What kind of person is more prone to abuse power, a liberal or a conservative?

[AFrench2]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

A black like you. You think ****** owes you.

What is your problem, bro? You're an absolute buzzkill on these forums, ya darn racist.

Marc is so full of shit his eyes are brown. When I see he or anyone posting bullshit I'll call it out.

You're awfully close to the Ignore button, bro. Racism cannot be tolerated.

LOL, Marc gets what Marc gives. He's a racist pig so I give it back to him. You? Wgive a shit whether you ignore them or not, it's not like you ever add anything of substance to any thread you enter. I am not not now ,nor ever will be your "bro" son.

I have as many points as you on the forum in 30 days as you do in 2 years. So apparently you're wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

A black like you. You think ****** owes you.

What is your problem, bro? You're an absolute buzzkill on these forums, ya darn racist.

Marc is so full of shit his eyes are brown. When I see he or anyone posting bullshit I'll call it out.

You're awfully close to the Ignore button, bro. Racism cannot be tolerated.

Hell that yahoo is the night manager on my Ignore list, he's got seniority down there. Not for racism but for his abject stupidity and failure to bring anything to any thread. I put time-wasters in there and fuggetaboutem.

 

[MarcATL]

You guys, don't mind JustAGuy1 too much, he's just another victim of mental abuse.

He needs to be pitied more than anything else.

Poor guy, he had so much potential.

 

[JustAGuy1]

You guys, don't mind JustAGuy1 too much, he's just another victim of mental abuse.

He needs to be pitied more than anything else.

Poor guy, he has so much potential.

Poor Marc, so many white men so little time.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

A black like you. You think ****** owes you.

What is your problem, bro? You're an absolute buzzkill on these forums, ya darn racist.

Marc is so full of shit his eyes are brown. When I see he or anyone posting bullshit I'll call it out.

You're awfully close to the Ignore button, bro. Racism cannot be tolerated.

Hell that yahoo is the night manager on my Ignore list, he's got seniority down there. Not for racism but for his abject stupidity and failure to bring anything to any thread. I put time-wasters in there and fuggetaboutem.

LOL, Pogo ignores me because I always hold his feet to the fire.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

A black like you. You think ****** owes you.

What is your problem, bro? You're an absolute buzzkill on these forums, ya darn racist.

Marc is so full of shit his eyes are brown. When I see he or anyone posting bullshit I'll call it out.

You're awfully close to the Ignore button, bro. Racism cannot be tolerated.

LOL, Marc gets what Marc gives. He's a racist pig so I give it back to him. You? Wgive a shit whether you ignore them or not, it's not like you ever add anything of substance to any thread you enter. I am not not now ,nor ever will be your "bro" son.

I have as many points as you on the forum in 30 days as you do in 2 years. So apparently you're wrong.

Whatever helps you sleep at night son.

 

[Rocko]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

I'd have to resist the question, as it seems to require a blanket generalization.

If you put the proverbial gun to my head I'd have to pick the conservative, not because of anything conservatism is, but because of what Liberal is not. Process of eliminaiton.

That’s horseshit liberals aren’t any less prone to corruption than conservatives. Your ideology sucks and in no way make you more virtuous.

Ah, another yahoo who skipped reading class.
The thread is about abusing power, not "corruption". Lurn too reed.

Uhm yeah abuse of power isn’t determined or affected by ones ideology. Corruption can be a motivation for abusing power and so can desire to have any agenda implemented. People who abuse power have no respect for rules and many of them have an ends to means justification for their abuse. Political Ideology of left and right doesn’t shape one’s view of rules and respect for checks and balances.

 

[Rocko]

Neither.

Get real. Both sides have conclusively shown that they will do whatever the hell they have the power to do.

Both sides care about little things like the constitution...only when convenient

 

[JustAGuy1]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

The problem with Liberals is that they over-legislate because they think everyone is dumb as dogshit.
The problem with Conservatives is that they don't legislate because they think everyone is John Wayne.

Halfway clever. But your first line indicates an ignorance of what "Liberal" actually means. It's impossible for a Liberal to over-legislate. They're mutually exclusive.

Nice try, but we all know what "Liberal" means in 2021.
Democrats and Liberals are not the same.

