cicerone imposter wrote:Cyclo wrote: I've highlighted your error, Okie; You can't just make words mean whatever you want them to mean.
Conservatism has not always stood for equal rights for all, and still doesn't.
okie is an expert at self-defined words; that's an uncanny skill he holds.
I can't speak for conservatives 500 years ago, no more than you can speak for liberals 500 years ago. The argument here pertains to here and now, as generally defined by the words. And I am sure the liberal down the block may have slightly different beliefs than you, imposter. No need to obfuscate the debate here.
okie wrote:I can't speak for conservatives 500 years ago, no more than you can speak for liberals 500 years ago. The argument here pertains to here and now, as generally defined by the words. And I am sure the liberal down the block may have slightly different beliefs than you, imposter. No need to obfuscate the debate here.
There weren't any liberals 500 years ago.
You really should follow the links and read something about liberalism - my link/quoet actually is as of today. (Well, might be a couple of weeks old.)
okie, Learn to read the response to your posts with an open mind, if that's possible. Your statements are full of errors/mistakes you seem impervious to.
Walter says there weren't any liberals 500 years ago. What in the heck was the Rennaisance and Reformation if not liberalism in its purest form? How can any Catholic call the Franciscan or Benedictine movements conservative?
Okie is quite right that we cannot speak for nor are we responsible for either the good or the bad of our ancesters or even those who formed the history of this country. Only the most reckless and/or ignorant fail to consider the lessons that history teaches us, however.
Is this tangent really going anywhere?
For a while it was interesting, now it seems to just kind of be eating its own tail.
Maybe a new thread?
fox, For your edification, here's an explantion from Wikipedia:
The Renaissance (French for 'rebirth', or Rinascimento in Italian), was a cultural movement in Italy (and in Europe in general) that began in the late Middle Ages, and spanned roughly the 14th through the 17th century. It encompassed the revival of learning based on classical sources, the rise of courtly and papal patronage, the development of perspective in painting, and advancements in science.
Foxfyre wrote:Walter says there weren't any liberals 500 years ago. What in the heck was the Rennaisance and Reformation if not liberalism in its purest form? How can any Catholic call the Franciscan or Benedictine movements conservative?
Though I made my university exams in political sciences about liberalism this is rather new for me.
Thanks for the update.
Recent polls seem to show Clinton ahead of Obama by 15 points. I'm not sure what the explanation for this larger spread means at this time when Obama seems to be getting more positive reactions and press.
I think it's the first one since the Dem debate.
Walter Hinteler wrote:okie wrote:I can't speak for conservatives 500 years ago, no more than you can speak for liberals 500 years ago. The argument here pertains to here and now, as generally defined by the words. And I am sure the liberal down the block may have slightly different beliefs than you, imposter. No need to obfuscate the debate here.
There weren't any liberals 500 years ago.
There had to be some, Walter. Maybe they were called something else?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Though I made my university exams in political sciences about liberalism this is rather new for me.
Apparently Walter called them something else. But then we've long known that Europeans and Americans define the term differently. I thought we might agree more of definitions of classical liberalism but apparently not.
I think the older brand of liberalism might have more resembled what we would call libertarian now. Modern American liberals have really screwed up the original definition, because now they favor more and more government, not personal liberty. I think the modern American conservative viewpoint more closely resembles the libertarian viewpoint now than a modern American liberal would, no question.
Liberalism has its own brand in different countries, and the definition has changed through time. But the American liberal mindset has elements of certain human traits, so it has obviously existed since the beginning of time, much longer than 500 years, Walter. It may have been called something else.
Those you named, Foxfyre, have nothing to do with liberalism - referring to the classicL liberalism/ laissez-faire liberalism/traditional liberalism - or, like the philosophers of the Enlightment, are 'only' thought to be sources for the liberalism.
okie - only US-Americans use this different term of liberalism. Besides that, liberals can be on the right side or more to the left in the polictical spectrum.
3,000 gather for Obama rally in Missouri
By MARIA SUDEKUM FISHER, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) urged about 3,000 supporters Saturday to help send members to Congress who will oppose the war in Iraq.
"We have 51 votes in the Senate, and to have a veto-proof majority the next time we send a bill to end the war, we're going to need 16 more votes," Obama said.
"So I need everybody to take a look at how your senators are voting and how your congressmen are voting. We are 16 votes away from ending this war."
Obama was referring to President Bush's veto earlier this month of a $124.2 billion bill that would have funded the war in Iraq, among other things, but demanded troops begin coming home Oct. 1.
3000 supporters out of a popluation of about 450,000?
Looks like Obama needs to get more of the population out to their little gatherings.
You mean, police would have allowed more to gather in that ballroom, miller
From what I saw, it looked really overcrowded already.
Are you sure it was 3000 people?
As much as I like Obama,he has shown a tendency to multiply numbers by a factor of 1000 sometimes.
"factor of 1000"? that would mean there were 3 people in Kansas City. You sure you're not the one exaggerating?
...and I'm sure your concern is that he is honest, and that you have similar concerns about all the other candidates.
He's on This Week with George Stephanopolis right now - maybe if you watch, you can find some other things to be concerned about.
