TRUE or FALSE: What Goes Around Comes Around ?

I am only saying that deviating from
one 's committment to a person,
without the consent of the person
whose rights r not being honored is morally rong.
I did not say
that the offending liberal shud necessarily be harmed,
or held to account; maybe.

Quote:

Quote:

Some folks ( including some M.D.s ) assert that cancer
is suicidal; i.e., the manifestation of an unwillingness
to continue to exist in the extant circumstances,
or, in other cases, that it is a self-punitive subconscious decision,
but NOT an irretrievable committment.

Quote:

Do you believe this?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Quote:

Why do you believe this?
Can you explain? (I'm interested).

My mother had an emotional quarrel
with me, over a few mt words.
She felt very bad. Soon thereafter,
she got sick with cancer.

I 've heard some other similar accounts,
that it is just a matter of getting fed up
and choosing to throw in the towel,
but that this is not an irretrievable committment.
One 's subconscious mind can and will reverse
and abort the process, if instructed to do so.
See Deepak Chopra, M.D. inter alia on this point.[/b][/color]

Quote:

Funny David - are you taking the piss out of me?

No, no; I am satisfied to leave it undisturbed.

Quote:

Quote:

Yeah, but who gets to go? Everyone?

Well, we 've gotten some bad reports
from atheists and suicides.
However, thay 've also said that upon
application ( yelling ) for forgiveness,
help was forthcoming.

Quote:

Do you mean there have been reports from people
who've tried to commit suicide and were revived?

Yes.

Quote:

Maybe if she doesn't feel the need for a god,
she has no need for an afterlife either.

Yes; apparently, opting for non-existence.
However, those reports were of unpleasant
circumstances, not of non-existence.

Quote:

Why is that?

Because we have not been lucky enuf
to get an account from any violent felon,
insofar as I am aware.

[quote]
Has that population not been included in the sample for some reason.

Consider this together with the report
that the diversity of life is an illusion,
and that in reality,
there is only one Living Being in the Universe.

Quote:

I have to stand firm on the fact that I do believe that conservative policy, in general, seems more often to fail to recognize the environment as a priority, than do more liberal political parties.

This is not sufficiently specific
to enable me to comment.

Quote:

Educationally, I see merits in both conservative and more liberal philosophies.

Care to elucidate, with examples ?

Can we make this one post on its own

Quote:

I found this really interesting.
I was wondering what the most commonly accepted libertarian stance
on immigration is, and if that affected their view on this situation.

It did not.
In essence, thay implied
that a child his the PROPERTY
of his parents, like the family dog,
and thay chose to respect the property rights
of the father, even if he is a communist,
and even if that means that the child must
live in slavery until his death in old age.

There is no consensus
among libertarians qua immigration policy.

When we consider liberalism
or conservatism,
we are contemplating the issue of CONSISTENCY.

In applying for lenient treatment,
one requests a liberal interpretation,
REGARDLESS of who is right or rong;
( it is saying: " hay, c'mon; give me a brake.
I 've had some bad luck " ).
Accordingly,
he seeks a resolution of the dispute
in a manner that is INCONSISTENT
with the letter of his agreement.
He appeals to be allowed to DEVIATE therefrom.

A liberal judge ( by definition ) will approve of that.
A conservative judge ( by definition ) will insist upon
a rigid, mechanical application of what was agreed,
with no deviation, unless the other party agrees
to deviation, in his free discretion.
The decision of whether or not to consent
to the deviation from the agreement
belongs to the non-liberal party.
For instance,
if u buy 5 cans of beans for $1,
and pay the merchant, named Marilyn,
who delivers only 3 cans
and says: " don 't be too technical;
that 's close enuf. Don 't split hairs.
I 've had a hard time of late;
screw THAT: I 'm going to DISNEYWORLD "
the merchant is asking for a liberal interpretation
to be applied to their contract of sale,
for her convenience; she requests mercy,
not justice.
It is POSSIBLE ( maybe even FUN )
to be nice to the liberal,
but that DECISION rightfully belongs
to the other party to the contract
i.e., the victim of the liberal.[/b][/color]

If u believe that ( by way of oversimplification )
I left out some significant concept, then please
indicate what that is.[/b][/color]

If in litigation, a liberal trial judge
is moven to be merciful to the applicant
for a liberal interpretation,
then that judge shud pay for it from his OWN pocket,
rather than to screw the victim of the liberal. [/b][/color]

Quote:

Wouldn't that make him or her illogical and almost stupid?

