... Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get black people out of slavery. ...
Conservatives, by definition, are close-minded, stuck in their ways, and against any change whatsoever from the status quo.
And you're proud to be a conservative? Are you equally proud of your ignorance?
Actually it was the constitutional conservatives of the then relatively new Republican party which disagreed with the Democratic party's position that slaves were not worthy of the same rights as any citizen.
Although there are always exceptions to all generalizations, typically the it's the blind following of any philosophy, liberal or conservative, which results in positions being adopted through emotion, vs. intellect; which many members of both/all factions factions are often guiltily of.
Actually it was the constitutional conservatives of the then relatively new Republican party which disagreed with the Democratic party's position that slaves were not worthy of the same rights as any citizen.
Although there are always exceptions to all generalizations, typically the it's the blind following of any philosophy, liberal or conservative, which results in positions being adopted through emotion, vs. intellect; which many members of both/all factions factions are often guiltily of.
That's why I didn't use the terms "democrats" vs "republicans", as back then those terms were switched. I.e. back then the "republican" party was today's democratic party, and vice versa. Even some of today's "democrats" aren't liberal though, and that doesn't matter as I'm not advocating or talking about parties here, I'm talking about the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative".
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have retained their meaning since that time, and my point still stands.
That's why I didn't use the terms "democrats" vs "republicans", as back then those terms were switched. I.e. back then the "republican" party was today's democratic party, and vice versa.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative", on the other hand, have retained their meaning since that time, and my point still stands.
That's humorous, so it's the Democrats who tend to be Constitutional conservatives today? (rather distorted, as individual rights may not be encroached upon by any, regardless of what a misguided majority may wish; but agree the Republicans have seemingly lost their way as well)
That's humorous, so it's the Democrats who tend to be Constitutional conservatives today? (rather distorted, as individual rights may not be encroached upon by any, regardless of what a misguided majority may wish; but agree the Republicans have seemingly lost their way as well)
I think both parties today readily admit that they're interpreting the constitution differently from how it was interpreted back in the days when it was written with the reason that "times and challenges were different" back then.
However, I still point out that what I said originally has little to do with either party. I'm addressing the notions of liberal vs conservative.
Oh you're back? I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of your socialist conspiracy theory. Whatever happened to that?
Wake up! Look at what your uncontrolled "engines of production" have caused! Diabetes in children, the fattest, unhealthiest humans on the planet, pollution that's destroying what's left of your environment, a food system that created e coli in hamburgers, spinach, in places that have never seen the bacterium before! Hundreds if not thousands of dead humans from said contamination. The USDA and regulatory bodies are *not* intervening in all of this because they're in the pockets of a handful of companies *and run by them*.
For reference, read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" and see Food Inc.
Liberals want to tax the rich, not Americans. If Americans can be defined as the lower 95%, that is. Obama lowered taxes for 95% of individuals and businesses, you know, the people that actually needed to have their taxes lowered.
Companies need to be controlled to some extent, *to allow for a competitive market*. if you don't realize that then you shouldn't be using a Mac, after all, it was *because* of regulatory bodies that Microsoft was prevented from completely wiping out what was left of Apple.
The destruction of the US status of a global superpower was helped more by the republicans than by any one body. Thanks to you republicans and to Bush, the US has over a trillion dollar deficit and is bleeding cash like there's no tomorrow on wars, ignorance, and through its so-called health care system.
You don't know what socialism is. Socialism *can* mean governmental regulation of companies, but that in of itself doesn't qualify it as socialism. The fact that these are privately owned companies already disqualifies it as basic socialism. Further, as the wiki points out, the word "socialism" can mean several different things, and there are different kinds socialism (some of which aren't all that bad). I'm pretty sure none of them fit with what policy-makers are attempting to do with regards to global warming, but if you could be more specific, it would certainly help your case.
Self-loathing? I loath people who refuse to read a fucking book, to watch movies that don't contain twenty thousand explosions but ask their audiences to question what they've been told. I loath people who don't *listen* to criticism, who hate and completely misunderstand science, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by their parents, by their preachers, by the animated box that tells them constant, repeated lies, and tells them that they need to consume massive amounts of crap that they don't need.
I loath a culture where ignorance is treated as a virtue and the intellectuals are considered "snobs". I loath people who refuse to address valid points brought up against them in a debate, who make outrageous claims without providing any citations or references to back them up.
