dick, Read my post more carefully. Feel free to dispute any specific statement I made. I didn't attempt to define modern liberalism, now did I? I never declared i even had a Messiah, did I? I'm supossed to debate based on YOUR unsupported definitions and assumptions? Not likely. LOL!
On Apr 30, 11:11 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > You gotta do a whole lot better than that if you want to defend > liberalism. What has modern liberalism as defined by you Messiah got > to offer that we should really want? > > > > Hollywood wrote: > > Jim W, > > > Ok, put on a fresh pot of Dunkin' Donuts coffee. Since it's raining > > here in the STL and my LSC is in the shop, I'll waste time addressing > > your latest bullshit. > > > First, your very thread title is bull. ANYTHING can be defended. Hell, > > some people will defend the assertion the earth is flat or that the > > holocaust of WWII never happened or that the British royal family are > > actually reptilian aliens, etc. etc. What you should have said was > > that liberalism could not be SUCCESIVELY defended. > > > Of course first you would have to be able to clearly define exactly > > what "modern liberalism" is. Other than any social/political view you > > didn't like. Also, just who would be the judge that modern liberalism > > has been sucessfully, or unsucessfully, defended? You, Travis, who? > > Basically your entire "challenge" is simply a personal anti-liberal > > rant that you try to frame in such a manner that, in your mind at > > least, you can't possibly lose if one looks at it as a challenge and > > not just another political/social rant. I'll adress some of your > > "points" until such time as i get bored or my car is finished, > > whichever comes first. > > > <<<Liberalism has no basis in fact, sanity, etc. etc>>>> > > A personal opinion. You haven't even defined liberalism much less > > offered any objective evidence to prove your statement. > > > <<<The entire based on emotions crap>>>> > > Bullshit. Your rants are as emotional as anything I've ever seen. > > Hatred, fear and greed are emotions same as love and/or compassion. > > > <<<<Everthing from poverty to teen-age pregnancy is the fault of > > liberals>>> > > More horseshit. You offer no proof of that. You fail to take any > > notice of any factors such as changes in the economy, society, > > medicine, anything. You just curl up in the fetal position, stick your > > thumb in your mouth and mumble "anything I don't like is the fault of > > liberals". > > > <<<Our founders were conservative>>> > > FUNNY bullshit. I thought you wanted to talk about modern liberalism. > > NOW you want to talk about 18th century liberalism/conservatism? > > NOTHING has changed since 1775? George Washington & crew were wild- > > eyed flaming liberals. Just ask King George of England. In an age when > > kings ruled most countries (mandated by God they claimed) what could > > have been a more liberal and revolutionary concept than the premise > > that ordinary citizens had a right to rule themselves, to write their > > own laws? No taxation without fair representation? In a world where > > you coughed up whatever the fuck the King TOLD you to pay? Liberal > > nonesense! No state-approved religion such as the Church of England, > > worship as you please? More liberal nonesense. People should worship > > who and how they are told to by the state. > > Need i continue? > > > <<<the energy crisis is the fault of liberals>>> > > Ahh, the constant conservative cry "they won't let us do what we WANT > > to!" You want to build a oil refiney or a coal fired facility? Obey > > the fucking environmental laws/regulations and have at it. What you > > mean to say is that certain industries to not want to incur the > > expense of obeying the laws/regs. For example, If i want to build an > > addittion to my freakin' house there are certain laws. regs and codes > > i must obey. If i don't want to obey them i can't build it. if i want > > to spend the money to obey those regs and codes i can. According to > > the "law of supply and demand" when a commidity become scare it's > > value or price goes up. If I'm a international oil company why the > > fuck would I want there to be MORE oil in the world and possibly drive > > down my own profits? Which makes me more money? Selling 10 gallons at > > $1 each or 3 gallons at $4.10 each? AND I use up less of my product! > > Easier to say the bad old environmentalists just won't LET me. > > For years our basic energy policy has been to use up evertone else's > > oil FIRST with the long term goal being to make sure the last feakin' > > barrel of oil on earth is on American soil. Besides there is no such > > thing as "American owned oil". the oil belongs to the international > > oil company that buys the lease, brings it up, etc. They will sell it > > to whomever offers the best price, China, Japan whomever. "Our" oil > > does not exist, unless of course we nationalize it like Mexico and > > many other countries. Don't you believe in capitalism amd private > > property? > > >>>> racism, abortion, gay marriage, etc.