"Liberal" in 2021 means the same thing it meant in 1921, same thing it meant in 1821, same thing it meant in 1776. You don't get to invent your own dictionary.

NO SHIT Democrats and Liberals are not the same. That's what I spanked that yahoo in post 21 for. Which is the only time I mentioned anything about "political parties".

No....."Liberal" does not mean the same thing.......

Today, "Liberal" means leftist........"Liberal," in the classical sense is the exact opposite of leftism......

The opposite of Liberal, insofar as there is one, is fascism, or more generally, authoritarianism. Your illiteracy about political terms you'd like to use but can't figure out, let alone the inability to read the thread title, is your issue.

Fix it.

Your dishonesty about political terms demonstrates one aspect of the danger the left wing poses to a free society.

Actually your abject cluelessness about political science demonstrates that you have no business even showing up here just to embarrass yourself.

Case in point: Pregger Ewe.

**** outta here.

Political “Science” is an oxymoron.
Science has to have a result that works as specified.

"Science" simply means "knowledge".
"Political science" then is the study of Politics. Which the quoted poster has quite obviously never heard of, studied, been exposed to, stood next to, felt, smelt or been in the same state with.

You are a true to form Liberal defending your stance via insults rather than facts.

Liberalism is a political philosophy. It has nothing to do with personality traits. Next?

How do you know what I have studied?

I don't. Who suggested I did?
But based on this boner I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that whatever you studied did not include reading comprehension.

Next....

You make it sound like someone needs an IQ above -100 to understand how various levels of government work and succeed and fail.
Every politician I know is on the take.

That's nice dear. And completely irrelevant to anything quoted here. Nothing in this exchange was about "levels of government" or anyone "on the take". Again --- reading comprehension, lack thereof. But it's instructive that "everybody you know" in politics is on the take. Somehow I'm not surprised.

I agree...
Anyone to the left of a sane Democrat is psychotic; we non-psychotic Independents simply call them Liberals.

Once AGAIN with the reading comprehension.

NOTHING in the thread title refers to political parties.. Apparently there walk among us those who lump all manner of terms into a single definition and somehow cannot see the distinctions between them. "Liberal", "Left", "Political Party", "Man", "Woman" "Camera", "TV" --- hey it's all the same thing because thinking is hard.

"Liberal" has a specific meaning. "Leftist" has a specific meaning. The two specific meanings ARE NOT THE SAME specific meaning. We don't use multiple terms for the same thing. So what you may ignorantly call "Liberals" reflects your own failure to figure that out.

Too funny, you LOVE to hide behind semantics. It shows you to be an idiot.

Pogo thinks anyone who disagrees with Pogo is a Nazi.

Watch him, it's always about word play. He'll fight to the death over what he says the definition of "is" is.

 

[Rocko]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

The problem with Liberals is that they over-legislate because they think everyone is dumb as dogshit.
The problem with Conservatives is that they don't legislate because they think everyone is John Wayne.

Halfway clever. But your first line indicates an ignorance of what "Liberal" actually means. It's impossible for a Liberal to over-legislate. They're mutually exclusive.

Nice try, but we all know what "Liberal" means in 2021.
Democrats and Liberals are not the same.

"Liberal" in 2021 means the same thing it meant in 1921, same thing it meant in 1821, same thing it meant in 1776. You don't get to invent your own dictionary.

NO SHIT Democrats and Liberals are not the same. That's what I spanked that yahoo in post 21 for. Which is the only time I mentioned anything about "political parties".

No....."Liberal" does not mean the same thing.......

Today, "Liberal" means leftist........"Liberal," in the classical sense is the exact opposite of leftism......

The opposite of Liberal, insofar as there is one, is fascism, or more generally, authoritarianism. Your illiteracy about political terms you'd like to use but can't figure out, let alone the inability to read the thread title, is your issue.

Fix it.

Your dishonesty about political terms demonstrates one aspect of the danger the left wing poses to a free society.

Actually your abject cluelessness about political science demonstrates that you have no business even showing up here just to embarrass yourself.

Case in point: Pregger Ewe.

**** outta here.

Political “Science” is an oxymoron.
Science has to have a result that works as specified.

"Science" simply means "knowledge".
"Political science" then is the study of Politics. Which the quoted poster has quite obviously never heard of, studied, been exposed to, stood next to, felt, smelt or been in the same state with.