Yes; it wud NOT.

Quote:

A liberal ( meaning liberal as to the rules of poker )
will endeavor to take the pot, alleging a flush
when he has 4 spades and a club, alleging " that 's close enuf;
don t be too technical. Have a heart."

Quote:

So you believe that all people
who have liberal political beliefs are dishonest cheats?

Yes; thay want what thay want
and thay don t CARE about fidelity
to the original agreement ( e.g., the Consitution )
as long as thay end up with what thay WANT.

Quote:

Couldn't you consider the poor to be not the favorite,
but the most in need?

Yes; sure u cud,
but NEEDING something
does not give u the right to take it.
It belongs to its owner.

Quote:

Doesn't it make sense to help those who need help first,
and doesn't this imply practicality instead of favoritism?

It makes better sense
to just stay home, minding your own business
and enjoying the delights of your property,
ignoring those needs, UNLESS
u choose to give away your property.

I assure u that it CAN be FUN
to give away your property ( or your personal services ),
maybe give a child who does not expect it a gold wrist watch,
for the hell of it,
but the DECISION of whether or not to do so,
rightfully belongs to the owner of that property
or to the person who will render those services.

The difference between charity and robbery
is freedom of volition, in the donor thereof.[/b][/color]

In my opinion a little individuality is always a good thing.

Quote:

Rigidity is stifling to me.

I support rigid application
of the laws against robbery, murder, rape
n a few other things.

Some married folks
believe that an agreement to avoid
adulterous entanglements with others
shud be rigidly applied by their partners
and thay don 't like much liberal deviation.

Quote:

I guess that means I wouldn't make a good conservative.

I have not given up hope.

To a large extent,
it is a matter of learning the basic concepts;
THEN u have to decide what u will accept n reject.

From my knowledge of u, from your posts,
I do not believe
that if u committed yourself to a contract
that u 'd necessarily attempt to liberally avoid your
duties thereunder.[/b][/color]

Quote:

So how does libertarianism with its emphasis on individual freedom
fit into the rigid, inflexible conservative camp?

Libertarianism supports rigid enforcement
of CURTAILMENTS of government power.
For instance,
libertarians RIGIDLY support government having NO POWER
to enact nor to enforce any gun control law.

Quote:

Sorry to hear that.

My first love
was the girl of my DREAMS.
I found out, after the fact,
that the real, living person
did not correspond to the IMAGE of her
that I had in my mind for many years.

The only one I haven't heard of is "The People".
What is that about.

U r a good poster.
I am enjoying our cybercorrespondence

David

But does it bother people? A heckler 's veto ?
I'm asking because I've gotten comments before -
so I think it does- but noone has said specifically how or why?

Quote:

What do you think?

I think the applicable rule is:
the First Amendment
David

He's a little shy. It is his way of breaking the ice. :wink:

Quote:

I've enjoyed reading many of your posts, especially to those looking for help with homework assignments.

They have a refreshing sincereity.

So stipulated.

Quote:

For this thread in particular, I have popped into it a couple of times but bounce right back out again.
I find it a nusance and hardship on the eyes to read through all the varied formatting.
The formatting gets in the way of comprehension of what is being said so I skip over them.

I use color,
in an effort to set apart
MY posting from the surrounding posts,
to avoid confusion as to who said what.

Quote:

There is no rule about chit chatting in a thread.
There is plenty evidence of that spread all over these boards.

Quote:

I am only saying that deviating from
one 's committment to a person,
without the consent of the person
whose rights r not being honored is morally rong.
I did not say
that the offending liberal shud necessarily be harmed,
or held to account; maybe.

Quote:

I don't know, but I feel that looking at someone who has liberal political leanings,
and assuming they are also automatically incapable of upholding a personal commitment,
simply by virtue of that political tendency, is unfair and probably inaccurate.

I believe that the difficulty here
is in establishing the SEQUENCE of priorities
from the general to the specific.

