Arguing with libs, Uuuggggggg!

[amrchaos]

Conservatves always complain "The libs call me names!!"

The libs alo complain "The cons call me names"

Well, guess who gets it worsts?

Centrists--we get called names by other centrist plus the cons and the libs. Hell, I was called a heartless and a deluded Obama supporter in one day.

You think you got it bad, try being a centrist for one day. I bet you extremists could not hold out for a day! In fact, you would have to learn to find all the problems to each solution and not just the ones that conflict with some ideology you love. You would not make it!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Murder is never an opinion matter.

And that's one of the basic difference between libs and conservatives. Liberals think that right and wrong is relative, and extend that to the nth degree.

They also think might makes right. If they're in power, things like integrity, honor, right, wrong, character...none of those things matter.

right.... have you ever cracked open a tome recording the history of the world?

 

[AllieBaba]

Have you?
Because I have to say, today I'm not terribly impressed with the level of education our most liberal members seems to have.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What does Scooter Libby have to do with anything?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The difference between liberals of the classical doctrine and leftists:

A man has a broken leg. The liberal says the man has every liberty to hire someone to carry him or to carry himself. The liberal sees no reason to aid the man unless he himself will benefit. The leftists holds that all around have a moral obligation to help the man up and help him to the doctor. The liberal believes the doctor should not have to help the man if the man can't pay. The leftist believes the man's leg should be tended to as best as can be done and society should be willing to aboard and pay the cost- after all, the liberal could one day find himself in the same position and would wish for a leftist and not another liberal to find him.

The liberal would see the man a cripple and a beggar and deride the man as a thief, claiming he is still free to go move heavy stones for a living to feed himself. The leftist would see the man's wounds treated and see that he and others like him have a place to go and food to eat until they are healed enough to once again find work and improve their condition.

The old liberalism is the justification of the Bourgeoisie- it recognizes on the right to exploit whom you can and to avoid exploitation if you are strong or fortuitous. The leftism which developed in response is the just theory of the righteous man who tends to the weak and protects those who cannot protect themselves.

 

[logical4u]

Finally, you admit your ignorance

I suggest you start here and here


Newsletter

• Locke Studies (formerly The Locke Newsletter), edited by Roland Hall, University of York, Heslington, York, UK <[email protected]>.

Selected Books

• Aarsleff, Hans, (1982) From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
• Alexander, Peter (1985) Ideas Qualities and Corpuscles, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Arneil, Barbara, (1996) John Locke and America, Oxford, Clarendon Press
• Aaron, Richard, (1937) John Locke, Oxford, Oxford University Press
• Ashcraft, Richard, (1986) Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Ayers, Michael (1991) Locke: Epistemology and Ontology, 2 volumes, London Routledge.
• Bennett, Jonathan, (1971) Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Brandt, Reinhard, ed. (1981) John Locke: Symposium Wolfenbuttel 1979, Berlin, de Gruyter.
• Chappell, Vere (1992) Essays on Early Modern Philosophy, John ocke — Theory of Knowledge, London, Garland Publishing, Inc.
• Chappell, Vere (1994) The Cambridge Companion to Locke, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Dunn, John (1969) The Political Thought of John Locke, Cambridge University Press.
• Fox, Christopher, (1988) Locke and the Scriblerians, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Gibson, James, (1968) Locke's Theory of Knowledge and its Historical Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Grant, Ruth, (1987) John Locke's Liberalism, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
• Kroll, Peter; Ashcraft, Richard; Zagorin, Peter, (1992) Philosophy, Science and Religion in England 1640-1700, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Jolley, Nicholas, (1984) Leibniz and Locke, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Jolley, Nicholas, (1999) Locke, His Philosophical Thought, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Lott, Tommy, (1998) Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Social Philosophy, New York, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc..
• Lowe, E.J., (1995) Locke on Human Understanding, London, Routledge Publishing Co..
• Mackie, J. L. (1976) Problems from Locke, Oxford, Clarendon Press
• Macpherson, C.B. (1962) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Mandelbaum, Maurice, Philosophy, Science and Sense Perception: Historical and Critical Studies, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.
• Martin, C. B. and D. M. Armstrong, eds. (1968) Locke and Berkeley: A Collection of Critical Essays, New York, Anchor Books.
• McLachlan, Hugh, (1941) Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke and Newton, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
• Mendus, Susan, (1991) Locke on Toleration in Focus, London, Routledge.
• Schouls, Peter, (1992) Reasoned Freedom: John Locke and the Enlightenment, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press
• Simmons, A. John, (1992) The Lockean Theory of Rights, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Tarcov, Nathan, (1984) Locke's Education for Liberty, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
• Tipton, I.C., (1977) Locke on Human Understanding: Selected Essays, Oxford, Oxford University Press
• Tully, James, (1980) A Discourse on Property, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Tully, James, (1993) An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Uzgalis, William, (2007) Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding — A Reader's Guide, Continuum
• Wood, Neal, (1983) The Politics of Locke's Philosophy, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1971) Locke's Philosophy of Science and Knowledge New York, Barnes and Noble.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1983) Locke, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1988) The Empiricists, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Yaffe, Gideon, (2000) Liberty Worth the Name: Locke on Free Agency, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Yolton, Jean, (1990) A Locke Miscellany, Bristol, Thommes Antiquarian Books.
• Yolton, John, (1956) John Locke and the Way of Ideas Oxford, Oxford University Press, Thoemmes Press reprint 1996.
• Yolton, John (1969) John Locke: Problems and Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Yolton, John (1970) John Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Yolton, John (1984) Perceptual Acquaintance: From Descartes to Reid Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
• Yolton, John (1984) Thinking Matter: Materialism in Eighteenth Century Britain, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press

