Scozzafava backs Owens

[Liability]

* * * *

Good catch, I seem to have missed that part you highlighted about government. At any rate, the majority of that definition is correct.

However, the fact remains that progressives and liberals are not the same ideology whatsoever. * * * *

That's not a "fact" at all, and it doesn't "remain. It doesn't exist.

"Liberals" and "progressives" are just two ways (these days) of saying the same thing. And that thing is "shit."

So ignore history and a current example of what the term means because there's simply no way you could be wrong.

Nope. I leave that to you. Obviously.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's not a "fact" at all, and it doesn't "remain. It doesn't exist.

"Liberals" and "progressives" are just two ways (these days) of saying the same thing. And that thing is "shit."

So ignore history and a current example of what the term means because there's simply no way you could be wrong.

Nope. I leave that to you. Obviously.

And yet it's me that has cited both and you that have ignored them and cut them out of my posts when quoting me.

 

[Liability]

So ignore history and a current example of what the term means because there's simply no way you could be wrong.

Nope. I leave that to you. Obviously.

And yet it's me that has cited both and you that have ignored them and cut them out of my posts when quoting me.

Wrong again. In fact, I QUOTED your dictionary definition (the part that you apparently were too stupid to have read prior to citing).

Furthermore, as the posts establish, I drew the DISTINCTION between the FORMER meaning of the terms and the present (actual) meaning of the terms.

Why YOU find it so necessary to peddle the fantasy that there is any actual fucking difference between so-called "progressivism" and modern American "liberalism" remains a great unknown. Thankfully, it is also a matter of huge indifference.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Today's Democrats are not true Liberals. They are now Socialists. There is a big difference between the two. In fact true Liberals probably have more in common with true Conservatives than they do Socialists. People just need to understand that Liberalism and Socialism really aren't the same thing. No true Liberal would ever bow to lick a National Socialist's boots like most Democrats do with Hugo Chavez. The man is currently shutting down all Media in Venezuela who criticize him. Sound familiar?? No true Liberal would ever praise such brutal suppression of Free Speech. More people will understand the difference someday. These things take some time for most to figure out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nope. I leave that to you. Obviously.

And yet it's me that has cited both and you that have ignored them and cut them out of my posts when quoting me.

Wrong again. In fact, I QUOTED your dictionary definition (the part that you apparently were too stupid to have read prior to citing).

Furthermore, as the posts establish, I drew the DISTINCTION between the FORMER meaning of the terms and the present (actual) meaning of the terms.

Why YOU find it so necessary to peddle the fantasy that there is any actual fucking difference between so-called "progressivism" and modern American "liberalism" remains a great unknown. Thankfully, it is also a matter of huge indifference.

Just because the term liberal has been hijacked doesn't mean the real meaning of the word doesn't exist. Classical liberalism is liberalism, it's simply called "classical" because the term was hijacked by the progressives in the modern era.

 

[Liability]

And yet it's me that has cited both and you that have ignored them and cut them out of my posts when quoting me.

Wrong again. In fact, I QUOTED your dictionary definition (the part that you apparently were too stupid to have read prior to citing).

Furthermore, as the posts establish, I drew the DISTINCTION between the FORMER meaning of the terms and the present (actual) meaning of the terms.

Why YOU find it so necessary to peddle the fantasy that there is any actual fucking difference between so-called "progressivism" and modern American "liberalism" remains a great unknown. Thankfully, it is also a matter of huge indifference.

Just because the term liberal has been hijacked doesn't mean the real meaning of the word doesn't exist. Classical liberalism is liberalism, it's simply called "classical" because the term was hijacked by the progressives in the modern era.

Wrong. It is PRECISELY because the term has been hijacked that it no longer makes any sense to pretend that there is any fucking difference between modern American "liberalism" and so-called "progressivism."

Further, modern American liberalism has NOTHING whatsoever in common with so-called "classical liberlaism." As I correctly noted earlier, the so-called "classical liberalism" is really "conservatism."

