Hero, my apologies by dreamtrove

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So... why did he claim membership to that group? Doesn't make sense to me.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:04 AM

Signym,

Did he? I think this needs a link. One with a quote from Alito. The New York Times said he wasn't in it, I doubt they'd say that if he didn't. I did a little futher and most sources seem to say he took part in their protest of the ROTC, but was never a member of the group. I tend to trust the times to tell me the truth. I guess there's an FBI file on this group, and he's not in that or the groups own records, so it sounds like a large cover up conspiracy would be required. It's also possible that Mr. Flug is wrong. Since Alito was also a member of anti-discriminatory groups, it's hard to credit that anything he did with these guys was out of the naziness of his heart. Finally, and this is just a stickler point, having read a fair amount now about the questionable past of Judge Alito, which seems at least close to non-existant, I have to say look at who's hurling the stones. I'm sure Mr. Kennedy is not really interested in another examination of his own past. Sorry, it's just this whole thing seems to be partisan trickery from Mr. Flug, a political strategist and mudslinger, and I feel like a fool for being taken in by it. I'm not here stomping for Alito, just retracting my earlier objection, which seems to have been based on nothing but spin, so I thought an apology was in order from me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What I heard was that he listed it in his resume when applying to the Reagan administration. But I agree with you, his membership is neither here nor there. I'm concerned about his support for the Unitary Executive and his consistent allowances for government error- even egregious government error. But I see that Alito was confirmed. I did my best to warn y'all.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:38 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I see that Alito was confirmed. I did my best to warn y'all.

Thanks for the warning. The first sign that he was the man for the job was the crazified reactions and dire warnings from the liberals.

Bush said he'd appoint this kind of justice back during the debates. Bush was reelected. Therefore the people must want this kind of judge.

Either way, what's done is done, now we can all start figuring out who will replace whats his name when he retires next year.

...and we can argue about Bush's State of the Union Address. Here's the cut down version:

America, good.
Terror, bad.
Army, good.
Liberal defeatists, bad.
Iraq, good.
Iran, bad.
Economy, good,
Social secuirty and health care, bad.
Palestinian Democracy, good.
Hamas, bad.
Oil, good.
Oil, bad.
Yada yada, good.
So and so, bad.
Hero, good.
Signy, bad.
Serenity, good.
Brokeback, bad.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:02 AM

IQ's below 12 good?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:55 PM

DARKJESTER

Hero wrote:

Quote:

America, good.
Terror, bad.
Army, good.
Liberal defeatists, bad.
Iraq, good.
Iran, bad.
Economy, good,
Social secuirty and health care, bad.
Palestinian Democracy, good.
Hamas, bad.
Oil, good.
Oil, bad.
Yada yada, good.
So and so, bad.
Hero, good.
Signy, bad.
Serenity, good.
Brokeback, bad.

Don't forget "9/11, 9/11, 9/11!!!" (bad)

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Dreamtove: "I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and ... a member of the Concerned Alumni for Princeton University" See top of page 16

www.reagan.utexas.edu/alito/8105.pdf

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
IQ's below 12 good?

Joke all ya want,but always remember, Bush is smarter than Kerry. Proved it on the standardized test for the military, proved it by his grades in college. Wanan say Bush has the intellect of a chimp? Fine, but that chimp is smarter than Kerry. Always remember that.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:49 PM

Auraptor:
Tests like that:
Mean nothing.
Einstein had poor grades. But then in your world you probably think Bush is more intelligent than Einstein.

Further more I really don't see where you got the idea that I supported Kerry, but just so you know I didn’t, so your attempts to wind me up, way off the mark.

Lastly, as I said before, you can play the “who's idiot is smarter” game all you like, but I couldn't care less.

Please don't insult chimps like that, they're quite intelligent critters.

Bush is a moron. Always remember that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Auraptor:
Tests like that:
Mean nothing.
Einstein had poor grades. But then in your world you probably think Bush is more intelligent than Einstein.

Further more I really don't see where you got the idea that I supported Kerry, but just so you know I didn’t, so your attempts to wind me up, way off the mark.

Lastly, as I said before, you can play the “who's idiot is smarter” game all you like, but I couldn't care less.

Please don't insult chimps like that, they're quite intelligent critters.

Bush is a moron. Always remember that.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I see that Alito was confirmed. I did my best to warn y'all.

Yeah, I’ll make a note.

With Roberts and Alito on the bench, Bush has earned his keep. Best vote I ever made was for Bush, second term.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There are essentially two kinds of libertarian extremes - anarchism and Nazism.

