What are libertarians?

[kaz]

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us. Most things, we are capable of doing ourselves.

You can? You can't support yourself, pay your own bills, give your own money to charity or take responsibility for your own actions. Seems right there we already know that most things you are not capable of doing yourself. What can you do yourself? Anything?

But garnering the forces of a large community to do what is best for the whole community makes us stronger.
Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

We aren't limited to their vision. In fact they provided that solution themselves. The process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Do you know what that means?

 

[Pogo]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age ******".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

What you're describing isn't "Liberalism". Sorry, a post on the internets and a blowhard on the radio saying so don't actually make it so.

 

[kaz]

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

What you're describing isn't "Liberalism". Sorry, a post on the internets and a blowhard on the radio saying so don't actually make it so.

No it's not, nice defense there. That was informative.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age ******".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

What you're describing isn't "Liberalism". Sorry, a post on the internets and a blowhard on the radio saying so don't actually make it so.

In a discussion, it would make sense for you to counter something the other party says that you disagree with with what you believe the truth to be. I'm not sure what "blowhard on the radio" you're referring to, but I felt that my explanation of liberalism was quite fair and even-handed. If you disagree then perhaps you could define liberalism yourself and contrast it with your view on libertarianism and we could move the discussion forward.

 

[Pogo]

Basically I think what you run here (in your threads in general) is a big wank echo chamber pot. You pretend to pose an open question, but any answers you don't like get shouted down. It's a dead end. You don't want dialogue, but monologue. What you want is a blog, not a discussion board.

I see, so when I ask questions, I wasn't supposed to disagree with the opinions I got. No one informed me of that. Basically you're too limp dicked to back up your Marxist drivel and resent being asked.

Bad news, I'm still not going to let you go without your ridiculous shit being challenged. It's tough being you. Having to use the mens room and yet pee sitting down, isn't it kiddie poo?

Once again -- QED. The more I point it out, the more you insist on confirming it.

See what I mean, Foxy?

Foxy?

Oh, I forgot, you're ignoring all this because I keep proving you wrong. Carry on then.

Can you establish here how you proved her wrong? I doubt you can. You think your word is law. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And just so you know, that is a kaz post, not a Foxfyre post.

Carry on.

Yeah I did that yesterday, and re-linked it today. It ain't going away. You remember -- the one you kept pretending not to see last night. And don't worry, I know exactly who I'm talking to -- directly and indirectly.

None of which involves you, TK. There, I just saved you a load of time. Carrion.

No Pogo, I asked you a question. You have not the backbone to answer it. You evade me with "it's already been done" no my friend, you are being lazy. When you out your opinion here it is fair game. Stop being so thin skinned that you react to dissent with dismissal. There was a time I thought you were a grownup here, you are consistently proving me wrong. Now answer the question, you coward. Stop dodging me.

Cram it up your ass pal, it's been done and redone. I don't need you to make my points for me, particularly points that have nothing to do with you. You want it, get off your ass and find it yourself.

By refusing to cite where this has been done, you are not helping your argument. Thumb your nose up all you want to. You failed to prove how this was done, or when. If it is easy for me to find, it is just as easy for you to reiterate. If it has been done, prove it.

And when you post here, you make your opinions open to anyone, and I will not have the likes of you telling me who I can and cannot respond to. Understand? If you don't want me replying to posts you make to other members of this forum, make use of the private messaging function; otherwise pull the scepter out of your ass, you are no king.

This just in: I don't need to show you jack shit, you ain't anywhere near the boss of me. As I said, you want it, you get off your lazy ass and go get it. It's not some arcanity. Are you suddenly ignorant of how to use the internets?

It's none of your concern anyway; try minding your own damn bidness. What a concept.

 

[kaz]

This just in: I don't need to show you jack shit, you ain't anywhere near the boss of me. As I said, you want it, you get off your lazy ass and go get it. It's not some arcanity. Are you suddenly ignorant of how to use the internets?

So now you get what bripat keeps telling you! Well done...

It's none of your concern anyway; try minding your own damn bidness. What a concept.

So you empty headed ****. You posted this in public. It's a ... wait for it ... message board! Empty pants, empty head, you're an idiot without a village. What a putz.