Now that these terms are properly defined, meaningful conversation might ensue.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong again. In fact, I QUOTED your dictionary definition (the part that you apparently were too stupid to have read prior to citing).

Furthermore, as the posts establish, I drew the DISTINCTION between the FORMER meaning of the terms and the present (actual) meaning of the terms.

Why YOU find it so necessary to peddle the fantasy that there is any actual fucking difference between so-called "progressivism" and modern American "liberalism" remains a great unknown. Thankfully, it is also a matter of huge indifference.

Just because the term liberal has been hijacked doesn't mean the real meaning of the word doesn't exist. Classical liberalism is liberalism, it's simply called "classical" because the term was hijacked by the progressives in the modern era.

Wrong. It is PRECISELY because the term has been hijacked that it no longer makes any sense to pretend that there is any fucking difference between modern American "liberalism" and so-called "progressivism."

Further, modern American liberalism has NOTHING whatsoever in common with so-called "classical liberlaism." As I correctly noted earlier, the so-called "classical liberalism" is really "conservatism."

Now that these terms are properly defined, meaningful conversation might ensue.

If the terms are being properly defined then you have to go with their actual definitions, not their hijacked definitions.

Classical liberalism isn't conservatism, it's closer to libertarianism. Classical liberalism is not the same as either brand of conservatism, paleo or neo.

 

[Liability]

Just because the term liberal has been hijacked doesn't mean the real meaning of the word doesn't exist. Classical liberalism is liberalism, it's simply called "classical" because the term was hijacked by the progressives in the modern era.

Wrong. It is PRECISELY because the term has been hijacked that it no longer makes any sense to pretend that there is any fucking difference between modern American "liberalism" and so-called "progressivism."

Further, modern American liberalism has NOTHING whatsoever in common with so-called "classical liberlaism." As I correctly noted earlier, the so-called "classical liberalism" is really "conservatism."

Now that these terms are properly defined, meaningful conversation might ensue.

If the terms are being properly defined then you have to go with their actual definitions, not their hijacked definitions.

Classical liberalism isn't conservatism, it's closer to libertarianism. Classical liberalism is not the same as either brand of conservatism, paleo or neo.

Classical liberalism might be closer to libertarianism than conservatism. Maybe.

Either way, classical liberalism is nowhere near akin to modern American liberalism even though the same word is used in both.

So, words have evolving meanings. Not exactly a new insight.

Clear communication requires that the parties have a semblence of agreement, then, in WHICH definition is being used. Otherwise what happens is that YOU mean one thing in the use of some term, but I understand the other meaning and what results is that we speak PAST each other. Whatever else it is, it isn't actual communication.

I will forever reject that modern American liberalism is any different than what we laughingly today call "progressivism."

Many liberals of today pretend that they are "progressives." Pretty label.... But that doesn't change who they are and what they actually hold dear.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong. It is PRECISELY because the term has been hijacked that it no longer makes any sense to pretend that there is any fucking difference between modern American "liberalism" and so-called "progressivism."

Further, modern American liberalism has NOTHING whatsoever in common with so-called "classical liberlaism." As I correctly noted earlier, the so-called "classical liberalism" is really "conservatism."

Now that these terms are properly defined, meaningful conversation might ensue.

If the terms are being properly defined then you have to go with their actual definitions, not their hijacked definitions.

Classical liberalism isn't conservatism, it's closer to libertarianism. Classical liberalism is not the same as either brand of conservatism, paleo or neo.

Classical liberalism might be closer to libertarianism than conservatism. Maybe.

Either way, classical liberalism is nowhere near akin to modern American liberalism even though the same word is used in both.

So, words have evolving meanings. Not exactly a new insight.

Clear communication requires that the parties have a semblence of agreement, then, in WHICH definition is being used. Otherwise what happens is that YOU mean one thing in the use of some term, but I understand the other meaning and what results is that we speak PAST each other. Whatever else it is, it isn't actual communication.

