1
   

libralism

 
 
TOKS
 
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 04:12 pm
how libral do we need to get before we are morally neutral
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 04:24 pm
Would you elaborate on that?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 04:25 pm
@edgarblythe,
You will be more successful on able2know if you post a thread just one time.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 06:51 pm
I am in a spin trying to figure out if this poster is doing homework; if he means to discuss "liberalism" or people born under the sign of Libra; and just what moral neutrality is.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2010 07:17 am
@edgarblythe,
Notice that our spammer disappeared. I wonder whose sock puppet he is.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2010 03:54 pm
4 replies to an, at best, ambiguous post and this falls under the category of "Popular?"

I detect human intervention in the selection process.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2010 04:49 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
By all rights it could be deleted.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2010 06:12 pm
@edgarblythe,
Agreed, but Craven is the Ghost in the Machine.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 03:29 am
Ghost in the Machine was great entertainment, but about as obscure as this thread. I would suspect that the author of this thread operates under the delusion that "liberal" equates with moral turpitude. If that is the case, then i suspect the author of being yet another tea party dimwit.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:47 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Ghost in the Machine was great entertainment, but about as obscure as this thread. I would suspect that the author of this thread operates under the delusion that "liberal" equates with moral turpitude. If that is the case, then i suspect the author of being yet another tea party dimwit.
Whether liberalism equates to moral turpitude depends on
WHAT it is from which someone is deviating (being liberal).
Rudolf Hess was a liberal nazi, because he deviated from his
leader 's viewpoint qua WWII. Boris Yeltsin was a liberal commie,
deviating therefrom; neither deviation was "moral turpitude".

If someone takes a liberal vu of the rules of poker,
alleging that he has a flush, when he has 4 clubs n a spade,
that may be moral turpitude. If someone distorts the Constitution
or a statute, to favor his advantage that is moral turpitude.





David
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 06:23 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
If someone distorts the Constitution
or a statute, to favor his advantage that is moral turpitude.


Ah yes, like the Cheney administration.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:14 am
@Setanta,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
If someone distorts the Constitution
or a statute, to favor his advantage that is moral turpitude.
Setanta wrote:

Ah yes, like the Cheney administration.
W is a man of very strong opinions.
I think he did what he damn well pleased.
My sense of the situation is that if Cheney had been at the head of the ticket,
we 'd have had a better administration.

I can 't prove it.





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:20 am
Well, my opinion is that Cheney was bad enough behind the scenes, but he would have been worse out front. He was one of those neo-cons who formerly served Reagan. They were all a bad bunch.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:24 am
@Setanta,
W is a theocrat; Cheney is not.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:32 am
Baby Bush was a theocrat wannabe . . . he never attained the level of theocratic imposition. Cheney was one devious, unscrupulous son-of-a-bitch. Have you forgotten (did you ever know) that Cheney headed Halliburton before becoming Vice President? That whole crew were founding members of PNAC, who said in 1997 that we should invade Iraq. They wrote to Clinton urging him do do so. And as soon as they got in power, they did just that as soon as they could cobble together a story to support the invasion. They did it with indecent haste, and they did it so much to the detriment of the situation in Afghanistan, that that political and military cesspit is probably now insoluable.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 08:04 am
I think you all missed the point of the original question because none of you can read.

The libral standard compares the weight of coins to the bronze, which originally weighed one Roman pound, but decreased over time to 1/2 pound (the semi-libral standard), and further...

The libral/semi-libral standards were followed by the sextantal standard and the triental standards.

So yes, there's certainly a drift toward the centre over time, hence the connection with Libra and her scales, which is where the question of morality comes in.

(oh, and can someone remind me what we agreed to use as a sarcasm symbol)
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 10:18 pm
@Eorl,
I missed the meeting when the symbol was decided upon but that was a great post.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » libralism
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 11:51:10