hold about borders and immigration. The mocking and elitist attitude you take is indicative of someone deeply dependent and immersed in their said ideology, what one would call an ideologue.

What is the ‘said ideology’ that you are talking about? Elaborate.

However, in order to address your argument about immigration we will need to point out a few things about humans, and that old cliche "human nature". Humans, aside from being spiritual beings, are also animals. In every human society since antiquity to the present, there have existed some form of borders and boundaries as a reflection of mans limitations. And since antiquity until present, there has always been a concept among man of property and possession. What belongs to one man, cannot at the same time belong to another (what Communists believe is the case). Since man is limited and still an still an animal, he separates himself into families, tribes and nations. Therefore, boundaries and borders have always reflected these human features. The world is not a borderless utopia like in John Lennon's "Imagine". Such utopian communist pipe dreams are precisely that.

I don't care for labels like 'communism.' Those kinds of loaded words, without clarification, are so vague that they could really mean anything.

There are those people who are ignorant and know it, as Plato pointed out, and then there are those who suffer from double ignorance, who are ignorant and don't know it. Most leftists and egalitarians who advocate borderless bliss are of the latter type since they believe humans have complete free will and will be able to peacefully coexist. Humans on the contrary are social beings who group themselves into races, nations, families, tribes, etc. That is a biological life force that cannot be absolved by mere ideology. As such, any attempts at the supposed dissolution of borders and boundaries is insane and reflects a serious lack of insight, intelligence and reality. While borders and boundaries are abstract and change over time, they are still a conceptual reflection of that society.

More on that later... Again, I’ve said ‘work towards’ no need for borders. Most of what you've said is just your opinion, fine (but wrong in some areas).

Groups flow down from races, nations, tribes, and down to individual families. I currently have a family and we own a house with clear property lines and boundaries. It is what separates what we have earned, built and is clearly ours, from that of my neighbors. The typical leftist would argue for the dissolution of these borders, but in doing so they are advocating the dissolution of private property. If there were no borders or boundaries for anyone, all property is hereby "collective" (the Communist dream) and is rightfully allowed to be used and occupied by everyone. Hence, if you take a shyt please don't whine when I come in and brush my teeth.

I belong to me. I am not owned or the property of anyone, but me.

I provide links for clarification. I can't type everything, so I provide a link for people who care to understand. Here is another link (again, not worthless): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../279/5355/1312

Gardenification of Wildland Nature and the Human Footprint. Dr. Dan Janzen (who I've quoted and given links to several times.)


"My genes look out at an ancient landscape. They see me as a member of a small human tribe living in, and living off, nature. My genes think that all other tribes are full of robbers and thieves. They know that what happened last year and this year will happen next year. Part of the time I control what is around me, part of the time I get out of the way. My genes also know that my inclusive fitness is maximized by supporting those tribal policies that give long-term survival and health to their tribe in the nearby environment. They know that my inclusive fitness is maximized by intensely studying that environment. And my genes' study of the nearby environment says that if we cannot figure out how to hide a package as large as 235,000 wild species [talking about a specific place in Costa Rica] in the human genome, my inclusive fitness--my tribe's future--will be very severely impacted. I am a beast born of interaction with environmental complexity, and to strip me of that complexity is to render me colorblind, deaf, and tasteless."

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

emphasis added


That seems ‘off topic’ by your criteria. Maybe that belongs in the vent thread? I'll trust that you feel that is on topic here. I’m sorry that you think that the links I provide are ‘worthless’ or irrelevant. They aren’t. I’m sure the fact that you despise ‘hippie and egalitarian’ types skews your perspective. I believe that, plus your issues with race (that I give you credit for at least being honest enough to admit) and unfettered capitalism biases blind you, as well. Who is really myopic?

Everyone is biased so to claim that somehow you are the sole objective purveyor of information is what makes you the myopic one. Bias is a natural reflection of being human and part of our subjective life experience as each individual experiences life subjectively. There is nothing that is not biased, not even the supposed media that claims to be 'objective journalism'.

emphasis added What is the ‘said ideology’ that you are talking about? Elaborate.

We can call it socialism, Communism, environmentalism, it makes no difference for they all share the basic premise of egalitarianism, which is an unhallowed and blind belief in ideology over reality. Nevermind the fact that egalitarianism, or equality is an unfounded concept in nature, ironically the same nature you incessantly write about in your environmental crusade. There is no such thing as equality and you have yet to prove there is.

emphasis added I don't care for labels like 'communism.' Those kinds of loaded words, without clarification, are so vague that they could really mean anything.

Apparently you do, for otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

emphasis added More on that later... Again, I’ve said ‘work towards’ no need for borders. Most of what you've said is just your opinion, fine (but wrong in some areas).

Most of what I have said is grounded in historical reality and human nature and you have yet to contradict that or prove otherwise. Your assumption, and that of many Leftists such as yourself, is that man has absolute free will. That is untrue for it leaves out an essential part of man: that he is partly an animal, and thereby limited by biological life forces which trumps ideology.