My point is that, broadly speaking,
comprehensively speaking,
adoption of liberalism is adoption
of the concept of DEVIATION from
whatever the subject matter thereof is.
For instance,
it is a conservative application of
math to assert that 2 + 3 = 5.
That is conservative because it does not
stray from the established filosofy in this matter;
thus, it CONSERVES the mathematical idea,
whereas if someone asserts
that 2 + 3 = 5.2,
this assertion is LIBERAL, it is deviant,
it is stray ing
from the established body of mathematical rules
( to the extent of the .2 )
and a man is being liberal, he is being INCONSISTENT,
as to those rules,
regardless of whether he is liberal or conservative
in regard to different criteria,
such as whether he will dress very conventionally
or dress in a clown suit,
or
as to whose political ideology he will support
with his vote at election time,
or
regardless of whether he is rigidly adhering to
his promise to his wife to foresake all others,
as distinguished from taking a liberal vu
of that committment,
regardless of all those other possibilities,
he is liberal AS TO ARITHMETIC
if he claims that 2 + 3 = 5.2 ;
he is MORE liberal if he claims
that 2 + 3 = 7.



It does not necessarily follow that if u
hire a liberal to do a job
that he will stray and vary from his
agreed duties, and screw u.
It cud be possible
that the liberal ( in this instance )
will rigidly adhere to the deal
( thereby making himself a conservative,
as to THAT deal ).

" Liberal " n " conservative " r RELATIVE
terms, that have no meaning
unless u know :
" Liberal " or " conservative " IN REGARD TO WHAT;
( i.e., is a man a liberal as to how he DRESSES,
or
as to how he VOTES ? )

Liberalism can be GOOD,
if the subject matter thereof
is BAD; such as a member of the
commie party or of the nazi party,
who strays from its doctrines [ like Boris Yeltsin ]
may not be as bad as the conservative
commies or nazis; ( unless he liberally strays
in the direction of going from bad to worse,
from repressive to MORE repressive than b4;
remember that STRAYING, or being liberal,
can be in any of 360 different directions ).

If John Dillenger plans to rob a bank of
$50, 000 and then he goes and actually DOES so,
then he has NOT deviated from his plan;
he carried it out, rigidly, to the letter of that plan,
so that his conduct was a conservative application
of that plan;
however, if after making that plan,
he arrives at the bank,
changes his mind and steals only $35,000,
then he has DEVIATED from his original plan,
hence he executed it in a LIBERAL, deviant fashion,
and that was a GOOD thing to do,
in that stealing $35,000 is $15,000 morally BETTER
than stealing $50,000. ( Make sure your students KNOW that. )

In America today,
most political liberals
are of the Keynes, Roosevelt, Kennedy variety,
but straying can be in many different directions
and all roads to not lead to Kennedy.

Quote:

Quote:

Funny David - are you taking the piss out of me?

No, no; I am satisfied to leave it undisturbed.

I laughed so hard at this- those little laughing emoticons just won't suffice. You're really, really funny sometimes David.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Yeah, but who gets to go? Everyone?

Well, we 've gotten some bad reports
from atheists and suicides.
However, thay 've also said that upon
application ( yelling ) for forgiveness,
help was forthcoming.

Quote:

Do you mean there have been reports from people
who've tried to commit suicide and were revived?

Yes.

Quote:

Were the people interviewed who attempted suicide and gave bad reports
believers- or were they atheists?

Thay were atheists at the time of death;
and believers when thay were revived.

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe if she doesn't feel the need for a god,
she has no need for an afterlife either.

Yes; apparently, opting for non-existence.
However, those reports were of unpleasant
circumstances, not of non-existence.

Quote:

What were the unpleasant circumstances?
Can you describe them?

I 've heard it described 3 different ways,
that come to mind at the moment, to wit:
1. decedent college professor being taken away,
escorted by some very unfriendly people
who do things to him, en route
which he described as " unspeakable ";
he got rescued when he yelled for Jesus.

2. Hellish circumstances,
seeing other unfortunate beings at torment.

3. Seeing the Light, but being moven away from the LIght,
moving far thru outer space,
until the decedet reconsiders.

In all of these accounts,
the decedent was revived;
otherwise we 'd not have received their reports.

Quote:

Quote:

Why is that?

Because we have not been lucky enuf
to get an account from any violent felon,
insofar as I am aware.

[quote]
Has that population not been included in the sample for some reason.