The Nazis have come out to play.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos

Kronos was a candidate and Bush still won!?!? How did that happen!? Was it Florida again!?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Best vote I ever made was for Bush, second term.

I was gonna drink turpentine or arsenic; I chose arsenic, best choice I ever made.

I somehow survived the arsenic.

Lemons from lemonade Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos

That's funny, it seems you got him....

BWAHAWHAWHAHA

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, just in case it gets lost in the shuffle:

"I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and ... a member of the Concerned Alumni for Princeton University"

www.reagan.utexas.edu/alito/8105.pdf
See top of page 16

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
That's funny, it seems you got him....

Are you implying that Kronos = Bush? Because that's not so. Even though they're very similar in a number of ways, there are some subtle differences. Observe: Bush has two eyes, and Kronos is prettier.

Observant Khyronisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Best vote I ever made was for Bush, second term.

I was gonna drink turpentine or arsenic; I chose arsenic, best choice I ever made.

I somehow survived the arsenic.

Lemons from lemonade Chrisisall

I can’t in good conscious support your arsenic drinking policies, but it doesn’t really surprise me, because you Liberals types are always shooting yourself in foot. And truth be told, the Post-Modern Liberals of the American are probably a lot more responsible for getting Roberts and Alito on the bench then Bush is.

Any political thought that places Michael Moore and Howard Dean in the driver’s seat of their philosophy is guaranteed a backlash. Not that I’m complaining. Personally, it’s what I like about Post-Modern Liberalism.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:37 PM

Signym,

Thanks, you did find it. I did some digging, and though he may have thought he was a member, he only apparantly took part in their pro-ROTC rally, and then later more or less forgot about it. He never made it on to their list. I've been to many groups, rallies and meetings of people with political agendas, though never like this one, but I've found it isn't until meeting number eight or so that someone says 'hey, we don't have you on our rolls.' Then after that, the group went medieval, and Alito may have failed to notice the detail. If this is the case, that was dumb of him, but forgiveable.

The other possiblity was that he was proud of his hatred of blacks and women. This is probably hard to credit, since Reagan would have kicked his ass to Connecticut for it. But still, it's troublesome. The issue of joining other anti-discrimination groups helps diffuse this.

But I agree, the unitary executive idea is more troublesome. I heard his rant about unitary executive not being about power, but I think it's still troublesome. In the future, we need to have justices who lean anti-executive, because pro-executive is becoming a bad slant of the court, though independent of it's left-right balance.

Quote:

Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos

Lol. I like it. Can I get a bumper sticker that says that?

Quote:

Theer are essentially two kinds of libertarian extremes - anarchism and Nazism.

The Nazis have come out to play.

Nuttin libertarian about nazis. They is pro-govt all the way. But it is the extreme opposition of anarchy, I agree. It's the Anthill-Anarchy axis, which I think lies perpendicular to the left-right.

Khyron,

Write ins never win becuase the majority of the people are illiterate. Oh what an interesting world it would be if there were no ballots. Everything could be write in. If you actually had to write the name G.W.Bush of J.F.Kerry, things would be different.

Finn,

I grant that the appointments were good ones, overall, Bush could have done a lot worse, and Kerry would have, most likely, form a conservative perspective. But the nation is in shambles. Saving the court is probably not worth the loss of, say, New Orleans.

Quote:
because you Liberals types are always shooting yourself in foot.

Chrisisall is a liberal? The world is on it's head. Anyway, I don't actually think there are many serious conservatives, not sure about liberals.

[rant]

No offense, so don't take this personal, because it's not internded that way. Anyone who isn't appalled by Bush has likely spent no time studying the history of their own political movement, or anyone else's.

Bush's military policy is globalist social militarism which comes straight from trotsky, which is not surprising, his military advisors are loaded with trotskyites.

Bush's economic policy is Johnson democrat, which is not surprising, he takes economic tips from johnson democrats

Bush's environmental policy is oil cronyism, not surprising, his environmental team is oil cronies.

Bush's constitutional policy is paranoid stalinist statism, which is not surprising because his legal advisors are all paranoid fear-mongers.

I got this gem from a dictionary a while back:
Terrorist - one who seeks to gain political ends by fostering an environment of fear.

I realize a lot of folks voted for Bush. But realize, a lot of liberals voted for Kerry. The fortunate thing for them, is Kerry lost, so now they don't have to pretend they actually like him. Let go of Bush, I think we can do a lot better for a conservative in '08.

