If Jesus couldn't keep HIMSELF out of trouble...

[Cecilie1200]

Of course you're right, Wonky has the right to post whatever ignorant, uneducated and idiotic nonsense he likes.

It makes him look like a fool, but he has the right to post it.

And no one has ever claimed otherwise.

Sky has this odd notion that telling someone they're stupid, uneducated, and unqualified to speak on a subject constitutes trying to actively prevent them from doing it, as opposed to simply offering a painfully obvious observation.

You're absolutely right. I think telling someone they're stupid, uneducated and unqualified to speak on a subject constitutes a form of censorship. It's an attempt to shut the person up because you don't like their view.

No, you don't. You think it's a form of censorship WHEN IT'S SAID TO SOMEONE YOU AGREE WITH. When someone you agree with tells OTHERS that their opinions and beliefs are silly and stupid, you fall all over yourself to defend them for it.

Furthermore, I can't technically censor anyone, since I'm not a government agency or any sort of authority figure.

If you're too delicate and thin-skinned to take what you and your pals dish out to others, then I suggest - only a suggestion for your own mental well-being, not a directive of any sort - that perhaps you shouldn't be engaging in political debates, where people have a nasty habit of exercising their right to express the opinion that others are full of shit . . . in BOTH directions. Butch up a little, buttercup.

By the way, unlike you, I don't have any desire to silence people I disagree with. I'd be heartily disappointed if ignoramuses like you and Wonky actually shut up simply because I pointed out how fucking stupid you actually sound. I'd have to find a new hobby.

 

[daveman]

No, not really. The terms liberal and conservative merely represent political views, and they are neither bad nor good.

...until they're put into action. That's when "liberal" becomes a bad word.

Most of the time, they are used as stereotypes and don't actually represent what individuals think.

Uh huh.

The civil rights movement is an example of liberals putting their views into action. IMO, equal rights is a good thing.

It is. Most Republicans thought so, too. More Republicans, in fact, than Democrats. It took Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, not really. The terms liberal and conservative merely represent political views, and they are neither bad nor good.

...until they're put into action. That's when "liberal" becomes a bad word.

Most of the time, they are used as stereotypes and don't actually represent what individuals think.

Uh huh.

The civil rights movement is an example of liberals putting their views into action. IMO, equal rights is a good thing.

Oh, please. The liberal involvement in the civil rights movement (unless you're one of those people who cherrypicks through history, claiming that anything they approve of is automatically "liberal") is an example of shameless opportunists jumping on the bandwagon after the heaving lifting has already been done and the battle has already been won.

The people hailed today as "great liberal heroes of the civil rights movement" are more akin to those people in high school who joined every club they could just so they could be in lots of pictures in the yearbook.

I get so tired of history being reduced to a pathetic, twisted desire by leftists to congratulate themselves for anything and everything, regardless of the facts.

 

[Sky Dancer]

...until they're put into action. That's when "liberal" becomes a bad word.


Uh huh.

The civil rights movement is an example of liberals putting their views into action. IMO, equal rights is a good thing.

It is. Most Republicans thought so, too. More Republicans, in fact, than Democrats. It took Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act.

You're right that the Southern Democrats opposed civil rights. Most of those folks have since changed parties.

You must admit that the Republicans who voted for civil rights were leaning to the left. The party of Lincoln has changed and moved decidedly toward intolerance.

 

[Sky Dancer]

And no one has ever claimed otherwise.

Sky has this odd notion that telling someone they're stupid, uneducated, and unqualified to speak on a subject constitutes trying to actively prevent them from doing it, as opposed to simply offering a painfully obvious observation.

You're absolutely right. I think telling someone they're stupid, uneducated and unqualified to speak on a subject constitutes a form of censorship. It's an attempt to shut the person up because you don't like their view.

No, you don't. You think it's a form of censorship WHEN IT'S SAID TO SOMEONE YOU AGREE WITH. When someone you agree with tells OTHERS that their opinions and beliefs are silly and stupid, you fall all over yourself to defend them for it.

Furthermore, I can't technically censor anyone, since I'm not a government agency or any sort of authority figure.

If you're too delicate and thin-skinned to take what you and your pals dish out to others, then I suggest - only a suggestion for your own mental well-being, not a directive of any sort - that perhaps you shouldn't be engaging in political debates, where people have a nasty habit of exercising their right to express the opinion that others are full of shit . . . in BOTH directions. Butch up a little, buttercup.

