Defining Liberal?

[lovableliberal]

I'm embarrassed. What a waste of time. Maybe the kid could use some debate time with others rather than be stuck talking to himself?

Start a debate

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm embarrassed. What a waste of time. Maybe the kid could use some debate time with others rather than be stuck talking to himself?

Start a debate

You don't have a clue what makes a person a liberal and you definitely are lost on explaining what a liberal is. It's okay. Ignorance is bliss.

it will have to be in the dreaded Clean Zone or maybe another Forum. let me look

 

[there4eyeM]

So, when people here talk about some who take money from 'the public' to pay their debts and lifestyle, we are talking about social security cheats and banks, right?

I have no f'ing idea what metaphysical malarkey you're peddling there.. Is there a bank that's stealing from you? Please teach me how to be a "social security" cheat..

Perplexing that you claim non-comprehension of this simple question. You are clearly more sophisticated than that, though certainly allow your vision to be colored by extreme attachment to dogma.

There is nothing 'metaphysical' in the post. Did or did not certain persons and institutions spend our system into a confrontation where collectively the public had to pay for the errors? Does not that manner of functioning conform to the definition of 'liberal' that you and others here like to apply; i.e., spending the money of others for one's programs and pet theories?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So, when people here talk about some who take money from 'the public' to pay their debts and lifestyle, we are talking about social security cheats and banks, right?

I have no f'ing idea what metaphysical malarkey you're peddling there.. Is there a bank that's stealing from you? Please teach me how to be a "social security" cheat..

Perplexing that you claim non-comprehension of this simple question. You are clearly more sophisticated than that, though certainly allow your vision to be colored by extreme attachment to dogma.

There is nothing 'metaphysical' in the post. Did or did not certain persons and institutions spend our system into a confrontation where collectively the public had to pay for the errors? Does not that manner of functioning conform to the definition of 'liberal' that you and others here like to apply; i.e., spending the money of others for one's programs and pet theories?

 

[lovableliberal]

I'm embarrassed. What a waste of time. Maybe the kid could use some debate time with others rather than be stuck talking to himself?

Start a debate

You don't have a clue what makes a person a liberal and you definitely are lost on explaining what a liberal is. It's okay. Ignorance is bliss.

it will have to be in the dreaded Clean Zone or maybe another Forum. let me look

hahahah oh i don't??? I derive most of my thoughts from the leading contemporary political scientist in the last century -- John Rawls.

Deciding things from an original position -- the two principles of justice -- the overlapping consensus of competing reasonable doctrines...

i'm sorry if you are just not able to comprehend.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Start a debate

You don't have a clue what makes a person a liberal and you definitely are lost on explaining what a liberal is. It's okay. Ignorance is bliss.

it will have to be in the dreaded Clean Zone or maybe another Forum. let me look

hahahah oh i don't??? I derive most of my thoughts from the leading contemporary political scientist in the last century -- John Rawls.

Deciding things from an original position -- the two principles of justice -- the overlapping consensus of competing reasonable doctrines...

i'm sorry if you are just not able to comprehend.

Rawls was a philosopher. Justice and morality. Not 'the leading' but 'one of the leading' would be more exact. Right out of the gate you stumble.

hate to break it to you, but you are no John Rawls.

[youtube]kBdfcR-8hEY[/youtube]


you can derive your thoughts from whomever you care to, but your thoughts have to be your own for you to claim them as such. Your thoughts are vastly inferior to those of Rawls'

gotta run, but I gave you a liberal prick in a thread of your very own


dD

 

[lovableliberal]

You don't have a clue what makes a person a liberal and you definitely are lost on explaining what a liberal is. It's okay. Ignorance is bliss.

it will have to be in the dreaded Clean Zone or maybe another Forum. let me look

hahahah oh i don't??? I derive most of my thoughts from the leading contemporary political scientist in the last century -- John Rawls.

Deciding things from an original position -- the two principles of justice -- the overlapping consensus of competing reasonable doctrines...

i'm sorry if you are just not able to comprehend.

Rawls was a philosopher. Justice and morality. Not 'the leading' but 'one of the leading' would be more exact. Right out of the gate you stumble.

hate to break it to you, but you are no John Rawls.

[youtube]kBdfcR-8hEY[/youtube]


you can derive your thoughts from whomever you care to, but your thoughts have to be your own for you to claim them as such. Your thoughts are vastly inferior to those of Rawls'

gotta run, but I gave you a liberal prick in a thread of your very own


dD

hahahah wow you really showed me there! someone tell me this site isn't a bunch of lame responses like this....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

this thread was a complete and utter failure (or should I have written 'udder'?)

Dante has been challenged to define 'liberal' by a left wing moonbat posing as a liberal

hmm... should he or shouldn't he?

 

[there4eyeM]

Why try to define something as diverse and multifaceted. There is no need, except in an effort to either condemn or glorify it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why try to define something as diverse and multifaceted. There is no need, except in an effort to either condemn or glorify it.

When others get to define and label you, you are always on the defensive