I'd like to see
1. GM, Ford and American business back on it's feet.
2. No more deficit spending.
3. A dollar that is worth more than a euro.
4. US military used to defend america and her allies, not to bring women's lib to the middle east.
5. Protection of all ten of the amendments of the bill of rights.
6. An actual effort to get bin laden, or to dissuade (not appease) him.
7. Privatization efforts which are successful and help boost our economy, not ones which are all talk and no action.
8. Policies which support good old american know-how, like stem cell research, the internet and alternative energy.
9. An adherence to classical republican doctrine, including, but not limited to: internationalism not globalism, free-market capitalism guaranteed by the anti-trust, environmental conservation not destruction, a military policy of containment, not conflict. All of these are notable republican party platform planks added by republican presidents of the 20th century.
10. A respect for process, rooted in the rule of law, the will of the people and the separation of power, not in corruption, blind ideology and the spectre of fear.

I know I'm probably the guy in the middle who gets beat on by both sides, and deals a fair amount of punishment back, but I'm not fringe looney here, I'm the anchor. My views are pretty solidly in tune with a very long line of GOP presidents. Just about all of them. Bush is the one outside the party line, and I think the majority of the GOP senators think so too.

I also know that Robert and Alito were the picks of people like Arlen Spector, and Harriet Miers and the almost nomination (Bush actually said it twice, hinted many times) of Alberto Gonzalez were Bush's own picks. Yay for the GOP for getting it's own people in. Now, in the future, can we not be in this situation where we have some shmuck with his own corrupt friends and extremist ideologues running the show? (And I don't mean right-extremists, they're no wingnuts, and I gather the left doesn't want them, so granted, but whatever they are, they are certainly very very far outside the mainstream.)

[/rant]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Khyron,

Write ins never win becuase the majority of the people are illiterate. Oh what an interesting world it would be if there were no ballots. Everything could be write in. If you actually had to write the name G.W.Bush of J.F.Kerry, things would be different.

Think you've got me confused with somebody else there. I just joined the kronos joking thing, wasn't in the mood to get all serious by joining the actual debate (seems like the same stuff that's been discussed plenty of times before anyway).

Plus I wouldn't have suggested write-ins, not just because of the reason you've mentioned (my main objection would be the ease of fraud).

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I know I'm probably the guy in the middle who gets beat on by both sides,

Yeah, I've noticed that. Sometimes I wonder how you cope, because no matter what you say you usually end up having people from both sides disagree with you. Good to see somebody have the stamina, I couldn't do it (but when it comes to American politics I tend to be on the liberal side most of the time anyway, so I wouldn't have to).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
you Liberals types are always shooting yourself in foot.

See how I'm not going into a childish tantrum followed by a Bush rant?
I think I've grown. It's the mark of a great man.

(Bush still stinks from ANY reasonable POV!!)

Well, I'm a good man.

(And if I'm truly a Liberal, then you're a fascist, Finn.)

I'm okay.

ChrisisMal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Chrisisall: HAHAHAHAHA!

DT: Well, wherever you are on the political spectrum you certainly have affected my thinking.

Finn, Hero, Auraptor: I take it you're not Libertarians?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:35 AM

Khyron,

Um, about the write-in Kronos, I wasn't being serious. Hmm. I've got to work on that sarcasm thing. Maybe some smileys.

Anyway, yeah, it's hard to be on a side in American politics without a little BAA-AA. The main political perspective of Clinton and of Bush is pretty much, well, chrisisall but it best: Give us your money.

But there are good people, on both sides. I think if you followed it, by necesssity you'd end up agreeing with some folk, and disagreeing with others, on each side. Sometimes it's democrats standing up for the rights of the people not to be lied to and spied on, sometimes it's republicans standing up for rights not to be tortured and robbed. But what I've noticed is it's always the same group of people. Moderate conservatives like Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, and conservatives like John McCain and Lindsay Graham on the GOP side, and Moderate dems like Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer, and traditional democrats like Chris Dodd and Dick Durbin. But all tolled there are probably 25 of them, both sides, but they are the folks who never end up on a presidential ticket, or in any way in the power circle.

What makes me republican is I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with the traditional republican platform. Bush is nowhere near that platform. But powersickness has been a problem for a while. Bush Sr. and Reagan were decently on track, Bush Sr. probably a little more so, but no admin has been really in line with the GOP of the Senate for a while. They vote for the policies because they have to, or the party supports someone else against them in their own primaries, as Bush is right now doing to Lincoln Chafee, who is one of the good guys.

