Hero, my apologies
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Saturday, February 4, 2006 07:12
VIEWED: 3461
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:B) Civil liberties are in place, but subject to change without notice.
Originally posted by SignyM:
WTF??? Arrested for wearing a T-SHIRT? On what grounds was she arrested? Bad taste in clothes?
If the tee-shirt said "Happy with the people you killed, George?", or "George, you Dumass Killer!" there'd be an argument for removal, or arrest for not leaving as directed, I think, due to the possibly libelous nature of the text.
"U.S. out of Iraq" or such should be allowed as free speech.
(I wore a 'Foxy Brown' tee to a Clan meeting once, just to see, and nobody said a word.)
And if wishes were horses...
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My family was also very conservative and I did my own Left-wing rebelling as a yute. But I got better.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Having grown up with a very conservative father, it was only natural to develope a rebellious Liberal smart mouth, however I enjoyed Dirty Harry movies growing up, and always believed rapists and murderers deserved to be escorted off this mortal coil.
Nobody should be above the law, however, obviously, many with $'s are, so law = $, and then again, some laws are good for keeping relative peace and quiet. All systems, governments, and public agencies should aim at getting folk more independent and self-reliant; wellfare needs some work. Marry who you want, but save the parades for those with big giant Garfield baloons and interesting floats and such. And militarily do whatever gets the least number of innocents involved or hurt.
My philosophy is that I think that all in all, we have a pretty good system, and while I believe that there is always room for improvement, I think that any radical change to the system will be harmful. In general, I think the founding fathers got it right.
Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So do I. Where I differ from you is that I think Bush is instituting a radical change including aiming at a Unitary Executive form of government and trampling on civil liberties. The Founding Fathers were not conservative nor were they religious; for their day they were downright radical- revolutionary, even.
My philosophy is that I think that all in all, we have a pretty good system, and while I believe that there is always room for improvement, I think that any radical change to the system will be harmful. In general, I think the founding fathers got it right.
(Throwing tea overboard would now be considered "economic terrorism" and might gain you an indefinite tour of Gitmo.)
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I so agree, it's just the radical changes the Bush administration is trying to push through that trouble me...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My philosophy is that I think that all in all, we have a pretty good system, and while I believe that there is always room for improvement, I think that any radical change to the system will be harmful. In general, I think the founding fathers got it right.
If Kerry had won, and was trying to dismantle the military, or was trying to make gasoline engines illegal or something, I'd be equally concerned.
Finn, do you think the Bush Administration is NOT up to any radical shenanigans? Or is it just shenanigans as par for the course, given the political agenda?
Chrisisall*doing his best Gwynn* Yute?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor
Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos
I'm thinking you have a point here, but since the only possibillities of what that might be have no bearing on me I have no idea as to what that may be.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Khyron,
Um, about the write-in Kronos, I wasn't being serious. Hmm. I've got to work on that sarcasm thing. Maybe some smileys.
lol, okay, I got it now. No need for smileys, it was late where I live and I was being dense. Well, more dense than usual. Sorry about that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Quote:
I’m pretty sure being liberatarian doesn’t imply hating Bush
It is. or would be, but I think we're all libertarians, I don't see why some don't see that Bush is the enemy of libertarianism, as is Kerry, and both Clintons.
But hating Bush is like hating Gollum. Okay, no, Gollum gets my vote over Bush. Or maybe Bush is Saruman. With the same level of loveablilty.
Okay, I must respond to this:
Quote:
I actually do agree with many of your ideals, but your methods of arriving at those conclusions leave something to be desire. Such as claiming that anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t know anything about any political philosophy, which is probably not true. It’s probably also not true that Bushs’ Supreme Court nominations have any affect on whether hurricanes strike the southern coast. Accusing anything that moves of being socialist or redefining Latin etymology to suit your political motives. Your arguments are full of all kinds of nonsense, which I usually just skip over. But despite all that I think we tend to agree on many issues.
My conclusions are reached through arduous pursuit of the truth. You don't follow my logic because you skim what I write. I never claimed that people who don't understand are ignorant, or if I do, it's only because I am angry with their obstinance. I think that most often it is only unwillingness to see enemies within their own ranks which blinds everyone to the truth. The enemies of freedom, the enemies of us, are everywhere. We should not dispair, and become paranoid, but we should always have our eyes open to see it when it is so, and never delude ourselves to see it when it is not.
