Slut Or Not??

[Dragon]

And I think anybody who accuses Political Chic of lying might either a liar or honestly stupid - or so brainwashed that he or she is incapable of appreciating that she didn't lump anybody committed to democracy and such niceties of law as the Bill of Rights in with anybody.

I'm sorry, but she does. She routinely treats American progressives as if there were no meaningful distinction between them and Marxist-Leninists. That is, of course, complete and utter bullshit.

But then, frankly I have doubts about your own honesty and integrity, too.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, Political Chic definitely does lie. Unless one is prepared to believe that she herself is so brain-dead DUMB as to sincerely, honestly believe that American liberals, who are committed to democracy and such niceties of law as the Bill of Rights, should be lumped together with Stalin and Mao merely because they share misgivings about the advisability of unlimited inequality and plutocracy.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she really is that honestly stupid. But I think she's lying.

I think she's neither lying nor stupid. I think she's brainwashed by too much right wing media pundancy.

To my thought, the distinction between that and being stupid is not anything to write home about.

 

[Moonglow]

I didn't know that Marxizts docroctrine was to provide something they wanted in a health care plan they pay for.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, Political Chic definitely does lie. Unless one is prepared to believe that she herself is so brain-dead DUMB as to sincerely, honestly believe that American liberals, who are committed to democracy and such niceties of law as the Bill of Rights, should be lumped together with Stalin and Mao merely because they share misgivings about the advisability of unlimited inequality and plutocracy.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she really is that honestly stupid. But I think she's lying.

Consistent with the lack of civility of the left....here is this dolt, the Lizard, so fearful of me that he includes 'lie,' 'brain-dead DUMB,' 'honestly stupid.'....
...and, of course, none of which is true.

Know what, Liz....you should be afraid.

Your short, and short-sighted post is chock full of prevarication and question-begging.

For your edification:


1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses. Everyone must pay for your birth control...

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century. Variety includes differences in religions beliefs.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution! Class warfare, and confiscatory taxation.

6) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”
And, 'lie,' 'brain-dead DUMB,' 'honestly stupid.'

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, your ideology has. It's the same as saying "Christians are responsible for X millions of death." I haven't personally killed anyone, but yet I am often to blame for believing in a faith who's history has.

So, am I guilty for the deaths of all those people? Am I supporting it all or have the desire to continue such bloodshed? I'm accused of that all the time. I'm just playing by the rules others apply 'legitimately', and your defense of those same people who apply those rules.

I don't play these kind of games. I'd rather talk to a real person about an issue and examine it from our differing views.

This is just another flame thread.

How's the old saying go? Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You can't cook at room temperature, and that's what's cooking here: philosophy, opinions, ideologies, viewpoints, facts and bullshit.

Taste test at your own risk.

I am sick of flame threads. They are boring.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, Political Chic definitely does lie. Unless one is prepared to believe that she herself is so brain-dead DUMB as to sincerely, honestly believe that American liberals, who are committed to democracy and such niceties of law as the Bill of Rights, should be lumped together with Stalin and Mao merely because they share misgivings about the advisability of unlimited inequality and plutocracy.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she really is that honestly stupid. But I think she's lying.

Consistent with the lack of civility of the left.

And thus begins a post full of deflection that completely fails to answer the point being raised, and is full of personal invective without a shred of logical argument or evidence.

Liberals are not Communists. That's the point. Address that, if you please. Nothing else is relevant.

EDIT: Oh, and btw I'm certainly not "afraid" of you, and you should be glad of that. Seriously.

 

[Moonglow]

Actually, Political Chic definitely does lie. Unless one is prepared to believe that she herself is so brain-dead DUMB as to sincerely, honestly believe that American liberals, who are committed to democracy and such niceties of law as the Bill of Rights, should be lumped together with Stalin and Mao merely because they share misgivings about the advisability of unlimited inequality and plutocracy.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she really is that honestly stupid. But I think she's lying.

Consistent with the lack of civility of the left....here is this dolt, the Lizard, so fearful of me that he includes 'lie,' 'brain-dead DUMB,' 'honestly stupid.'....
...and, of course, none of which is true.

Know what, Liz....you should be afraid.

Your short, and short-sighted post is chock full of prevarication and question-begging.

For your edification:


1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses. Everyone must pay for your birth control...

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century. Variety includes differences in religions beliefs.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution! Class warfare, and confiscatory taxation.

6) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”
And, 'lie,' 'brain-dead DUMB,' 'honestly stupid.'

seems to me you do more than your fair share of showing mostly all these qualities you claim only liberals behold.

 

[High_Gravity]

It's premature. If we legalized prostitution sluts would be unlicensed whores.

Prostitution should be legalized.

Of course! Sandra Fluke needs a real job.

While I personally can't see anything wrong with legalizing prostitution, I can't see any major benefit either. If prostitution were not only legal, but considered like any other normal legal business, I would not want to see men and women looking for work be penalized for turning down work in a whorehouse either. Can't you see some whore trade school popping up and advertising on television!