Selected Articles

• Armitage, David, (2004) “John Locke, Carolina and the Two Treatises of Government,” Political Theory; 32: 602-27.
• Bernasconi, Robert, (1992)“Locke's Almost Random Talk of Man,” Perspectiven der Philosohpie 18: 293-318.
• Bolton, Martha, (S. 2004) “Locke on the semantic and epistemic role of simple ideas of sensation,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 301-321.
• Chappell, Vere, (S. 2004) “Symposium: Locke and the Veil of Perception: Preface,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 243-244.
• Chappell, Vere, (S. 2004) “Comments.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 338-355.
• Lennon,Thomas, (S. 2004) “Through a Glass Darkly: More on Locke's Logic of Ideas,” Pacific PhilosophicalQuarterl: 85(3): 322-337.
• Newman, Lex, (S. 2004) “Locke on Sensitive Knowledge and the Veil of Perception—Four Misconceptions,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 273-300.
• Rogers, John, (S. 2004) “Locke and the Objects of Perception,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 245-254.
• Russell, Daniel, (Jan. 2004) “Locke on Land and Labor” in Philosophical Studies, 117(1-2): 303-325.
• Soles, David, (1999) “Is Locke an Imagist?” in The Locke Newsletter 30: 17-66.
• Uzgalis, William, (1988) “The Anti-Essential Locke and Natural Kinds” in The Philosophical Quarterly; 38(152) 330-339.
• Yaffe, Gideon, (S. 2004) “Locke on Ideas of Substance and the Veil of Perception,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 252-272.

What's the matter, can't you tell us what YOU stand for?

Are you dense? I've done so many times. I've even gone and compared my views, at different points, to that of the liberals, the libertarians, the communists, the social democrats, the democratic socialists, the broader socialist movement, and individual posters here.

I describe myself as a Leftist because my views tend to be characteristic the broader Left (more precisely, I sit a little left to the classical liberals and to the right of the communists and democratic socialists) without falling neatly into any of the above categories.

Nice dodge.

Please, in a few phases tell us what you consider 'honorable' and 'just'. Don't pull the intellectual snob (to me it sounds like blah, blah, blah). Just tell us what you think is worth defending, if necessary, to the death.

 

[logical4u]

Murder is never an opinion matter.

And that's one of the basic difference between libs and conservatives. Liberals think that right and wrong is relative, and extend that to the nth degree.

They also think might makes right. If they're in power, things like integrity, honor, right, wrong, character...none of those things matter.

I agree with your right to that opinion and will never support the government forcing you to have an abortion.

Allie, in the United States folks have to Democratic Party which washes its hands of the abortion issue and is essentially pro-choice, or the Republican Party which picks the moral high ground with a more liberal definition of murder yet finds some liberal interpretation of the definition to support capital punishment. Great choices especially given the Republicans lack of activity on abortion after a recent run of 20 of 28 years in the oval office.

Personally I'm pro-death penalty so I'm not "picking on" Republicans for that.

The gov has taken the authority to force its citiizens.