And I especially loath people who consider protecting the environment a waste of time or some sort of activity that is beneath them or pointless or "uncool". People who figuratively and literally shit all over the place that provides them with the air that they breath, the animals that they slaughter, the medicine that they consume, all with complete disregard and respect for it. It's the same place where *I* live too!
Righteous? Outraged? Earnest? Perhaps, but self-loathing we are not.
You are so delusional it boggles my mind. Are you pulling our leg?
Liberals are *historically* and *factually* the ones that are at the forefront of extending freedoms and liber-ties to those without them.
Liberals are the ones that are trying to make sure the government doesn't take away your rights, but *expands* them to you and other people.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get black people out of slavery.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get women the vote.
Liberals are the ones that have been fighting to protect those who need protection and are without freedoms. The uninsured, the homeless, and those who prefer to have sex with members of the same sex.
Liberals, by definition, are open-minded, welcoming.
Conservatives, by definition, are close-minded, stuck in their ways, and against any change whatsoever from the status quo.
And you're proud to be a conservative? Are you equally proud of your ignorance?
itistoday, as a fellow liberal, I am embarrassed to have you "on my side" of this argument. That post was uncalled for and makes you look like a complete asshole.
And despite being liberal myself, I'm not so arrogant as to claim that "liberal" is inherently better. For instance, being for change is only good if the current state of affairs is bad and the change is likely to improve things. There have frequently been times in human history in which society, and even civilization as a whole, has been sliding downhill. In those times, the status quo is better, not worse.
You obviously prefer liberalism, and it may even be the more logical or correct political general political affiliation at this point in time. But please, at least realize that it isn't inherently better. If you're going to argue, stay on subject and perhaps try being less of an asshole.
Once again, I'm ashamed of your behavior and feel that it casts all liberals in a bad light.
itistoday, as a fellow liberal, I am embarrassed to have you "on my side" of this argument. That post was uncalled for and makes you look like a complete asshole.
You're probably right, at least on the point that I may have come across as an asshole. Why have I allowed this to happen? It's because I'm sick of hearing the sentiments and attitudes and beliefs of Fox News echoed at me while many of my fellow liberals stay quiet and take it. So like monkeys sometimes do, I flung the poo back to where it came from. If the other monkeys don't like seeing such a display, they'd be wise to stay out of the poo-fight, lest they desire to be dragged into it themselves.
Quote:
And despite being liberal myself, I'm not so arrogant as to claim that "liberal" is inherently better. For instance, being for change is only good if the current state of affairs is bad and the change is likely to improve things. There have frequently been times in human history in which society, and even civilization as a whole, has been sliding downhill. In those times, the status quo is better, not worse.
In that case you don't know what being a liberal means.
Being a liberal is not clamoring for change for the sake of change. It's not the desire to fix it if it ain't broke. I told you what being a liberal is, it's being open minded and extending basic freedoms to everyone, or as wiktionary puts it:
Any political movement founded on the autonomy and personal freedom of the individual, progress and reform, and government by law with the consent of the governed.
Liberals most definitely can be in favor of upholding the status quo - when it's just and worth upholding! Now's not the time to be conservative!
Quote:
You obviously prefer liberalism, and it may even be the more logical or correct political general political affiliation at this point in time. But please, at least realize that it isn't inherently better.
Being open minded and believing that people should have the same opportunities, is, I feel, inherently better than being close-minded and opposing reform, at least in a time when the status quo is what we have today.
Quote:
If you're going to argue, stay on subject
Oh I'm done saying what I've had to say about liberalism and Apple's decision to leave the chamber of congress. Y'all keep dragging me back here.
Quote:
and perhaps try being less of an asshole.
My apologies for not being a very good crowd-pleaser and diplomat. As a fellow liberal, I hope you'll be able to accept me as I am and see that although my mannerisms may be harsh and possibly insulting, I nevertheless have a valid point to make.
Speaking of which, I seem to have fallen out of character.
*Ahem*! While I may have come across as an asshole, your post made you come across as one of those gutless democrats who are afraid to stand up and fight for what they believe in!
And despite being liberal myself, I'm not so arrogant as to claim that "liberal" is inherently better. ...
In my reading of his post, I neither saw liberal superior "inherence" as a direct, nor inferred claim. Later, post-original posting, both of you qualified your positions:
Quote:
it may even be the more logical or correct political general political affiliation at this point in time.
(emphasis mine)
Quote:
Being open minded and believing that people should have the same opportunities, is, I feel, inherently better than being close-minded and opposing reform, at least in a time when the status quo is what we have today.
Comments
I have photos of all of it, but can't post them here, unfortunately.