Will whores be allowed to discriminate? Suppose a whore doesn't want to engage in acts with the same sex. Are they punished? Will their license be revoked? What's to be done with street wakers who don't want to keep books and pay taxes? Now they are picked up for solicitation, kept until morning and let go. After licensing they could be prosecuted for tax evasion. What about the casual hooker? The woman who just wants to pay the rent, she ran short, turning a few tricks once in a while bridges the gap. Does SHE need a license for part time whoring? Will a licensed whore who teaches kindergarten during the day keep her job? How about minors? Will a 15 year old boy with Daddy's credit card get to go to a legal brothel or is he still limited to the next door neighbor.

This is one of those things that looks good on paper but doesn't work as well in real life. The best that can be said is that there will be legal brothels AND all the problems with illegal prostitiution that we have now.

Well I could think of a few benefits of legalizing the business, for starters we will take the business away from the pimps and gangsters on the street, and be able to get these girls cleaned up, alot of the street walkers are beaten regularly and get hooked on drugs by their pimp, as a way to keep power over her. Keep in mind Germany had legalized prostitution and they make billions off of it, look at how big our country is, thats alot of revenue, besides if you think prostitution is disgusting and perverted, just don't frequent the establishments, plaine and simple, besides making something illegal doesn't take it away anyways.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Name calling is counterproductive. Let's take ONE issue--any issue and debate it without meaningless labels.

Here, I will start. I don't care if this woman wants to advocate for her insurance company to pay for her contraceptive services.

She doesn't deserve to be called a slut, or to be a pawn between President Obama and Rush Limbaugh.

Personally, I have NO NEED of contraceptive services. I do NOT have a pony in this race.

I know my politics lean decidely left. So what?

I'm all for legalizing prostitution and I think each prostitute has every right to refuse service.

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't play these kind of games. I'd rather talk to a real person about an issue and examine it from our differing views.

This is just another flame thread.

How's the old saying go? Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You can't cook at room temperature, and that's what's cooking here: philosophy, opinions, ideologies, viewpoints, facts and bullshit.

Taste test at your own risk.

I am sick of flame threads. They are boring.

Don't let the door hitcha, where the Lord splitcha. Nobody's forcing you to stay in this thread. I'm sure you can find websites and people to agree with you elsewhere. This ain't one of those places.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How's the old saying go? Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You can't cook at room temperature, and that's what's cooking here: philosophy, opinions, ideologies, viewpoints, facts and bullshit.

Taste test at your own risk.

I am sick of flame threads. They are boring.

Don't let the door hitcha, where the Lord splitcha. Nobody's forcing you to stay in this thread. I'm sure you can find websites and people to agree with you elsewhere. This ain't one of those places.

No problem. I will just skip your posts.

 

[Big Fitz]

I am sick of flame threads. They are boring.

Don't let the door hitcha, where the Lord splitcha. Nobody's forcing you to stay in this thread. I'm sure you can find websites and people to agree with you elsewhere. This ain't one of those places.

No problem. I will just skip your posts.

By Jove! You're right! You CAN do that. Running away from the basic issue that you're not able to defend your position credibly is one solution.

Of course, no truth can be found there. That we already know.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, Political Chic definitely does lie. Unless one is prepared to believe that she herself is so brain-dead DUMB as to sincerely, honestly believe that American liberals, who are committed to democracy and such niceties of law as the Bill of Rights, should be lumped together with Stalin and Mao merely because they share misgivings about the advisability of unlimited inequality and plutocracy.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she really is that honestly stupid. But I think she's lying.

Consistent with the lack of civility of the left.

And thus begins a post full of deflection that completely fails to answer the point being raised, and is full of personal invective without a shred of logical argument or evidence.

Liberals are not Communists. That's the point. Address that, if you please. Nothing else is relevant.

You're 'fear' is revealed by failure to address the rest of my post...but watch how easily I shove your words down your throat.

1. Walter Lippmann (23 September 1889 – 14 December 1974) was an American public intellectual, writer, reporter, and political commentator....In 1913, Lippmann, Herbert Croly, and Walter Weyl became the founding editors of The New Republic magazine. During World War I, Lippmann became an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson and assisted in the drafting of Wilson's Fourteen Points speech.
Walter Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. "The meeting was named after Walter Lippmann, an American journalist whose new book La Cité libre was studied in detail at the meeting." 26 intellectuals took part in this meeting, including some of the most prominent liberal thinkers : Walter Lippmann,..."
Colloque Walter Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. Seventy-two years ago, in 1937, at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant progressive, noted that:
“Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. . . . [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men’s lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states. . . .

Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men.

https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp

Again??

men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals,

So....'lie'? 'brain-dead DUMB'? 'honestly stupid'?

Ain't it great when slanders like these go right back and bite you in the butt?


That sound?
That's me laughing at you.....

 

[High_Gravity]

Name calling is counterproductive. Let's take ONE issue--any issue and debate it without meaningless labels.

Here, I will start. I don't care if this woman wants to advocate for her insurance company to pay for her contraceptive services.

