Liberalism vs America

[Lumpy 1]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I hereby challenge you to advance so much as ONE American policy which has ever failed... .

And I have no problem whatsoever telling you in advance that you will find not so much as a single example. This being so due to the fact that such principles are immutable laws of nature, thus are no more likely to fail than any other law of nature.

FTR: American policy is that policy which recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles that define America. With those principles being those declared in the charter of American principles.

Best of luck to ya... .

So you also have a reading comprehension problem? I never said anything about "American Policies failing".

I was talking about the irresponsible attempts by extreme right conservatives to harm the credit of the US Government by failing to abide by their Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution.

Where do you find this imaginary "charter of American principles" of yours because it certainly isn't any part of the Law of the Land.

LMAO!

There is no evidence of any conservative having risked the credit worthiness of the US Constitution. You are likely thinking of "Moderate" Republicans, OKA: RINOs, AKA: Progressives... Or if ya prefer "Liberals" who are affiliated with the GOP, who have 'compromised' with the Ideological Left and the Ideological Left itself, who have in just the last 6 years added 7 trillion dollars to the US Federal deficit.

You remember, you were the clowns CRYING about the 150 billion in annual budget deficits during the Bush administration. Then once you set your clown in office, you summarily began spending in deficit by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE beyond that of the former administration.

ROFLMNAO! Imagine the irony, of an Ideological Leftist even TRYING to project their disgust with Americans and our spending.

Funny stuff.

Still drowning in denial?

The Credit Rating of the US government was downgraded because extreme rightwing conservatives blocked the increase in the debt limit. Your feeble and pathetic attempts to lay the blame elsewhere only prove that you are a liar.

And for the record you still have produced your imaginary "charter of American principles" either. Inquiring minds want to know what you are hiding.

ROFLMNAO! What color is the sky in your world?

That is HYSTERICAL! In every sense of the word.

And yet you could not refute a single fact!

No? LOL! Ok... let's see if we can work this out.

To what 'facts' would you be referring?

In the posts which you cited as the subject of your response, there is no record of any facts being at issue. You offered popularly held, fraudulent Leftist propaganda, which is deceitfully advanced by the cult as a means to influence the ignorant, which I corrected with each passing attempt, and such is irrefutably represented in the record.

That you feel this doesn't rise to refutation... LOL! Well that is just ADORABLE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well let me help ya with that.

The charter of American principles were declared as the basis of authority on which the founders of the United States, kicked the only government they had ever known, to the curb.

Here's a taste of it:


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. ... .

BZZZT Wrong again! That is the Declaration of Independence. But thanks for admitting that you lied about your imaginary "Charter of American Principles". What is even funnier is this piece of delicious irony of yours;

This is very common among the cult, misusing words and abusing the language to deceitfully advancing fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

The Declaration of Independence IS the charter of American principle. In that it declares the principles which define the concept: America, and the authority by which those who founded the United States, to legitimately separate themselves from the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

This is an otherwise elementary fact, but may be beyond the means of the intellectually less fortunate to grasp.

You are guilty of all of the above by trying to fraudulently rename the DoI for your own cult's deceptive purposes.

ROFL! Am I?

Now what you're demonstrating there, is the departure from objective reality, into the delusion common to subjective want. And, please... allow me, to allow YOU to prove that:

Which words have I misused? And here's the good part: BE SPECIFIC! Your failure to specify not only a word or words which you 'feel' I misused, you must also show the of the word(s) through a legitimate, public resource, defining the word and sound evidence in either reason or fact, of how what I said conflicts with the respective word(s).

When you fail to do so, which is an axiomatic certainty, given your record... then THAT will be your conceding to ME, that you are a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

Now... be honest: How cool is THAT?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well if you and Rush and Beck say so, the rest of the world must be wrong lol...

So you're saying there, that logical validity is not a function of a sound construct, but is instead that which comes with 'consensus'?

LMAO! CLASSIC Relativism... .

For those who haven't been paying attention, the Ideological Left; in all of its various and, some would argue 'innumerable facets, rests ENTIRELY upon Relativism.

Relativism is merely the rejection of objective reasoning, and the exclusive adherence to subjective emotion.