By the way, unlike you, I don't have any desire to silence people I disagree with. I'd be heartily disappointed if ignoramuses like you and Wonky actually shut up simply because I pointed out how fucking stupid you actually sound. I'd have to find a new hobby.

I'm not interested in silencing anyone. I will point out people who I think are dangerous. Scott Lively, Martin Ssempa.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in "butching up". As hard as you try, I'm not the slightest bit upset by you.

I have merely told you that I would NEVER use the C word no matter how much I disliked someone. It seems that bothered you alot.

 

[daveman]

The civil rights movement is an example of liberals putting their views into action. IMO, equal rights is a good thing.

It is. Most Republicans thought so, too. More Republicans, in fact, than Democrats. It took Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act.

You're right that the Southern Democrats opposed civil rights. Most of those folks have since changed parties.

You must admit that the Republicans who voted for civil rights were leaning to the left. The party of Lincoln has changed and moved decidedly toward intolerance.

No, it hasn't. That's patently false.

 

[Sky Dancer]

...until they're put into action. That's when "liberal" becomes a bad word.


Uh huh.

The civil rights movement is an example of liberals putting their views into action. IMO, equal rights is a good thing.

Oh, please. The liberal involvement in the civil rights movement (unless you're one of those people who cherrypicks through history, claiming that anything they approve of is automatically "liberal") is an example of shameless opportunists jumping on the bandwagon after the heaving lifting has already been done and the battle has already been won.

The people hailed today as "great liberal heroes of the civil rights movement" are more akin to those people in high school who joined every club they could just so they could be in lots of pictures in the yearbook.

I get so tired of history being reduced to a pathetic, twisted desire by leftists to congratulate themselves for anything and everything, regardless of the facts.

Liberalism has always been about challenging, old, established traditions. John Locke started the movement. He argued the government must operate by the consent of the governed. His opponent, Hobbs, was a supporter of dictatorial authority.

Locke also challenged Filmer, a Conservative, who used the Bible to support the idea of the divine right of kings.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It is. Most Republicans thought so, too. More Republicans, in fact, than Democrats. It took Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act.

You're right that the Southern Democrats opposed civil rights. Most of those folks have since changed parties.

You must admit that the Republicans who voted for civil rights were leaning to the left. The party of Lincoln has changed and moved decidedly toward intolerance.

No, it hasn't. That's patently false.

The GOP has sold it soul to right wing Christian fundamentalists. They are no longer the party of small government. They are the party of opposition to civil rights.

The Civil Rights Act was put forward by JFK, a liberal.

 

[daveman]

You're right that the Southern Democrats opposed civil rights. Most of those folks have since changed parties.

You must admit that the Republicans who voted for civil rights were leaning to the left. The party of Lincoln has changed and moved decidedly toward intolerance.

No, it hasn't. That's patently false.

The GOP has sold it soul to right wing Christian fundamentalists. They are no longer the party of small government. They are the party of opposition to civil rights.

Nonsense.

The Civil Rights Act was put forward by JFK, a liberal.

JFK would not be called a liberal today.

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, it hasn't. That's patently false.

The GOP has sold it soul to right wing Christian fundamentalists. They are no longer the party of small government. They are the party of opposition to civil rights.

Nonsense.

The Civil Rights Act was put forward by JFK, a liberal.

JFK would not be called a liberal today.

Abraham Lincoln would not be called a Republican today. The GOP has been taken over by religious extremists on the right. They win elections through wedge issues.

The GOP considers itself the party of God.

Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, says that no religious test shall ever be required to serve office in the US government. Gingrich, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Santorum are all in a competition to "outChristianize" each other.

Today's Republicans make Ronald Reagan look like a liberal.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, Lincoln certainly would be considered a Republican today.

Sheesh Sky, do you ever say anything that isn't just pure unadulterated BS?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The civil rights movement is an example of liberals putting their views into action. IMO, equal rights is a good thing.

It is. Most Republicans thought so, too. More Republicans, in fact, than Democrats. It took Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act.

You're right that the Southern Democrats opposed civil rights. Most of those folks have since changed parties.

You must admit that the Republicans who voted for civil rights were leaning to the left. The party of Lincoln has changed and moved decidedly toward intolerance.

Interesting how you agree that I'm right about something I didn't say. I never delineated my criticism as being only about "Southern Democrats". I assume people like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson WERE Democrats, I suppose, but none of them were politicians, and whatever political party they might have voted with was therefore not their primary defining factor.