She doesn't deserve to be called a slut, or to be a pawn between President Obama and Rush Limbaugh.

Personally, I have NO NEED of contraceptive services. I do NOT have a pony in this race.

I know my politics lean decidely left. So what?

I'm all for legalizing prostitution and I think each prostitute has every right to refuse service.

Exactly, strippers get to refuse to offer a lap dance or do a private party for someone, porn stars can refuse to do certain movies if they want, no reason prostitutes can't say no to a customer if they want to.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't know that Marxizts docroctrine was to provide something they wanted in a health care plan they pay for.

That isn't Marxist doctrine. Marxist doctrine is that everybody should provide everything for everybody else so that everybody gets what they want/need. In order to accomplish such a Utopian society, however, it is necessary that the government have sufficient power to take whatever it wants from you or do whatever it wants to anybody. Essentially, private property and all self determination is abolished.

It is a totalitarian socialist concept that the government can force an insurance company to add coverage at its own expense or to require everybody to pay more for that coverage or to require anybody to provide anything at their own expense for somebody else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, Political Chic definitely does lie. Unless one is prepared to believe that she herself is so brain-dead DUMB as to sincerely, honestly believe that American liberals, who are committed to democracy and such niceties of law as the Bill of Rights, should be lumped together with Stalin and Mao merely because they share misgivings about the advisability of unlimited inequality and plutocracy.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she really is that honestly stupid. But I think she's lying.

Consistent with the lack of civility of the left.

And thus begins a post full of deflection that completely fails to answer the point being raised, and is full of personal invective without a shred of logical argument or evidence.

Liberals are not Communists. That's the point. Address that, if you please. Nothing else is relevant.

EDIT: Oh, and btw I'm certainly not "afraid" of you, and you should be glad of that. Seriously.

"I'm certainly not "afraid" of you, and you should be glad of that. Seriously."

If true..that would be a sure sign of lack of cognizance.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Consistent with the lack of civility of the left.

And thus begins a post full of deflection that completely fails to answer the point being raised, and is full of personal invective without a shred of logical argument or evidence.

Liberals are not Communists. That's the point. Address that, if you please. Nothing else is relevant.

You're 'fear' is revealed by failure to address the rest of my post...but watch how easily I shove our words down your throat.

1. Walter Lippmann (23 September 1889 – 14 December 1974) was an American public intellectual, writer, reporter, and political commentator....In 1913, Lippmann, Herbert Croly, and Walter Weyl became the founding editors of The New Republic magazine. During World War I, Lippmann became an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson and assisted in the drafting of Wilson's Fourteen Points speech.
Walter Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. "The meeting was named after Walter Lippmann, an American journalist whose new book La Cité libre was studied in detail at the meeting." 26 intellectuals took part in this meeting, including some of the most prominent liberal thinkers : Walter Lippmann,..."
Colloque Walter Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. Seventy-two years ago, in 1937, at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant progressive, noted that:
“Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. . . . [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men’s lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states. . . .

Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men.

https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp

Again??

men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals,

So....'lie'? 'brain-dead DUMB'? 'honestly stupid'?

Ain't it great when slanders like these go right back and bite you in the butt?


That sound?
That's me laughing at you.....

Most of these guys are dead. Do you want to debate them or someone who is alive?

Why is it, that you think, "shoving words" that you have copied and pasted, "down someone's throat" is debate?

You didn't use to be so hostile. What happened?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Name calling is counterproductive. Let's take ONE issue--any issue and debate it without meaningless labels.

Here, I will start. I don't care if this woman wants to advocate for her insurance company to pay for her contraceptive services.

She doesn't deserve to be called a slut, or to be a pawn between President Obama and Rush Limbaugh.

Personally, I have NO NEED of contraceptive services. I do NOT have a pony in this race.

I know my politics lean decidely left. So what?

I'm all for legalizing prostitution and I think each prostitute has every right to refuse service.

Exactly, strippers get to refuse to offer a lap dance or do a private party for someone, porn stars can refuse to do certain movies if they want, no reason prostitutes can't say no to a customer if they want to.

Empower prostitutes.

 

[High_Gravity]

Name calling is counterproductive. Let's take ONE issue--any issue and debate it without meaningless labels.

Here, I will start. I don't care if this woman wants to advocate for her insurance company to pay for her contraceptive services.

She doesn't deserve to be called a slut, or to be a pawn between President Obama and Rush Limbaugh.

Personally, I have NO NEED of contraceptive services. I do NOT have a pony in this race.

I know my politics lean decidely left. So what?

I'm all for legalizing prostitution and I think each prostitute has every right to refuse service.

Exactly, strippers get to refuse to offer a lap dance or do a private party for someone, porn stars can refuse to do certain movies if they want, no reason prostitutes can't say no to a customer if they want to.

Empower prostitutes.

Why not?

 

[Si modo]

Sky, if you can't stay on topic and insist on making this about you or someone else personally, you really should go to the flame zone.

I guess you weren't bored with this and really don't hate this thread. And, I never really thought you meant it when you said you would leave. You never have meant it before.