And you see the evidence of it throughout this and every other debate site across the web, wherein truth is said to be whatever the Left wants it to be... IE: Bush and Cheney are War criminals; that Bush and Cheney were indicted and can't travel overseas for fear of being arrested and frog marched into the Hague; "Where were the WMDs?", "Bush crashed the economy through a cabal with greedy bankers, because they wanted to make money charging closing fees... " and so on.

None of that has ANY kinship with reality, but such is held as irrepressible fact by the cult of Left-think.

The problem, of course, is that objectivity is essential to truth. And without it, just as there can be no potential for human rights without God, there can be no truth without objectivity. And without objectivity and the means to establish what is true, this produces no means for trust.

Without truth and trust, there is no basis on which to establish a soundly reasoned sustainable morality and without a soundly reasoned, sustainable morality, there is absolutely NO WAY that justice can be so much as defined, let alone served.

Anyone doubting that, need look no farther than the idiocy surrounding the otherwise justifiable death Trayvon Martin and the repeat of that; simply on a larger scale, in Ferguson, MO.

The Left has established within the cult itself, the 'truth' that the POHLEECE are crooked and racists to their core; that they're out to hold the brother down. So the truth that the police are out there everyday, risking their health and safety, in the face of long odds, doing the best they can to stay safe and keep others safe... even those who intend, for whatever reason to harm them... is irrelevant to them. They operate on the LIE, because the LIE justifies their need to see themselves as the victim. If the police are not what they say the police are, then the rationalization begins to crumble and they can't have THAT!

So we now begin to see the end game of relativism, wherein sufficient numbers of people have succumbed to such that even the very idea of justice is no longer commonly understood. Because ... 'the truth' is subjective to the needs of the cult of Left-think.

For those keeping score, that point is just before the civil war cranks off (And THAT'S BAD...)

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well let me help ya with that.

The charter of American principles were declared as the basis of authority on which the founders of the United States, kicked the only government they had ever known, to the curb.

Here's a taste of it:


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. ... .

BZZZT Wrong again! That is the Declaration of Independence. But thanks for admitting that you lied about your imaginary "Charter of American Principles". What is even funnier is this piece of delicious irony of yours;

This is very common among the cult, misusing words and abusing the language to deceitfully advancing fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

The Declaration of Independence IS the charter of American principle. In that it declares the principles which define the concept: America, and the authority by which those who founded the United States, to legitimately separate themselves from the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

This is an otherwise elementary fact, but may be beyond the means of the intellectually less fortunate to grasp.

You are guilty of all of the above by trying to fraudulently rename the DoI for your own cult's deceptive purposes.

ROFL! Am I?

Now what you're demonstrating there, is the departure from objective reality, into the delusion common to subjective want. And, please... allow me, to allow YOU to prove that:

Which words have I misused? And here's the good part: BE SPECIFIC! Your failure to specify not only a word or words which you 'feel' I misused, you must also show the of the word(s) through a legitimate, public resource, defining the word and sound evidence in either reason or fact, of how what I said conflicts with the respective word(s).

When you fail to do so, which is an axiomatic certainty, given your record... then THAT will be your conceding to ME, that you are a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

Now... be honest: How cool is THAT?

Way too easy to expose your ignorance and abuse of terms. Let's begin right here;

the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

They British were not the "only super-power on earth" by any stretch of the imagination and neither did they represent 'irresistible power' during that period. The Spanish, Portuguese and French were all capable of taking on the British during that period. It was France that conquered all of Europe, something the British never accomplished.

Your hyperbolic drivel and your fallacious belief that you imagine that you know what you are blathering about comes out in every one of your posts and that is just one specific example of your deceptive misuse of the language.

Then there are your egregious canards about the "Left".

And you see the evidence of it throughout this and every other debate site across the web, wherein truth is said to be whatever the Left wants it to be... IE: Bush and Cheney are War criminals; that Bush and Cheney were indicted and can't travel overseas for fear of being arrested and frog marched into the Hague; "Where were the WMDs?", "Bush crashed the economy through a cabal with greedy bankers, because they wanted to make money charging closing fees... " and so on.

None of that has ANY kinship with reality, but such is held as irrepressible fact by the cult of Left-think.

