What are Liberals trying to Liberalize?

[LoneLaugher]

You need to re-read the thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

You need to re-read the thread.

Is that your way of admitting you can't do it? I have read the thread and you haven't done it yet.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have. It was really easy too. Need the link?

 

[LoneLaugher]

What you haven't done is blow holes into CC's post. You said you did.......but I missed it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What you haven't done is blow holes into CC's post. You said you did.......but I missed it.

Yes, please provide the link.

And I didn't say I blew holes in CC's post. I said it would be easy for anybody who knows how to debate to do. You don't read well do you? That seems to be an occupational haxzard with a lot of liberals on this forum.

 

[LoneLaugher]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5033961-post100.html

*sigh*

You are one of those people, ain't ya?

You said this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5048153-post140.html

What did you feel like doing, that you did? What were you referring to with those words?

 

[Foxfyre]

OK. How many examples do you want?

Obvious ways in which the modern liberal seeks to promote liberty:

Legalization of recreational drugs.
Freedom of choice regarding a woman's reproductive organs.
Making it EASIER to vote rather than more difficult.
Oppose the FCC's attack on freedom of speech and expression.
Oppose the Patriot Act

Does this answer your obvious question to your satisfaction?

Okay, I concede that you did make a list. But a list is open to a wide variety of interpretations.

Does legalization of recreational drugs in include kids? No regulation of any kind? A free for all? I know a LOT of conservatives who think the laws on recreational drugs are too restrictive. So is that a liberal or conservative concept? Conservatives believe the government should not impose UNNECESSARY regulation on anything. So are you supporting a conservative concept here? How is what you proposing liberal?

I am unaware of any place that a woman does not have freedom of choice regarding her reproductive organs or anybody who doesn't respect that freedom of choice. I, a conservative woman, certainly think I have complete freedom of choice concerning mine except that I can't SELL them to somebody else any more than I am allowed to legally SELL any other organs. Are you proposing that people be able to sell their organs? Or did you have something else in mind? (And no, I won't be dragged into yet another discussion on abortion as no conservative cares whether a woman ties her tubes or uses any other method to avoid pregnancy. They just don't want to be on the hook to have to pay for that and, if they are pro-life--not all conservatives are--they see a separate human life as the issue, not the woman's reproductive organs.)

Does your making it easier to vote include relaxing or removing all the checks and balances that ensure an honest vote? How much in the way of checks and balances to ensure an honest vote is acceptable to you?

What do you want the FCC to relax restrictions on?

Do you want the Patriot Act rescinded in its entirety? Or just some parts of it? How much are you willing to put your family and other Americans at great risk just to not have a Patriot Act?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Im with you on everything but the illegal immigrant portion.

Understandable.

As a non-conservative, however, you’d have the good sense to recuse yourself from the immigration argument, unlike a conservative who would argue an antidotal, subjective and irrelevant point.

Conservatives are ignorant of the fact – or ignore the fact – that illegal immigrants are entitled to due process per the 14th Amendment. As all persons are entitled to due process, they are entitled to a presumption of innocence as well until proven guilty in a court of law, that includes the alleged ‘crime’ of entering the country undocumented, or remaining in the country undocumented. To subject those assumed to be in the country illegally to some punitive measure absent evidence of the crime or lacking an adjudication of guilt, is illegal and un-Constitutional.

To not allow a student to attend college because it is ‘believed’ he is here illegally, therefore, would also be un-Constitutional, as no due process has taken place to determine guilt or innocence, and all persons are entitled to his 5th Amendment right to not be a witness against himself, as the burden of proof lies with the state and only in the context of an actual judicial proceeding.

 

[Liberty]

can you cite ANY of the bullshit you are saying, clayton?

 

[OtaniKitano]

First, know your enemy. But even before that, make certain that they are your enemy.

The Founders knew what Govenment could become. We are witnessing thier warnings now.

Yes, they had MRIs, trips to the moon by NASA, combustion engines requiring fossil fuels, air travel, the internet and nuclear weapons all figured into their plan. LOL. You guys are idiots.

Even Thomas Jefferson was a progressive: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Quit watching Mel Gibson movies. They keep you stuck on stupid.

 

[Foxfyre]

First, know your enemy. But even before that, make certain that they are your enemy.

The Founders knew what Govenment could become. We are witnessing thier warnings now.

Yes, they had MRIs, trips to the moon by NASA, combustion engines requiring fossil fuels, air travel, the internet and nuclear weapons all figured into their plan. LOL. You guys are idiots.

Even Thomas Jefferson was a progressive: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Quit watching Mel Gibson movies. They keep you stuck on stupid.

And quit reading into Jefferson's words meaning that he did not say or intend. Jefferson was a classical liberal yes, but was 180 opposite what is described as modern American liberalism or progressivism.

Our institutions indeed have to conform to new technologies, etc. as we as a society also adapt to new discoveries, knowledge, technologies, ways of doing work, etc.

But the basic solid, eternal principles that guide us--love of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--remain the same and work no matter what,.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The Founders knew what Govenment could become. We are witnessing thier warnings now.