[rant]
I want to take a moment to say what a stupid idea this is, opposing Chafee in his own primary. In Rhode Island, democrats outnumber republicans 2:1. Chafee won re-election in 2000 because democrats turned out in droves to vote for him. Without their support, he couldn't win. So, Mr. Chafee votes the way his constituents want him to. I think people fail to recognize that many of the senators on the floor stood up and said "my constituents want me to vote for alito", as did dem. robert byrd, or "against alito" as did rep. lincoln chafee.
[/rant]

Anyway, at some point it became okay for the executive to come in and say 'we have an agenda.' No one in the executive branch gives a dman what the people want anymore. I think this disease has spread to the UK.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:46 AM

ChrisIsMal,

Bush is irrelevant. Focus your anger elsewhere. He's a puppet on a string. I think everyone knows this, and of course it's how I ended up with my Team Evil idea. If you shift your anger just a little bit, realizing that Bush is personally incapable of forming a rational thought, much less a sentence (though I heard him compete a fair few last night, either he's improving, or he's started lip synching)
Anyway, to Cheney. Just a slight shift. Then you see who Cheney is, who he deals with and that's where the problem really lies. The president has no power. He's Theoden. Cheney is Grima Wormtongue. I don't think that if the cocaine was removed from I don't know that he would go fight for Rohan, Gondor and the world of men. He might just flop in front of the TV and watch reruns of Springer.

I liked the platform, part of it. It was of course, the classic end of a career speech:
He's what we're going to do:
Rape, Kill, Pillage then Help, Give, Heal.
So that two years later when they intentionally lose to Hillary, they can say "Well, we got some of what we set out to do, we got Rape, Kill, Pillage, but we didn't get to do Help, Heal and Give, because of the democrats.
Then Hillary starts the whole thing over again, but the lack of good deeds is again blamed on republicans, as it was with Bill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
See how I'm not going into a childish tantrum followed by a Bush rant?
I think I've grown. It's the mark of a great man.

(Bush still stinks from ANY reasonable POV!!)

Well, I'm a good man.

(And if I'm truly a Liberal, then you're a fascist, Finn.)

I'm okay.

ChrisisMal

clever.

A fascist Finn. It has a certain ring to it. I’ve always felt that the world would be a much better place crushed under the unrelenting Iron fist of Finnism.

I don’t know if you’re a Liberal or not. I’ve always thought of you as someone who genuinely saw both sides, which I’ve always respected about you, but I’ve never been able to determine exactly where your own personally political feelings fall.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, Hero, Auraptor: I take it you're not Libertarians?

Is Libertarian the new code word for Bushhater? Well, I hate to upset the new world order, but I’m pretty sure being liberatarian doesn’t imply hating Bush, and although I’m not really one for labels (unless I’m using them to describe other people) I think Libertarian probably fits me better then anything else.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I know I'm probably the guy in the middle who gets beat on by both sides, and deals a fair amount of punishment back, but I'm not fringe looney here, I'm the anchor. My views are pretty solidly in tune with a very long line of GOP presidents. Just about all of them. Bush is the one outside the party line, and I think the majority of the GOP senators think so too.

Crazy people always think the rest of the world agrees with them.

I actually do agree with many of your ideals, but your methods of arriving at those conclusions leave something to be desire. Such as claiming that anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t know anything about any political philosophy, which is probably not true. It’s probably also not true that Bushs’ Supreme Court nominations have any affect on whether hurricanes strike the southern coast. Accusing anything that moves of being socialist or redefining Latin etymology to suit your political motives. Your arguments are full of all kinds of nonsense, which I usually just skip over. But despite all that I think we tend to agree on many issues.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 6:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I don’t know if you’re a Liberal or not. I’ve always thought of you as someone who genuinely saw both sides, which I’ve always respected about you, but I’ve never been able to determine exactly where your own personally political feelings fall.

Having grown up with a very conservative father, it was only natural to develope a rebellious Liberal smart mouth, however I enjoyed Dirty Harry movies growing up, and always believed rapists and murderers deserved to be escorted off this mortal coil.
Nobody should be above the law, however, obviously, many with $'s are, so law = $, and then again, some laws are good for keeping relative peace and quiet. All systems, governments, and public agencies should aim at getting folk more independent and self-reliant; wellfare needs some work

. Marry who you want, but save the parades for those with big giant Garfield baloons and interesting floats and such. And militarily do whatever gets the least number of innocents involved or hurt.

Bruce Lee is my hero; use what works and waste no time with what doesn't. Which can throw me in the Liberal camp one minute, and the Conservative camp the next.

Anyway. I try to see both sides, and as with anyone else, it's a work in progress. This site has been of enormous help to me in staying off the edge...
Thanks to all.

From Anti-Christ to sock-puppet. Bush ain't so bad, after all.
If ya like sock-puppets.

Childhood fan of the Puppet Theatre Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 6:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- I have to go on what the Libertarian party says about itself, since I don't know a lot about the various "isms" that poulate the political world. According to their website

Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders.