The Left has established within the cult itself, the 'truth' that the POHLEECE are crooked and racists to their core; that they're out to hold the brother down. So the truth that the police are out there everyday, risking their health and safety, in the face of long odds, doing the best they can to stay safe and keep others safe... even those who intend, for whatever reason to harm them... is irrelevant to them. They operate on the LIE, because the LIE justifies their need to see themselves as the victim. If the police are not what they say the police are, then the rationalization begins to crumble and they can't have THAT!

...a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

None of the above is based upon facts or reality. It is merely your own delusional and perverted opinion. Luckily those canards of yours only harm your own cause and position. Normal sane people just read that BS and roll their eyes that anyone could be that much of an ignorant bigot.

 

[Pogo]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

 

[norwegen]

Well let me help ya with that.

The charter of American principles were declared as the basis of authority on which the founders of the United States, kicked the only government they had ever known, to the curb.

Here's a taste of it:


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. ... .

BZZZT Wrong again! That is the Declaration of Independence. But thanks for admitting that you lied about your imaginary "Charter of American Principles". What is even funnier is this piece of delicious irony of yours;

This is very common among the cult, misusing words and abusing the language to deceitfully advancing fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

You are guilty of all of the above by trying to fraudulently rename the DoI for your own cult's deceptive purposes.

This is kind of funny, but testifies to the idea that you lefties do not fully grasp the implications of America's founding.

The natural law and rights to self-determination were not original ideas in 1776, but they are indeed a summary of the American charter of freedom. The Declaration of Independence immortalizes the idea that "self-evident truths," that "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," are in fact our charter principles.

 

[Lumpy 1]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

Somehow I believe you and I will never agree, I can live with that and still appreciate your efforts.

 

[Pogo]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

Somehow I believe you and I will never agree, I can live with that and still appreciate your efforts.

Thanks Lumpster, and back atchya It's all good.

Maybe I should indeed start that thread about what Liberalism is, or somebody should. I left a link for that lost keys guy the other day that went into great detail on that but he never responded to it. Might be worth a development in the future given the time it will require.

 

[Lumpy 1]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

Somehow I believe you and I will never agree, I can live with that and still appreciate your efforts.

Thanks Lumpster, and back atchya It's all good.

Maybe I should indeed start that thread about what Liberalism is, or somebody should. I left a link for that lost keys guy the other day that went into great detail on that but he never responded to it. Might be worth a development in the future given the time it will require.

"never" was to strong a word.. & &

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well let me help ya with that.

The charter of American principles were declared as the basis of authority on which the founders of the United States, kicked the only government they had ever known, to the curb.

Here's a taste of it:


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. ... .

BZZZT Wrong again! That is the Declaration of Independence. But thanks for admitting that you lied about your imaginary "Charter of American Principles". What is even funnier is this piece of delicious irony of yours;

This is very common among the cult, misusing words and abusing the language to deceitfully advancing fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

The Declaration of Independence IS the charter of American principle. In that it declares the principles which define the concept: America, and the authority by which those who founded the United States, to legitimately separate themselves from the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

This is an otherwise elementary fact, but may be beyond the means of the intellectually less fortunate to grasp.

You are guilty of all of the above by trying to fraudulently rename the DoI for your own cult's deceptive purposes.

ROFL! Am I?

Now what you're demonstrating there, is the departure from objective reality, into the delusion common to subjective want. And, please... allow me, to allow YOU to prove that:

Which words have I misused? And here's the good part: BE SPECIFIC! Your failure to specify not only a word or words which you 'feel' I misused, you must also show the of the word(s) through a legitimate, public resource, defining the word and sound evidence in either reason or fact, of how what I said conflicts with the respective word(s).

When you fail to do so, which is an axiomatic certainty, given your record... then THAT will be your conceding to ME, that you are a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

Now... be honest: How cool is THAT?

Way too easy to expose your ignorance and abuse of terms. Let's begin right here;

the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

They British were not the "only super-power on earth" by any stretch of the imagination and neither did they represent 'irresistible power' during that period. The Spanish, Portuguese and French were all capable of taking on the British during that period. It was France that conquered all of Europe, something the British never accomplished.

Your hyperbolic drivel and your fallacious belief that you imagine that you know what you are blathering about comes out in every one of your posts and that is just one specific example of your deceptive misuse of the language.

Then there are your egregious canards about the "Left".