You are a true to form Liberal defending your stance via insults rather than facts.

Liberalism is a political philosophy. It has nothing to do with personality traits. Next?

How do you know what I have studied?

I don't. Who suggested I did?
But based on this boner I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that whatever you studied did not include reading comprehension.

Next....

You make it sound like someone needs an IQ above -100 to understand how various levels of government work and succeed and fail.
Every politician I know is on the take.

That's nice dear. And completely irrelevant to anything quoted here. Nothing in this exchange was about "levels of government" or anyone "on the take". Again --- reading comprehension, lack thereof. But it's instructive that "everybody you know" in politics is on the take. Somehow I'm not surprised.

I agree...
Anyone to the left of a sane Democrat is psychotic; we non-psychotic Independents simply call them Liberals.

Once AGAIN with the reading comprehension.

NOTHING in the thread title refers to political parties.. Apparently there walk among us those who lump all manner of terms into a single definition and somehow cannot see the distinctions between them. "Liberal", "Left", "Political Party", "Man", "Woman" "Camera", "TV" --- hey it's all the same thing because thinking is hard.

"Liberal" has a specific meaning. "Leftist" has a specific meaning. The two specific meanings ARE NOT THE SAME specific meaning. We don't use multiple terms for the same thing. So what you may ignorantly call "Liberals" reflects your own failure to figure that out.

Too funny, you LOVE to hide behind semantics. It shows you to be an idiot.

Pogo thinks anyone who disagrees with Pogo is a Nazi.

Watch him, it's always about word play. He'll fight to the death over what he says the definition of "is" is.

King of semantics

 

[krichton]

Definitely republican. Look at how many GOP senators and republicans were willing to overturn our democracy because of one man. There's a name for countries that want one party rule under a single leader.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

The problem with Liberals is that they over-legislate because they think everyone is dumb as dogshit.
The problem with Conservatives is that they don't legislate because they think everyone is John Wayne.

Halfway clever. But your first line indicates an ignorance of what "Liberal" actually means. It's impossible for a Liberal to over-legislate. They're mutually exclusive.

Nice try, but we all know what "Liberal" means in 2021.
Democrats and Liberals are not the same.

"Liberal" in 2021 means the same thing it meant in 1921, same thing it meant in 1821, same thing it meant in 1776. You don't get to invent your own dictionary.

NO SHIT Democrats and Liberals are not the same. That's what I spanked that yahoo in post 21 for. Which is the only time I mentioned anything about "political parties".

No....."Liberal" does not mean the same thing.......

Today, "Liberal" means leftist........"Liberal," in the classical sense is the exact opposite of leftism......

The opposite of Liberal, insofar as there is one, is fascism, or more generally, authoritarianism. Your illiteracy about political terms you'd like to use but can't figure out, let alone the inability to read the thread title, is your issue.

Fix it.

Your dishonesty about political terms demonstrates one aspect of the danger the left wing poses to a free society.

Actually your abject cluelessness about political science demonstrates that you have no business even showing up here just to embarrass yourself.

Case in point: Pregger Ewe.

**** outta here.

Political “Science” is an oxymoron.
Science has to have a result that works as specified.

"Science" simply means "knowledge".
"Political science" then is the study of Politics. Which the quoted poster has quite obviously never heard of, studied, been exposed to, stood next to, felt, smelt or been in the same state with.

You are a true to form Liberal defending your stance via insults rather than facts.

Liberalism is a political philosophy. It has nothing to do with personality traits. Next?

How do you know what I have studied?

I don't. Who suggested I did?
But based on this boner I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that whatever you studied did not include reading comprehension.

Next....

You make it sound like someone needs an IQ above -100 to understand how various levels of government work and succeed and fail.
Every politician I know is on the take.

That's nice dear. And completely irrelevant to anything quoted here. Nothing in this exchange was about "levels of government" or anyone "on the take". Again --- reading comprehension, lack thereof. But it's instructive that "everybody you know" in politics is on the take. Somehow I'm not surprised.

I agree...
Anyone to the left of a sane Democrat is psychotic; we non-psychotic Independents simply call them Liberals.

Once AGAIN with the reading comprehension.