What leftists do not understand is that humans are naturally divided into groups, since they are social beings. And since we form ourselves into tribes, any one nation is going to view with great suspicion when large amounts of the members of another nation moves onto the first nation's land. This is something that anyone with a logical mind understands. If 3 million Chinamen moved into Armenia, would you greet that with open arms or would you be suspicious and worry about the fate of Armenian civilization? Uncontrolled and limitless immigration is racial, national, ethnic and cultural suicide for any people.

I belong to me. I am not owned or the property of anyone, but me.

So does this give you the right to trespass in someone elses property? Does this give you the right to walk into a mans home and claim it is yours or that you have as much of a rightful claim to use his land and property as he who built and earned it? Such nonsense is only the product of childish minds on the left side of the political spectrum.

Here is a link (again, not worthless): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../279/5355/1312

Gardenification of Wildland Nature and the Human Footprint. Dr. Dan Janzen.


"My genes look out at an ancient landscape. They see me as a member of a small human tribe living in, and living off, nature. My genes think that all other tribes are full of robbers and thieves. They know that what happened last year and this year will happen next year. Part of the time I control what is around me, part of the time I get out of the way. My genes also know that my inclusive fitness is maximized by supporting those tribal policies that give long-term survival and health to their tribe in the nearby environment. They know that my inclusive fitness is maximized by intensely studying that environment. And my genes' study of the nearby environment says that if we cannot figure out how to hide a package as large as 235,000 wild species in the human genome, my inclusive fitness--my tribe's future--will be very severely impacted..."

Not only did you manage to evade all the points I raised, you posted a link to something I don't see has any relevance although as a predictable social butterfly you exclaim otherwise. And when this sort of chicanery is exposed, being the sly creature that you are, you will respond with, "But it does have relevance you just don't want to see it because you are biased." However, while that may earn you the pity award, it does nothing to hide the fact that you did not address one single argument I raised. Building theoretical castles in the sky of borderless bliss, constantly typing about how we could "supposedly" work to a world of no borders per John Lennon's prescription in his very overrated and bad song called "IMAGINE", stating that I am "biased" otherwise I would see your 'truth', calling thousands of years of history of human civilizations divided into races, nations and tribes and that most of these conflicts have revolved around borders and boundary disputes as mere opinion, doesn't bode well for you. The only thing it does is display your lack of insight and inability to engage in a thoughtful discussion when the hour calls. When you cannot post your links and lyrics there seems to be a paucity of substance in your argument.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

That seems ‘off topic’ by your criteria. Maybe that belongs in the vent thread? I'll trust that you feel that is on topic here. I’m sorry that you think that the links I provide are ‘worthless’ or irrelevant. They aren’t. I’m sure the fact that you despise ‘hippie and egalitarian’ types skews your perspective. I believe that, plus your issues with race (that I give you credit for at least being honest enough to admit) and unfettered capitalism biases blind you, as well. Who is really myopic?

Everyone is biased so to claim that somehow you are the sole objective purveyor of information is what makes you the myopic one. Bias is a natural reflection of being human and part of our subjective life experience as each individual experiences life subjectively. There is nothing that is not biased, not even the supposed media that claims to be 'objective journalism'.

I most certainly do not claim to be objective. I often try to be as objective as possible…

We can call it socialism, Communism, environmentalism, it makes no difference for they all share the basic premise of egalitarianism… Apparently you do, for otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

I don’t care for, to me, means that those are ‘buzzwords’ that are often used (like ‘democracy’) without bothering to say what that means. [e.g. like ‘Support the troops.’ Who wouldn’t? It isn’t the troops that I don’t support, it is the political powers that are doing a bunch of horrible *hit to them that I don’t support.]

Well if that’s what you want to do (call them the same?)… I’ll go back to heavy-on-lyric. Those make more sense than this to me. By saying that, you help to illustrate just how muddy all of those words have become.

Most of what I have said is grounded in historical reality and human nature and you have yet to contradict that or prove otherwise.

I’m working on human social/ethical evolution, or maybe revolution. What is a ‘leftist’ by the way…

Uncontrolled and limitless immigration is racial, national, ethnic and cultural suicide for any people

I didn't say anything about limitless immigration right now...

I’ll try to get to the rest, shortly.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

So does this give you the right to trespass in someone elses property? Does this give you the right to walk into a mans home and claim it is yours or that you have as much of a rightful claim to use his land and property as he who built and earned it? Such nonsense is only the product of childish minds on the left side of the political spectrum.

Would I violate most human law in my body, no. My spirit is not limited.

One example of Thoreau (not the best, certainly) has to do with marijuana. If that were legal, it wouldn't be potentially dangerous. I avoid that because that is messed up (in that, like some other cases, making something illegal makes the situation bad, where it wasn’t before.) I do, though believe in what Thoreau says about civil disobedience. That's another 'topic,' though.

