I just wonder what goes through the minds of the righties when they post the stuff they post. Do they even think as normal people do? Have they a concept of cause and effect? Are they angry or joshing with us?
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:I just wonder what goes through the minds of the righties when they post the stuff they post. Do they even think as normal people do? Have they a concept of cause and effect? Are they angry or joshing with us?
Well, at least that is better than claiming that u actually
DO know that. Credit to u for that much.
David
@okie,
Liberals hate individual freedom? Like the freedom to marry regardless of gender. Or freedom of religion? Or freedom from racial discrimination?
Okie you are always good for rightwing nutjob comment but calling Hitler a liberal is a beaut even for you.
Hitler was a fascist - Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives. Though normally described as being on the far right, there is a scholarly consensus that fascism was also influenced by the left, but with a focus on solutions from the right.
Liberal vs conservative does not have a direct correlation with Left vs Right. Get a clue.
Liberal is a relative word, meaning non-orthodox,
and meaning flexible.
In order to be liberal,
one must deviate from something: the criteria as to which he is "liberal".
If a man is non-varying, then he is orthodox or conservative,
relative to those criteria from which he does not vary,
the opposite of liberal. A liberal can deviate in many different directions.
Modern political liberals (relative to the Constitution) of the Roosevelt-Kennedy stripe,
veer toward collectivist authoritarianism, toward socialism, which glorifies the collective,
at the expense of Individualism and of personal liberty.
Modern political liberalism favors a docile citizenry, servile to the collective.
It implies that government is the boss, instead of the servant.
To be politically conservative, a man must cling steadfastly to the US Constitution,
which is an Instrument of Liberty, especially in its Bill of Rights,
whereby the domestic jurisdiction of government is strangled 37 different ways.
Boris Yeltsin was a liberal communist, in that he deviated from it.
Rudolph Hess was a liberal nazi, because he deviated from nazi policy and flew to England.
Relative to paradigmatic English spelling, I am a liberal, deviating to fonetic spelling.
Liberal means errant.
For instance,
if men are playing poker n one rakes in the pot
alleging that he has a flush, when he has 4 clubs and a spade,
and when challenged on this behavior, he declares
the liberal motto: " hay, that 's CLOSE ENUF; don 't be
too technical; don 't split hairs; just don t be a ball buster, OK ?
I had a fight with my cousin, yesterday I got a flat tire,
I belong to a minority group and my left foot stinks, so gimme a break n deal the cards."
Hence, he advocates the position that logic shoud be SUBORDINATED to emotion
and that thay shoud take a LIBERAL VU
of the rules of poker because his sob story OUTRANKS
the technical rules requiring 5 cards of 1 suit for a flush.
Liberal = UNFAITHFUL to a concept or to an agreement.
David
@H2O MAN,
Of course we do. Fuckstick.
@hingehead,
Dickhead, why are you so angry?
@H2O MAN,
Not angry, dismissive. You made a blanket statement that liberals hate freedom. That's stupid.
@hingehead,
No dumb ass, I answered a question with one word - YES.
Maybe the question itself was stupid...
@H2O MAN,
Do you read what you write?
The question was 'do liberals hate individual freedom?'
As you say you answered yes. That's dumb. Prove I'm wrong.
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
Liberals hate individual freedom?
The answer to your question is yes.
@H2O MAN,
You haven't provided any evidence of your statement.
If liberals hate individual freedoms how can they support gay marriage, or mosque building in NY, or affirmative action? Or a women's right to choose abortion?
And I'm still waiting for a response to my assertion that you're an idiot for calling Hitler a liberal.
And you ask why I'm angy and call me a dickhead and a dumbass?
Put your analyst on danger money and up your dosage.
@hingehead,
To a right wing American, freedom means that you and some other slob are both packing heat and have the potential of removing each other from the gene pool. Sounds good to me.
@hingehead,
The recent article on the ATlantic (Monthly) web site stated that we only have to watch out for these"potential whackos" acting out on their fantasies (sorta like ole SPURT) is when their personal logic tends to believe that anyone who oesnt believe as they do is a traitor and is somehow a deviant.
Id say that spurt is one of them so lets just keep an eye on him so he doesnt go off the deep end .
@farmerman,
Why do liberal fantasies always involve farm animals?
@H2O MAN,
I explain , or at least make something up with very tiny words and with an attempt not to offend your limited capabilities. BUT then, I said,
Naaaah, let im just spin in the wind.
Quote: It must be rather odd going about all day in a perpetual state of readiness.
Spendi said that on the Gifford thread, right before you criticized another poster for having irrelevant contributions.
You are truly a precious little spurt.
@OmSigDAVID,
Example of what freedom means for some conservatives:
Sen. Mike Lee Calls Child Labor Laws Unconstitutional
Quote:Congress decided it wanted to prohibit [child labor], so it passed a law—no more child labor. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that and the Supreme Court decided a case in 1918 called Hammer v. Dagenhardt. In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged something very interesting — that, as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned — that’s something that has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress. [...]
This may sound harsh, but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh. Not because we like harshness for the sake of harshness, but because we like a clean division of power, so that everybody understands whose job it is to regulate what.
Now, we got rid of child labor, notwithstanding this case. So the entire world did not implode as a result of that ruling.
Quote:Lee’s call for a return to failed constitutional vision that spawned the Great Depression is obviously wrong. The Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce…among the several states,” and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” this power to regulate commerce. Even ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia agrees that these powers give Congress broad authority to regulate “economic activity” such as hiring and firing. Which explains why the Supreme Court unanimously overruled Hammer v. Daggenhardt in a 1941 decision called United States v. Darby.
Moreover, Lee is simply wrong to claim that child labor magically disappeared after the Supreme Court rendered Congress powerless to prevent it. The reason why exploitative child labor has largely disappeared is because Congress placed very strict limits on child labor when it enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the constitutional cloud over this law was removed three years later when the Court overruled Lee’s pet decision.
Child labor laws are also only one of many essential protections that would evaporate in Mike Lee’s America. The same legal theory Lee uses to impugn child labor laws applies equally to the federal minimum wage and the ban on whites-only lunch counters. And Lee doesn’t even stop there. In a subsequent section of the lecture, Lee attacks President Franklin Roosevelt for calling for the federal government to provide “a decent retirement plan” and “health care” because “the Constitution doesn’t give Congress any of those powers.”
links at the source