NOTHING in the thread title refers to political parties.. Apparently there walk among us those who lump all manner of terms into a single definition and somehow cannot see the distinctions between them. "Liberal", "Left", "Political Party", "Man", "Woman" "Camera", "TV" --- hey it's all the same thing because thinking is hard.

"Liberal" has a specific meaning. "Leftist" has a specific meaning. The two specific meanings ARE NOT THE SAME specific meaning. We don't use multiple terms for the same thing. So what you may ignorantly call "Liberals" reflects your own failure to figure that out.

Too funny, you LOVE to hide behind semantics. It shows you to be an idiot.

Pogo thinks anyone who disagrees with Pogo is a Nazi.

Watch him, it's always about word play. He'll fight to the death over what he says the definition of "is" is.

King of semantics

Absolutely.

 

[Likkmee]

What is your problem, bro? You're an absolute buzzkill on these forums, ya darn racist.

He's just another victim of mental abuse.

That tends to happen when someone is mentally better than you so much that you start to feel abused as a result of realizing that fact.

Mentally , intellectually I own you.

You want to own him? This is getting really racist, wow.

OK. Ok. I'm a kaptalist. $250

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

Liberals deciding Dr Seuss is offensive

 

[Pogo]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

I'd have to resist the question, as it seems to require a blanket generalization.

If you put the proverbial gun to my head I'd have to pick the conservative, not because of anything conservatism is, but because of what Liberal is not. Process of eliminaiton.

That’s horseshit liberals aren’t any less prone to corruption than conservatives. Your ideology sucks and in no way make you more virtuous.

Ah, another yahoo who skipped reading class.
The thread is about abusing power, not "corruption". Lurn too reed.

Uhm yeah abuse of power isn’t determined or affected by ones ideology. Corruption can be a motivation for abusing power and so can desire to have any agenda implemented. People who abuse power have no respect for rules and many of them have an ends to means justification for their abuse. Political Ideology of left and right doesn’t shape one’s view of rules and respect for checks and balances.

I agree. But the thread question didn't ask about "left or right". It asked about "Liberal and Conservative".

 

[Pogo]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

The problem with Liberals is that they over-legislate because they think everyone is dumb as dogshit.
The problem with Conservatives is that they don't legislate because they think everyone is John Wayne.

Halfway clever. But your first line indicates an ignorance of what "Liberal" actually means. It's impossible for a Liberal to over-legislate. They're mutually exclusive.

Nice try, but we all know what "Liberal" means in 2021.
Democrats and Liberals are not the same.

"Liberal" in 2021 means the same thing it meant in 1921, same thing it meant in 1821, same thing it meant in 1776. You don't get to invent your own dictionary.

NO SHIT Democrats and Liberals are not the same. That's what I spanked that yahoo in post 21 for. Which is the only time I mentioned anything about "political parties".

No....."Liberal" does not mean the same thing.......

Today, "Liberal" means leftist........"Liberal," in the classical sense is the exact opposite of leftism......

The opposite of Liberal, insofar as there is one, is fascism, or more generally, authoritarianism. Your illiteracy about political terms you'd like to use but can't figure out, let alone the inability to read the thread title, is your issue.

Fix it.

Your dishonesty about political terms demonstrates one aspect of the danger the left wing poses to a free society.

Actually your abject cluelessness about political science demonstrates that you have no business even showing up here just to embarrass yourself.

Case in point: Pregger Ewe.

**** outta here.

Political “Science” is an oxymoron.
Science has to have a result that works as specified.

"Science" simply means "knowledge".
"Political science" then is the study of Politics. Which the quoted poster has quite obviously never heard of, studied, been exposed to, stood next to, felt, smelt or been in the same state with.

You are a true to form Liberal defending your stance via insults rather than facts.

Liberalism is a political philosophy. It has nothing to do with personality traits. Next?

How do you know what I have studied?

I don't. Who suggested I did?
But based on this boner I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that whatever you studied did not include reading comprehension.

Next....

You make it sound like someone needs an IQ above -100 to understand how various levels of government work and succeed and fail.
Every politician I know is on the take.

That's nice dear. And completely irrelevant to anything quoted here. Nothing in this exchange was about "levels of government" or anyone "on the take". Again --- reading comprehension, lack thereof. But it's instructive that "everybody you know" in politics is on the take. Somehow I'm not surprised.

