Arguing with libs, Uuuggggggg!

[CMike]

Liberals hate everyone who thinks differently than they do.
And they especially despise those they claim to want to "help".

stop projecting honey...

it's the hate filled right that has the problem.

get a grip.

It's the liberals that went after Sarah Palin's minor child.

There is little more vile and low than those people. The people who support and defend these vermin are just as scummy.

 

[logical4u]

Since the New Deal. Read history. Since Unions too. Since the USA was founded for We The People. Corporate slave.

Lol. You remain an idiot. I work for the STATE.

So what? Even you have benefitted from liberal policies and programs. Us liberals hate people like you. But we don't deny you the benefit of sharing the progress we make for you despite you not understanding that its in your best interests.

Actually, you benefit from government waste. You are government waste.

What gives 'you' the authority to decide what is in my best interest? Is turnabout fair play?

 

[CMike]

Unlike you I don't make shit up

You're kidding, right? You're a retarded if not more than ButtFuckGRN.

I'll tell you this ONCE. You don't question my moderators in public, nor voice your opinion of them as moderators. They are members of this board every bit as much as you think your royal eminence is.

Do it again, you're gone. Period.

oooo big tough guy. wow, you are the god here, no wonder why its full of trolls. YOu'd probably do me a favor. I guess this place doesn't like intelligent discussions. He can call everybody an asshole, but I can't respond to that?

HOly shit, no wonder why this place is fucked if you are in charge

 

[logical4u]

stop projecting honey...

it's the hate filled right that has the problem.

get a grip.

Has the hate filled left abandoned their hate???


Hate lives on both sides of the street, but it's a bad neighborhood... Personally, I choose to live elsewhere...

Bush is the president that should have been assassinated. He and Chaney were evil pricks and did some very bad things. How many died because they lied? When did the left ever talk about assassination? We NEVER talked about that.

But you guys want to off Obama or you suggest he's the anti christ? What a hoot! If Bush wasn't the anti christ, no one is.

But we just voted him out of office. We didn't suggest succeeding from the union.

The right is viral.

You are saying the 'right' has a problem with hate? Did you read what you just posted?
If anyone said your above statement (about Bush and Cheney), about Obama, you would be screaming racist, hater, bigot, etc, etc, etc.
Read proverbs, especially the parts about anger and fury.

 

[CMike]

Unlike you I don't make shit up

You're kidding, right? You're a retarded if not more than ButtFuckGRN.

I'll tell you this ONCE. You don't question my moderators in public, nor voice your opinion of them as moderators. They are members of this board every bit as much as you think your royal eminence is.

Do it again, you're gone. Period.

oooo big tough guy. wow, you are the god here, no wonder why its full of trolls. YOu'd probably do me a favor. I guess this place doesn't like intelligent discussions. He can call everybody an asshole, but I can't respond to that?

HOly shit, no wonder why this place is fucked if you are in charge

Actually I am going to give you a free clue.

You can not win going blow to blow with the administrator of a forum. He has the power to ban you and you have no appeal.

It's like fighting with your boss. The boss will win.

The best thing you can do is shut up and move on.

 

[logical4u]

Yet it is the CON$ who suppress free speech!

can you list some examples?

Town hall meetings for healthcare

Isn't a townhall meeting for the town to aire their greivances with the politicians? Wasn't the politicians that tried to stop the towns people from speaking? (Haven't we heard enough speeches from the politicians??).

 

[AllieBaba]

Unlike you I don't make shit up

You're kidding, right? You're a retarded if not more than ButtFuckGRN.

I'll tell you this ONCE. You don't question my moderators in public, nor voice your opinion of them as moderators. They are members of this board every bit as much as you think your royal eminence is.

Do it again, you're gone. Period.

oooo big tough guy. wow, you are the god here, no wonder why its full of trolls. YOu'd probably do me a favor. I guess this place doesn't like intelligent discussions. He can call everybody an asshole, but I can't respond to that?

HOly shit, no wonder why this place is fucked if you are in charge

Dr. Gregg reminds me of someone...

Oh, I know:

 

[Vast LWC]

I find it all kinds of amusing that the OP complains about how hard it is to argue with progressives and points to a site where people tell you what to say when arguing with progressives gets too difficult.

ROFL. Man that is funny.

I wonder if the OP even realizes how stupid that makes him look?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Where did a majority of liberals stop slavery? Do you REALLY think the union army was made up of...liberals????

Only those who wanted to liberate the slaves.

Or are you saying the war had nothing to do with ideology and was financially motivated?

This country was considered 'a new experiment'. It protected the individual,

At least it claimed to, because it was founded on liberal ideology.

not the 'masses'. If you read the Bill of Rights, there is nothing there about the 'masses'; it is about the individual.

Again, liberalism

Conservatives believe in COMPETITION

'Conservatives' believe in nothing. By definition, they have no ideology or principles but are merely whatever reactionary force exists at a given time.

, if there are a lot of sellers and a lot of buyers, the market will establish a fair price for a product/service. If the companies buy gov representatives to give them a monopoly, that is not competition (that would be the liberal way to choose who wins and loses).

Monopolies existed before the government stepped in. Bourgeois liberalism was a failure.

Conservatives want an employer to use their resources as efficiently as possible.

Sounds more like Austrians, who are almost invariably liberals.

Call me a fool

It would certainly fit.

. I vote for freedom from oppression

Sounds like a liberal or possible a Leftist.

(that would be against the dems). I vote for smaller gov and lower taxes;

liberal...

I vote to protect this country, its borders, and its citizens; without those we would be a third world nation.

xenophobe and protectionist

I vote for laws applied equally.

Progressive/Leftist...