 

[Pogo]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age ******".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

What you're describing isn't "Liberalism". Sorry, a post on the internets and a blowhard on the radio saying so don't actually make it so.

In a discussion, it would make sense for you to counter something the other party says that you disagree with with what you believe the truth to be. I'm not sure what "blowhard on the radio" you're referring to, but I felt that my explanation of liberalism was quite fair and even-handed. If you disagree then perhaps you could define liberalism yourself and contrast it with your view on libertarianism and we could move the discussion forward.

Sure, that's what I've tried to do while getting shouted down (by others, not you).

Liberalism has nothing to do with "expanding the power of the State". That's probably best described as "statism" if I understand that term. Liberalism if anything works the opposite way, sees government as kind of a referee. A ref doesn't actually play in the game, he just makes sure the rules are followed. As for "creating a more egalitarian society", while egalitarianism may be a Liberal ideal, it doesn't see an active role in effecting that. Such an active role in that direction is more properly leftism. Liberal by contrast is a passive approach.

My go-to example is that to declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to employ government to make that happen via Affirmative Action is leftism. So that's what that means. And thanks for asking, it's so rare around here.

 

[bripat9643]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age ******".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

What you're describing isn't "Liberalism". Sorry, a post on the internets and a blowhard on the radio saying so don't actually make it so.

In a discussion, it would make sense for you to counter something the other party says that you disagree with with what you believe the truth to be. I'm not sure what "blowhard on the radio" you're referring to, but I felt that my explanation of liberalism was quite fair and even-handed. If you disagree then perhaps you could define liberalism yourself and contrast it with your view on libertarianism and we could move the discussion forward.

Sure, that's what I've tried to do while getting shouted down (by others, not you).

Liberalism has nothing to do with "expanding the power of the State". That's probably best described as "statism" if I understand that term. Liberalism if anything works the opposite way, sees government as kind of a referee. A ref doesn't actually play in the game, he just makes sure the rules are followed. As for "creating a more egalitarian society", while egalitarianism may be a Liberal ideal, it doesn't see an active role in effecting that. Such an active role in that direction is more properly leftism. Liberal by contrast is a passive approach.

My go-to example is that to declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to employ government to make that happen via Affirmative Action is leftism. So that's what that means. And thanks for asking, it's so rare around here.

Unfortunately for your explanation, many of those who call themselves "liberal" more properly fit the description of what you call "leftism." In fact, I can't think of anyone who calls himself a liberal who doesn't support affirmative action or expanding the power of the state. Programs like ACA sure as hell don't fit the description of government being a "referee." Furthermore, government makes all the rules, so it has a conflict of interest when it comes to serving as a "referee."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age ******".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

What you're describing isn't "Liberalism". Sorry, a post on the internets and a blowhard on the radio saying so don't actually make it so.

In a discussion, it would make sense for you to counter something the other party says that you disagree with with what you believe the truth to be. I'm not sure what "blowhard on the radio" you're referring to, but I felt that my explanation of liberalism was quite fair and even-handed. If you disagree then perhaps you could define liberalism yourself and contrast it with your view on libertarianism and we could move the discussion forward.

Sure, that's what I've tried to do while getting shouted down (by others, not you).

Liberalism has nothing to do with "expanding the power of the State". That's probably best described as "statism" if I understand that term. Liberalism if anything works the opposite way, sees government as kind of a referee. A ref doesn't actually play in the game, he just makes sure the rules are followed. As for "creating a more egalitarian society", while egalitarianism may be a Liberal ideal, it doesn't see an active role in effecting that. Such an active role in that direction is more properly leftism. Liberal by contrast is a passive approach.

My go-to example is that to declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to employ government to make that happen via Affirmative Action is leftism. So that's what that means. And thanks for asking, it's so rare around here.

On what basis do you differentiate between "leftist" and "liberal?" Most people understand these terms to be referring to the same thing, much like "right-wing" and "conservative."

 

[Pogo]

This just in: I don't need to show you jack shit, you ain't anywhere near the boss of me. As I said, you want it, you get off your lazy ass and go get it. It's not some arcanity. Are you suddenly ignorant of how to use the internets?

So now you get what bripat keeps telling you! Well done...