I agree...
Anyone to the left of a sane Democrat is psychotic; we non-psychotic Independents simply call them Liberals.

Once AGAIN with the reading comprehension.

NOTHING in the thread title refers to political parties.. Apparently there walk among us those who lump all manner of terms into a single definition and somehow cannot see the distinctions between them. "Liberal", "Left", "Political Party", "Man", "Woman" "Camera", "TV" --- hey it's all the same thing because thinking is hard.

"Liberal" has a specific meaning. "Leftist" has a specific meaning. The two specific meanings ARE NOT THE SAME specific meaning. We don't use multiple terms for the same thing. So what you may ignorantly call "Liberals" reflects your own failure to figure that out.

Too funny, you LOVE to hide behind semantics. It shows you to be an idiot.

Pogo thinks anyone who disagrees with Pogo is a Nazi.

Watch him, it's always about word play. He'll fight to the death over what he says the definition of "is" is.

King of semantics

"Semantics" doesn't enter into it. The original point back there was a misdefinition of what Liberal means, so we cleaned it up.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

The problem with Liberals is that they over-legislate because they think everyone is dumb as dogshit.
The problem with Conservatives is that they don't legislate because they think everyone is John Wayne.

Halfway clever. But your first line indicates an ignorance of what "Liberal" actually means. It's impossible for a Liberal to over-legislate. They're mutually exclusive.

Nice try, but we all know what "Liberal" means in 2021.
Democrats and Liberals are not the same.

"Liberal" in 2021 means the same thing it meant in 1921, same thing it meant in 1821, same thing it meant in 1776. You don't get to invent your own dictionary.

NO SHIT Democrats and Liberals are not the same. That's what I spanked that yahoo in post 21 for. Which is the only time I mentioned anything about "political parties".

No....."Liberal" does not mean the same thing.......

Today, "Liberal" means leftist........"Liberal," in the classical sense is the exact opposite of leftism......

The opposite of Liberal, insofar as there is one, is fascism, or more generally, authoritarianism. Your illiteracy about political terms you'd like to use but can't figure out, let alone the inability to read the thread title, is your issue.

Fix it.

Your dishonesty about political terms demonstrates one aspect of the danger the left wing poses to a free society.

Actually your abject cluelessness about political science demonstrates that you have no business even showing up here just to embarrass yourself.

Case in point: Pregger Ewe.

**** outta here.

Political “Science” is an oxymoron.
Science has to have a result that works as specified.

"Science" simply means "knowledge".
"Political science" then is the study of Politics. Which the quoted poster has quite obviously never heard of, studied, been exposed to, stood next to, felt, smelt or been in the same state with.

You are a true to form Liberal defending your stance via insults rather than facts.

Liberalism is a political philosophy. It has nothing to do with personality traits. Next?

How do you know what I have studied?

I don't. Who suggested I did?
But based on this boner I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that whatever you studied did not include reading comprehension.

Next....

You make it sound like someone needs an IQ above -100 to understand how various levels of government work and succeed and fail.
Every politician I know is on the take.

That's nice dear. And completely irrelevant to anything quoted here. Nothing in this exchange was about "levels of government" or anyone "on the take". Again --- reading comprehension, lack thereof. But it's instructive that "everybody you know" in politics is on the take. Somehow I'm not surprised.

I agree...
Anyone to the left of a sane Democrat is psychotic; we non-psychotic Independents simply call them Liberals.

Once AGAIN with the reading comprehension.

NOTHING in the thread title refers to political parties.. Apparently there walk among us those who lump all manner of terms into a single definition and somehow cannot see the distinctions between them. "Liberal", "Left", "Political Party", "Man", "Woman" "Camera", "TV" --- hey it's all the same thing because thinking is hard.

"Liberal" has a specific meaning. "Leftist" has a specific meaning. The two specific meanings ARE NOT THE SAME specific meaning. We don't use multiple terms for the same thing. So what you may ignorantly call "Liberals" reflects your own failure to figure that out.

Too funny, you LOVE to hide behind semantics. It shows you to be an idiot.

Pogo thinks anyone who disagrees with Pogo is a Nazi.

Watch him, it's always about word play. He'll fight to the death over what he says the definition of "is" is.

King of semantics

"Semantics" doesn't enter into it. The original point back there was a misdefinition of what Liberal means, so we cleaned it up.