I am all for nature's plants. Making them 'illegal' is like spitting in the face of the creator--and instantly turning them into sick and twisted versions of nature's correct version.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

That seems ‘off topic’ by your criteria. Maybe that belongs in the vent thread? I'll trust that you feel that is on topic here. I’m sorry that you think that the links I provide are ‘worthless’ or irrelevant. They aren’t. I’m sure the fact that you despise ‘hippie and egalitarian’ types skews your perspective. I believe that, plus your issues with race (that I give you credit for at least being honest enough to admit) and unfettered capitalism biases blind you, as well. Who is really myopic?

Everyone is biased so to claim that somehow you are the sole objective purveyor of information is what makes you the myopic one. Bias is a natural reflection of being human and part of our subjective life experience as each individual experiences life subjectively. There is nothing that is not biased, not even the supposed media that claims to be 'objective journalism'.

I most certainly do not claim to be objective. I often try to be as objective as possible…

Thank God you do not. Earlier you claimed you are God, so one would imagine you would claim objectivity, but alas you are a fallible God. Trying to be as objective as possible, is still being subjective, so no point there.

I don’t care for, to me, means that those are ‘buzzwords’ that are often used (like ‘democracy’) without bothering to say what that means. [e.g. like ‘Support the troops.’ Who wouldn’t? It isn’t the troops that I don’t support, it is the political powers that are doing a bunch of horrible *hit to them that I don’t support.]

Well if that’s what you want to do (call them the same?)… I’ll go back to heavy-on-lyric. Those make more sense than this to me. By saying that, you help to illustrate just how muddy all of those words have become.

What is your point? I thought you didn't care? But as I said, if you didn't care, you wouldn't have responded. If you want to get bogged down on definitions and labels and "buzzwords", make another thread about the elasticity and vagueness of language. However, I explained that all of those ideologies have an unhallowed and unquestioning belief in one simple dogma, egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the "belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges." That's taken straight from Merriam Webster Online. If we take that definition at face value it might suffice simple minds. But as you demonstrated, inquiring minds want to know! And I challenged you to explain and prove how there is such a concept in nature. Note: If you want to talk further about that particular concept, make another thread dealing strictly with that topic and nothing else.

I’m working on human social/ethical evolution, or maybe revolution. What is a ‘leftist’ by the way…

Either you are playing dumb, or you really don't know the definition of leftist. I think it is the initial, in an attempt to show how witty you are, but I will be nice and still define it for your clarity.

In politics, left-wing, political left, leftism, or simply the left, are terms which refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially in the American sense of the word), or with opposition to right-wing politics. Communism (as well as the Marxist philosophy that it relies on) and anarchism are considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics. (See political spectrum and left-right politics for more on the merits/limitations of this kind of classification.) The terminology of left-right politics was originally based on the seating-arrangement of parliamentary partisans during the French Revolution. The more ardent proponents of radical revolutionary measures (including democracy and republicanism) were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies. As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the terms has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared.

The term is also often used to characterize the politics of the Soviet Union and other one-party "communist states", although many (perhaps most) on the political left (including many Marxists) would not consider their own politics to have anything significant in common with any of these states.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Left-wing_politics

I didn't say anything about limitless immigration right now...

I’ll try to get to the rest, shortly.

Then what else could your rant about abolishing borders be?

I noticed that the more and more you respond, the more and more of my points are dropped in ever more subtle ways.

To recap everything: Open borders is an incorrect and insane idea and doesn't take into account man's limited and animal nature. As the saying goes, fences make good neighbors.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

I am what I am. What I am saying is that ‘God’s word’ (imposed by those humans who wrote with bias) has some universal ideas included, some flexible ideas, etc.

The idea of God as static, not changing (some things/ideas) is silly. That doesn't change core values.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

I am what I am. What I am saying is that ‘God’s word’ (imposed by those humans who wrote with bias) has some universal ideas included, some flexible ideas, etc.

The idea of God as static, not changing (some things/ideas) is silly. That doesn't change core values.

What is your point here? I seem to be as confused as ever again with your verbiage.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

What is your point here? I seem to be as confused as ever again with your verbiage.

THAT is the 'fractal' armenianclub.com, universe. You don't get that, but some might.

I'm going to do photo/graphic art for a bit on Ankap. You seem to like and understand that.

[Quarteria]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

Here's a question. Anahita, why do you 'quote' some words? If you are as clever as you propose to be, wouldn't the deep bohemians on this board pick up on your 'subtlety'?

Incidentally, I don't think "Imagine" is a bad song...but, look at where peace got Lennin.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S.

Here's a question. Anahita, why do you 'quote' some words? If you are as clever as you propose to be, wouldn't the deep bohemians on this board pick up on your 'subtlety'?

Incidentally, I don't think "Imagine" is a bad song...but, look at where peace got Lennin.

I quote for many different reasons... there are punctuation marks for what I did or didn't say. I try to go by the "quote" rule by ("Jen didn't say this directly.") "quote" = I didn't say and maybe I like or not.

I am more than 'clever' than that, in my way, either/any way.