Yes; the reason is that we have no data
on this point.

Yes- I understand that.
I should have asked- Why?
How are these interviews obtained?

Consider this together with the report
that the diversity of life is an illusion,
and that in reality,
there is only one Living Being in the Universe.

I found this really interesting.
I was wondering what the most commonly accepted libertarian stance
on immigration is, and if that affected their view on this situation.

That's interesting. I can hear your bias in your own response though. Maybe those libertarians who felt that way had children of their own and were thinking more emotionally of that parent/child bond.

And I'm sure the father did not believe
he was sentencing his son to a life of slavery

I get what you're saying.
It's just hard to hear it described in such undermining language.
It's almost like you are describing THE LIBERAL, as an inhuman being,

incapable of responsibility- just out for himself.

I view it totally differently.
I think most often people who are liberal are thinking of others - not themselves.

If u believe that ( by way of oversimplification )
I left out some significant concept, then please
indicate what that is.[/b][/color]

I guess it's not so much a concept as it is the stark black and white depiction
that is hard for me to accept.
But I don't doubt you know what you're talking about.

If in litigation, a liberal trial judge
is moven to be merciful to the applicant
for a liberal interpretation,
then that judge shud pay for it from his OWN pocket,
rather than to screw the victim of the liberal. [/b][/color]

Quote:

Wouldn't that make him or her illogical and almost stupid?

Yes; it wud NOT.

What does Yes; it would NOT. mean.

Quote:

A liberal ( meaning liberal as to the rules of poker )
will endeavor to take the pot, alleging a flush
when he has 4 spades and a club, alleging " that 's close enuf;
don t be too technical. Have a heart."

Quote:

So you believe that all people
who have liberal political beliefs are dishonest cheats?

Yes; thay want what thay want
and thay don t CARE about fidelity
to the original agreement ( e.g., the Consitution )
as long as thay end up with what thay WANT.

But conservatives want what they want,
and they don't care how it affects everyone else.

I know the constitution is important David, but don't you agree that the reality of everyday life for all the citizens of our country is important too?

Quote:

Couldn't you consider the poor to be not the favorite,
but the most in need?

Yes; sure u cud,
but NEEDING something
does not give u the right to take it.
It belongs to its owner.

Do you think it's wrong of our government to encourage compassion,

community or even charity - so that those in need will not have to take, but that those who have will be encouraged to care enough to want to give?

Quote:

Doesn't it make sense to help those who need help first,
and doesn't this imply practicality instead of favoritism?

It makes better sense
to just stay home, minding your own business
and enjoying the delights of your property,
ignoring those needs, UNLESS
u choose to give away your property.

That would be kind of lonely.
You've lived and worked in the city for too long.
I can remember my Dad talking about the ridiculous amount he was taxed working in NY.

It's made you bitter, David.

I assure u that it CAN be FUN
to give away your property ( or your personal services ),
maybe give a child who does not expect it a gold wrist watch,
for the hell of it,
but the DECISION of whether or not to do so,
rightfully belongs to the owner of that property
or to the person who will render those services.

And those of us who vote to fund programs to give that child health insurance
and a decent education, and a chance at a life instead of a gold watch,
are making the decision our way.

The difference between charity and robbery
is freedom of volition, in the donor thereof.[/b][/color]

In my opinion a little individuality is always a good thing.

Quote:

Rigidity is stifling to me.

I support rigid application
of the laws against robbery, murder, rape
n a few other things.

Some married folks
believe that an agreement to avoid
adulterous entanglements with others
shud be rigidly applied by their partners
and thay don 't like much liberal deviation.

Quote:

I guess that means I wouldn't make a good conservative.

I have not given up hope.

Good, only because I'd hate to ever hear you call me "THE LIBERAL" with such venomous acrinomy with which I've heard you apply it here.

To a large extent,
it is a matter of learning the basic concepts;
THEN u have to decide what u will accept n reject.

From my knowledge of u, from your posts,
I do not believe
that if u committed yourself to a contract
that u 'd necessarily attempt to liberally avoid your
duties thereunder.[/b][/color]

Quote:

So how does libertarianism with its emphasis on individual freedom
fit into the rigid, inflexible conservative camp?