Is one out of four good enough to describe Finn? However, I did find THIS description in the American Heritage Dictionary, which seems a better fit:

"A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.". And unwavering support of a single leader (in this case Bush).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders.

A) We have a controlled market economy.
B) Civil liberties are in place, but subject to change without notice.
C) Our foreign policy shows that we intervene, and intervene a lot (I feel Antarctica is next).

Well, this country doesn't seem very Libertarian...?

No s**t Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 7:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And speaking of dicatorship....

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.

WTF??? Arrested for wearing a T-SHIRT? On what grounds was she arrested? Bad taste in clothes? But I'm sure FINN approves, since he's such a "Libertarian".

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
WTF??? Arrested for wearing a T-SHIRT? On what grounds was she arrested? Bad taste in clothes?

B) Civil liberties are in place, but subject to change without notice.

If the tee-shirt said "Happy with the people you killed, George?", or "George, you Dumass Killer!" there'd be an argument for removal, or arrest for not leaving as directed, I think, due to the possibly libelous nature of the text.
"U.S. out of Iraq" or such should be allowed as free speech.
(I wore a 'Foxy Brown' tee to a Clan meeting once, just to see, and nobody said a word.)

And if wishes were horses...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Having grown up with a very conservative father, it was only natural to develope a rebellious Liberal smart mouth, however I enjoyed Dirty Harry movies growing up, and always believed rapists and murderers deserved to be escorted off this mortal coil.
Nobody should be above the law, however, obviously, many with $'s are, so law = $, and then again, some laws are good for keeping relative peace and quiet. All systems, governments, and public agencies should aim at getting folk more independent and self-reliant; wellfare needs some work. Marry who you want, but save the parades for those with big giant Garfield baloons and interesting floats and such. And militarily do whatever gets the least number of innocents involved or hurt.

My family was also very conservative and I did my own Left-wing rebelling as a yute. But I got better.

My philosophy is that I think that all in all, we have a pretty good system, and while I believe that there is always room for improvement, I think that any radical change to the system will be harmful. In general, I think the founding fathers got it right.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 8:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
My philosophy is that I think that all in all, we have a pretty good system, and while I believe that there is always room for improvement, I think that any radical change to the system will be harmful. In general, I think the founding fathers got it right.

So do I. Where I differ from you is that I think Bush is instituting a radical change including aiming at a Unitary Executive form of government and trampling on civil liberties. The Founding Fathers were not conservative nor were they religious; for their day they were downright radical- revolutionary, even.

(Throwing tea overboard would now be considered "economic terrorism" and might gain you an indefinite tour of Gitmo.)

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My philosophy is that I think that all in all, we have a pretty good system, and while I believe that there is always room for improvement, I think that any radical change to the system will be harmful. In general, I think the founding fathers got it right.

I so agree, it's just the radical changes the Bush administration is trying to push through that trouble me...
If Kerry had won, and was trying to dismantle the military, or was trying to make gasoline engines illegal or something, I'd be equally concerned.

Finn, do you think the Bush Administration is NOT up to any radical shenanigans? Or is it just shenanigans as par for the course, given the political agenda?

Chrisisall*doing his best Gwynn* Yute?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor
Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos

I'm thinking you have a point here, but since the only possibillities of what that might be have no bearing on me I have no idea as to what that may be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Khyron,

Um, about the write-in Kronos, I wasn't being serious. Hmm. I've got to work on that sarcasm thing. Maybe some smileys.

lol, okay, I got it now. No need for smileys, it was late where I live and I was being dense. Well, more dense than usual. Sorry about that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:56 PM

Finn,

Quote:
I’m pretty sure being liberatarian doesn’t imply hating Bush

It is. or would be, but I think we're all libertarians, I don't see why some don't see that Bush is the enemy of libertarianism, as is Kerry, and both Clintons.

But hating Bush is like hating Gollum. Okay, no, Gollum gets my vote over Bush. Or maybe Bush is Saruman. With the same level of loveablilty.

Okay, I must respond to this:

Quote:

I actually do agree with many of your ideals, but your methods of arriving at those conclusions leave something to be desire. Such as claiming that anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t know anything about any political philosophy, which is probably not true. It’s probably also not true that Bushs’ Supreme Court nominations have any affect on whether hurricanes strike the southern coast. Accusing anything that moves of being socialist or redefining Latin etymology to suit your political motives. Your arguments are full of all kinds of nonsense, which I usually just skip over. But despite all that I think we tend to agree on many issues.

