33
   

Does mob mentality rule A2K?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 06:30 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Just because someone espouses conservative views,
that doesn't mean they lack intelligence.
The reason for that
is that the Founders (whose views conservatives definitionally support) were intelligent.
Smart enuf to defeat the English.





David
ehBeth
 
  3  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 08:01 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Interesting perspective David.

I view the founders of the US as the opposite of conservative as their goal was to shake the status quo to its very foundations. They wanted change - extreme change. They did not like how things were, wanted to change them - and did.

They were liberal in their thinking.

Quote:
lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.


Quote:
Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:



If they hadn't been willing to discard the old views/behaviours, the United States would be part of the British Commonwealth to this day.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 10:36 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Interesting perspective David.
Thank u.


ehBeth wrote:
I view the founders of the US as the opposite of conservative
as their goal was to shake the status quo to its very foundations.
Yes, indeed; we agree, Beth. U misunderstood my point.
U refer to a DIFFERENT subject matter of the conservation.
Thay were radically (not liberally) against the Divine Right of Kings
and against the Crown controlling or influencing their former American colonies.



ehBeth wrote:
They wanted change - extreme change.
They did not like how things were, wanted to change them - and did.

They were liberal in their thinking.
Thay were MORE than liberal; thay were RADICAL.


lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Quote:
Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:
No, not necessarily: Hitler was liberal (i.e., deviant)
as to the Weimar Republic, but not what that lexicografer said ("...freedoms" etc.); agree ??

I was bringing out the point
that Barry Goldwater & I very rigidly & loyally support a literal
application of the Constitution and its underlying filosofy
of limited, curtailed, strangled government jurisdiction,
so as to enhance Individual Freedom at the expense of government jurisdiction.

The subject matter of THAT conservation is the US Constitution.

The subject matter of the conservation
to which YOU referred was the property rights of the King of England.

Apples & oranges; we had 2 different things in mind.

Is my reply to u clear ?
Did I succeed in getting my point across ?





David
Thomas
 
  4  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 10:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
No, not necessarily: Hitler was liberal (i.e., deviant)

You may want to re-consult your dictionary for the proper usage of words like liberal and liberalism. Adolf Hitler was not liberal under any of my dictionaries' definitions. (My dictionaries are the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster.)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 10:54 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is my reply to u clear ?
Did I succeed in getting my point across ?


yes. I understand that you do not understand the word liberal.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 10:57 am
@izzythepush,
I'm surprised you didn't respond to Setanta with your standard "I'm not going to do your work for you." line.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 01:53 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It doesn't take much to surprise those with a limited imagination.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 02:03 pm
@izzythepush,
Been studying Fortune Cookies lately?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 02:08 pm
@ehBeth,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is my reply to u clear ?
Did I succeed in getting my point across ?
ehBeth wrote:
yes. I understand that you do not understand the word liberal.
I remain un-certain regarding whether
we have had a meeting of the minds or not.
I also remain un-certain of whether your answer
is rendered in jest or not.

Liberal means deviant or loose
in regard to something that has been designated,
e.g., an agreement, or maybe a style of art
which is either applied literally, rigidly,
or loosely and with deviations. It need not be political.

For instance, someone who attends a formal affair
that requires evening attire: if he arrives in a good Tuxedo
and wearing red sneakers, then he is applying a liberal interpretation of formal dress,
because he has deviated from the applicable paradigm. It need not be political.

Do u see what I mean, Beth ?





David
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 02:33 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
yes. I understand that you do not understand the word liberal.


That is because it is a compound word now. Try liberal fascism it will be easier for you to understand.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 02:35 pm
@coldjoint,
That's funny! Your using two words that contradicts the other. LOL
coldjoint
 
  0  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 02:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Your using two words that contradicts the other.


Maybe in your world. The connections and techniques employed by liberals are nothing else but fascism.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 03:00 pm
@coldjoint,
Are you afraid of being sent to a concentration camp run by liberal SS?
coldjoint
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 03:08 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Are you afraid of being sent to a concentration camp run by liberal SS?


I am afraid for my grandchildren.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 03:11 pm
@coldjoint,
LOL. Afraid you should be, but not of liberals. They are of the "live and let live" kind.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 03:22 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
but not of liberals.


They are not liberals. That is just a name that belies the fact they are progressive statists. They change the meanings of just about anything to suit their needs. And it is done anyway it can be done. There are numerous examples of their double standards and double talk. Any action taken is usually subversive and has to be exposed. And when it is exposed it is promptly blamed on someone else in their long list of whipping boys.

There is no truth in what todays liberals say. And there is no character or principles in their actions.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 05:08 pm
@coldjoint,
If you believe that, why do you call them 'liberals'??? Because it has become an insult and you want to insult?
coldjoint
 
  0  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 11:39 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
you call them 'liberals'???

If you read my posts I have made it quite clear what todays liberal is. That I don't call them progressive and fascist all the time is my mistake. Again I attach a different meaning to the word.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 09:25 am
@coldjoint,
Your definition for any word is not worth the jumble of words you use; the dictionary has the correct definition.
coldjoint
 
  2  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 10:14 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
the dictionary has the correct definition.


Look up **** off.
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/21/2022 at 12:10:49