Libertarianism supports rigid enforcement
of CURTAILMENTS of government power.
For instance,
libertarians RIGIDLY support government having NO POWER
to enact nor to enforce any gun control law.

What are their views on issues like gay marriage,

abortion, legalization of marijuana,

The only one I haven't heard of is "The People".
What is that about.

I've enjoyed reading many of your posts, especially to those looking for help with homework assignments. They have a refreshing sincereity.

For this thread in particular, I have popped into it a couple of times but bounce right back out again. I find it a nusance and hardship on the eyes to read through all the varied formatting. The formatting gets in the way of comprehension of what is being said so I skip over them.

There is no rule about chit chatting in a thread. There is plenty evidence of that spread all over these boards.

Quote:

I get what you're saying now-
it's all about the literal meaning of each of the terms.

Yes. Literal is good.

If u make a contract of sale
of 7 apples for $2,
the merchant takes the money
and gives u 5 apples
and when u complain
he demands that u not be " too technical "
( and he throws in the arguments that he
had a fight with his cousin, he got a flat tire,
and his left foot stinks, so " gimme a break " )
he is asserting that his liberal interpretation
of the contract shud be accepted without complaint
and that a conservative interpretation thereof
( i.e. that he deliver 7 apples ) wud be bad
and unreasonable.

In other words,
the liberal position is that u shud not be required
to actually DO what u committed yourself to do,
merely because u obligated yourself to do it;
the victim of the liberal 's deviation from
the contract shud be required to " have a heart ".

The motto of liberalism shud be
( and de facto it IS ) " that 's close enuf. "

This is the filosofy of the guy
who shows up a day late n $1 short.

If he shows up a week late
and $3 short, then he is MORE liberal.

Quote:

And as far as libertarianism goes,
a person who voted for that ticket would not be voting for
a collection of agreed upon stances on certain issues,
they'd be more interested in voting for the right to retain their own
individual stance on an issue- is that right?

No.
Their candidates paradigmaticly run on platforms
of support for some issues and oppostion to others;
the same as other parties.

Quote:

I may be all for individual rights and personal freedoms,
but I wouldn't blindly trust that someone else's idea of what that might
look like would necessarily make the right decisions, just because he or
she also believed in individual rights and personal freedoms.

I 'm afraid that we r stuck with that
as to ALL of the parties.
Once thay r elected,
thay serve out their terms of office,
doing whatever thay decide to do.

Quote:

Has it snowed there yet?

We r threatened with snow this week.
Has it snown in England yet ?

Y did u go to England ?

David

it's all about the literal meaning of each of the terms.

I 'm afraid that we r stuck with that
as to ALL of the parties.
Once thay r elected,
thay serve out their terms of office,
doing whatever thay decide to do.

Has it snown in England yet ?

Y did u go to England ?

Quote:

it's all about the literal meaning of each of the terms.

Yes. Literal is good.

Except you make your bias so very clear

that it is obvious you do not believe that a liberal interpretation is very often "good",

The motto of liberalism shud be
( and de facto it IS ) " that 's close enuf. "

I like "Have a Heart" better.

This is the filosofy of the guy
who shows up a day late n $1 short

Maybe, that's true, but he'd also be the guy who'd show up with
good and caring intentions toward those around him.

Maybe he's the guy who's willing to be flexible and give those around him the benefit of the doubt because he realizes that he's not always perfect himself, so he doesn't expect everyone else to be.

If he shows up a week late
and $3 short, then he is MORE liberal

but less insufferably arrogant, probably.

[/b][/color]
Their candidates paradigmaticly run on platforms
of support for some issues and oppostion to others;
the same as other parties.[/b][/color]

But every single issue I've asked you about,
you've stated there is no consensus among libertarians.

I 'm afraid that we r stuck with that
as to ALL of the parties.
Once thay r elected,
thay serve out their terms of office,
doing whatever thay decide to do.

By the way David - did you vote for George W? If so, why?

What about him convinced you he was good presidential material

Your mind is so open and willing to be flexible in other areas,
it's interesting that you insist on such inflexible rigidity in terms of political ideation.

* I know it sounds like I'm being argumentative;
I'm not trying to be.

These are just observations I've made that I'm curious about.

Has it snown in England yet ?

Not where I live - but as LE said, I'm down south.
We've had a couple of frosts, but no snow.
The wind turned bitterly cold today though, as soon as the sun went down.

