I have also noticed they rarely hang around long, but always seem to believe they 'won' the debate.
On Apr 30, 8:29 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > Where'd you boys run off to? I'm just getting warmed up here. > > On Apr 30, 12:23 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > dick, > > > I repeat. Feel free to dispute any specific statement i made in > > response to Jim W.'s post. What terminology did I use that you do not > > understand? Neither one of you have attempted to define modern > > liberalism, you've only attempted to blame just about every modern > > problem on it's existence. > > I personally prefer John F. Kennedy's definition but will use the > > Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, as that is what I have on hand. > > I'm posting only that portion of the definition as regards to politics > > > "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential > > goodness of the human race,the autonomy of the indivisual and standing > > for the protection of political and civil liberties". > > > Both conservative and liberal are simply convient labels used in an > > attempt to demonized political/social ideaology opponents. It's more a > > matter of degrees, of direction, than something fixed and definite. I > > have what might be considered liberal views on some issues, > > conservative on others. My ACLU membership card rests in my wallet > > quite comfortably next to my CCW permit and my NRA membership card. > > Someone does not approve, wishes to label me one or the other? Tough > > shit. > > > On Apr 30, 11:56 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If you are not using the definitions and assumptions of the author, then > > > you need to define your terms. Otherwise there is no way to understand > > > what you mean by your terminology. If you are going to defend it, what > > > exactly are you defending? There is a huge difference between classical > > > liberalism and the modern liberals in this country. In fact, the > > > conservatives are closer to classical liberalism than the modern > > > liberals are. > > > > Hollywood wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
