@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:
I know this has nothing to do with this thread; but I've noticed in another one that when you made a challenging comment about people on the left, one of the liberal members responded by saying "F--- you" instead of trying to reason with you. I paid a lot of attention to politics when I was younger, but disillusionment set in over the years.
I really don't keep up with politics anymore; but I've always been close to my sister, who is very liberal.
I 've always been very interested in politics and political philosophy.
To me,
personal freedom, Individualism and
hedonism
(having as much fun in life as possible) have been continually on my mind.
I know that it is a historical fact that the Founders of this Republic
successfully fought for those values and thay incorporated them into
the fabric of the Republic, in its Supreme Law of the Land, mostly by
by prohibiting government jurisdiction in multiple designated areas,
37 of which r set forth in its Bill of Rights. Thay knew that
personal freedom
and
government jurisdiction r
inversely proportional; liberty thrives
to the extent that the domestic power of government is crippled.
The American Flag celebrates the libertarian crippling of government
that resulted from the military rejection of the British Monarchy.
To
MY mind, that resulting freedom is very worth
KEEPING.
I have posted that "conservative" and "liberal" are relative words,
having meaning only when applied to some standard, which thay
EITHER rigidly
keep, or
deviate from. For instance:
as to standards of dress: if one attends a formal banquet attired in
black tie, tuxedo, vest and black patent leather shoes, one is
CONSERVATIVE
as to the standard of formal attire.
If his friend attends the same affair thusly attired, except for
wearing
red sneakers instead of black patent leather shoes, then he is
liberal
insofar as his
deviation from the applicable standard of footwear is concerned,
because he deviated from the standard form of attire.
While playing poker, if someone rakes in the pot claiming
to have a flush, when he has 4 clubs and a spade,
he is taking a
liberal vu of the rules of poker, by
deviating therefrom.
If he claims to have a flush when he has 2 clubs and 2 spades & a
heart:
he is taking a
MORE liberal vu of the rules of poker. (Of course, he will be murdered,
upon discovery of his liberalism.)
If your brain surgeon washes only
ONE hand,
OR if he insists on
eating cookies & potato chips on-the-job while he is slicing around in your head,
he is taking a
liberal vu of the applicable standards of surgical sanitation
and sterility because he
deviates therefrom.
By definition, a conservative surgeon rigidly & inflexibly adheres to those criteria
despite any enticements or cajoling, coaxing, importuning or inveigling to the contrary
even if he is accused of being "an old stick-in-the-mud."
The heart & soul of a
liberal interpretation is
distortion.
The innermost essence of liberalism is
inconsistency with something.
Liberalism is meaningless in the absence of
deviation from some practice or body of rules.
If that body of rules is
evil, like
communism, then to be liberal (like Boris Yeltsin)
is good.
"Conservative" means rigidly, inflexibly non-deviant.
If a conservative deviates, he thereby abandons his conservatism.
If a truthful man tells a lie, then he is no longer a truthful man.
As to politics in America,
the criterion to which there is
either
inflexibly rigid adherence (e.g. only 2 terms for President not 3),
or there is
deviation, is the US Constitution.
If a statute or any practice is consistent therewith,
then it is conservative; if it deviates therefrom
(e.g., if
W ran for a 3rd term as President,
or if government troops made u go to Church on time,
or if some gun control were imposed), that woud be liberal.
wmwcjr wrote:So, I'm just wondering: Is this the way liberals typically act, or do conservatives act the same way?
I 've been acquainted with Ed for quite a few years. He was just reminding me
that I shoud fully augment the erotic aspects of my life, for robustly optimal hedonic effects!
He is very thawtful that way. He is my cheering section, forever urging me on to more rapturous ecstacy.
He
yearns for me to thrill to the highest intensities of ineffable pleasure n euphoric delight.
(I keep telling him that is a private, personal matter.)
This forum evolved after another one that was called "Abuzz".
On that forum, very acrimonious, caustic obscenity was rampant
from some members on both sides. When someone expressed
a political opinion, some of the members ofen responded by informing
him of his (alleged) sexual nature and informing him that he had participated
in various forms of sexual perversity (even tho this was irrelevant and "off topic").
Some members on both sides of the political spectrum were guilty of that.
(I was not personally subjected to that abuse, nor did I inflict it, but I witnessed it.)
This forum is much calmer, and relatively more peaceful, decent n civil.
For instance: recently 2 liberals bullied and inflicted indignities upon
a friend of mine (who is also a liberal). I rose to her defense,
by counter-bullying them and assuming an overbearing manner
to vindicate my abused friend, but I did not descend to the use of obscenity; (unnecessary).
Conservatives here r more reticent to use foul language than liberals,
but we r not 100% clean either. I have very little recourse to it,
other than an occasional "hell" or "damned".
(One reason is that I don 't deem sex to be a bad thing, as someone I coud mention implies.)
I did not mind Ed 's remark, nor do I bear him ill will. He is just who he is.
From his posts n his profile, I surmise that he has lived
a very harsh long life, not much above indigence.
Ed seldom has much recourse to obscene language.
Forgive me for talking your ear off, Bill. U write interesting posts.
David