Here's what the densified don't get:
Fingerboy made a claim, about me (several really). That gives him what we call the "burden of proof", which he declined to do, which makes his claim go poof (if that sounds hauntingly familiar you did the same thing, but claimed to show your burden of proof, and didn't. That makes you, pun intended, a poofter). But I made no claim about TK, so I don't need to show him shit. I made a claim about you, which I documented profusely, and showed him, twice, when he asked.

Now he wants to keep pretending not to see it, over and over in some attempt to derail the thread while contributing nothing to the topic. **** that Pee Wee Herman game. The point was made and nobody needs to rehash all over again. But if you want me to post it again it's easily retrieved...

 

[Pogo]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age ******".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

What you're describing isn't "Liberalism". Sorry, a post on the internets and a blowhard on the radio saying so don't actually make it so.

In a discussion, it would make sense for you to counter something the other party says that you disagree with with what you believe the truth to be. I'm not sure what "blowhard on the radio" you're referring to, but I felt that my explanation of liberalism was quite fair and even-handed. If you disagree then perhaps you could define liberalism yourself and contrast it with your view on libertarianism and we could move the discussion forward.

Sure, that's what I've tried to do while getting shouted down (by others, not you).

Liberalism has nothing to do with "expanding the power of the State". That's probably best described as "statism" if I understand that term. Liberalism if anything works the opposite way, sees government as kind of a referee. A ref doesn't actually play in the game, he just makes sure the rules are followed. As for "creating a more egalitarian society", while egalitarianism may be a Liberal ideal, it doesn't see an active role in effecting that. Such an active role in that direction is more properly leftism. Liberal by contrast is a passive approach.

My go-to example is that to declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to employ government to make that happen via Affirmative Action is leftism. So that's what that means. And thanks for asking, it's so rare around here.

On what basis do you differentiate between "leftist" and "liberal?" Most people understand these terms to be referring to the same thing, much like "right-wing" and "conservative."

They're in no way the same thing, and I meant to finish the thought but got interrupted by business on the phone --

- my reference to "radio blowhards" meant a metaphorical catch-all for the dumb-down media that tries to conflate these terms as if they actually are synonyms. They're not. "Da liburruls" this, "da luburruls" that, are naught but demagoguic psychobabble designed to demonize not actual Liberals but those demagogues' opponents, i.e. Democrats, which is really what they mean by perverting the word Liberal.

That linguistic perversion attempt began IMO in the Red Scare daze when "socialism" and "communism" emerged (read: were demagoguically engineered) as terms of scurrilous depravity for reasons both real and imagined, when Republicans like Joe McCarthy, as dishonest a demagogue as ever kissed the Blarney Stone (and himself a former Democrat), began associating the word "Liberal" with those despised terms and pointing them at Democrats. That made no sense in word-definition terms, but it wasn't intended to -- it was simply an appeal-to-emotion cheap shot put in place for no higher motive than self-serving political power grabbing. It was nothing but a partisan political rhetoric snow job and at heart aimed at nothing but a political party.

That snow job was given another shot in the arm notably in 1988 by Lee Atwater in the Bush Presidential campaign against Dukakis, where he had the elder Bush snarling "liberal" at Dukakis as if a dirty word. The same appeal to dumbed-down emotion snowjobbery for the purpose of political gain; the unwashed are supposed to think, "well, I'm not sure what a 'liberal' is but the way he's using it, it must be baaad...". Shortly after that (1990 if memory serves) Lush Rimjob began his ongoing national broadcast tirades (and begat countless imitators) all using the same tactic as they worked tirelessly to dumb-down the political landscape of this country as if it were a simple dichotomy of "us" and "them". You can't have a dichotomy with more than two sides, so "left" and "liberal" and "Democrat", which are three different things, got merged into a single simple lump of rhetorical goo. "Right" and "conservative" and "Republican" followed in mirror image, even though they too are three different things. The fact is there are both liberals and conservatives on the left and there are both liberals and conservatives on the right, and they may be Republicans, Democrats or neither one.

The political spectrum clearly is not definable by a two-dimensional left-right linear graph. Playing that game only plays into the great snow job. I like to run the snow plow. Those who ignore their own history and all that.

​

Sorry, I get longwinded. But I usually get shouted down, so that's a step forward. Thanks KK.

