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

[2aguy]

Again I'd resist going to the blanket, but yes that's probably to be expected most of the time.

And would you say there's a little abuse, just the right amount of it, or a lot of abuse in police departments across the nation?

As in all places where there is power, there is abuse...but nowhere near the abuse that people attribute to them.....no more than teachers....who molest children at higher rates than priests........or politicians who abuse their power regularly.......

This is why as a country we were founded on limiting power, separating it and putting checks on it.....all things that left wingers do not want to do...since they see power as a means to enact the things they want.....and so want as much power as possible.

And that --- the bolded part just above --- is what Liberalism is, which is what the thread title asked about. There's no mention there of "left wingers". But then perhaps you can't read.

Modern liberals are not "Classical Liberals." They do not believe in limiting power...they believe in concentrating power.....

The left wing began to use the term "Liberal," after people caught on to what they believed and the policies they wanted......so they changed their name...just like they are now going back to "progressive," now that "Liberal," has been identified as left wingers ........

Absolute complete utter BULLSHIT.

Prove me wrong. Show the class where "people changed their name", Fuckwit. Can't handle political terms so you want to foist it on other people and go "people changed their name" rather than actually ADMIT you don't have a clue in the world what the fuck you're babbling about.

Good GOD you're a stupid motherfucker.

You are an idiot......it is obvious that todays "Liberals" are not the tolerant defender of Civil Rights, as they destroy lives over tweets, use the FBI as their personal gestapo...you moron......

Prager explained it perfectly, you moron.

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

 

[Pogo]

Again I'd resist going to the blanket, but yes that's probably to be expected most of the time.

And would you say there's a little abuse, just the right amount of it, or a lot of abuse in police departments across the nation?

As in all places where there is power, there is abuse...but nowhere near the abuse that people attribute to them.....no more than teachers....who molest children at higher rates than priests........or politicians who abuse their power regularly.......

This is why as a country we were founded on limiting power, separating it and putting checks on it.....all things that left wingers do not want to do...since they see power as a means to enact the things they want.....and so want as much power as possible.

And that --- the bolded part just above --- is what Liberalism is, which is what the thread title asked about. There's no mention there of "left wingers". But then perhaps you can't read.

Modern liberals are not "Classical Liberals." They do not believe in limiting power...they believe in concentrating power.....

The left wing began to use the term "Liberal," after people caught on to what they believed and the policies they wanted......so they changed their name...just like they are now going back to "progressive," now that "Liberal," has been identified as left wingers ........

Absolute complete utter BULLSHIT.

Prove me wrong. Show the class where "people changed their name", Fuckwit. Can't handle political terms so you want to foist it on other people and go "people changed their name" rather than actually ADMIT you don't have a clue in the world what the fuck you're babbling about.

Good GOD you're a stupid motherfucker.

You are an idiot......it is obvious that todays "Liberals" are not the tolerant defender of Civil Rights, as they destroy lives over tweets, use the FBI as their personal gestapo...you moron......

Prager explained it perfectly, you moron.

Pregger has never "explained" anything in his life, nor is there any sign of Pregger around here, but you know who did explain it perfectly? YOU DID. And I pointed that out in big bold letters, which I'll re-paste because I know you're kind of slow...

This is why as a country we were founded on limiting power, separating it and putting checks on it.....all things that left wingers do not want to do...

That's YOUR post. I even left in the part about the conflict with the left, because you're right about that too. Both the left and the right are in conflict with Liberalism. But yes we were founded on those principles of Liberalism, as you correctly noted right there.

On the other hand whatever person, group or subset of people you choose to hang the word "Liberals" on so you can then point at your strawman, is IRFUCKINGRELEVANT. Nobody gives a shit who you choose to label as what.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Again I'd resist going to the blanket, but yes that's probably to be expected most of the time.

And would you say there's a little abuse, just the right amount of it, or a lot of abuse in police departments across the nation?

As in all places where there is power, there is abuse...but nowhere near the abuse that people attribute to them.....no more than teachers....who molest children at higher rates than priests........or politicians who abuse their power regularly.......

This is why as a country we were founded on limiting power, separating it and putting checks on it.....all things that left wingers do not want to do...since they see power as a means to enact the things they want.....and so want as much power as possible.

And that --- the bolded part just above --- is what Liberalism is, which is what the thread title asked about. There's no mention there of "left wingers". But then perhaps you can't read.