Quote:

Y did u go to England ?

Because the opportunity presented itself, and I wanted to.
I'm one of those people who can't really stay put in any one place for very long. Even when I lived in the US - as an adult, I moved on average every three or four years. Since growing up in NJ, which I left as soon as I turned eighteen, the longest I lived anyplace else was eleven years - and that was in Maine. I loved it there, the scenery, the snow and frozen ponds to ice skate on in winter - the bluest sky I've ever seen in September and October (although Spring sucked - it didn't really exist there). Anyway, Maine is what I miss the most about the US- but I have to say I love living here even more. This is my favorite place I've ever lived.
But who knows, I was talking today to this woman who was born and raised in Zambia and as she described it, I realized I could imagine myself living there, as I've always been fascinated by Africa. Her ancestors were Scottish and her husband is British- and it was unsafe for their family to live there any longer, so they emigrated here five years ago, but she says her heart will always be in Africa. She says that she knows she'll go back, if only to be buried there. She made it sound magical- and a teacher can get a job pretty much anywhere...

*why is my print red? Although I do kind of like it...now the black looks so plain and pedestrian to me. I didn't do it on purpose though.

I am biased against government USURPING power
for ANY reason including robbing the rich to " have a heart " for the poor.[/b]

Quote:

However,
suppose that there is a standard of sanitation
that requires surgeons to have clean hands,
and one of them takes a LIBERAL interpretation thereof,
such that he thinks it enuf if his RIGHT hand is clean,
and that one shud not be " too technical " qua his left hand
( u don 't want to be a fanatically rigid conservative about it, right ? )

In such an instance,
I don 't believe that a liberal interpretation is good;
( well, maybe it might not be so bad if he is working on another liberal ).

Quote:

The motto of liberalism shud be
( and de facto it IS ) " that 's close enuf. "

Quote:

I like "Have a Heart" better.

A few decades ago,
my uncle was in Mexico,
driving his car.

He was stopped by Mexican police,
who extorted a bribe from my uncle,
explaining ( by way of an excuse )
that police did not get paid much
and thay have to eat, too
( another way of saying " have a heart " ).

Quote:

Maybe he's the guy who's willing to be flexible and give those around him the benefit of the doubt because he realizes that he's not always perfect himself, so he doesn't expect everyone else to be.

MAYBE; sometimes,
but observation has shown
that liberals can be inconsistent about that too.
Thay can be inconsistent about inconsistency,
as it pleases them.

Quote:

If he shows up a week late
and $3 short, then he is MORE liberal

Quote:

but less insufferably arrogant, probably.

Being in that position,
he has a lot less to be arrogant ABOUT.

Quote:

[/b][/color]
Their candidates paradigmaticly run on platforms
of support for some issues and oppostion to others;
the same as other parties.[/b][/color]

Quote:

But every single issue I've asked you about,
you've stated there is no consensus among libertarians.

No.
According to my memory,
I said that about immigration policy,
but that as to your questions concerning
freedom of abortion
and freedom to take drugs,
I said that thay favor those freedoms.
I hope that I remember accurately.

Quote:

By the way David - did you vote for George W? If so, why?

Because the alternatives were terrifyingly


I made the least offensive choice.

Quote:

What about him convinced you he was good presidential material

He offered an alternative
to the HORRIFYING other possibility.

quote]
Your mind is so open and willing to be flexible in other areas,
it's interesting that you insist on such inflexible rigidity in terms of political ideation.

That Secretary of HUD was RONG
to embezzle in order to support her favorite charity.

Quote:

* I know it sounds like I'm being argumentative;
I'm not trying to be.

Y not ?

I have always been argumentative;
long b4 I made a living at it,
as a member of the Bar.

While growing up,
I was forever challenging teachers,
with no apologies.

My uncle was ofen telling me: " don 't argue ";
I rejected his demands.
He got very upset;
I let that be HIS problem; not mine

( * In regard to your use of
the asterisk,
do u intend to signify something with it ? )

Quote:

These are just observations I've made that I'm curious about.

Those r part of what these fora r for.

Quote:

I am biased against government USURPING power
for ANY reason including robbing the rich to " have a heart " for the poor.[/b]

Quote:

Then what would your plan of action be?
I mean for "dealing with" (I almost said taking care of) the reality of poverty in our society?