Yes, they had MRIs, trips to the moon by NASA, combustion engines requiring fossil fuels, air travel, the internet and nuclear weapons all figured into their plan. LOL. You guys are idiots.

Even Thomas Jefferson was a progressive: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Quit watching Mel Gibson movies. They keep you stuck on stupid.

And quit reading into Jefferson's words meaning that he did not say or intend. Jefferson was a classical liberal yes, but was 180 opposite what is described as modern American liberalism or progressivism.

Our institutions indeed have to conform to new technologies, etc. as we as a society also adapt to new discoveries, knowledge, technologies, ways of doing work, etc.

But the basic solid, eternal principles that guide us--love of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--remain the same and work no matter what,.

Can you help me? I'm looking for a word that describes what you have just done. But.,,,it is escaping me? What is it called when a person reaches deep into their bowels and draws a platitude.....complete with tightly drawn heart-strings.........and lays it out with impunity.................steadfast and awaiting applause?

Principles are the end............not the means. This difference escapes many.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, they had MRIs, trips to the moon by NASA, combustion engines requiring fossil fuels, air travel, the internet and nuclear weapons all figured into their plan. LOL. You guys are idiots.

Even Thomas Jefferson was a progressive: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Quit watching Mel Gibson movies. They keep you stuck on stupid.

And quit reading into Jefferson's words meaning that he did not say or intend. Jefferson was a classical liberal yes, but was 180 opposite what is described as modern American liberalism or progressivism.

Our institutions indeed have to conform to new technologies, etc. as we as a society also adapt to new discoveries, knowledge, technologies, ways of doing work, etc.

But the basic solid, eternal principles that guide us--love of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--remain the same and work no matter what,.

Can you help me? I'm looking for a word that describes what you have just done. But.,,,it is escaping me? What is it called when a person reaches deep into their bowels and draws a platitude.....complete with tightly drawn heart-strings.........and lays it out with impunity.................steadfast and awaiting applause?

Principles are the end............not the means. This difference escapes many.

Maybe in your world, but not in mine. If you ever get over your loathing for books, you might want to look up the difference between 'guide' and 'means'.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Foxy.....please.

 

[Erand7899]

Yes, they had MRIs, trips to the moon by NASA, combustion engines requiring fossil fuels, air travel, the internet and nuclear weapons all figured into their plan. LOL. You guys are idiots.

Even Thomas Jefferson was a progressive: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Quit watching Mel Gibson movies. They keep you stuck on stupid.

And quit reading into Jefferson's words meaning that he did not say or intend. Jefferson was a classical liberal yes, but was 180 opposite what is described as modern American liberalism or progressivism.

Our institutions indeed have to conform to new technologies, etc. as we as a society also adapt to new discoveries, knowledge, technologies, ways of doing work, etc.

But the basic solid, eternal principles that guide us--love of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--remain the same and work no matter what,.

Can you help me? I'm looking for a word that describes what you have just done. But.,,,it is escaping me? What is it called when a person reaches deep into their bowels and draws a platitude.....complete with tightly drawn heart-strings.........and lays it out with impunity.................steadfast and awaiting applause?

Principles are the end............not the means. This difference escapes many.

I have a word that discribes what you have written. It is bullshit! Principles are not an end, and they are not a means, they are a guide. The principles that existed when this nation was founded, have not changed, and have not become outdated. The notions of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, still exist in the hearts of most Americans.

The primary principle for the foundation of our federal government is still valid, even with the profound desire by dumbass jurists and left wing socialists to kill it off. We are a union of soverign states, and not a nation with 50 political subdivisions, as many of you seem to envision.

Our founders knew that the safety of freedom reguired political power to be dispersed to the maximum extent possible. They provided for most of it to reside in the states and with the people of those states, and they divided up the rest between three branches of the federal government. That maxim had not become outdated, it is just being ignored.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxy.....please.

Well you used the terms in a way that I didn't.

And you were the one who objected to an--excellent if I do say so myself--reading list that informed and helped shape my point of view on a subject when you demanded that I back it up.

 

[Erand7899]

As we can see from the evidence provided by conservatives in this thread (as well as many other sources), the fundamental conflict between rightists and liberals is the latter’s rejection of dogma and adherence to pragmatism.

Indeed, the basic authoritarianism of conservatives and their innate need to adhere blindly to rightist dogma make it impossible for them to understand the liberal mind open to ideas regardless their political origin.

For example, in addition to being a violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, liberals oppose laws banning abortion because such measures simply won’t work – regardless one’s perception of the morality of the issue. If one seriously wishes to end abortion, the most useless ‘solution’ would be to outlaw it.

Liberals oppose most things authoritarian conservatives advocate because they either won’t work (such as voter ID laws), there’s no objective factual evidence in support of what conservatives advocate (applicants for public assistance are ‘drug abusers’), and is often in violation of the Constitution (denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage laws).

The rightist position on immigration is yet another example of how authoritarian conservatives get it wrong, particularly with regard to undocumented aliens who came to the US legally but lost their legal status subsequently through no fault of their own. Pragmatic liberals know there is no way legally or morally to force such persons back to their ‘birth countries,’ and the pragmatic and productive thing to do is allow them to attend college and/or serve in the military to become productive members of a society that is already their home.