Furthermore, the statement that "most of those folks have since changed parties" is a blatant falsehood. Exactly ONE segregationist Democrat changed parties. ONE. And even Strom Thurmond - the party-changer in question - remained in the Democrat Party for eighteen years after running for President as a Dixiecrat.

Meanwhile, Ernest Hollings, Richard Russell, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fullbright, and Robert Byrd all voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and remained Democrats for the rest of their lives. Robert Byrd, despite that fact and despite the additional fact that he was actually a member of the Klan, was viewed as a respected senior statesman of his party.

In addition, it certainly was not "Southerners" who stood against civil rights. Wayne Morse (D, OR), Warren Magnuson (D, WA), James Murray (D, MT), Mike Mansfield (D, MT), and Joseph O'Mahoney (D, WY) all voted against the 1957 civil rights bill. You will notice that none of them were from anywhere near the South, but every one of them was a Democrat, and they remained so.

Governor Orval Faubus, who used the National Guard to block schoolhouse doors to keep out black students, was a Democrat and never switched sides. The mayor of Montgomery, Alabama, whose enforcement of segregation on buses Rosa Parks protested, was a lifelong Democrat.

And finally, I "have to admit" no such thing. Just because you want to claim anything you like as "the left" doesn't mean I have to accept your pie-eyed revision of history. Nor do I have to accept your insane leftist theories that "Republicans are intolerant" simply because they aren't willing to renounce all claim to common sense and rationality under the heading of "continuing the civil rights struggle" which was won decades ago with little to no help from liberals.

Leftist liberals are the worst thing to happen to the American black community since slavery, which - not so coincidentally - was championed by the intellectual and political forebears of today's leftist liberals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're absolutely right. I think telling someone they're stupid, uneducated and unqualified to speak on a subject constitutes a form of censorship. It's an attempt to shut the person up because you don't like their view.

No, you don't. You think it's a form of censorship WHEN IT'S SAID TO SOMEONE YOU AGREE WITH. When someone you agree with tells OTHERS that their opinions and beliefs are silly and stupid, you fall all over yourself to defend them for it.

Furthermore, I can't technically censor anyone, since I'm not a government agency or any sort of authority figure.

If you're too delicate and thin-skinned to take what you and your pals dish out to others, then I suggest - only a suggestion for your own mental well-being, not a directive of any sort - that perhaps you shouldn't be engaging in political debates, where people have a nasty habit of exercising their right to express the opinion that others are full of shit . . . in BOTH directions. Butch up a little, buttercup.

By the way, unlike you, I don't have any desire to silence people I disagree with. I'd be heartily disappointed if ignoramuses like you and Wonky actually shut up simply because I pointed out how fucking stupid you actually sound. I'd have to find a new hobby.

I'm not interested in silencing anyone. I will point out people who I think are dangerous. Scott Lively, Martin Ssempa.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in "butching up". As hard as you try, I'm not the slightest bit upset by you.

I have merely told you that I would NEVER use the C word no matter how much I disliked someone. It seems that bothered you alot.

Lie to yourself if you want, Chuckles. You're probably the only one stupid enough to believe you, anyway.

 

[daveman]

The GOP has sold it soul to right wing Christian fundamentalists. They are no longer the party of small government. They are the party of opposition to civil rights.

Nonsense.

The Civil Rights Act was put forward by JFK, a liberal.

JFK would not be called a liberal today.

Abraham Lincoln would not be called a Republican today. The GOP has been taken over by religious extremists on the right. They win elections through wedge issues.

The GOP considers itself the party of God.

Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, says that no religious test shall ever be required to serve office in the US government. Gingrich, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Santorum are all in a competition to "outChristianize" each other.

Today's Republicans make Ronald Reagan look like a liberal.

Cecile was right: You're one of those people who cherrypicks through history, claiming that anything they approve of is automatically "liberal".

 

[AllieBaba]

Sky is dishonest and crazy to boot.

If you spend much time contemplating her ridiculous clap trap, you will be wasting a lot of time...

 

[Uncensored2008]

You must admit that the Republicans who voted for civil rights were leaning to the left.

Actually the democrats who voted for the civil rights bill were leaning right.

Leftists assign privilege to groups. The concept that individuals have inalienable rights is squarely on the right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The civil rights movement is an example of liberals putting their views into action. IMO, equal rights is a good thing.