You didn't clean shit up kid.

 

[Indeependent]

Why/why not?

Also, of the two given choices, which one do you align w/the most?

The problem with Liberals is that they over-legislate because they think everyone is dumb as dogshit.
The problem with Conservatives is that they don't legislate because they think everyone is John Wayne.

Halfway clever. But your first line indicates an ignorance of what "Liberal" actually means. It's impossible for a Liberal to over-legislate. They're mutually exclusive.

Nice try, but we all know what "Liberal" means in 2021.
Democrats and Liberals are not the same.

"Liberal" in 2021 means the same thing it meant in 1921, same thing it meant in 1821, same thing it meant in 1776. You don't get to invent your own dictionary.

NO SHIT Democrats and Liberals are not the same. That's what I spanked that yahoo in post 21 for. Which is the only time I mentioned anything about "political parties".

No....."Liberal" does not mean the same thing.......

Today, "Liberal" means leftist........"Liberal," in the classical sense is the exact opposite of leftism......

The opposite of Liberal, insofar as there is one, is fascism, or more generally, authoritarianism. Your illiteracy about political terms you'd like to use but can't figure out, let alone the inability to read the thread title, is your issue.

Fix it.

Your dishonesty about political terms demonstrates one aspect of the danger the left wing poses to a free society.

Actually your abject cluelessness about political science demonstrates that you have no business even showing up here just to embarrass yourself.

Case in point: Pregger Ewe.

**** outta here.

Political “Science” is an oxymoron.
Science has to have a result that works as specified.

"Science" simply means "knowledge".
"Political science" then is the study of Politics. Which the quoted poster has quite obviously never heard of, studied, been exposed to, stood next to, felt, smelt or been in the same state with.

You are a true to form Liberal defending your stance via insults rather than facts.

Liberalism is a political philosophy. It has nothing to do with personality traits. Next?

How do you know what I have studied?

I don't. Who suggested I did?
But based on this boner I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that whatever you studied did not include reading comprehension.

Next....

You make it sound like someone needs an IQ above -100 to understand how various levels of government work and succeed and fail.
Every politician I know is on the take.

That's nice dear. And completely irrelevant to anything quoted here. Nothing in this exchange was about "levels of government" or anyone "on the take". Again --- reading comprehension, lack thereof. But it's instructive that "everybody you know" in politics is on the take. Somehow I'm not surprised.

I agree...
Anyone to the left of a sane Democrat is psychotic; we non-psychotic Independents simply call them Liberals.

Once AGAIN with the reading comprehension.

NOTHING in the thread title refers to political parties.. Apparently there walk among us those who lump all manner of terms into a single definition and somehow cannot see the distinctions between them. "Liberal", "Left", "Political Party", "Man", "Woman" "Camera", "TV" --- hey it's all the same thing because thinking is hard.

"Liberal" has a specific meaning. "Leftist" has a specific meaning. The two specific meanings ARE NOT THE SAME specific meaning. We don't use multiple terms for the same thing. So what you may ignorantly call "Liberals" reflects your own failure to figure that out.

Too funny, you LOVE to hide behind semantics. It shows you to be an idiot.

Pogo thinks anyone who disagrees with Pogo is a Nazi.

Watch him, it's always about word play. He'll fight to the death over what he says the definition of "is" is.

King of semantics

"Semantics" doesn't enter into it. The original point back there was a misdefinition of what Liberal means, so we cleaned it up.

We know what it means from your posting history.

 

[whitehall]

Conservatives are usually constitutionalists so if you assume that conservatives are prone to abuse of power you have to blame the Constitution.

 

[whitehall]

Who gets to define "abuse of power"? The media? Democrats have been in power for most of the last 150 years but democrats have always enjoyed the full support of the media. Bill Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia without consulting congress is perhaps the best example of abuse of power but the media and the democrat drones consistently defend him. FDR's executive order 9066 challenges the Bubba for first place. Harry Truman sent troops to Korea on an executive order and botched the mission so badly that we ended up where we started after a 3 year quagmire and the loss of 50,000 Troops. The media merely called it the "Forgotten War and then forgot about it. LBJ instituted a fake crisis and ordered troops to Vietnam and then set the rules so we could win every battle and still lose the freaking war. The media blamed it on Nixon.