[quote]
The fact still stands that while you claim to ignore all of these threads made by the dozens about Obama and how everyone who voted for him is a dumb liberal, I doubt the rest of the people viewing are so blind to it.[/quote]
I never said anything about Obama…You are clearly jaded and can’t see the other side of the coin
[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< Are you fucking serious? You need quotes to be able to see that many conservatives are acting like “liberals” are destroying America? Go read the last 10 posts from Tiribulus in this forum and tell me you can’t see that at all.
Quotes. LOL!!![/quote]
You did refer to me directly. I do then revise what I said to you in the other thread.
Here, he won’t have to read my last 10 posts.
Liberals have been destroying America for decades. Some in honest error and some by design. Leftist, big government, nanny state policies have been and continue to be utterly corrosive to everything this country was founded to be.
I view public officials who hold these positions as political evil in every way and those who support them as ranging from misguided at best to evil themselves at worst.
This nation has been barely recognizable as the United States as envisioned by our founders for a long time, but the election of a thoroughgoing marxist like Obama demonstrates that this once great country is now blindly groping in the dark for it’s national identity.
There, you can copy this post and paste it from now on any time somebody might try to say that I didn’t say any of this.
EDIT: Unlike that nutless ballerina Obama and his lying allies in congress I unashamedly own my views up front and center, mitigate them for no one and never will.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Poor Ted Stevens. Just because he’s a convicted felon, some people seem to believe he’s unfit to hold office.
Were will the GOP find qualified candidates if criminals are to be considered off-limits?
I saw a funny take off on that pook:
“Ted Stevens, convicted and ready to serve.”
Okay…you had to see it but you get the idea.[/quote]
How about …
Ted Stevens, you can trust a man of conviction
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< Are you fucking serious? You need quotes to be able to see that many conservatives are acting like “liberals” are destroying America? Go read the last 10 posts from Tiribulus in this forum and tell me you can’t see that at all.
Quotes. LOL!!!
You did refer to me directly. I do then revise what I said to you in the other thread.
Here, he won’t have to read my last 10 posts.
Liberals have been destroying America for decades. Some in honest error and some by design. Leftist, big government, nanny state policies have been and continue to be utterly corrosive to everything this country was founded to be.
I view public officials who hold these positions as political evil in every way and those who support them as ranging from misguided at best to evil themselves at worst.
This nation has been barely recognizable as the United States as envisioned by our founders for a long time, but the election of a thoroughgoing marxist like Obama demonstrates that this once great country is now blindly groping in the dark for it’s national identity.
There, you can copy this post and paste it from now on any time somebody might try to say that I didn’t say any of this.
EDIT: Unlike that nutless ballerina Obama and his lying allies in congress I unashamedly own my views up front and center, mitigate them for no one and never will.[/quote]
I had a long post prepared which was designed to inform you of the silliness of your propositions, but I realized it wouldn’t do any good. So let me just ask:
Do you realize (of course not) that America was the most liberal country in the history of the world when it was founded? That IS our tradition and our heritage: liberalism, NOT conservatism. We are returning to our values with the election of Obama and the progressive majority in the Senate. Conservatives are always pining for a return to this perfect, “traditional,” parallel universe America which never actually existed.
In fact, I’d wager that the Founding Fathers would be much happier to see Obama in office than they would McCain or…shudder Bush.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< Are you fucking serious? You need quotes to be able to see that many conservatives are acting like “liberals” are destroying America? Go read the last 10 posts from Tiribulus in this forum and tell me you can’t see that at all.
Quotes. LOL!!!
You did refer to me directly. I do then revise what I said to you in the other thread.
Here, he won’t have to read my last 10 posts.
Liberals have been destroying America for decades. Some in honest error and some by design. Leftist, big government, nanny state policies have been and continue to be utterly corrosive to everything this country was founded to be.
I view public officials who hold these positions as political evil in every way and those who support them as ranging from misguided at best to evil themselves at worst.
This nation has been barely recognizable as the United States as envisioned by our founders for a long time, but the election of a thoroughgoing marxist like Obama demonstrates that this once great country is now blindly groping in the dark for it’s national identity.