And you see the evidence of it throughout this and every other debate site across the web, wherein truth is said to be whatever the Left wants it to be... IE: Bush and Cheney are War criminals; that Bush and Cheney were indicted and can't travel overseas for fear of being arrested and frog marched into the Hague; "Where were the WMDs?", "Bush crashed the economy through a cabal with greedy bankers, because they wanted to make money charging closing fees... " and so on.

None of that has ANY kinship with reality, but such is held as irrepressible fact by the cult of Left-think.

The Left has established within the cult itself, the 'truth' that the POHLEECE are crooked and racists to their core; that they're out to hold the brother down. So the truth that the police are out there everyday, risking their health and safety, in the face of long odds, doing the best they can to stay safe and keep others safe... even those who intend, for whatever reason to harm them... is irrelevant to them. They operate on the LIE, because the LIE justifies their need to see themselves as the victim. If the police are not what they say the police are, then the rationalization begins to crumble and they can't have THAT!

...a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

None of the above is based upon facts or reality. It is merely your own delusional and perverted opinion. Luckily those canards of yours only harm your own cause and position. Normal sane people just read that BS and roll their eyes that anyone could be that much of an ignorant bigot.

So what you're saying here is that despite your emphatic assertion to the contrary, you cannot specify ANY words which I have misused.

Thank you for the demonstration

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. Folks, do ya SEE how easy this is?

The opposition makes a claim, is challenged to substantiate the claim and runs to change the subject through any number of distractions.

The Ideological Left are, in their entirety, intellectually impotent.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well let me help ya with that.

The charter of American principles were declared as the basis of authority on which the founders of the United States, kicked the only government they had ever known, to the curb.

Here's a taste of it:


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. ... .

BZZZT Wrong again! That is the Declaration of Independence. But thanks for admitting that you lied about your imaginary "Charter of American Principles". What is even funnier is this piece of delicious irony of yours;

This is very common among the cult, misusing words and abusing the language to deceitfully advancing fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

The Declaration of Independence IS the charter of American principle. In that it declares the principles which define the concept: America, and the authority by which those who founded the United States, to legitimately separate themselves from the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

This is an otherwise elementary fact, but may be beyond the means of the intellectually less fortunate to grasp.

You are guilty of all of the above by trying to fraudulently rename the DoI for your own cult's deceptive purposes.

ROFL! Am I?

Now what you're demonstrating there, is the departure from objective reality, into the delusion common to subjective want. And, please... allow me, to allow YOU to prove that:

Which words have I misused? And here's the good part: BE SPECIFIC! Your failure to specify not only a word or words which you 'feel' I misused, you must also show the of the word(s) through a legitimate, public resource, defining the word and sound evidence in either reason or fact, of how what I said conflicts with the respective word(s).

When you fail to do so, which is an axiomatic certainty, given your record... then THAT will be your conceding to ME, that you are a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

Now... be honest: How cool is THAT?

Way too easy to expose your ignorance and abuse of terms. Let's begin right here;

the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

They British were not the "only super-power on earth" by any stretch of the imagination and neither did they represent 'irresistible power' during that period. The Spanish, Portuguese and French were all capable of taking on the British during that period. It was France that conquered all of Europe, something the British never accomplished.

Your hyperbolic drivel and your fallacious belief that you imagine that you know what you are blathering about comes out in every one of your posts and that is just one specific example of your deceptive misuse of the language.

Then there are your egregious canards about the "Left".

And you see the evidence of it throughout this and every other debate site across the web, wherein truth is said to be whatever the Left wants it to be... IE: Bush and Cheney are War criminals; that Bush and Cheney were indicted and can't travel overseas for fear of being arrested and frog marched into the Hague; "Where were the WMDs?", "Bush crashed the economy through a cabal with greedy bankers, because they wanted to make money charging closing fees... " and so on.

None of that has ANY kinship with reality, but such is held as irrepressible fact by the cult of Left-think.

The Left has established within the cult itself, the 'truth' that the POHLEECE are crooked and racists to their core; that they're out to hold the brother down. So the truth that the police are out there everyday, risking their health and safety, in the face of long odds, doing the best they can to stay safe and keep others safe... even those who intend, for whatever reason to harm them... is irrelevant to them. They operate on the LIE, because the LIE justifies their need to see themselves as the victim. If the police are not what they say the police are, then the rationalization begins to crumble and they can't have THAT!