Bush's supreme court nominees, I approve of, and don't bring down New Orleans. The ignorance of Clinton and Bush failed to build the levies up.
I don't redefine latin. The words are derivative, but it's not me twisting the definition of liberal into liberty. I am familiar with the english language which I have spoken for many years. Almost never is liberal used in that context, and to claim it as the sole meaning was a matter of spin.
I would guess that you probably inherited a perspective that I have to work for, because my parents are liberal intellectuals. To stop any freudian analysis, I have nothing against my parents. It took me many years to see that they were wrong, it wasn't a teenage rebellion. I also understand that liberals stand for from them, and also from people here, and that's not really where we differ the most. It's on the methods.
Signym,
I don't disagree with that statement, but I wanted issue a word of caution. The libertarian party is a random group of third party folk who don't get to define what libertarianism is about to the same extent that the followers of perot don't get to define reform and the greens don't get to define environmentalism. I'm sure dictionaries and encyclopedias will say that libertarianism is about putting individual rights first, After that, we can disagree on everything else, and if this forum is a ny indication, we will.
I don't get into it much with Finn because we seldom disagree. Strange I know more about the people I'm most opposed to.
I hope everyone got on the Sheehan story of GOP reps wife was also carried off for wearing a support the troops t-shirt. Both were apologized to afterwords. I understand that last year I think it was, some twits made a run around in a circle chanting some inane slogan like zombies, and they mistook her for that, the officer who took her own didn't know who Sheehan was, and apologized later.
Quote:
I think the founding fathers got it right
Anyway, I think we're all on the same page on this one
Quote:
I so agree, it's just the radical changes the Bush administration is trying to push through that trouble me...
I think that the policies of Bush will be looked back on to be undone, like those of Hoover. An abberation, some adjustment, return ot normal.
Quote:
If Kerry had won, and was trying to dismantle the military, or wNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't redefine latin. The words are derivative, but it's not me twisting the definition of liberal into liberty. I am familiar with the english language which I have spoken for many years. Almost never is liberal used in that context, and to claim it as the sole meaning was a matter of spin.
What you do is a classic application of Orwellian doubletalk, you "have" redefined the meaning of words to reflect your political bias. You then tried to argue that your meaning was correct and offered a faulty undertstanding of latin to back it up. Libertarian and Liberal both come from the same latin root. You may hate it but until you admit it nobody can take anything else you say seriously. Someone whose world view is so twised as to claim that and keep claiming it has no creadibility.
As for the context you and yours have used words. Son, I don't care if where you come from everybody calls sheep "girlfriends" you use the language the way everyone else does or I ait trusting you to take the flock up the mountain.
ok?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
It's not that I hate it, it's that it's wrong. I don't know dick about latin, sure, they don't teach latin in American schools. It wasn't offered at the state university I went to. But that's not the point. I understand english, and how english words derive and evolve. I showed how freely and freedom both came from free. The useage of liberal from liberalis follows an english evolution in the same manner as freely, regardless of what you may think as a latin scholar about the nature of liberalis.
I know enough to know when I look in the latin dictionaries and they list liberatum as being freedom and liberalis as being freely and liber as being free that you may be more full of it than I have proof of, as I'm not a latin scholar, but I can't prove it, it's just a hunch. But I do know my english.
Moreover - what is at issue here is not "can liberal ever be used in that context, to mean freedom" rather it's "what does liberal mean when it is defining the opposition to conservative" which is the political left-right, liberal-conservative axis. This is certainly generous vs. miserly, or giving vs. keeping.
Furthermore, in case you are wondering where I am getting this idea to begin with, it is what I was brought up on. My mother, a diehard liberal, an english teacher, a writer, and someone who did study latin, and the evolution of english, assured me this was the case, and none of my research has yet proved her wrong. I emailed her this argument, and she still holds by it.
Finally, I resent the implication that I am somehow spinning this. I am still very sure that I am right about this, at least as far as the use of language in America is concerned. In fact I'm dead certain about it. If you are equally dead certain, then we have a basis for understanding why a british party considered by Americans to be right-wing calls itself the "liberal democrats."
I'm still not at all convinced that you do believe your version. I think it's political spin. Your post was amazingly offensive, to me personally, my country, and rural people.