>>> > > > You got to be kidding me. Leftists "created" catagorizing people into > > groups? No one noticed people were different untill liberal pointed it > > out? Gay marriage? Why not? Why should only straight people be > > miserable? What effect does gay people getting married have to do with > > your marriage? A non-issue that both sides are over-reacting > > to.Abortion? You don't approve, your particular religion does not > > approve? So don't have one. The Supreme Court has the job and duty of > > deciding what is constituional and what is not. Not you. I think that > > is why they are called the "Supreme" court. look up the word. > > > <<<<Foubder were conservative, etc>>> > > Already addressed that particular piece of horseshit. > > > The rest of your post is simple whining and bitching and it's > > "everyone's fault other than mine". > > I do admire your skill at writing and expressing yourself. You really > > should put it to better and more productive use. It's not HOW you say > > things it's WHAT you say. You can take a steaming pile of horseshit, > > put whipped cream on it with a cherry on top, put it in a nice gift > > box with a silk bow and when you unwrap it it's STILL just a steaming > > pile of fucking horseshit. Write some more, I'll be happy to unwrap it > > for you. > > > Nothing has been solved other than my killing time waiting for my car > > to be finished. Have a nice day. > > > On Apr 30, 8:23 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Jim W. > > >> I did not attack the messenger. In fact I complimented the messenger > >> on his writing skills I attacked the message as bullshit. Your simply > >> too dullwitted to understand the difference. Your problem is that you > >> are a writer of a conservative political blog. Generally your blog is > >> only read by people who already, or at the very least, agree with your > >> social/political views. Hell, they desperately WANT to believe > >> whatever bullshit you spew. This feeds your massive ego and makes you > >> over confident. A mistake. > >> I am not one of those people. I'm going to finish my coffee, look > >> around the forum to see if there is anything more interesting than > >> your thread. Then I'll be make to show you why your post is bullshit. > >> Ciao for now lad. > > >> On Apr 30, 6:36 am, Jim Willis <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >>> Ah Yes... My posit exactly. You did not defend liberalism; as you > >>> cannot. You simply attacked the messenger. Well noted and correctly > >>> filed. > > >>> On Apr 29, 10:08 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> Jim W. > > >>>> Hiya Jimbo, see you're still struggling with your low self esteem > >>>> issues, a legend in you own mind. > > >>>> You post is total self-serving bullshit. Very well written and > >>>> literate, but bullshit all the same. > > >>>> On Apr 29, 8:06 pm, Jim Willis <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> Just recently, on this forum, two questions were posited for answer > >>>>> and perusal of those participants whose chose to participate. They > >>>>> were prescient questions deserving of an intelligent, thoughtful > >>>>> response. The two questions in question were these; what is a liberal > >>>>> and what is a conservative? The poster asked for well thought out, > >>>>> specific descriptions of the opposite ends of the political spectrum. > >>>>> As expected, as usual, I not only stepped up to the plate, I knocked > >>>>> it out of the park. I put on a blinding brilliance of literary > >>>>> composition rarely seen in human endeavor. {See my response below} > >>>>> However, not one little, Lilliputian, liberal lackey bucked up, took > >>>>> the stage and dared to proffer a positive portrayal of the affliction > >>>>> that is modern liberalism. And, I think I know why. It would be much > >>>>> akin to pointing out the benefits of cancer. > >>>>> Liberalism has no basis in fact, reason or sanity. It is unrealistic, > >>>>> antithetic to the principals and values this country was founded upon > >>>>> and requires the willing suspension of disbelief, “sound familiar?” > >>>>> Liberals claim to believe in our constitution and derided George W. > >>>>> Bush for violating it by, “torturing” detainees currently living the > >>>>> good life at the renowned vacation retreat in the tropical paradise > >>>>> lovingly referred to as Club Gitmo. > >>>>> Yet liberals are nuanced in their devotion to the constitution that we > >>>>> conservatives consider sacrosanct. They ignore section two and > >>>>> enumerated powers; they are blind to the tenth amendment limiting > >>>>> federal authority to only those enumerated powers. > >>>>> If they were honest with themselves, “not bloody likely” they would > >>>>> admit this one truism that is the wooden stake in the heart of Looney > >>>>> liberalism, it is the silver bullet, the Ark of the Covenant. Our > >>>>> founders were conservative. This is inarguable and unassailable. This > >>>>> country was founded on the principals of conservatism and our founding > >>>>> documents reflect that; without doubt. It’s all there, in the words of > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