...a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

None of the above is based upon facts or reality. It is merely your own delusional and perverted opinion. Luckily those canards of yours only harm your own cause and position. Normal sane people just read that BS and roll their eyes that anyone could be that much of an ignorant bigot.

So what you're saying here is that despite your emphatic assertion to the contrary, you cannot specify ANY words which I have misused.

Thank you for the demonstration

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your lack of reading comprehension is duly noted and does not constitute an excuse for being liar and an ignorant bigot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

As has been noted previously:

NO ONE IS CONTESTING THE DEFINITION OF "LIBERAL". THE CONTEST RESTS IN THE HYSTERICAL NOTION THAT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT HAS ANY KINSHIP WITH THE DEFINING ATTRIBUTES OF "LIBERAL".

You people are Leftists. Your ideas stand DIAMETRICALLY in opposition to the advocacy for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and the intrinsic responsibilities that are ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINING Individual liberty.

And the earliest record of the trading of Slaves was found in Egyptian tablets, circa 4300 BC

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well let me help ya with that.

The charter of American principles were declared as the basis of authority on which the founders of the United States, kicked the only government they had ever known, to the curb.

Here's a taste of it:


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. ... .

BZZZT Wrong again! That is the Declaration of Independence. But thanks for admitting that you lied about your imaginary "Charter of American Principles". What is even funnier is this piece of delicious irony of yours;

This is very common among the cult, misusing words and abusing the language to deceitfully advancing fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

The Declaration of Independence IS the charter of American principle. In that it declares the principles which define the concept: America, and the authority by which those who founded the United States, to legitimately separate themselves from the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

This is an otherwise elementary fact, but may be beyond the means of the intellectually less fortunate to grasp.

You are guilty of all of the above by trying to fraudulently rename the DoI for your own cult's deceptive purposes.

ROFL! Am I?

Now what you're demonstrating there, is the departure from objective reality, into the delusion common to subjective want. And, please... allow me, to allow YOU to prove that:

Which words have I misused? And here's the good part: BE SPECIFIC! Your failure to specify not only a word or words which you 'feel' I misused, you must also show the of the word(s) through a legitimate, public resource, defining the word and sound evidence in either reason or fact, of how what I said conflicts with the respective word(s).

When you fail to do so, which is an axiomatic certainty, given your record... then THAT will be your conceding to ME, that you are a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

Now... be honest: How cool is THAT?

Way too easy to expose your ignorance and abuse of terms. Let's begin right here;

the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

They British were not the "only super-power on earth" by any stretch of the imagination and neither did they represent 'irresistible power' during that period. The Spanish, Portuguese and French were all capable of taking on the British during that period. It was France that conquered all of Europe, something the British never accomplished.

Your hyperbolic drivel and your fallacious belief that you imagine that you know what you are blathering about comes out in every one of your posts and that is just one specific example of your deceptive misuse of the language.

Then there are your egregious canards about the "Left".

And you see the evidence of it throughout this and every other debate site across the web, wherein truth is said to be whatever the Left wants it to be... IE: Bush and Cheney are War criminals; that Bush and Cheney were indicted and can't travel overseas for fear of being arrested and frog marched into the Hague; "Where were the WMDs?", "Bush crashed the economy through a cabal with greedy bankers, because they wanted to make money charging closing fees... " and so on.

None of that has ANY kinship with reality, but such is held as irrepressible fact by the cult of Left-think.

The Left has established within the cult itself, the 'truth' that the POHLEECE are crooked and racists to their core; that they're out to hold the brother down. So the truth that the police are out there everyday, risking their health and safety, in the face of long odds, doing the best they can to stay safe and keep others safe... even those who intend, for whatever reason to harm them... is irrelevant to them. They operate on the LIE, because the LIE justifies their need to see themselves as the victim. If the police are not what they say the police are, then the rationalization begins to crumble and they can't have THAT!

...a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

None of the above is based upon facts or reality. It is merely your own delusional and perverted opinion. Luckily those canards of yours only harm your own cause and position. Normal sane people just read that BS and roll their eyes that anyone could be that much of an ignorant bigot.

So what you're saying here is that despite your emphatic assertion to the contrary, you cannot specify ANY words which I have misused.

Thank you for the demonstration

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your lack of reading comprehension is duly noted and does not constitute an excuse for being liar and an ignorant bigot.

