CDZ Is the US a terrorist nation?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have much less trouble when someone, anyone, redefines the meanings of words once: twice, or three, four, and more times is troublesome.

So long as your working definitions for words works for you, and then I somehow find what those definitions are, then that works for me too. Why argue?

To me Noam Chomsky is a modern volunteer ready to define the meaning of the modern left, as proven by his actions; and Ron Paul offers the same power to define the meaning of the modern right side of a competition in viewpoints.

If your working definition of modern right and modern left is "political representatives...willing to go to war at the drop of a hat," then that sounds like a terrorist/criminal/sociopath/psychopath parading as a political representative, not one, and my guess is that said criminal is unwilling to actually work in any way as a warrior, rather the criminal is merely employing deception, threat of violence, and aggressive violence as a means of keeping the victims fighting each other instead of defending each other thereby affording the criminal the power required to stay in power over the criminal's targeted victims. In other words your words appear to make a reference to modern criminals operating organized crime under the color of law, which is a counterfeit version of the true color of law, which is voluntary, defensive, just, and based upon fact finding for those on that side of things.

Since I was on the ballot in 1996 for a congressional seat in the (false) Federal congress, having offered the competitive work of political representation, I can offer the same to you. I am both left and right in the modern, the not to distant past, and the ancient meanings of the same defining meanings of both left and right competitively, if not precisely accurately done my individual way in your estimate.

I suppose my greater point would be that right and left are too simplistic to really describe anyone, even if they are sometimes useful for the sake of brevity. In that sense, you could say Ron Paul represents the right because of his free market economic views. However, I would then respond that the majority of those on the right would reject his economic views, let alone his foreign policy views. So even his biggest claim to being on the right, his economic views, would be rejected by the majority of the right, so how can he possibly be a representative of them? The same would go for Chomsky on the left. And going back to Spooner, anarchism is not representative of the modern right or left.

 

[Josf]

If the subject matter of the topic is kept in mind while an off topic discussion concerns the subject matter of how meanings of words are changed to opposite meanings over time, then it occurs to me to restate the obvious fact that those who are redefining the meanings of both left and right are those who are criminals who are employing deception as a means of maintaining control over their targeted victims. If the same criminals use deception to terrorize their victims with threats of criminal aggression (which they call falsely a defensive war), then the topic question is answered in that way: yes, the (false) US is a terrorist (counterfeit version of a) Nation, as it was taken over by a group of criminals who employ false version of the old left, and false versions of the old right, so as to cover up the true color of their criminal minds.

A few examples of modern left and modern right may help or not if the idea is to communicate competitive viewpoints instead of argue as if arguing was worthy of the effort to reach a worthy goal.

Left:

Right:

Left:

Right:


As to the voluntary joining of the individualist anarchist club, done by Lysander Spooner, the labeling effort appears to be after death, not during life, so the label may or may not have been agreeable to the man.