Don't worry about it, I'd believe it. There are plenty of foolish hypocrites out there, both on the left and the right.
... Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get black people out of slavery. ...
Conservatives, by definition, are close-minded, stuck in their ways, and against any change whatsoever from the status quo.
And you're proud to be a conservative? Are you equally proud of your ignorance?
Actually it was the constitutional conservatives of the then relatively new Republican party which disagreed with the Democratic party's position that slaves were not worthy of the same rights as any citizen.
Although there are always exceptions to all generalizations, typically the it's the blind following of any philosophy, liberal or conservative, which results in positions being adopted through emotion, vs. intellect; which many members of both/all factions factions are often guiltily of.
Actually it was the constitutional conservatives of the then relatively new Republican party which disagreed with the Democratic party's position that slaves were not worthy of the same rights as any citizen.
Although there are always exceptions to all generalizations, typically the it's the blind following of any philosophy, liberal or conservative, which results in positions being adopted through emotion, vs. intellect; which many members of both/all factions factions are often guiltily of.
That's why I didn't use the terms "democrats" vs "republicans", as back then those terms were switched. I.e. back then the "republican" party was today's democratic party, and vice versa. Even some of today's "democrats" aren't liberal though, and that doesn't matter as I'm not advocating or talking about parties here, I'm talking about the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative".
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have retained their meaning since that time, and my point still stands.
That's why I didn't use the terms "democrats" vs "republicans", as back then those terms were switched. I.e. back then the "republican" party was today's democratic party, and vice versa.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative", on the other hand, have retained their meaning since that time, and my point still stands.
That's humorous, so it's the Democrats who tend to be Constitutional conservatives today? (rather distorted, as individual rights may not be encroached upon by any, regardless of what a misguided majority may wish; but agree the Republicans have seemingly lost their way as well)
That's humorous, so it's the Democrats who tend to be Constitutional conservatives today? (rather distorted, as individual rights may not be encroached upon by any, regardless of what a misguided majority may wish; but agree the Republicans have seemingly lost their way as well)
I think both parties today readily admit that they're interpreting the constitution differently from how it was interpreted back in the days when it was written with the reason that "times and challenges were different" back then.
However, I still point out that what I said originally has little to do with either party. I'm addressing the notions of liberal vs conservative.
Oh you're back? I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of your socialist conspiracy theory. Whatever happened to that?
Wake up! Look at what your uncontrolled "engines of production" have caused! Diabetes in children, the fattest, unhealthiest humans on the planet, pollution that's destroying what's left of your environment, a food system that created e coli in hamburgers, spinach, in places that have never seen the bacterium before! Hundreds if not thousands of dead humans from said contamination. The USDA and regulatory bodies are *not* intervening in all of this because they're in the pockets of a handful of companies *and run by them*.
For reference, read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" and see Food Inc.
Liberals want to tax the rich, not Americans. If Americans can be defined as the lower 95%, that is. Obama lowered taxes for 95% of individuals and businesses, you know, the people that actually needed to have their taxes lowered.
Companies need to be controlled to some extent, *to allow for a competitive market*. if you don't realize that then you shouldn't be using a Mac, after all, it was *because* of regulatory bodies that Microsoft was prevented from completely wiping out what was left of Apple.
The destruction of the US status of a global superpower was helped more by the republicans than by any one body. Thanks to you republicans and to Bush, the US has over a trillion dollar deficit and is bleeding cash like there's no tomorrow on wars, ignorance, and through its so-called health care system.
You don't know what socialism is. Socialism *can* mean governmental regulation of companies, but that in of itself doesn't qualify it as socialism. The fact that these are privately owned companies already disqualifies it as basic socialism. Further, as the wiki points out, the word "socialism" can mean several different things, and there are different kinds socialism (some of which aren't all that bad). I'm pretty sure none of them fit with what policy-makers are attempting to do with regards to global warming, but if you could be more specific, it would certainly help your case.
Self-loathing? I loath people who refuse to read a fucking book, to watch movies that don't contain twenty thousand explosions but ask their audiences to question what they've been told. I loath people who don't *listen* to criticism, who hate and completely misunderstand science, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by their parents, by their preachers, by the animated box that tells them constant, repeated lies, and tells them that they need to consume massive amounts of crap that they don't need.
I loath a culture where ignorance is treated as a virtue and the intellectuals are considered "snobs". I loath people who refuse to address valid points brought up against them in a debate, who make outrageous claims without providing any citations or references to back them up.