Your second concession to the same issue, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(FYI: Once you fail to provide a soundly reasoned, cogent response and your failure is noted, you are not required to validate that judgment by doing so again. But there's no rule against it, so if it makes ya feel better, suit yourself.)

 

[Pogo]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

As has been noted previously:

NO ONE IS CONTESTING THE DEFINITION OF "LIBERAL". THE CONTEST RESTS IN THE HYSTERICAL NOTION THAT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT HAS ANY KINSHIP WITH THE DEFINING ATTRIBUTES OF "LIBERAL".

Actually several posters have already misdefined it, and I have indeed contested that misdirection, so .... wrong again. And in doing so I've repeatedly noted that "liberal" and "leftist" are two different things. It's on the record. You could look it up. Both of them. Guess the operative word is "could".

You people are Leftists. Your ideas stand DIAMETRICALLY in opposition to the advocacy for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and the intrinsic responsibilities that are ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINING Individual liberty.

"You people"...
If you imagine yourself to actually have a point here, stop pussyfooting and make it already. Since I can and should only speak for myself (rather that "you people", whoever the fuck that is), your task is to document the above. I've got some 23,000 posts here; find me one that backs that up. "Yammer yammer yammer" doesn't cut the mustard. But it does cut the cheese.

And the earliest record of the trading of Slaves was found in Egyptian tablets, circa 4300 BC

--- a point I made upon the suggestion that the Democratic Party invented it. Glad we an at least agree on the existence of linear time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where_r_my_Keys said:

You people are Leftists. Your ideas stand DIAMETRICALLY in opposition to the advocacy for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and the intrinsic responsibilities that are ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINING Individual liberty.


Nonsense.


Rightist dogma stands diametrically opposed to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty and the intrinsic values essential to sustaining individual liberty.


For example:


Conservatives are hostile to the individual liberty of gay Americans by seeking to deny them their equal protection rights.


Conservatives are hostile to the individual liberty of women by seeking to deny them their right to privacy.


Conservatives are hostile to the individual liberty of African-Americans by seeking to deny them the fundamental right to vote.


And conservatives are hostile to the individual liberty of immigrants by seeking to deny them their right to due process of the law.


Moreover, this statement is completely unsupported by the facts and evidence, where a review of the history of Constitutional case law for the last 60 years and longer demonstrates that liberals have been at the forefront of defending citizens' individual liberty from unwarranted attacks by the state. Liberals fought to bring an end to segregation and discrimination during the 50s and 60s and continue to fight today for the individual liberty of gay Americans. Indeed, we've seen examples during just the last few years of efforts by conservatives to deny women their privacy rights, same-sex couples their equal protection rights, and minorities their voting rights, efforts advocated by the right invalidated by the courts as un-Constitutional.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

As has been noted previously:

NO ONE IS CONTESTING THE DEFINITION OF "LIBERAL". THE CONTEST RESTS IN THE HYSTERICAL NOTION THAT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT HAS ANY KINSHIP WITH THE DEFINING ATTRIBUTES OF "LIBERAL".

Actually several posters have already misdefined it, and I have indeed contested that misdirection, so .... wrong again. And in doing so I've repeatedly noted that "liberal" and "leftist" are two different things. It's on the record. You could look it up. Both of them. Guess the operative word is "could".

LOL! Nonsense. All they did was to identify the Left with the use of the term. There's nothing 'mis-identifying' in that. That is ACCURATELY IDENTIFYING. You simply lack the intellectual acuity necessary to understand context. But such is the nature of children and fools.

You people are Leftists. Your ideas stand DIAMETRICALLY in opposition to the advocacy for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and the intrinsic responsibilities that are ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINING Individual liberty.

"You people"...
If you imagine yourself to actually have a point here.[/quote]

The point was to convey that you're an ideological leftists, which represents a species of irrational reasoning which has no kinship with the principles that define America. This is all basic stuff, thus for you to be demonstrating this level of confusion you should consider finding another avocation. As debate only works where the individuals in play possess the mental acuity sufficient to reason soundly. You show no discernible potential for such.

And the earliest record of the trading of Slaves was found in Egyptian tablets, circa 4300 BC

--- a point I made upon the suggestion that the Democratic Party invented it. Glad we an at least agree on the existence of linear time. [/QUOTE]

The point you made, asserted that the slave trade began a couple of hundred years prior to the origins of the US Democrat Party. Which was, like everything else you state... a demonstration of ignorance on parade.