My first impetus is to say to return
to the system that we had in the 1800s;
however, I DO support the safety net.
I don 't have a good answer for this; not at the moment anyway.

Quote:

Quote:

However,
suppose that there is a standard of sanitation
that requires surgeons to have clean hands,
and one of them takes a LIBERAL interpretation thereof,
such that he thinks it enuf if his RIGHT hand is clean,
and that one shud not be " too technical " qua his left hand
( u don 't want to be a fanatically rigid conservative about it, right ? )

In such an instance,
I don 't believe that a liberal interpretation is good;
( well, maybe it might not be so bad if he is working on another liberal ).

Quote:

I thought you said you didn't wish them harm.

That was only an assessment,
not a WISH.

Quote:

Quote:

The motto of liberalism shud be
( and de facto it IS ) " that 's close enuf. "

Quote:

I like "Have a Heart" better.

A few decades ago,
my uncle was in Mexico,
driving his car.

He was stopped by Mexican police,
who extorted a bribe from my uncle,
explaining ( by way of an excuse )
that police did not get paid much
and thay have to eat, too
( another way of saying " have a heart " ).

Quote:

That's not liberal, that's criminal and cowardly (although I know you think they're the same- I dont't)

The fact that something is LIBERAL ( i.e., deviant )
is fully compatible with its also being criminal.

Quote:

because they couldn't just take his money and admit it was because they wanted to and had the power to at that point in time - they had to attach some inane and cowardly justification to it.

Quote:

Which is something I think conservatives do all the time.

I do not believe that has been the case.
Conservatives simply refuse to accept deviation
from the paradigm; thay say: " I demand my RIGHTS;
I paid u for 7 cans of beans n I demand 7 cans not 6. "

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe he's the guy who's willing to be flexible and give those around him the benefit of the doubt because he realizes that he's not always perfect himself, so he doesn't expect everyone else to be.

MAYBE; sometimes,
but observation has shown
that liberals can be inconsistent about that too.
Thay can be inconsistent about inconsistency,
as it pleases them.

Quote:

David, I hate to break it to you, but you present yourself very inconsistently.
I think I present myself more consistently than you do.

How ?
Where did I go rong ?

Quote:

Quote:

If he shows up a week late
and $3 short, then he is MORE liberal

Quote:

but less insufferably arrogant, probably.

Being in that position,
he has a lot less to be arrogant ABOUT.

Quote:

That was a good one.

Quote:

Quote:

[/b][/color]
Their candidates paradigmaticly run on platforms
of support for some issues and oppostion to others;
the same as other parties.[/b][/color]

Quote:

But how do they arrive at common ground for a platform
if there are such disparate views among the constituents?

The same as the other parties
( which have also had tremendous controversies among them );
thay vote it out.

Quote:

Quote:

But every single issue I've asked you about,
you've stated there is no consensus among libertarians.

No.
According to my memory,
I said that about immigration policy,
but that as to your questions concerning
freedom of abortion
and freedom to take drugs,
I said that thay favor those freedoms.
I hope that I remember accurately.

Quote:

That's correct - with the exception of the issue of gay marriage.
I don't have a cut and dried stance on these issues myself David (except
for gay marriage - I am in favor of that unreservedly.
I think if two people want to commit to each other,
it's noone's business what their sexual orientation is).

I believe that ALL libertarians agree with THAT;
whether government shud OFFICIATE at a wedding thereof
is a different question.

Quote:

Abortion is a sticky issue for me,
as I feel it should be unnecessary at this point in time- except in certain therapeutic situation.
With the advent of safer and fool proof birth control methods,
I don't understand it as a fall-back method of birth control, which is what it is used for.
Even saying that, I still would not infringe on another person's individual
freedom or right of decision by voting to make it illegal.

I see freedom of abortion
as being an aspect of the right of self-defense
against an intruding biological organism,
which is either a guest
or
a parasite, depending upon whether it is welcomed
by its hostess.
As I c it,
the 13th Amendment also disables government
from enacting an anti-abortion statute.

Quote:

Legalization of marijuana is another sticky issue for me.
There are just too many safety and healthy concerns to make it cut
and dried for me as a personal freedom.

