Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, its is your problem. Like it or not, the left today is what embodies the modern definition of ;liberal.; You are the one that insists that we use the recognized meaning of the word that is 200 years old rather than what it means today.
The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[7]
Right, which is today pure libertarian and nothing to do with liberalism. That is classic liberalism. You are an authoritarian leftists because you don't believe this. You actively oppose it. You want government to loot and plunder it's citizens. That you would compare yourself to John Locke is just a gut laugh.
Which is FA_Q2 and my point, that Locke was a "liberal" hundreds of years ago has nothing to do with you using the term today to justify oppressive government, something he deeply opposed.
So what classes are you taking in high school this year?
And once again the coward tosses textual grenades he can't pull the pin on. I challenged you to back this shit up, and all you have is repeating the same crapola over and over and over. Pee Wee Fucking Herman.
And nice job editing my post down so that it's got my name without any of my words, you dishonest hack.
Well that's odd because that's what Fingerboy said about me, and I challenged him to document it two days ago. He ran away then, and just ran away again now.
Since you can't read my OP post in discussing the topic in my thread, you're not in a position to talk, are you?
You pulled this same kind of juvenile shit in the "what is your plan about guns" thread ---- pretend to throw an openended question and then any answer you don't already agree with you just pretend it never showed up and go
Debating Pee Wee Herman. Pointless.
DOCUMENT the point above, or admit you're a coward and can't do it.
Yes, the guns one was a hoot. You kept saying we don't know who is the criminal and honest citizens having guns is just escalation and then denied it even when I showed you the quotes over and over while you kept repeating that honest citizens having guns is dangerous. You are not a bright guy.
As for here, document what point? That you keep arguing with anarchists and then think you're debating small government libertarians? Do you even know the difference? We have yet to reach the bottom of your cavernous stupidity, maybe we just need to keep going down.
And once again the coward tosses textual grenades he can't pull the pin on. I challenged you to back this shit up, and all you have is repeating the same crapola over and over and over. Pee Wee Fucking Herman.
And nice job editing my post down so that it's got my name without any of my words, you dishonest hack.
Stop crying like a little girl and make your points without the emotions. No wonder you're obsessed with gender identity.
.
Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.
That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.
Yes, the guns one was a hoot. You kept saying we don't know who is the criminal and honest citizens having guns is just escalation and then denied it even when I showed you the quotes over and over while you kept repeating that honest citizens having guns is dangerous. You are not a bright guy.
As for here, document what point? That you keep arguing with anarchists and then think you're debating small government libertarians? Do you even know the difference? We have yet to reach the bottom of your cavernous stupidity, maybe we just need to keep going down.
You're a fucking liar. As before, you are hereby challenged to document with quotes.
You won't, because it doesn't exist. Fucking lying hack.
Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.
And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
And once again the coward tosses textual grenades he can't pull the pin on. I challenged you to back this shit up, and all you have is repeating the same crapola over and over and over. Pee Wee Fucking Herman.
And nice job editing my post down so that it's got my name without any of my words, you dishonest hack.
Stop crying like a little girl and make your points without the emotions. No wonder you're obsessed with gender identity.
So ---- no quote then? No documentation, no link, no nothing? And no admission you're making shit up and editing shit down?
Coward.
And once again the coward tosses textual grenades he can't pull the pin on. I challenged you to back this shit up, and all you have is repeating the same crapola over and over and over. Pee Wee Fucking Herman.
And nice job editing my post down so that it's got my name without any of my words, you dishonest hack.
Stop crying like a little girl and make your points without the emotions. No wonder you're obsessed with gender identity.
So ---- no quote then? No documentation, no link, no nothing? And no admission you're making shit up and editing shit down?
Coward.
Grow a pair, dumb ass. You document nothing, can't follow a discussion or give coherent replies to anything, you need to do that before you demand it of others. Though flagrant hypocrisy is the liberal way. Unfortunately, only other liberals recognize your right to do that.
Yes, the guns one was a hoot. You kept saying we don't know who is the criminal and honest citizens having guns is just escalation and then denied it even when I showed you the quotes over and over while you kept repeating that honest citizens having guns is dangerous. You are not a bright guy.
As for here, document what point? That you keep arguing with anarchists and then think you're debating small government libertarians? Do you even know the difference? We have yet to reach the bottom of your cavernous stupidity, maybe we just need to keep going down.