Health care reform has no mention of NOT FORCING you to do anything. It will have one overseer, that is only answerable to the president. If that person happens to be a monster, the health care bill pretty much lets them do whatever they want to whoever they want. There are no patient protections in the bill. There is no right to privacy (just the opposite) in the bill. The government has just taken control of the majority of the country's health care.
Now, you will do what they say or they can:
cut you off from health care
cut your children off from health care
give your children medical 'treatments' without your consent
cut your parents or other loved ones off from health care
make 'mistakes' where the IRS takes more of 'your' money than you owe, and if you put up a fight, see above...
they can limit the number of births in metropolitan areas
they can harvest eggs for medical research leaving women sterile
they can force women to have abortions

THERE IS NOTHING SAYING THEY CAN'T AND THE HEALTH CARE BILL GIVES THEM THE POWERE TO DO ALL THE ABOVE AND MORE.

They can stop offering medical care to anyone collecting social security (that would bring that cost back into line quick)
They can decide to stop medical treatment or even perscriptions on any group that is costing them more than they want to pay.
They included a 'race tax' in this bill. Mainly 'whites' go to tanning salons. Isn't that discrimmination.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

[Toronado3800]

The gov has taken the authority to force its citiizens.

Health care reform has no mention of NOT FORCING you to do anything. It will have one overseer, that is only answerable to the president. If that person happens to be a monster, the health care bill pretty much lets them do whatever they want to whoever they want. There are no patient protections in the bill. There is no right to privacy (just the opposite) in the bill. The government has just taken control of the majority of the country's health care.
Now, you will do what they say or they can:
cut you off from health care
cut your children off from health care
give your children medical 'treatments' without your consent
cut your parents or other loved ones off from health care
make 'mistakes' where the IRS takes more of 'your' money than you owe, and if you put up a fight, see above...
they can limit the number of births in metropolitan areas
they can harvest eggs for medical research leaving women sterile
they can force women to have abortions

THERE IS NOTHING SAYING THEY CAN'T AND THE HEALTH CARE BILL GIVES THEM THE POWERE TO DO ALL THE ABOVE AND MORE.

They can stop offering medical care to anyone collecting social security (that would bring that cost back into line quick)
They can decide to stop medical treatment or even perscriptions on any group that is costing them more than they want to pay.
They included a 'race tax' in this bill. Mainly 'whites' go to tanning salons. Isn't that discrimmination.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Seem a little paranoid about the power of this watered down bill.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not watered down enough.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not watered down enough.

Should have been drowned

 

[midcan5]

Forgive me, but are you serious? Do you HONESTLY believe that welfare is "good" for the country? Do you honestly believe that creating more dependence on government is better for the country as a whole?

What a load of nonsense you are spinning with your "conservitives have never did anything to benifit the country as a whole" CRAP. Perhapes you REALLY have a different "whole" in mind. Like namely the HOLE that the HOLE (ier) than thou bozo we now call the POTUS has placed us DEEP within.

Your logic = FAIL.

The single greatest POTUS was a conservative. He literally saved the United States from utter implosion.

"Liberals"...the term is becoming synonymous with The Delusional.

Thanks, even though you didn't answer my question you at least displayed your rather childish, naive political views and that is hopeful because maybe you can still learn.

FDR was truly our greatest president, he certainly wasn't conservative. If it is Reagan you are referring to then you are calling the man who started the collapse of the middle class, and laid the groundwork for the idiocy of Cheney/Bush great? Hardly, for those of us who lived through Reagan in corporate America he was a disgrace and many historians are finally saying that. But thanks for proving my point. America is, was, and always will be liberal, if it cease to be that then we all lose - corporate propaganda to the contrary.

OpEdNews - Article: Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."


Allen Barra: Allen Barra on the Myth of Ronald Reagan - Book Review - Truthdig

Ronald Reagan: Was He Really that Dumb? (a warning from history) - Democratic Underground


See. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247845984&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame] "Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism."


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

 

[logical4u]

The gov has taken the authority to force its citiizens.

Health care reform has no mention of NOT FORCING you to do anything. It will have one overseer, that is only answerable to the president. If that person happens to be a monster, the health care bill pretty much lets them do whatever they want to whoever they want. There are no patient protections in the bill. There is no right to privacy (just the opposite) in the bill. The government has just taken control of the majority of the country's health care.
Now, you will do what they say or they can:
cut you off from health care
cut your children off from health care
give your children medical 'treatments' without your consent
cut your parents or other loved ones off from health care
make 'mistakes' where the IRS takes more of 'your' money than you owe, and if you put up a fight, see above...
they can limit the number of births in metropolitan areas
they can harvest eggs for medical research leaving women sterile
they can force women to have abortions

THERE IS NOTHING SAYING THEY CAN'T AND THE HEALTH CARE BILL GIVES THEM THE POWERE TO DO ALL THE ABOVE AND MORE.