My conclusions are reached through arduous pursuit of the truth. You don't follow my logic because you skim what I write. I never claimed that people who don't understand are ignorant, or if I do, it's only because I am angry with their obstinance. I think that most often it is only unwillingness to see enemies within their own ranks which blinds everyone to the truth. The enemies of freedom, the enemies of us, are everywhere. We should not dispair, and become paranoid, but we should always have our eyes open to see it when it is so, and never delude ourselves to see it when it is not.

Bush's supreme court nominees, I approve of, and don't bring down New Orleans. The ignorance of Clinton and Bush failed to build the levies up.

I don't redefine latin. The words are derivative, but it's not me twisting the definition of liberal into liberty. I am familiar with the english language which I have spoken for many years. Almost never is liberal used in that context, and to claim it as the sole meaning was a matter of spin.

I would guess that you probably inherited a perspective that I have to work for, because my parents are liberal intellectuals. To stop any freudian analysis, I have nothing against my parents. It took me many years to see that they were wrong, it wasn't a teenage rebellion. I also understand that liberals stand for from them, and also from people here, and that's not really where we differ the most. It's on the methods.

Signym,

I don't disagree with that statement, but I wanted issue a word of caution. The libertarian party is a random group of third party folk who don't get to define what libertarianism is about to the same extent that the followers of perot don't get to define reform and the greens don't get to define environmentalism. I'm sure dictionaries and encyclopedias will say that libertarianism is about putting individual rights first, After that, we can disagree on everything else, and if this forum is a ny indication, we will.

I don't get into it much with Finn because we seldom disagree. Strange I know more about the people I'm most opposed to.

I hope everyone got on the Sheehan story of GOP reps wife was also carried off for wearing a support the troops t-shirt. Both were apologized to afterwords. I understand that last year I think it was, some twits made a run around in a circle chanting some inane slogan like zombies, and they mistook her for that, the officer who took her own didn't know who Sheehan was, and apologized later.

Quote:
I think the founding fathers got it right

Anyway, I think we're all on the same page on this one

Quote:
I so agree, it's just the radical changes the Bush administration is trying to push through that trouble me...

I think that the policies of Bush will be looked back on to be undone, like those of Hoover. An abberation, some adjustment, return ot normal.

Quote:

If Kerry had won, and was trying to dismantle the military, or was trying to make gasoline engines illegal or something, I'd be equally concerned.

I think Kerry would have been a disaster in the other direction. When Bush swore in the debate that he would support no draft and veto it if it came to his desk, the moderator tried to get Kerry to do the same thing and he wouldn't. Kerry had promise 1/2 million men to the middle east. I think he would have upscaled the offence and brought Iran/Iran/Syria/Afgh. to the Vietnam level, perhaps larger.

I think this isn't just an issue of the ensuing death, and entering a conflict which would inevitably pit us against China, and so we might be able to lose, but it is also a conflict that we can ill afford, in terms of international opinion, but also in terms of the economy. If anyone should happen to say 'war is good for the economy' I would answer- only when someone else is fighting it and you are selling them weapons, like early WWI and early WWII. In Korea and more in Vietnam, the economy suffered majorly from the cost of the conflict.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I don't redefine latin. The words are derivative, but it's not me twisting the definition of liberal into liberty. I am familiar with the english language which I have spoken for many years. Almost never is liberal used in that context, and to claim it as the sole meaning was a matter of spin.

What you do is a classic application of Orwellian doubletalk, you "have" redefined the meaning of words to reflect your political bias. You then tried to argue that your meaning was correct and offered a faulty undertstanding of latin to back it up. Libertarian and Liberal both come from the same latin root. You may hate it but until you admit it nobody can take anything else you say seriously. Someone whose world view is so twised as to claim that and keep claiming it has no creadibility.

As for the context you and yours have used words. Son, I don't care if where you come from everybody calls sheep "girlfriends" you use the language the way everyone else does or I ait trusting you to take the flock up the mountain.

ok?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 7:49 PM

Fletch,

It's not that I hate it, it's that it's wrong. I don't know dick about latin, sure, they don't teach latin in American schools. It wasn't offered at the state university I went to. But that's not the point. I understand english, and how english words derive and evolve. I showed how freely and freedom both came from free. The useage of liberal from liberalis follows an english evolution in the same manner as freely, regardless of what you may think as a latin scholar about the nature of liberalis.

I know enough to know when I look in the latin dictionaries and they list liberatum as being freedom and liberalis as being freely and liber as being free that you may be more full of it than I have proof of, as I'm not a latin scholar, but I can't prove it, it's just a hunch. But I do know my english.

Moreover - what is at issue here is not "can liberal ever be used in that context, to mean freedom" rather it's "what does liberal mean when it is defining the opposition to conservative" which is the political left-right, liberal-conservative axis. This is certainly generous vs. miserly, or giving vs. keeping.