 

[kaz]

Liberalism if anything works the opposite way, sees government as kind of a referee. A ref doesn't actually play in the game, he just makes sure the rules are followed.

You actually believe this? So, when people calling themselves "liberals" go around wanting government to redistribute wealth, control healthcare, financial services and energy, provide people's income and healthcare in retirement, mandate benefits and pay between employers and employees, remove our ability to defend ourselves and collect taxes while and all the other things almost everyone calling themselves a liberal advocates that are clearly government playing the game and not refereeing, why are you silent to them while fighting the people who are against them? If someone is fighting alongside the Nazis, but says they are against everything the Nazis stand for, is whether they are technically a Nazi or not relevant? I don't think so.

You are correct as to the definition. A classic liberal is today a small government libertarian who views government as a referee and nothing more. The people you are allied with have nothing in common with that, they are authoritarian leftists. They call themselves liberals because they like the word. So, you ally with people you say you oppose their principles because you like the word they call themselves? LOL. Sure, you are actually a classic liberal. LOL. Got it.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism if anything works the opposite way, sees government as kind of a referee. A ref doesn't actually play in the game, he just makes sure the rules are followed.

You actually believe this? So, when people calling themselves "liberals" go around wanting government to redistribute wealth, control healthcare, financial services and energy, provide people's income and healthcare in retirement, mandate benefits and pay between employers and employees, remove our ability to defend ourselves and collect taxes while and all the other things almost everyone calling themselves a liberal advocates that are clearly government playing the game and not refereeing, why are you silent to them while fighting the people who are against them? If someone is fighting alongside the Nazis, but says they are against everything the Nazis stand for, is whether they are technically a Nazi or not relevant? I don't think so.

You are correct as to the definition. A classic liberal is today a small government libertarian who views government as a referee and nothing more. The people you are allied with have nothing in common with that, they are authoritarian leftists. They call themselves liberals because they like the word. So, you ally with people you say you oppose their principles because you like the word they call themselves? LOL. Sure, you are actually a classic liberal. LOL. Got it.

There's no such thing as "classic" Liberal -- Liberal is Liberal is LIberal, period. It has no reason to suddenly jump up and start meaning things we already had terms for. The "classical" bullshit label was invented to cover the inconvenient fact that the Founders of this country, inspired by the Enlightenment, were by their actions putting Liberalism into play. Once that was pointed out in defense of Liberalism, it was "ruh roh, that's inconvenient", and the Orwellian Ministry of Truth scrambled, but the best thing anybody came up with was "classical". Which is rather lame, but if you're going to pervert a PoliSci term and pretend "tire" now means "ice cream cone", you'll have to differentiate with "classic tire" so you don't end up driving on Rocky Road.

(Hee hee, Rocky Road, I kill me)

"Authoritarian leftists" certainly exist, as do authoritarian rightists but by virtue of being authoritarian they cannot be Liberals. And here you illustrate the same snow job just described purporting to put me in that camp with, as per usual, no evidence whatsoever (how's that Obamacare search going?). You seem to believe saying so makes it so. The guilt by association ipse dixit malarkey is the halmark of the rhetorically bereft (that would be you) even going so far as dressing me in a Nazi uniform. It's the same McCarthyist Eliminationist bullshit game of demonization in lieu of discussion. And you wonder why I keep saying you're a fraud.

Ignorance is strength, comrade. You can pretend "tire" means "ice cream cone" if you want to live in that hole, but when you start redefining who I am, you have crossed the line. And you will get called on it.

But speaking of authoritarian rightists, congratulations on the new Godwin machine. Good to see your fallacies expanding past the usual strawman/ad hom, strawman ad/hom routing. Your strawman's arm was getting worn out, so ... hey, good to see Hitler goose-stepping in from the bullpen. That oughta go well.

 

[Foxfyre]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

 

[rightwinger]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

I have seen thousands of politicians voted out of office for not satisfying their constituents

Remember Eric Cantor?

 

[Foxfyre]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

I have seen thousands of politicians voted out of office for not satisfying their constituents

Remember Eric Cantor?

But the constituents almost invariably vote another of the permanent political class into office to replace those they vote out. It permeates the entire process from most of what happens in Washington to the state political headquarters and election machines right down to the smallest villages. Powerful forces are at work to ensure that the 'right people' are placed on the ballot and put in a position to win.