I will forever reject that modern American liberalism is any different than what we laughingly today call "progressivism."

Many liberals of today pretend that they are "progressives." Pretty label.... But that doesn't change who they are and what they actually hold dear.

Well I'm aware of what people mean when they use the term liberal, and I don't generally make a big deal about it. But neither do I see people "pretending" to be progressives. When somebody refers to themselves as a progressive I simply see that as being honest. Now you're not wrong in saying that people equate the modern liberal with progressivism, or confuse what you're calling modern liberalism with the progressive ideology. But I reject the notion that liberalism and progressivism are the same ideology just because of a mass fallacy.

 

[Liability]

If the terms are being properly defined then you have to go with their actual definitions, not their hijacked definitions.

Classical liberalism isn't conservatism, it's closer to libertarianism. Classical liberalism is not the same as either brand of conservatism, paleo or neo.

Classical liberalism might be closer to libertarianism than conservatism. Maybe.

Either way, classical liberalism is nowhere near akin to modern American liberalism even though the same word is used in both.

So, words have evolving meanings. Not exactly a new insight.

Clear communication requires that the parties have a semblence of agreement, then, in WHICH definition is being used. Otherwise what happens is that YOU mean one thing in the use of some term, but I understand the other meaning and what results is that we speak PAST each other. Whatever else it is, it isn't actual communication.

I will forever reject that modern American liberalism is any different than what we laughingly today call "progressivism."

Many liberals of today pretend that they are "progressives." Pretty label.... But that doesn't change who they are and what they actually hold dear.

Well I'm aware of what people mean when they use the term liberal, and I don't generally make a big deal about it. But neither do I see people "pretending" to be progressives. * * * *

I cannot be responsible for what YOU can or cannot see.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Classical liberalism might be closer to libertarianism than conservatism. Maybe.

Either way, classical liberalism is nowhere near akin to modern American liberalism even though the same word is used in both.

So, words have evolving meanings. Not exactly a new insight.

Clear communication requires that the parties have a semblence of agreement, then, in WHICH definition is being used. Otherwise what happens is that YOU mean one thing in the use of some term, but I understand the other meaning and what results is that we speak PAST each other. Whatever else it is, it isn't actual communication.

I will forever reject that modern American liberalism is any different than what we laughingly today call "progressivism."

Many liberals of today pretend that they are "progressives." Pretty label.... But that doesn't change who they are and what they actually hold dear.

Well I'm aware of what people mean when they use the term liberal, and I don't generally make a big deal about it. But neither do I see people "pretending" to be progressives. * * * *

I cannot be responsible for what YOU can or cannot see.

So you're just going to latch onto one part of my post and ignore and delete the rest of it to add one more insult? Classy.

 

[Liability]

Well I'm aware of what people mean when they use the term liberal, and I don't generally make a big deal about it. But neither do I see people "pretending" to be progressives. * * * *

I cannot be responsible for what YOU can or cannot see.

So you're just going to latch onto one part of my post and ignore and delete the rest of it to add one more insult? Classy.

I am certainly not going to "debate" what you claim to "see" or not see, if that's your question.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I cannot be responsible for what YOU can or cannot see.

So you're just going to latch onto one part of my post and ignore and delete the rest of it to add one more insult? Classy.

I am certainly not going to "debate" what you claim to "see" or not see, if that's your question.

My question was pretty clear, but it was rhetorical regardless. A statement in the form of a question.

 

[Liability]

So you're just going to latch onto one part of my post and ignore and delete the rest of it to add one more insult? Classy.

I am certainly not going to "debate" what you claim to "see" or not see, if that's your question.

My question was pretty clear, but it was rhetorical regardless. A statement in the form of a question.

Come now. You told me what you don't "see," and you re-stated your contention that you "reject the notion that liberalism and progressivism are the same ideology just because of a mass fallacy."

Fine. I understand that you reject that they are the same ideology (whatever you see as the reason for that alleged "fallacy"). Thanks for sharing, but it is not a fallacy.