Furthermore, in case you are wondering where I am getting this idea to begin with, it is what I was brought up on. My mother, a diehard liberal, an english teacher, a writer, and someone who did study latin, and the evolution of english, assured me this was the case, and none of my research has yet proved her wrong. I emailed her this argument, and she still holds by it.

Finally, I resent the implication that I am somehow spinning this. I am still very sure that I am right about this, at least as far as the use of language in America is concerned. In fact I'm dead certain about it. If you are equally dead certain, then we have a basis for understanding why a british party considered by Americans to be right-wing calls itself the "liberal democrats."

I'm still not at all convinced that you do believe your version. I think it's political spin. Your post was amazingly offensive, to me personally, my country, and rural people.

You love to say that I am inventing a use of words and spinning it, and yours was the most offensive thing ever posted on this board, IMHO. Esp. the part about orwellian doubletalk and my political bias. Jesus fucking christ you are full of garbage. Not only has everyone I talked to here backed me up, every American source I've looked up has.

I know the deity liber, I know the word and it's possible definitions derived from that, and how they came into english. Then I know how they came to use in ecomonics and politics and we used them daily. Liberals are the generous, libertarians are the free, liberty is freedom, liberation is freeing. As it is used in American politics. Not only is your claim wrong, but you manage to paint me as the lying bad guy. I really can't believe you.

I care dick about spinning anything. Everything I've posted here in every thread speaks to that. I'm not stomping for anyone or anything, and I'm the first to admit when my side is wrong about something. I certainly am not breaking with that to attempt to deceive you, what would be the point?

You don't seem to care about anything but your own agenda, you're one of the most uncompromising people on the forum, and you are never willing to even examine the possibility that anyone on the left is corrupt or could ever do something wrong. Given that, what would the raw objective odds say about who is spinning what?

I'm am not lying. I really truly believe that I am correct, and I am really and truly pissed off. I wouldn't have thought generous was such a negative word that you would kill to not be associated with it. Life in your world must be pretty fun.

f&*kit. I give up. Good day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 9:05 PM

I decided to go bounce around the net and see if I was alone. I'm not, lots of other people are having this utterly pointless argument. I'm at the moment more angry with over this attitude, his smug superiority and veiled threat implications that I am somehow 1984 newspeak of the right, and I am beginning to wonder if what type of socialist you are and if it's nationalist, tell me so I cna give up. But back to the discussion of liberal, it's origins and uses in politics, there's an awful lot of disagreement between Americans and Brits, but:

1. We outnumber you 5 to 1, so don't think yours is automatically right and everyone else is not only wrong but intentionally trying to deceive.

2. Liberalism seems to be most of the world over connected linguistically with communism, socialism and govts that support big spenders, and not ideologies of enhanced personal freedom.

3. I never doubted that the word could be used in some context to mean free. I can't think of one, but I'm sure I can come up with something. If I said:

"He had a liberal policy towards individual rights,"

I would be supporting Fletch's definition. Maybe. On the other hand, I might also transliterate that as:

"He had a generous policy towards individual rights,"

meaning the same thing, that he afforded the people a great amount of personal freedom.

But what I did say specifically was liberal, as it opposes conservative.

In fletch world, it becomes this:

liberal is free, freedom-loving, conservative is oppressive monarchy. I believe he said something like that a while back.

this is not only offensive, it is blatantly incorrect.

Not only do I stand by my claim that the word liberal when used in the context of the political spectrum could be replaced with generous, I will go further to say in almost any context in which the word liberal might find itself being used.

He made liberal use of spices in the recipe. Generous, many spices, lots of spice. Not free choice over which spices. Large quantities of spice

He was known to drink liberally. He could drink quite a bit, not that he had a great freedom of choice to drink or not, a lot of control, rather he could drink a lot.

President Bush had a liberal federal spending policy. He spend a lot of money. He didn't grant a lot of freedom on what it was to be spent on, he just spent heaps of cash.

We were liberal with the application of rules. This one got me, so I'm posting it anyway. I think that's it's possible that we were generous with the application of rules, but maybe we were also freedomloving with them.

But still and all, I stand by the word, as I understand it. Liberals in government and the political scene in America do NOT seek to increase individual liberty as the principle focus of their political school of thought. If they did, they would be libertarians, from liberty or liberatum, I'm sure, again. I know I don't know latin, and I know these are the same word, but I also know they are that word in a different context, like freedom and freely are both free in a different context.