There, you can copy this post and paste it from now on any time somebody might try to say that I didn’t say any of this.
EDIT: Unlike that nutless ballerina Obama and his lying allies in congress I unashamedly own my views up front and center, mitigate them for no one and never will.
I had a long post prepared which was designed to inform you of the silliness of your propositions, but I realized it wouldn’t do any good. So let me just ask:
Do you realize (of course not) that America was the most liberal country in the history of the world when it was founded? That IS our tradition and our heritage: liberalism, NOT conservatism. We are returning to our values with the election of Obama and the progressive majority in the Senate. Conservatives are always pining for a return to this perfect, “traditional,” parallel universe America which never actually existed.
In fact, I’d wager that the Founding Fathers would be much happier to see Obama in office than they would McCain or…shudder Bush.
[/quote]
“Liberal” meant something entirely different then. If the American left pretends to hold on to the torch because she is for “gay, black and female” “rights” and does it in a way that guts the philosophical core of the American liberal natural rights idea she is only its gravedigger and not her heir.
Not that the right with their Hamiltonian BS is any better, but that is hardly an excuse.
The turning point from liberalism to leftism was John Stuart Mill, and for God´s sake, read that piece of crab and then any critique of utilitarianism.
I’m glad that Obama is turning out to be just another politician and not an idealogue. Most of his appointments are center-right Dems, not the leftists, who should actually be in a Marxist party of their own.
He scammed all the blacks and libs with all the horseshit they wanted to hear, and is going to be just another president. Same story, but now ‘in colour’! :>
Good argument people.
In England we are nearly all leftish unfortunately, the days of Queen and Country are now dead… to be replaced by dont upset the minorities.
Wish our political system was as controversial as yours, least ye have national pride, most of Britian dont any more.
[quote]aleator wrote:
Can someone tell me how the frig someone like Al Franken can possibly get elected to anything.
[/quote]
Don’t blame me, I voted for Barclay. You should meet all the space cases in my neighborhood that did vote for Franken.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m pretty sure if some people label themselves Conservative some people label themselves Liberals.
[/quote]
Labels in of themselves don’t mean anything. Actions are all that matter. By his own actions Bush is a liberal. I am pretty sure he wouldn’t be pissed off by his own actions.
[quote]orion wrote: “Liberal” meant something entirely different then. If the American left pretends to hold on to the torch because she is for “gay, black and female” “rights” and does it in a way that guts the philosophical core of the American liberal natural rights idea she is only its gravedigger and not her heir.
Not that the right with their Hamiltonian BS is any better, but that is hardly an excuse.
The turning point from liberalism to leftism was John Stuart Mill, and for God´s sake, read that piece of crab and then any critique of utilitarianism.
[/quote]
I think the core liberal values are still in place. I’m thinking primarily of the inviolability of the individual.
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m glad that Obama is turning out to be just another politician and not an idealogue. Most of his appointments are center-right Dems, not the leftists, who should actually be in a Marxist party of their own.
He scammed all the blacks and libs with all the horseshit they wanted to hear, and is going to be just another president. Same story, but now ‘in colour’! :>
[/quote]
His politics are still the same, he’s just smart enough to know that now is not the time to be making big changes in the financial system. He’s very pragmatic.
By the way, it sounds strange to hear you rail against “idealogues” when the party you support is composed of nothing but idealogues. Conservatives, for some reason, are much more concerned with defending their ideology than actually coming up with solutions to problems. Weird. Good thing they’re not in power anymore.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I’m pretty sure if some people label themselves Conservative some people label themselves Liberals.
Labels in of themselves don’t mean anything. Actions are all that matter. By his own actions Bush is a liberal. I am pretty sure he wouldn’t be pissed off by his own actions.
[/quote]
Bush is not a liberal.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
[/quote]
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush is not a liberal.
[/quote]
You’ll have to explain this statement because I don’t believe you. He started a preemptive war – a typically, liberal trait. He expanded government – an other liberal trait. He spends money like a “tax and spend” liberal. Shall I keep going?