They can stop offering medical care to anyone collecting social security (that would bring that cost back into line quick)
They can decide to stop medical treatment or even perscriptions on any group that is costing them more than they want to pay.
They included a 'race tax' in this bill. Mainly 'whites' go to tanning salons. Isn't that discrimmination.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Seem a little paranoid about the power of this watered down bill.

So .... do you trust the gov to do what is best for YOUR family?

 

[Father Time]

They'll quickly run out of facts and precedent, and it almost always ends with them calling me cruel, heartless, racist, fascist, or whatever other label they want to slap on me

As opposed to socialist, leftist, deadbeat, whiner, un-american or whatever label the right wants to throw around

Communist, Marxist, Kenyan (in Obama's case), libtard, bleeding heart, hippy, etc.

 

[logical4u]

Forgive me, but are you serious? Do you HONESTLY believe that welfare is "good" for the country? Do you honestly believe that creating more dependence on government is better for the country as a whole?

What a load of nonsense you are spinning with your "conservitives have never did anything to benifit the country as a whole" CRAP. Perhapes you REALLY have a different "whole" in mind. Like namely the HOLE that the HOLE (ier) than thou bozo we now call the POTUS has placed us DEEP within.

Your logic = FAIL.

The single greatest POTUS was a conservative. He literally saved the United States from utter implosion.

"Liberals"...the term is becoming synonymous with The Delusional.

Thanks, even though you didn't answer my question you at least displayed your rather childish, naive political views and that is hopeful because maybe you can still learn.

FDR was truly our greatest president, he certainly wasn't conservative. If it is Reagan you are referring to then you are calling the man who started the collapse of the middle class, and laid the groundwork for the idiocy of Cheney/Bush great? Hardly, for those of us who lived through Reagan in corporate America he was a disgrace and many historians are finally saying that. But thanks for proving my point. America is, was, and always will be liberal, if it cease to be that then we all lose - corporate propaganda to the contrary.

OpEdNews - Article: Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."


Allen Barra: Allen Barra on the Myth of Ronald Reagan - Book Review - Truthdig

Ronald Reagan: Was He Really that Dumb? (a warning from history) - Democratic Underground


See. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247845984&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame] "Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism."


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

If FDR was the 'greatest', why did congress pass term limits for presidents so 'his act' could never be repeated?

 

[Father Time]

Forgive me, but are you serious? Do you HONESTLY believe that welfare is "good" for the country? Do you honestly believe that creating more dependence on government is better for the country as a whole?

What a load of nonsense you are spinning with your "conservitives have never did anything to benifit the country as a whole" CRAP. Perhapes you REALLY have a different "whole" in mind. Like namely the HOLE that the HOLE (ier) than thou bozo we now call the POTUS has placed us DEEP within.

Your logic = FAIL.

The single greatest POTUS was a conservative. He literally saved the United States from utter implosion.

"Liberals"...the term is becoming synonymous with The Delusional.

Thanks, even though you didn't answer my question you at least displayed your rather childish, naive political views and that is hopeful because maybe you can still learn.

FDR was truly our greatest president, he certainly wasn't conservative. If it is Reagan you are referring to then you are calling the man who started the collapse of the middle class, and laid the groundwork for the idiocy of Cheney/Bush great? Hardly, for those of us who lived through Reagan in corporate America he was a disgrace and many historians are finally saying that. But thanks for proving my point. America is, was, and always will be liberal, if it cease to be that then we all lose - corporate propaganda to the contrary.

OpEdNews - Article: Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."


Allen Barra: Allen Barra on the Myth of Ronald Reagan - Book Review - Truthdig

Ronald Reagan: Was He Really that Dumb? (a warning from history) - Democratic Underground


See. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247845984&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame] "Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism."


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

If FDR was the 'greatest', why did congress pass term limits for presidents so 'his act' could never be repeated?

Because 2 terms was an unwritten rule going all the way back to Washington.

 

[Father Time]

Murder is never an opinion matter.

Yeah murder is a legal term so abortion would never be murder unless we criminalize it and make it murder. Not like that fact stops certain cons from saying it all the time.

 

[Vanquish]

Conservatves always complain "The libs call me names!!"

The libs alo complain "The cons call me names"

Well, guess who gets it worsts?

Centrists--we get called names by other centrist plus the cons and the libs. Hell, I was called a heartless and a deluded Obama supporter in one day.

You think you got it bad, try being a centrist for one day. I bet you extremists could not hold out for a day! In fact, you would have to learn to find all the problems to each solution and not just the ones that conflict with some ideology you love. You would not make it!

I swear...you get it from both sides when you're a Centrist...and people don't read your posts...they just assume that you are on one side or the other...and insult the hell out of you.