What is the authoritarian conservative’s ‘solution’ for these undocumented aliens? Keep them out of school, ignorant and unemployable, drive them underground where they’ll likely become a burden on society and eventual criminals.

Good plan, conservatives.

And last but certainly not least, is the fallacy that is conservative fiscal dogma: their pathetic and inane dream to recreate an 18th Century economic structure in a 21 Century First World Industrialized Super Power.

It would be laughable if not for the fact that they are serious with regard to this naïve, unrealistic, and reactionary goal.

The sheer idiocy of conservatism, and its authoritarianism anathema to basic American principles, will prove its ultimate undoing – the trick is to limit the damage until that happy day arrives.

Your thought processes are seriously flawed. Since you obviously do not even understand your own political philosophy, how do you imagine that you can understand the political philosophy of conservatives?

The first thing you need to come to grips with, is that the left wing is liberal in name only. It has nothing in common with classical liberalism, and nothing in common with the principles that this nation was founded on. I have yet to meet one of you self identified liberals that has an open mind on any subject.

The second thing you need to understand, is that disagreeing with liberals on specific subjects does not make conservatives authoritarians. It just means that we think you are not the brightest bulbs in the string.

Murders and armed robberies occur every day, so does your "philosophy" mean we should just legalize them to save the hassle of enforcing obviously flawed laws? Abortion is morally the same as infanticide. The only difference is that the unborn do not have constitutional rights, and no means of protecting themselves. The fact that you consider conservatives authoritarian for wanting to protect the unborn, says more about you than it does about conservatives.

I know that you cannot possibly understand, but economics is not a fad that requires updating every few years. It is the art of understanding the wealth of nations, and the factors that effect the wealth of nations, groups and individuals. Those factors have never changed, they have just been misunderstood, misstated, and misused by people in their search for political power.

Another misconception that seems to inflict your thinking, is confusing the Republican party with conservatives. Not all Republicans are conservative, and not all conservatives are members of the Republican party. You may have noticed that over the last few years, conservatives have been attempting to wrest control of the Republican party from the liberals who have turned it into a Democrat light party.

 

[Erand7899]

Im with you on everything but the illegal immigrant portion.

Understandable.

As a non-conservative, however, you’d have the good sense to recuse yourself from the immigration argument, unlike a conservative who would argue an antidotal, subjective and irrelevant point.

Conservatives are ignorant of the fact – or ignore the fact – that illegal immigrants are entitled to due process per the 14th Amendment. As all persons are entitled to due process, they are entitled to a presumption of innocence as well until proven guilty in a court of law, that includes the alleged ‘crime’ of entering the country undocumented, or remaining in the country undocumented. To subject those assumed to be in the country illegally to some punitive measure absent evidence of the crime or lacking an adjudication of guilt, is illegal and un-Constitutional.

To not allow a student to attend college because it is ‘believed’ he is here illegally, therefore, would also be un-Constitutional, as no due process has taken place to determine guilt or innocence, and all persons are entitled to his 5th Amendment right to not be a witness against himself, as the burden of proof lies with the state and only in the context of an actual judicial proceeding.

Conservatives are neither ignorant of, nor ignore that all persons within the United States of America are entitled to due process of law. Nor, do I know of any proposal by anyone credible, of any political leaning, who advocates that illegals should not be afforded the due process of law.

I am also sure that any person denied a right to enroll in college has ample opportunity in the courts to seek remedy for a wrongful denial of that right. Some states do require evidence of residency within that state for those who seek reduced tuition for state residents.

BTW, conservatives are widely divided on illegal immigration and the remedies for it. In fact, conservatives are widely divided on a number of political issues, and that pretty well belies your concept of conservative dogma.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well, well, well.......ANOTHER "conservative" with an education. Wonderful! Lots of words......elegantly strung together......but no facts. You suggest that open mindedness is a trait that one should strive for....yet you speak in absolutes just like your more extreme and less eloquent relatives:

"The first thing you need to come to grips with, is that the left wing is liberal in name only. It has nothing in common with classical liberalism, and nothing in common with the principles that this nation was founded on. I have yet to meet one of you self identified liberals that has an open mind on any subject. "

Before we go on, would you like to amend anything in that statement? Anything at all?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, well, well.......ANOTHER "conservative" with an education. Wonderful! Lots of words......elegantly strung together......but no facts. You suggest that open mindedness is a trait that one should strive for....yet you speak in absolutes just like your more extreme and less eloquent relatives:

"The first thing you need to come to grips with, is that the left wing is liberal in name only. It has nothing in common with classical liberalism, and nothing in common with the principles that this nation was founded on. I have yet to meet one of you self identified liberals that has an open mind on any subject. "

Before we go on, would you like to amend anything in that statement? Anything at all?

But I'm guessing he can back every word up with something while you, on the other hand, refuse to do so. I know I can back up everything he has said in that post and have done so. Which you of course ignored. I am still waiting for you to answer the questions in my post #147 that you also ignored here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rals-trying-to-liberalize-10.html#post5048443