Modern liberals are not "Classical Liberals." They do not believe in limiting power...they believe in concentrating power.....

The left wing began to use the term "Liberal," after people caught on to what they believed and the policies they wanted......so they changed their name...just like they are now going back to "progressive," now that "Liberal," has been identified as left wingers ........

Absolute complete utter BULLSHIT.

Prove me wrong. Show the class where "people changed their name", Fuckwit. Can't handle political terms so you want to foist it on other people and go "people changed their name" rather than actually ADMIT you don't have a clue in the world what the fuck you're babbling about.

Good GOD you're a stupid motherfucker.

You are an idiot......it is obvious that todays "Liberals" are not the tolerant defender of Civil Rights, as they destroy lives over tweets, use the FBI as their personal gestapo...you moron......

Prager explained it perfectly, you moron.

Pregger has never "explained" anything in his life, nor is there any sign of Pregger around here, but you know who did explain it perfectly? YOU DID. And I pointed that out in big bold letters, which I'll re-paste because I know you're kind of slow...

This is why as a country we were founded on limiting power, separating it and putting checks on it.....all things that left wingers do not want to do...

That's YOUR post. I even left in the part about the conflict with the left, because you're right about that too. Both the left and the right are in conflict with Liberalism. But yes we were founded on those principles of Liberalism, as you correctly noted right there.

On the other hand whatever person, group or subset of people you choose to hang the word "Liberals" on so you can then point at your strawman, is IRFUCKINGRELEVANT. Nobody gives a shit who you choose to label as what.

You have it ass backwards kid, you are as irrelevant as a pimple on his ass. Nobody cares about you're silly game of semantics or what you think about anything.

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.
Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

 

[Pogo]

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

He wants to "beat" you.

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

He wants to "beat" you.

It's cool to be a ProgBot and hide behind an avatar.
Last year I was embarrassing my fellow JewProgs off of Facebook.

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

Are the voices in your head arguing again?

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

He wants to "beat" you.

It's cool to be a ProgBot and hide behind an avatar.
Last year I was embarrassing my fellow JewProgs off of Facebook.

Pogo

He has NO core values, his game is beat you at words no matter what position he has to take. He is a coward who hides from people he can't beat.

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

Are the voices in your head arguing again?

Yet another ad hominem.
Is embarrassment not part of your psyche?

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

He wants to "beat" you.

It's cool to be a ProgBot and hide behind an avatar.
Last year I was embarrassing my fellow JewProgs off of Facebook.

Pogo

He has NO core values, his game is beat you at words no matter what position he has to take. He is a coward who hides from people he can't beat.

I know; I've put the schmuck on Ignore several times hoping he would stop snorting cocaine...to no avail.

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

Are the voices in your head arguing again?

Yet another ad hominem.
Is embarrassment not part of your psyche?

Yet another cryptogram. You know, the rest of us cannot hear the voices in your head. You know that, right?
Are complete sentences and/or references not a part of your psyche?

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

Are the voices in your head arguing again?

Yet another ad hominem.
Is embarrassment not part of your psyche?

Yet another cryptogram. You know, the rest of us cannot hear the voices in your head. You know that, right?
Are complete sentences and/or references not a part of your psyche?

Why is a homosexual American not an American?

 

[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.

FUCK 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.

Would that this were actually true. Would save me a lot of repetition for the benefit of those who weren't paying attention the first time.

We know what "Liberal" means from your posting history.

Yes. I know. We did this. I even left a reply to the original.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

Liberals are lucky because they don't have memories in the first place, they have fabrications.

Non sequitur. Does not follow. Blanket generalization based on self-assharvested bullshit is dismissed.

Please try to address the issue from the practical point of view.
Why do you surmise that a law providing protection for Americans doesn't apply to non-heterosexuals.

.
What in the wide world of blue fuck are you babbling about NOW?

Why are you commenting on your own logic failure?
The current law protects Americans.
What's the problem with the current law?

Are the voices in your head arguing again?

Yet another ad hominem.
Is embarrassment not part of your psyche?

Yet another cryptogram. You know, the rest of us cannot hear the voices in your head. You know that, right?
Are complete sentences and/or references not a part of your psyche?

Why is a homosexual American not an American?

Why do you post in Strawman?

​