If you want to live in a really, really nice place, you can join a community and pay taxes to improve your community.

socialism...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

At least he's consistent...unlike you who can't even correctly format a simple sentence with your liberal college education in nuclear physics or whatever it is this week.

Unlike you I don't make shit up

You're kidding, right? You're a retarded if not more than ButtFuckGRN.

I'll tell you this ONCE. You don't question my moderators in public, nor voice your opinion of them as moderators. They are members of this board every bit as much as you think your royal eminence is.

Do it again, you're gone. Period.

Was he questioning a Moderator Action or just Del's character?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Please list what 'libs' 'stand for'.

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.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Unlike you I don't make shit up

You're kidding, right? You're a retarded if not more than ButtFuckGRN.

I'll tell you this ONCE. You don't question my moderators in public, nor voice your opinion of them as moderators. They are members of this board every bit as much as you think your royal eminence is.

Do it again, you're gone. Period.

oooo big tough guy. wow, you are the god here, no wonder why its full of trolls. YOu'd probably do me a favor. I guess this place doesn't like intelligent discussions. He can call everybody an asshole, but I can't respond to that?

HOly shit, no wonder why this place is fucked if you are in charge

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...Dr. Gregg...you fail.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8eFj6d_DfI]YouTube - Grenade Throw Fail[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

Liberals typically find free speech frightening.

Yet it is the CON$ who suppress free speech!

can you list some examples?

The most obvious example of the difference between Left and Right regarding free speech is Nixon suppressing the Smothers Brothers.

If you remember the Smothers Brothers crucified LBJ over the Vietnam War, but LBJ did nothing to shut them up. When Nixon replace LBJ the Smothers Brothers went after Nixon over the Vietnam War also. But unlike LBJ, Nixon had their top rated show kicked off the air.

Of course the way CON$ always whine and complain you would think it was CON$ and not the Smothers Brothers who were censored.

 

[Rinata]

how appropriate that you stole this from someplace called the asshole files.
granted, you're an asshole, but you still have to link stuff that you steal from, er, find during your rigorous research on the internet.

Really!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

stop projecting honey...

it's the hate filled right that has the problem.

get a grip.

You're right Jillian.

Libby/ progressives don't hate people.

Rather they are so sure that they know the one and only best way that everyone should live that one could say they have nothing but contempt for people because they are so smug in their self acclaimed superiority.

Just look at the way Obama derides and ridicules those who disagree with him as if there is something wrong with them.

After all, how dare those uneducated rabble disagree with the benevolent all loving government?

I'd like you to find just one quote by Obama where he does any such thing. We also despise liars.

How about the time he was making fun of the guy who said "Keep your hands off my medicare"

How about in his love fest interview with Matt Lauer when he lumped everyone who disagrees with him into the birther group?

And if you despise liars, you shouldn't be defending Obama should you?

A Long Post: The Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates - Jim Geraghty

 

[Skull Pilot]

And those of you who call yourselves liberal should read this

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/whatisclassicalliberalism.pdf

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government.

Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women. Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not.

Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.

That last bit is the defining characteristic that makes you so called modern libby progressives anything but liberal.

In fact progressives actually have little or no love for people at all. If you all truly believed in freedom and liberty you would not want the government to exercise control over so many aspects of our lives.

Progressives are not in favor of people making their own choices, they want to make our choices for us and then enforce those choices with the heavy hand of government.

This belief comes from the absolute belief that they (progressives) know better than you how you should live your life. They simply do not believe that people are capable of making their own decisions. This arrogance shows their contempt for people who want nothing more than to make their own decisions and live their lives free from government control.

Mine is not an anti government position it is a position that the true liberals who founded this country held.

 

[Vanquish]

In fact progressives actually have little or no love for people at all. If you all truly believed in freedom and liberty...

Wait wait wait. How can anyone take you seriously...or even compromise with you when you say something as spew-tastic as this. You need to take your wide paintbrush and keep moving.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In fact progressives actually have little or no love for people at all. If you all truly believed in freedom and liberty...

Wait wait wait. How can anyone take you seriously...or even compromise with you when you say something as spew-tastic as this. You need to take your wide paintbrush and keep moving.

So tell me what exactly on the libby progressive platform increases rather than decreases the ability of one to make his own choices?

Is it forcing people to buy health insurance?
Is it banning certain types of foods?
Is it forcing people to recycle?
Is it taking more of our money away from us to expand government?

Tell me because if there is something that the libby progressives want to do that will increase my liberties and expand my freedom of choice and allow me to keep more of the money I earn I want to know.

 

[Cuyo]

Arguing with liberals is a really tough proposition. I’ve engaged in many a debate with a large cross section of mainstream liberals. 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. None of them want to even hear a conservative viewpoint, nor do they really want to debate or learn anything different from their own viewpoint.

gotta link, lance.

Asshole Files

Yeah, cause liberals tend to you facts, conservatives think facts are up for opinion, and talking points fed to them by others are facts. then they get shown to look like complete idiots, so they get really mad at this.

why else are universities, and areas of higher education more liberal.

Actually, you just gave a perfect description of a liberal and of course yourself.

To all Liberals-- Don't you dare pay attention to ANY facts or truth as it will disrupt your liberal, delusional la, la land brain of yours and it will explode-- just like the deficit has while you and your ilk have led the country right off the cliff and into unsustainable debt and future bankruptsy.

Yes Maple, except that the liberals didn't do it. Overwhelmingly, Reagan and the two shrubs did it; especially Shrub Jr. who turned a record surplus into a record deficit and doubled the national debt.

But just keep saying it, keep blaming it on the liberals and democrats. There are puh-lenty of people who do and will continue to believe you, despite all evidence to the contrary.