But with that said, your concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

As has been noted previously:

NO ONE IS CONTESTING THE DEFINITION OF "LIBERAL". THE CONTEST RESTS IN THE HYSTERICAL NOTION THAT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT HAS ANY KINSHIP WITH THE DEFINING ATTRIBUTES OF "LIBERAL".

You people are Leftists. Your ideas stand DIAMETRICALLY in opposition to the advocacy for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and the intrinsic responsibilities that are ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINING Individual liberty.

And the earliest record of the trading of Slaves was found in Egyptian tablets, circa 4300 BC

 

[Pogo]

For me, my Op had more to do with general results than an obviously elusive political philosophy as expressed through out this thread.

What does that even mean?

Title: "Liberalism vs. America"
Liberalism is a political philosophy. Ironically it's what America is made of, so it's like saying "Thomas Edison vs. phonograph records".

Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of liberalism, then perhaps you'll come to understand that your preoccupation with definition is just one of many and your conclusions laughable from my perspective. For me current liberalism represents "welfare state" policies, the rise of personal irresponsibility and the list goes on from there. My op merely pointed out but a few results attributable to "liberalism" and my intention was to promote discussion. I'd say you should not be so consumed with definition, winning the discussion and perhaps rather absorb and ponder information /perspectives presented.

I believe this thread has turned out rather well and many members have offered up heartfelt opinions and researchable information. I've learned a lot ...and thanks.

Lumpers if you think this thread turned out "well" I'd hate to see how a bad one turns out...

Definitions are crucial because your faulty one undermines your entire premise. Not only are you employing a movable definition that has nothing to do with historical fact, but two of your three OP conclusions don't even have anything to do with politics, let alone a specific philosophy therein. In short, your premise is a train wreck. I simply point out the obvious reason.

It's not unlike the time you tried to tell us that the Democratic Party invented the slave trade --- which as I pointed out there would have had to be a retroactive act going back two hundred years before that party even existed. You can stick your head in the sand and babble "preoccupation" but it's just fucking silly to pretend the naked emperor is wearing some kind of clothing when everybody can plainly see he's naked.

As has been noted previously:

NO ONE IS CONTESTING THE DEFINITION OF "LIBERAL". THE CONTEST RESTS IN THE HYSTERICAL NOTION THAT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT HAS ANY KINSHIP WITH THE DEFINING ATTRIBUTES OF "LIBERAL".

Actually several posters have already misdefined it, and I have indeed contested that misdirection, so .... wrong again. And in doing so I've repeatedly noted that "liberal" and "leftist" are two different things. It's on the record. You could look it up. Both of them. Guess the operative word is "could".

LOL! Nonsense. All they did was to identify the Left with the use of the term. There's nothing 'mis-identifying' in that. That is ACCURATELY IDENTIFYING. You simply lack the intellectual acuity necessary to understand context. But such is the nature of children and fools.

So --- got nothing but gainsaying and ipse dixit. As expected.

You people are Leftists. Your ideas stand DIAMETRICALLY in opposition to the advocacy for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and the intrinsic responsibilities that are ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINING Individual liberty.

"You people"...
If you imagine yourself to actually have a point here, stop pussyfooting and make it already. Since I can and should only speak for myself (rather that "you people", whoever the fuck that is), your task is to document the above. I've got some 23,000 posts here; find me one that backs that up. "Yammer yammer yammer" doesn't cut the mustard. But it does cut the cheese.

The point was to convey that you're an ideological leftists, which represents a species of irrational reasoning which has no kinship with the principles that define America. This is all basic stuff, thus for you to be demonstrating this level of confusion you should consider finding another avocation. As debate only works where the individuals in play possess the mental acuity sufficient to reason soundly. You show no discernible potential for such.

I cannot be a "leftists" by definition, and your assignment was to document the singular. A task at which you failed. Found nothing again huh? Poor baby.

And the earliest record of the trading of Slaves was found in Egyptian tablets, circa 4300 BC

--- a point I made upon the suggestion that the Democratic Party invented it. Glad we an at least agree on the existence of linear time.

The point you made, asserted that the slave trade began a couple of hundred years prior to the origins of the US Democrat Party. Which was, like everything else you state... a demonstration of ignorance on parade.