Oh, please. The liberal involvement in the civil rights movement (unless you're one of those people who cherrypicks through history, claiming that anything they approve of is automatically "liberal") is an example of shameless opportunists jumping on the bandwagon after the heaving lifting has already been done and the battle has already been won.

The people hailed today as "great liberal heroes of the civil rights movement" are more akin to those people in high school who joined every club they could just so they could be in lots of pictures in the yearbook.

I get so tired of history being reduced to a pathetic, twisted desire by leftists to congratulate themselves for anything and everything, regardless of the facts.

Liberalism has always been about challenging, old, established traditions. John Locke started the movement. He argued the government must operate by the consent of the governed. His opponent, Hobbs, was a supporter of dictatorial authority.

Locke also challenged Filmer, a Conservative, who used the Bible to support the idea of the divine right of kings.

I'm sure that's what you'd LIKE to believe. Too bad that the reality in practice falls so far short of the theory on paper.

And hey, guess what? We're talking about today. If the only way you can claim that liberals are anything but mob-pandering, destructive racists is to point to one guy who died three hundred years ago, and then just claim everyone in history who ever did something you like was a liberal . . . well, that's just pitiful.

This is a lot like the people who try to proclaim that socialism is represented in the writings of Marx, rather than the actions of the people who put Marx's theories into practice . . . wait a minute. Those people are ALSO leftists! It's like a pattern of behavior, or something.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Liberalism has always been about challenging, old, established traditions.

One of the primary old, established traditions that the left challenges is that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights.

John Locke started the movement. He argued the government must operate by the consent of the governed.

You just contradicted yourself. The anti-liberty left promotes a top down, authoritarian structure, where Obama flows his decisions to the states, which enforce them to the counties, which enforce them to the cities, which imposes them on the people.

You spew a great deal of ignorant bullshit, does anyone take you seriously?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Liberalism has always been about challenging, old, established traditions.

One of the primary old, established traditions that the left challenges is that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights.

John Locke started the movement. He argued the government must operate by the consent of the governed.

You just contradicted yourself. The anti-liberty left promotes a top down, authoritarian structure, where Obama flows his decisions to the states, which enforce them to the counties, which enforce them to the cities, which imposes them on the people.

You spew a great deal of ignorant bullshit, does anyone take you seriously?

That's not true at all. I'm a liberal, and I'm not interested in living in a dictatorship. I want the right to vote, and I want every citizen in the US to have equal rights.

I'm a liberal exactly in the tradition of John Locke. Some on the right, are in the tradition of Hobbs and Filmer. They want to have an authoritarian, right wing Christian government ruled by biblical principles.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Oh, please. The liberal involvement in the civil rights movement (unless you're one of those people who cherrypicks through history, claiming that anything they approve of is automatically "liberal") is an example of shameless opportunists jumping on the bandwagon after the heaving lifting has already been done and the battle has already been won.

The people hailed today as "great liberal heroes of the civil rights movement" are more akin to those people in high school who joined every club they could just so they could be in lots of pictures in the yearbook.

I get so tired of history being reduced to a pathetic, twisted desire by leftists to congratulate themselves for anything and everything, regardless of the facts.

Liberalism has always been about challenging, old, established traditions. John Locke started the movement. He argued the government must operate by the consent of the governed. His opponent, Hobbs, was a supporter of dictatorial authority.

Locke also challenged Filmer, a Conservative, who used the Bible to support the idea of the divine right of kings.

I'm sure that's what you'd LIKE to believe. Too bad that the reality in practice falls so far short of the theory on paper.

And hey, guess what? We're talking about today. If the only way you can claim that liberals are anything but mob-pandering, destructive racists is to point to one guy who died three hundred years ago, and then just claim everyone in history who ever did something you like was a liberal . . . well, that's just pitiful.

This is a lot like the people who try to proclaim that socialism is represented in the writings of Marx, rather than the actions of the people who put Marx's theories into practice . . . wait a minute. Those people are ALSO leftists! It's like a pattern of behavior, or something.

How is it that liberals are racist? Are you talking about supporting affirmative action? That was the right choice at that time. Minorities were able to catch up to the point now where they have greater opportunity to succeed then they once had.

I like how you make broad, sweeping generalizations of liberals. I get the impression that you like to demonize your political opponents.

Cheap tactic.