They are the same fundamental ideology. Now, we have the benefit of me restating my position, too.

You: "No, they aren't."

Me: "Yes, they are."

 

[The T]

Today's Democrats are not true Liberals. They are now Socialists. There is a big difference between the two. In fact true Liberals probably have more in common with true Conservatives than they do Socialists. People just need to understand that Liberalism and Socialism really aren't the same thing. No true Liberal would ever bow to lick a National Socialist's boots like most Democrats do with Hugo Chavez. The man is currently shutting down all Media in Venezuela who criticize him. Sound familiar?? No true Liberal would ever praise such brutal suppression of Free Speech. More people will understand the difference someday. These things take some time for most to figure out.

Is it your contention that the Democrat Party of Today is not what it once was say during the Time of JFK? (I use JFK as a point of reference in my time sphere...meaning I was born in 1960)...

But more from a Historical point of view that Democrats have been taken over BY Socialist, or even those with 'Marxist' leanings?

By the way? I do think this is the case. Thought(s)?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes JFK would be labelled an "Evil Fascist" by the Socialist Democrats who now control that party. Liberalism and Socialism really aren't the same thing. I think more & more people are beginning to figure this out. No true Liberal would bow to lick a National Socialist's boots the way today's Democrats do with Hugo Chavez. True Liberals have always stood for Freedom of Speech and could never praise a Socialist monster like Chavez. Times really have changed in the Democratic Party and these are not changes for the better.

 

[The T]

Yes JFK would be labelled an "Evil Fascist" by the Socialist Democrats who now control that party. Liberalism and Socialism really aren't the same thing. I think more & more people are beginning to figure this out. No true Liberal would bow to lick a National Socialist's boots the way today's Democrats do with Hugo Chavez. True Liberals have always stood for Freedom of Speech and could never praise a Socialist monster like Chavez. Times really have changed in the Democratic Party and these are not changes for the better.

Agreed. The attacks against certain Media by Obama, and the so-called Leaders in the Democrat Party would attest to what you've stated. Lest we forget back in 2007 when the attacks on Limbaugh began in earnst when Harry Reid and many in the Senate tried to get Limbaugh fired?

And of course it has gotten uglier since Obama took office with Obama (A US Presidaent) actively taking part. It really IS unprecidented.

 

[The T]

Scozzafava showed her true colors. As to the rest of it? I think the GOP has been given a calling card BY the people of that district, especially the 11 'Local GOP'ers" that fronted her...AND Newt Gingrich seems to be backtracking a bit since HE was backing her.

Newt? Back to the drawing board. You still haven't gotten this thing down yet have you?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea how could they run this woman as their candidate in the first place? This debacle represents everything that is currently wrong with the Republican Party. If they lose this seat they really have no one to blame but themselves. That old school "Any Republican is better than the Democrat" just isn't cutting it anymore with a more sophisticated electorate. Was this woman really better than a Democrat? Sorry but i just didn't see that. I just don't understand why Newt Gingrich didn't see that. The old school party stuff is now over. Hopefully the GOP Leadership will get this message. No more frauds like Arlen Specter,Lindsey Graham,and Scozzafava.

 

[Intense]

Yea how could they run this woman as their candidate in the first place? This debacle represents everything that is currently wrong with the Republican Party. If they lose this seat they really have no one to blame but themselves. That old school "Any Republican is better than the Democrat" just isn't cutting it anymore with a more sophisticated electorate. Was this woman really better than a Democrat? Sorry but i just didn't see that. I just don't understand why Newt Gingrich didn't see that. The old school party stuff is now over. Hopefully the GOP Leadership will get this message. No more frauds like Arlen Specter,Lindsey Graham,and Scozzafava.

NY The Elitist V.I.P. State. Land of Privilege and Exemption. Both Mayoral Candidates are Running on Expanding Immigration Policies. Keep all the blue collar wages down. Screw the rest of us many times over.