But with that said, your concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted.

I didn't go into detail because it was neither necessary nor addressed to you, but the thread referenced was about the Atlantic slave trade -- not the overall concept of slavery. Duh.

Strike three. Thanks for playin' and be sure to play the Yammeryammer game at home. Seconds of fun for the whole family.


Btw in your quest to excise inconvenient content you fucked up the quotes too. I fixed 'em. And put the content back too. Try to do your own work next time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well let me help ya with that.

The charter of American principles were declared as the basis of authority on which the founders of the United States, kicked the only government they had ever known, to the curb.

Here's a taste of it:


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. ... .

BZZZT Wrong again! That is the Declaration of Independence. But thanks for admitting that you lied about your imaginary "Charter of American Principles". What is even funnier is this piece of delicious irony of yours;

This is very common among the cult, misusing words and abusing the language to deceitfully advancing fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

The Declaration of Independence IS the charter of American principle. In that it declares the principles which define the concept: America, and the authority by which those who founded the United States, to legitimately separate themselves from the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

This is an otherwise elementary fact, but may be beyond the means of the intellectually less fortunate to grasp.

You are guilty of all of the above by trying to fraudulently rename the DoI for your own cult's deceptive purposes.

ROFL! Am I?

Now what you're demonstrating there, is the departure from objective reality, into the delusion common to subjective want. And, please... allow me, to allow YOU to prove that:

Which words have I misused? And here's the good part: BE SPECIFIC! Your failure to specify not only a word or words which you 'feel' I misused, you must also show the of the word(s) through a legitimate, public resource, defining the word and sound evidence in either reason or fact, of how what I said conflicts with the respective word(s).

When you fail to do so, which is an axiomatic certainty, given your record... then THAT will be your conceding to ME, that you are a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

Now... be honest: How cool is THAT?

Way too easy to expose your ignorance and abuse of terms. Let's begin right here;

the only government that they had ever known; which FTR, was the only super-power on earth and represented 'irresistible power', in every sense of the phrase.

They British were not the "only super-power on earth" by any stretch of the imagination and neither did they represent 'irresistible power' during that period. The Spanish, Portuguese and French were all capable of taking on the British during that period. It was France that conquered all of Europe, something the British never accomplished.

Your hyperbolic drivel and your fallacious belief that you imagine that you know what you are blathering about comes out in every one of your posts and that is just one specific example of your deceptive misuse of the language.

Then there are your egregious canards about the "Left".

And you see the evidence of it throughout this and every other debate site across the web, wherein truth is said to be whatever the Left wants it to be... IE: Bush and Cheney are War criminals; that Bush and Cheney were indicted and can't travel overseas for fear of being arrested and frog marched into the Hague; "Where were the WMDs?", "Bush crashed the economy through a cabal with greedy bankers, because they wanted to make money charging closing fees... " and so on.

None of that has ANY kinship with reality, but such is held as irrepressible fact by the cult of Left-think.

The Left has established within the cult itself, the 'truth' that the POHLEECE are crooked and racists to their core; that they're out to hold the brother down. So the truth that the police are out there everyday, risking their health and safety, in the face of long odds, doing the best they can to stay safe and keep others safe... even those who intend, for whatever reason to harm them... is irrelevant to them. They operate on the LIE, because the LIE justifies their need to see themselves as the victim. If the police are not what they say the police are, then the rationalization begins to crumble and they can't have THAT!

...a pathetic sociopath with little to no kinship with reality, who prefers the cloistered harbor, which laps quietly upon the shifting sands of Left-think.

None of the above is based upon facts or reality. It is merely your own delusional and perverted opinion. Luckily those canards of yours only harm your own cause and position. Normal sane people just read that BS and roll their eyes that anyone could be that much of an ignorant bigot.

So what you're saying here is that despite your emphatic assertion to the contrary, you cannot specify ANY words which I have misused.

Thank you for the demonstration

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your lack of reading comprehension is duly noted and does not constitute an excuse for being liar and an ignorant bigot.

Your second concession to the same issue, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(FYI: Once you fail to provide a soundly reasoned, cogent response and your failure is noted, you are not required to validate that judgment by doing so again. But there's no rule against it, so if it makes ya feel better, suit yourself.)

Ironic!