Actually I think the people might have won one when Romney was the last GOP presidential candidate--I don't believe he is a member of the permanent political class and would not have been so easily bullied or manipulated. But alas, the political machine was able to sufficiently demonize him that he could not win even against the most inexperienced, incompetent, ineffective, and destructive President this country has ever known.

 

[kaz]

And here you illustrate the same snow job just described purporting to put me in that camp with, as per usual, no evidence whatsoever (how's that Obamacare search going?)

That was bripat, moron. You can't even keep your own conversations straight. Bripat said you support Obamacare.

The guilt by association ipse dixit malarkey is the halmark of the rhetorically bereft

God you are stupid. Guilt by association would be for example if I say you support something because other liberals do. I pointed out you argue with liberals, yet you claim to have a libertarian ideology which you prefer to call liberal. That isn't guilt by association, for you it's guilt by stupidity.

You can pretend "tire" means "ice cream cone" if you want to live in that hole, but when you start redefining who I am, you have crossed the line. And you will get called on it.

OK, thank you for explaining, I get it now. You refuse to change the meaning of words even though people use them differently, so it makes sense that while what you claim to support is today referred to as small government libertarianism where government is simply a referee, you are allied with authoritarian leftists because they call themselves liberal. That they demand oppressive government isn't relevant, you are with them because they call themselves liberals.and you call yourself a liberal, even though they don't know what that means and their views have nothing in common with yours.

Makes as much sense as anything else you say.

 

[rightwinger]

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us. Most things, we are capable of doing ourselves.

You can? You can't support yourself, pay your own bills, give your own money to charity or take responsibility for your own actions. Seems right there we already know that most things you are not capable of doing yourself. What can you do yourself? Anything?

But garnering the forces of a large community to do what is best for the whole community makes us stronger.
Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

We aren't limited to their vision. In fact they provided that solution themselves. The process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Do you know what that means?

LOL

I'm afraid Congress does not have to issue an amendment in order to do its job. If so, our Constitution would be thousands of pages long

Congress does what needs to be done. If you feel they are exceeding their Constitutional boundaries, you are free to avail yourself to our court system

 

[rightwinger]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

I have seen thousands of politicians voted out of office for not satisfying their constituents

Remember Eric Cantor?

But the constituents almost invariably vote another of the permanent political class into office to replace those they vote out. It permeates the entire process from most of what happens in Washington to the state political headquarters and election machines right down to the smallest villages. Powerful forces are at work to ensure that the 'right people' are placed on the ballot and put in a position to win.

Actually I think the people might have won one when Romney was the last GOP presidential candidate--I don't believe he is a member of the permanent political class and would not have been so easily bullied or manipulated. But alas, the political machine was able to sufficiently demonize him that he could not win even against the most inexperienced, incompetent, ineffective, and destructive President this country has ever known.

Interesting spin...

Romney was born to the permanent political class, his father was a Governor and Presidential candidate. He was born with both a silver spoon and limitless political connections

Meanwhile, you consider Obama to be "permanent political class" while he rose from obscurity to become president

Strange world that Conservative Bizarro World

 

[kaz]

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us. Most things, we are capable of doing ourselves.

You can? You can't support yourself, pay your own bills, give your own money to charity or take responsibility for your own actions. Seems right there we already know that most things you are not capable of doing yourself. What can you do yourself? Anything?

But garnering the forces of a large community to do what is best for the whole community makes us stronger.
Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

We aren't limited to their vision. In fact they provided that solution themselves. The process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Do you know what that means?

LOL

I'm afraid Congress does not have to issue an amendment in order to do its job. If so, our Constitution would be thousands of pages long

Congress does what needs to be done. If you feel they are exceeding their Constitutional boundaries, you are free to avail yourself to our court system

That's just babble. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 is already in there, it's already covered. What are you talking about? They need thousands of pages to say what the Constitution already says?

And if there are no limits on what Congress can do, why did they bother writing a Constitution at all?

And how is it you keep going to court and getting laws turned over and judges to decree new laws when Congress can do whatever it wants, but it can, only the courts can do whatever they want.

You're just ranting, it makes no sense.