Government was never granted jurisdiction
to protect anyone from his own poor judgment.

Quote:

So mainly, I was just curious to see what the libertarian view is,
to see if it aligned with mine.

OK

Quote:

Quote:

By the way David - did you vote for George W? If so, why?

Because the alternatives were terrifyingly


I made the least offensive choice.

Quote:

Have you been happy with your choice?

Well, I am very, very glad that
W won each of the elections,
because the alternatives wud have been horribly worse,
but I see a lot of room for improvement.

Quote:

Quote:

What about him convinced you he was good presidential material

He offered an alternative
to the HORRIFYING other possibility.

Quote:

It would have been interesting to see how Al Gore would have handled the same issues Bush has had to face.

Quote:

quote]
Your mind is so open and willing to be flexible in other areas,
it's interesting that you insist on such inflexible rigidity in terms of political ideation.

I am not open to screwing people
out of their rights to personal freedom
by usurpation of political power,
for any reason and I am rigid in my opposition.
I rigidly insist on literal fulfillment of contractual obligations,
regardless of whether a party has had bad luck
and wants to be let off the hook because of it.

If I choose to comfort him,
I 'll do it with MY OWN cash,
not support his screwing someone else
to relieve his problems.

That Secretary of HUD was RONG
to embezzle in order to support her favorite charity.

Quote:

* I know it sounds like I'm being argumentative;
I'm not trying to be.

Y not ?

I have always been argumentative;
long b4 I made a living at it,
as a member of the Bar.

While growing up,
I was forever challenging teachers,
with no apologies.

My uncle was ofen telling me: " don 't argue ";
I rejected his demands.
He got very upset;
I let that be HIS problem; not mine

I guess as a female, I've been raised to believe that it's not an attractive feminine trait.
Sadly, David, we (females) are not given the same lee-way in terms of
such personality traits as men are.

I also don't really enjoy argument that I feel results in bad feelings.

I think it has something to do with having been a middle child.
I always feel a very strong instinct to try to keep some kind of peaceful equilibrium.
I think that also has a lot to do with why I'm able to acknowlege that
there are always two sides to a situation.

Did you grow up with siblings?

I'm going to tell you that I'd guess you were an only child,

( * In regard to your use of
the asterisk,
do u intend to signify something with it ? )

Quote:

These are just observations I've made that I'm curious about.

Those r part of what these fora r for.

Have you started preparing for Christmas?

What do you like most about it?

Are you happy that it might snow?

however, I DO support the safety net.

I don 't have a good answer for this; not at the moment anyway.[/b]

Quote:

That's not liberal, that's criminal and cowardly (although I know you think they're the same- I dont't)

The fact that something is LIBERAL ( i.e., deviant )
is fully compatible with its also being criminal.

because they couldn't just take his money and admit it was because they wanted to and had the power to at that point in time - they had to attach some inane and cowardly justification to it.

Which is something I think conservatives do all the time.

MAYBE; sometimes,
but observation has shown
that liberals can be inconsistent about that too.
Thay can be inconsistent about inconsistency,
as it pleases them.

David, I hate to break it to you, but you present yourself very inconsistently.
I think I present myself more consistently than you do.

Legalization of marijuana is another sticky issue for me.
There are just too many safety and healthy concerns to make it cut
and dried for me as a personal freedom.

It has been proven to me that
terrible n illogical anti-female discrimination has existed.

Quote:

I also don't really enjoy argument that I feel results in bad feelings.

" Argument is the piecing together of evidentiary fact,
in combination with the ordinary rules of logic and rhetoric. "

The purpose of an argumetn is to shed lite,
whereas quarrels shed heat.

Quarrels r an exercise in ego domination.

Did you grow up with siblings?

Have you started preparing for Christmas yet?
No.

Quote:

What do you like most about it?

I love the Christmas Spirit;
in my youth, I loved Christmas vacations,
and the presents

Quote:

Are you happy that it might snow?

not as a motorist

My ethics teacher said that she bought a dodgy car radio off some bloke in a pub.
Then a few weeks later she had it stolen.

I suppose this is an example of 'what goes around comes around.'
But not in a 'luck' type sense.
By buysing a dodgy car radio, she enabeling the criminals to go on with their trade. And that trade resulted in her radio getting stolen....