You love to say that I am inventing a use of words and spinning it, and yours was the most offensive thing ever posted on this board, IMHO. Esp. the part about orwellian doubletalk and my political bias. Jesus fucking christ you are full of garbage. Not only has everyone I talked to here backed me up, every American source I've looked up has.
I know the deity liber, I know the word and it's possible definitions derived from that, and how they came into english. Then I know how they came to use in ecomonics and politics and we used them daily. Liberals are the generous, libertarians are the free, liberty is freedom, liberation is freeing. As it is used in American politics. Not only is your claim wrong, but you manage to paint me as the lying bad guy. I really can't believe you.
I care dick about spinning anything. Everything I've posted here in every thread speaks to that. I'm not stomping for anyone or anything, and I'm the first to admit when my side is wrong about something. I certainly am not breaking with that to attempt to deceive you, what would be the point?
You don't seem to care about anything but your own agenda, you're one of the most uncompromising people on the forum, and you are never willing to even examine the possibility that anyone on the left is corrupt or could ever do something wrong. Given that, what would the raw objective odds say about who is spinning what?
I'm am not lying. I really truly believe that I am correct, and I am really and truly pissed off. I wouldn't have thought generous was such a negative word that you would kill to not be associated with it. Life in your world must be pretty fun.
f&*kit. I give up. Good day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I decided to go bounce around the net and see if I was alone. I'm not, lots of other people are having this utterly pointless argument. I'm at the moment more angry with over this attitude, his smug superiority and veiled threat implications that I am somehow 1984 newspeak of the right, and I am beginning to wonder if what type of socialist you are and if it's nationalist, tell me so I cna give up. But back to the discussion of liberal, it's origins and uses in politics, there's an awful lot of disagreement between Americans and Brits, but:
1. We outnumber you 5 to 1, so don't think yours is automatically right and everyone else is not only wrong but intentionally trying to deceive.
2. Liberalism seems to be most of the world over connected linguistically with communism, socialism and govts that support big spenders, and not ideologies of enhanced personal freedom.
3. I never doubted that the word could be used in some context to mean free. I can't think of one, but I'm sure I can come up with something. If I said:
"He had a liberal policy towards individual rights,"
I would be supporting Fletch's definition. Maybe. On the other hand, I might also transliterate that as:
"He had a generous policy towards individual rights,"
meaning the same thing, that he afforded the people a great amount of personal freedom.
But what I did say specifically was liberal, as it opposes conservative.
In fletch world, it becomes this:
liberal is free, freedom-loving, conservative is oppressive monarchy. I believe he said something like that a while back.
this is not only offensive, it is blatantly incorrect.
Not only do I stand by my claim that the word liberal when used in the context of the political spectrum could be replaced with generous, I will go further to say in almost any context in which the word liberal might find itself being used.
He made liberal use of spices in the recipe. Generous, many spices, lots of spice. Not free choice over which spices. Large quantities of spice
He was known to drink liberally. He could drink quite a bit, not that he had a great freedom of choice to drink or not, a lot of control, rather he could drink a lot.
President Bush had a liberal federal spending policy. He spend a lot of money. He didn't grant a lot of freedom on what it was to be spent on, he just spent heaps of cash.
We were liberal with the application of rules. This one got me, so I'm posting it anyway. I think that's it's possible that we were generous with the application of rules, but maybe we were also freedomloving with them.
But still and all, I stand by the word, as I understand it. Liberals in government and the political scene in America do NOT seek to increase individual liberty as the principle focus of their political school of thought. If they did, they would be libertarians, from liberty or liberatum, I'm sure, again. I know I don't know latin, and I know these are the same word, but I also know they are that word in a different context, like freedom and freely are both free in a different context.
But rather, liberals seek to give. They want
1. public health
2. public transportation
3. welfare
4. jobs
5. govt. services
etc. They want to give the people these services, they want the govt. to provide these services, they want govt. to be generous. It is the one thing that liberals tend to have in common with one another.
Liberals, individually, can be libertarians. But they don't have to be. Many liberals are communists, statists or other forms of collectivists. Some are religious, and strictly moralistic. Some are peace-loving, and others are war-hawks. There are lots of different types of liberals and they have lots of different types of views on personal freedoms, what and how many should be allowed.
I made the point before, there are democrats and republicans who are anti-patriot act, pro-liberty. Larry Craig and Russ Feingold are the bill's stauchest opposition. Another thing they both have in common is that they both voted against Clinton a large % o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME