Only Liberals Are Pro-Liberty

[daveman]

Or in other words, conservatives. Exactly.

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

It's his Doublespeak.

He has wet dreams about the USA becoming an Orwellian society.

I wonder why he thinks he'll be Big Brother and not Winston Smith.

 

[daveman]

Or in other words, conservatives. Exactly.

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

What Statist can resist redefining terms, moving the goal posts, and revising history?

None of them, considering they can't possibly make their case without such dishonesty.

 

[daveman]

The Right is wholeheartedly for 'liberty' as long as the Right gets to define what is or isn't 'liberty'.

Sheer projection.

Will you allow a woman the liberty of choosing to have an abortion?

Will you allow someone the liberty of choosing not to buy health insurance?

 

[daveman]

Really? Who's supporting single-payer healthcare again? What is that, if not the nationalization of the health care industry?

The nationalization of health insurance, actually, not the health-care industry.

Everyone except anarchists supports socialism in some parts of the economy. If nothing else, everyone supports a socialized military and law enforcement. A genuine socialist supports all or most of the means of production being publicly owned. Those who don't, aren't socialists.

Pretending those links don't prove you wrong does not make it so.

I'm not pretending anything. They don't. They don't prove anything. And you claiming a blatant falsehood does not turn it into a truth.

It's the left that's proving you wrong, not me.

 

[daveman]

No, it simply follows logically from the correct definition of "socialism" as an economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned. Most liberals do not advocate such a system, therefore most liberals are not socialists.

Really? Who's supporting single-payer healthcare again? What is that, if not the nationalization of the health care industry?

Single payer healthcare is not the same as nationalization of the healthcare industry. It's simply the government providing a public insurance option which might or might not co-exist with primary and/or supplemental private insurance options.

The industry remains private; Doctors work for their respective private employers and individuals covered by single-payer have their bills paid by the plan.

You can argue that it's a bad idea, fine, but it isn't "Socialized" anything.

Uh huh.

 

[The T]

Really? Who's supporting single-payer healthcare again? What is that, if not the nationalization of the health care industry?

The nationalization of health insurance, actually, not the health-care industry.

Everyone except anarchists supports socialism in some parts of the economy. If nothing else, everyone supports a socialized military and law enforcement. A genuine socialist supports all or most of the means of production being publicly owned. Those who don't, aren't socialists.

Pretending those links don't prove you wrong does not make it so.

I'm not pretending anything. They don't. They don't prove anything. And you claiming a blatant falsehood does not turn it into a truth.

It's the left that's proving you wrong, not me.

He's been defeating his own argument. We Conservatives have been helping him make his case for his own self-defeat.

 

[daveman]

The Right is wholeheartedly for 'liberty' as long as the Right gets to define what is or isn't 'liberty'.

Sheer projection.

What 'liberty' do you want that you think I, as a liberal, won't allow you?

The left doesn't want me to have the liberty to not buy health insurance.

The left doesn't want me to have the liberty to carry a concealed weapon. In some cases, to own a weapon at all.

The left does't want me to have the liberty to choose not to join a union.

 

[The T]

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

What Statist can resist redefining terms, moving the goal posts, and revising history?

None of them, considering they can't possibly make their case without such dishonesty.

And why they fail in the arena of thinking and ideas. Thier own rhetoric by history is glaring right squarely in their faces. That only gives them the river named denial as an escape route.

 

[daveman]

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

When a word has no agreed-upon definition, as "conservative," "liberal," and "libertarian" do not, there is no alternative.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

If I allowed, for example, YOU to dictate what these words mean? Indeed it would.

Those words do indeed have agreed-upon definitions. That you choose not to use them is immaterial.

Are you familiar with the concept of the dictionary?

 

[Dragon]

It's the left that's proving you wrong, not me.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

 

[daveman]

Sheer projection.

What 'liberty' do you want that you think I, as a liberal, won't allow you?

How about the liberty to buy health insurance from whomever I want? The liberty to invest my money for retirement? The liberty to choose the schools my children attend?

The list is endless.

Liberals have decided that you're not capable of making those decisions and the government should make them for you.

 

[Dragon]

Those words do indeed have agreed-upon definitions.

There is no definition agreed upon by all participants here for any of them.

Are you familiar with the concept of the dictionary?

A dictionary provides descriptions of the way words are commonly used. It is in no way authoritative, and is often wrong, particularly in a more technical context than the general-purpose description that non-technical dictionaries provide.

 

[The T]

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

When a word has no agreed-upon definition, as "conservative," "liberal," and "libertarian" do not, there is no alternative.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

If I allowed, for example, YOU to dictate what these words mean? Indeed it would.

Those words do indeed have agreed-upon definitions. That you choose not to use them is immaterial.

Are you familiar with the concept of the dictionary?

Even a Thesaurus...but even that after time will lead to the same destination.

 

[daveman]

The nationalization of health insurance, actually, not the health-care industry.

Everyone except anarchists supports socialism in some parts of the economy. If nothing else, everyone supports a socialized military and law enforcement. A genuine socialist supports all or most of the means of production being publicly owned. Those who don't, aren't socialists.



I'm not pretending anything. They don't. They don't prove anything. And you claiming a blatant falsehood does not turn it into a truth.

It's the left that's proving you wrong, not me.

He's been defeating his own argument. We Conservatives have been helping him make his case for his own self-defeat.

Like most leftists, he's too self-absorbed and stupid to know he's lost.

 

[Dragon]

What Statist can resist redefining terms, moving the goal posts, and revising history?

None of them, considering they can't possibly make their case without such dishonesty.

And why they fail in the arena of thinking and ideas. Thier own rhetoric by history is glaring right squarely in their faces. That only gives them the river named denial as an escape route.

I'm going to add a new line to my signature. You'll see it shortly.

 

[daveman]

It's the left that's proving you wrong, not me.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

...says the assclown parading his opinion as fact.

 

[The T]

None of them, considering they can't possibly make their case without such dishonesty.

And why they fail in the arena of thinking and ideas. Thier own rhetoric by history is glaring right squarely in their faces. That only gives them the river named denial as an escape route.

I'm going to add a new line to my signature. You'll see it shortly.

You do that...and make damn sure I get full damned credit for it an in Context...with a link. Don't fail me like the two before you alrady have.

 

[Dragon]

It's the left that's proving you wrong, not me.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

...says the assclown parading his opinion as fact.

Please see my new signature line.

 

[daveman]

Those words do indeed have agreed-upon definitions.

There is no definition agreed upon by all participants here for any of them.

Are you familiar with the concept of the dictionary?

A dictionary provides descriptions of the way words are commonly used. It is in no way authoritative, and is often wrong, particularly in a more technical context than the general-purpose description that non-technical dictionaries provide.

So you think your petulant foot-stamping trumps common usage.

Let me know how that works out for you, kid.

 

[The T]

It's the left that's proving you wrong, not me.

He's been defeating his own argument. We Conservatives have been helping him make his case for his own self-defeat.

Like most leftists, he's too self-absorbed and stupid to know he's lost.

Nice tying the ribbons on this failed attempt at a thread with you.

Until the next battle, sir?