By the conservative definition of liberal, Bush is a liberal.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote: “Liberal” meant something entirely different then. If the American left pretends to hold on to the torch because she is for “gay, black and female” “rights” and does it in a way that guts the philosophical core of the American liberal natural rights idea she is only its gravedigger and not her heir.
Not that the right with their Hamiltonian BS is any better, but that is hardly an excuse.
The turning point from liberalism to leftism was John Stuart Mill, and for God´s sake, read that piece of crab and then any critique of utilitarianism.
I think the core liberal values are still in place. I’m thinking primarily of the inviolability of the individual.
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
[/quote]
The very core of the natural rights idea, which is the soul of the American constitution is property rights including the right to own your own mind, body and soul and act accordingly without interference from government.
You can find that in Locke´s treatises on government.
Not quite so incidentally that is the core of our economic system as well.
Obama even acknowledges this and yet wants to “spread the wealth”.
That however turns private property from an inalienable right into something people can vote on.
British liberals however had worked very hard to make private property sacrosanct because they knew that all your other rights are irrelevant when the government can simply confiscate your income.
The turning point was JSM with his ideas of positive rights, the idea that a government should not only refrain from interfering but start to guarantee things to people.
This is when “liberals” began to confuse “rights”, meaning innate qualities every human is born with, with “entitlements”, which are things every human being can expect to be supplied with by government.
Since governments do not own or produce anything, anytime a government provides an entitlement it violates the rights of others.
Therefore, by confusing rights and entitlements and then claiming that those do contradict and cannot all be fulfilled at the same time, everything is up for a vote and the idea of the inalienability of human rights and that governments are only lawful as long as they protect these rights, is gone.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.[/quote]
Wait, since when have conservatives been “anti-handicapped parking”?
I am really looking for the reference that states conservatives are against handicapped parking and that “liberals” are just forcing handicapped parking on the rest of us.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.
Wait, since when have conservatives been “anti-handicapped parking”?
I am really looking for the reference that states conservatives are against handicapped parking and that “liberals” are just forcing handicapped parking on the rest of us.
[/quote]
I don’t know if they are or not but it certainly would not be a conservative idea to grant special privileges to certain groups of people over others.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.
Wait, since when have conservatives been “anti-handicapped parking”?
I am really looking for the reference that states conservatives are against handicapped parking and that “liberals” are just forcing handicapped parking on the rest of us.
I don’t know if they are or not but it certainly would not be a conservative idea to grant special privileges to certain groups of people over others.[/quote]
No, it is a FUCKING HUMAN BEING idea to look out for those less fortunate, not a “liberal vs conservative” issue. Please refrain from attempting to act like any gesture of good faith must be attributed to specific party lines.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.
Wait, since when have conservatives been “anti-handicapped parking”?
I am really looking for the reference that states conservatives are against handicapped parking and that “liberals” are just forcing handicapped parking on the rest of us.
I don’t know if they are or not but it certainly would not be a conservative idea to grant special privileges to certain groups of people over others.
No, it is a FUCKING HUMAN BEING idea to look out for those less fortunate, not a “liberal vs conservative” issue. Please refrain from attempting to act like any gesture of good faith must be attributed to specific party lines.[/quote]
There is a difference between helping other people and make other people help people at gunpoint.
[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.
Wait, since when have conservatives been “anti-handicapped parking”?
I am really looking for the reference that states conservatives are against handicapped parking and that “liberals” are just forcing handicapped parking on the rest of us.
I don’t know if they are or not but it certainly would not be a conservative idea to grant special privileges to certain groups of people over others.
No, it is a FUCKING HUMAN BEING idea to look out for those less fortunate, not a “liberal vs conservative” issue. Please refrain from attempting to act like any gesture of good faith must be attributed to specific party lines.
There is a difference between helping other people and make other people help people at gunpoint.
[/quote]
Again, what conservatives have ever gone on record publicly as stating that handicapped parking is an “anti-conservative” regulation? Do you want to know why no politician looking to get elected would state such a thing?
These name tags are retarded. The only purpose of them seems to be so one side of the aisle can hurl insults at the other.
The election of Bush Jr. proved conservatives can’t even tell their own kind anymore. Why do they think their vision has cleared this time around?