You're a fucking liar. As before, you are hereby challenged to document with quotes.
You won't, because it doesn't exist. Fucking lying hack.
You're the liar and you're stupid as shit. You said that shooting back is "escalation," like putting gasoline on a fire. I showed you the quote over and over and you didn't man up to it. Will you man up to it this time?
Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.
And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.
You should study some history. These leaders weren't social darwinists, and they certainly weren't libertarians. They were, to a man, committed to the idea that strong centralized government was necessary to control people, to make people 'better', to drive them to social perfection. You know, kinda like you do.
YOU are the scum bag who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and social programs. What liberals have that scum bag social Darwinists like YOU don't have is compassion and empathy for other human beings. It is survival of the fittest and richest for scum like you. You right wing scum ALWAYS try to point to government vs. no government as the important factor. But we have SEEN and FELT how you right wing scum govern. Conservatives have NEVER, EVER given us less government. They have only used government to inflict MUCH MORE government intrusion into the lives of the poor and weaker members of our society and helped the rich and opulent who you WORSHIP swindle those same poor and weaker members of society.
The Social Weapon: Darwinism
The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies.
The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin.
As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”
With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. Ignoring the examples of solidarity and cooperation created by God in nature, he maintained that all living things were engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. On the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, he even claimed that this same ruthlessness applied to human societies. When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene.
more
Are you actually claiming you oppose the theory of natural selection? It's not an ideology, nimrod. It's science. Malthus was also not an ideologue. He was a scientist who simply noted a natural phenomena. It's hardly surprising that liberals find the facts of biology distressing. Liberalism is just one never-ending assault on reality.
The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.
You should study some history. These leaders weren't social darwinists, and they certainly weren't libertarians. They were, to a man, committed to the idea that strong centralized government was necessary to control people, to make people 'better', to drive them to social perfection. You know, kinda like you do.
YOU are the scum bag who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and social programs. What liberals have that scum bag social Darwinists like YOU don't have is compassion and empathy for other human beings. It is survival of the fittest and richest for scum like you. You right wing scum ALWAYS try to point to government vs. no government as the important factor. But we have SEEN and FELT how you right wing scum govern. Conservatives have NEVER, EVER given us less government. They have only used government to inflict MUCH MORE government intrusion into the lives of the poor and weaker members of our society and helped the rich and opulent who you WORSHIP swindle those same poor and weaker members of society.
The Social Weapon: Darwinism
The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies.
The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin.
As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”
With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. Ignoring the examples of solidarity and cooperation created by God in nature, he maintained that all living things were engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. On the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, he even claimed that this same ruthlessness applied to human societies. When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene.
more
Are you actually claiming you oppose the theory of natural selection? It's not an ideology, nimrod. It's science. Malthus was also not an ideologue. He was a scientist who simply noted a natural phenomena. It's hardly surprising that liberals find the facts of biology distressing. Liberalism is just one never-ending assault on reality.
See post #533 for a perfect description of yourself.
Still emptyhanded, huh Peewee? At least Fingerboy had enough sense to run away. You keep bumpin'. It only spikes the mendacity discount rate.
Poor lying hack.
And once again the coward tosses textual grenades he can't pull the pin on. I challenged you to back this shit up, and all you have is repeating the same crapola over and over and over. Pee Wee Fucking Herman.
And nice job editing my post down so that it's got my name without any of my words, you dishonest hack.
Stop crying like a little girl and make your points without the emotions. No wonder you're obsessed with gender identity.
So ---- no quote then? No documentation, no link, no nothing? And no admission you're making shit up and editing shit down?
Coward.
Grow a pair, dumb ass. You document nothing, can't follow a discussion or give coherent replies to anything, you need to do that before you demand it of others. Though flagrant hypocrisy is the liberal way. Unfortunately, only other liberals recognize your right to do that.
Still emptyhanded, huh Peewee? At least Fingerboy had enough sense to run away. You keep bumpin'. It only spikes the mendacity discount rate.
Poor lying hack.
Yes, the guns one was a hoot. You kept saying we don't know who is the criminal and honest citizens having guns is just escalation and then denied it even when I showed you the quotes over and over while you kept repeating that honest citizens having guns is dangerous. You are not a bright guy.