And I especially loath people who consider protecting the environment a waste of time or some sort of activity that is beneath them or pointless or "uncool". People who figuratively and literally shit all over the place that provides them with the air that they breath, the animals that they slaughter, the medicine that they consume, all with complete disregard and respect for it. It's the same place where *I* live too!
Righteous? Outraged? Earnest? Perhaps, but self-loathing we are not.
You are so delusional it boggles my mind. Are you pulling our leg?
Liberals are *historically* and *factually* the ones that are at the forefront of extending freedoms and liber-ties to those without them.
Liberals are the ones that are trying to make sure the government doesn't take away your rights, but *expands* them to you and other people.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get black people out of slavery.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get women the vote.
Liberals are the ones that have been fighting to protect those who need protection and are without freedoms. The uninsured, the homeless, and those who prefer to have sex with members of the same sex.
Liberals, by definition, are open-minded, welcoming.
Conservatives, by definition, are close-minded, stuck in their ways, and against any change whatsoever from the status quo.
And you're proud to be a conservative? Are you equally proud of your ignorance?
itistoday, as a fellow liberal, I am embarrassed to have you "on my side" of this argument. That post was uncalled for and makes you look like a complete asshole.
And despite being liberal myself, I'm not so arrogant as to claim that "liberal" is inherently better. For instance, being for change is only good if the current state of affairs is bad and the change is likely to improve things. There have frequently been times in human history in which society, and even civilization as a whole, has been sliding downhill. In those times, the status quo is better, not worse.
You obviously prefer liberalism, and it may even be the more logical or correct political general political affiliation at this point in time. But please, at least realize that it isn't inherently better. If you're going to argue, stay on subject and perhaps try being less of an asshole.
Once again, I'm ashamed of your behavior and feel that it casts all liberals in a bad light.
itistoday, as a fellow liberal, I am embarrassed to have you "on my side" of this argument. That post was uncalled for and makes you look like a complete asshole.
You're probably right, at least on the point that I may have come across as an asshole. Why have I allowed this to happen? It's because I'm sick of hearing the sentiments and attitudes and beliefs of Fox News echoed at me while many of my fellow liberals stay quiet and take it. So like monkeys sometimes do, I flung the poo back to where it came from. If the other monkeys don't like seeing such a display, they'd be wise to stay out of the poo-fight, lest they desire to be dragged into it themselves.
And despite being liberal myself, I'm not so arrogant as to claim that "liberal" is inherently better. For instance, being for change is only good if the current state of affairs is bad and the change is likely to improve things. There have frequently been times in human history in which society, and even civilization as a whole, has been sliding downhill. In those times, the status quo is better, not worse.
In that case you don't know what being a liberal means.
Being a liberal is not clamoring for change for the sake of change. It's not the desire to fix it if it ain't broke. I told you what being a liberal is, it's being open minded and extending basic freedoms to everyone, or as wiktionary puts it: Liberals most definitely can be in favor of upholding the status quo - when it's just and worth upholding! Now's not the time to be conservative!
You obviously prefer liberalism, and it may even be the more logical or correct political general political affiliation at this point in time. But please, at least realize that it isn't inherently better.
Being open minded and believing that people should have the same opportunities, is, I feel, inherently better than being close-minded and opposing reform, at least in a time when the status quo is what we have today.
If you're going to argue, stay on subject
Oh I'm done saying what I've had to say about liberalism and Apple's decision to leave the chamber of congress. Y'all keep dragging me back here.
and perhaps try being less of an asshole.
My apologies for not being a very good crowd-pleaser and diplomat. As a fellow liberal, I hope you'll be able to accept me as I am and see that although my mannerisms may be harsh and possibly insulting, I nevertheless have a valid point to make.
Speaking of which, I seem to have fallen out of character.
*Ahem*! While I may have come across as an asshole, your post made you come across as one of those gutless democrats who are afraid to stand up and fight for what they believe in!
... I nevertheless have a valid point to make.
...
Absolutely correct.
...
And despite being liberal myself, I'm not so arrogant as to claim that "liberal" is inherently better. ...
In my reading of his post, I neither saw liberal superior "inherence" as a direct, nor inferred claim. Later, post-original posting, both of you qualified your positions:
it may even be the more logical or correct political general political affiliation at this point in time.
(emphasis mine)
Being open minded and believing that people should have the same opportunities, is, I feel, inherently better than being close-minded and opposing reform, at least in a time when the status quo is what we have today.
(emphasis mine)