As for here, document what point? That you keep arguing with anarchists and then think you're debating small government libertarians? Do you even know the difference? We have yet to reach the bottom of your cavernous stupidity, maybe we just need to keep going down.
You're a fucking liar. As before, you are hereby challenged to document with quotes.
You won't, because it doesn't exist. Fucking lying hack.
You're the liar and you're stupid as shit. You said that shooting back is "escalation," like putting gasoline on a fire. I showed you the quote over and over and you didn't man up to it. Will you man up to it this time?
Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.
And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
That's my post, a good old cartoon.
So -------------- where does it say anything about "honest citizens having guns is dangerous"?
Read much?
I didn't run away, numbnutz. I just don't take homework assignments from imbeciles.
.
Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.
That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.
I call 'em "Randbots". Enslaved to a half-baked ideology too often removed from any sense of practicality -- e.g. as someone posted not far back, the idea of getting rid of FDA and FAA. Just let the planes crash into each other. An illustrative metaphor.
.
Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.
That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.
.
But you are not REALLY interested in civil liberties, you are only interested in anything that support your right wing agenda.
Sure, Skippy. I'm a "right winger" who's against the Iraq war (both of them), nation building in Afghanistan, I wanted to blast the crap out of the Taliban and Al Qaeda for attacking us then leave. I would have no permantent presence in the Middle East or any other sovereign nation. I think all morality laws should be repealed, including drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay sex. I'm against government marriage entirely.
But I'm a "right winger." I argue those with Republicans all the time. This was my point, you are interested only in civil liberties and anything else only so far as you can use it to elect Democrats. They are only talking points to you. Which is why when you hit someone who isn't you and isn't a Republican you have nothing. You can't reason or process, so you just have to label me a Republican so you can start churning out your talking points.
LOL, you're a tool as I said. Democrats use you like a socket wrench or a screwdriver. And you're almost as intelligent as a screw driver. This is why I don't answer you long posts point for point, you can't process. And you insist on reminding me of that.
Hey @Rabbi , @Thanos , did you guys know I'm a right winger? LOL. Bfgrn says so. I'm lock step with you guys.
Edit: no mentions? Or I don't know how they work now.
The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.
You should study some history. These leaders weren't social darwinists, and they certainly weren't libertarians. They were, to a man, committed to the idea that strong centralized government was necessary to control people, to make people 'better', to drive them to social perfection. You know, kinda like you do.
YOU are the scum bag who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and social programs. What liberals have that scum bag social Darwinists like YOU don't have is...
I'm not a social Darwinist. I actually think we have a moral responsibility, as a society, to care for those who fall through the cracks. I just don't think it's a proper concern of government.
Of course it is the proper concern of government. PLEASE explain how you would replace Social Security and Medicare? Explain HOW it would work and be managed? The DETAILS...
I wouldn't.
SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.
But you are not REALLY interested in civil liberties, you are only interested in anything that support your right wing agenda.
Sure, Skippy. I'm a "right winger" who's against the Iraq war (both of them), nation building in Afghanistan, I wanted to blast the crap out of the Taliban and Al Qaeda for attacking us then leave. I would have no permantent presence in the Middle East or any other sovereign nation. I think all morality laws should be repealed, including drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay sex. I'm against government marriage entirely.
But I'm a "right winger." I argue those with Republicans all the time. This was my point, you are interested only in civil liberties and anything else only so far as you can use it to elect Democrats. They are only talking points to you. Which is why when you hit someone who isn't you and isn't a Republican you have nothing. You can't reason or process, so you just have to label me a Republican so you can start churning out your talking points.
LOL, you're a tool as I said. Democrats use you like a socket wrench or a screwdriver. And you're almost as intelligent as a screw driver. This is why I don't answer you long posts point for point, you can't process. And you insist on reminding me of that.
Hey @Rabbi , @Thanos , did you guys know I'm a right winger? LOL. Bfgrn says so. I'm lock step with you guys.
Edit: no mentions? Or I don't know how they work now.
We went over this before. You want to claim that you are a 'moderate'. NO ONE who wants to end Social Security and Medicare is a 'moderate. You are in the FAR, FAR, FAR right wing splinter group of John Bircher H.L. Hunt. So YES, you ARE a right winger.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Hey Mr. libertarian...do you support the ACLU?