But rather, liberals seek to give. They want
1. public health
2. public transportation
3. welfare
4. jobs
5. govt. services

etc. They want to give the people these services, they want the govt. to provide these services, they want govt. to be generous. It is the one thing that liberals tend to have in common with one another.

Liberals, individually, can be libertarians. But they don't have to be. Many liberals are communists, statists or other forms of collectivists. Some are religious, and strictly moralistic. Some are peace-loving, and others are war-hawks. There are lots of different types of liberals and they have lots of different types of views on personal freedoms, what and how many should be allowed.

I made the point before, there are democrats and republicans who are anti-patriot act, pro-liberty. Larry Craig and Russ Feingold are the bill's stauchest opposition. Another thing they both have in common is that they both voted against Clinton a large % of the time. These things make them libertarian in their nature, but not liberal. Feingolf is more liberal, and Craig is more conservative, re: their views on govt., in American politics, which is all I am applying this to.

By contrast, Bill Frist and Diane Feinstein support this patriot act, along with many others. These people who favor a strong govt. as more important than individual liberties are not libertarians. Feinstein would favor many more govt. services than would Frist, because she is a liberal.

I just can't help but think that you are attempting to redefine the word in a way that would redefine all firefly fans as liberals, and thus force them on to your side. I think it's dishonest and you are willing to be amazingly rude and offensive towards that end. You think shouting me down will give you a win.

I tend to think of libertarians as conservatives, but I'm not claiming everyone is already on my side, or that they should be. I'm saying libertarianism, loveing of liberty, exists on both sides, as the one thing that would unite us if we weren't constantly at each other's throats. But I'm certainly not conceding to 'okay, the only peace is we all do what you say.'

Finally, I have offered many times the possibility that we understand the terms differently, which I think it pretty far reaching since I am very sure that I'm right, and I think you're just wrong, but considering for the moment that you feel the same way about your position, which I don't think you do, I think you're being dishonest. But considering that I could be wrong about that, and you really do feel that way, why you wouldn't accept the agree to disagree. It's clearly not a case of dreamtrove is wrong and fletch is right because everyone in american politics, with no exceptions that I can think of, uses the word liberal to describe a set of american political positions which are different from those defined by liberarian, and in particular, that set of positions is based on the idea of a generous state. Clearly there's overwhelming evidence that American politics includes at the very least a large number of people who use the term the way I have, and I'm not talking just about conservatives, but liberals, self defining liberals who strongly support the policy of generous govt. Is everyone who's not Fletch wrong?

I am still really and truly ticked off, but I am cooling down. I would appreciate no more statements about how I am trying to orwellian spin lie deceive enveigle obfuscate everyone into the lie of dreamtrove, since I know, beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt, that you know, that that is not true. I'm not the bad guy here, I'm not trying to tell people what and how to think, I'm not out telling folks vote for Bush follow our fearless leader, or even fall in line behind Alito.

I was very much on the fence about Alito, if I thought he was really a racist, I would oppose him, but I was unconvinced. I was once on the fence about Bush, I thought at first he would work out, be like his dad. Over time he lost me, and then somewhere in 2002 I decided I didn't really like him, and by 2003 I was pretty much opposed, since then I've gone through hating him to seeing him for what he is, a puppet of whatever he's a puppet of. I'm on the fence about the next election. Most likely, I'll vote for a republican. More than likely, I'll work for a republican during the primary campaign. But if the republican that wins looks more like Bush, and I have a known element on the other side I like, like Feingold, I might vote for the democrat.

I tend to make up my mind by the balance of evidence in front of me. If that balance shifts, I tend to change my mind. I gain nothing by the definition of liberal as generous, I simply deeply believe it to be so, in modern american political useage.

My outrage comes not from an agenda, I really don't have an agenda, what would it possibly profit me to sway the political interests of a handful of science fictions fans, most of whom are in england? My outrage comes from two things: 1. your remarks, particularly on this topic are outright offensive, and 2. I really object to this kind of reasoning 'you people belong to me' and the efforts to redefine reality with a lie in order to forward that kind of thought.

Finally. You have opposed more or less everything I've said since I came on this board. I don't disagree totally with other people. I think that Citizen is pretty far from me politically, but we had one or two spats. I think I want to go back to the point at which you butted in here, which was Citizen had challenged the idea that the liberals made the new london ruling.

And Citizen, if you didn't catch this,

The judges who made the new london ruling called *themselves* 'the liberals.' I get that this may not be what liberals in the UK would have decided, that ultimately all property was a tthe whim of the govt. which could seize it at any point, but it was the decision handed down by the liberal justices of the american left which was very much in line with the pro-govt. american left, which is not to say there isn't also a libertarian american left, and a libertarian american right.

If the liberals of the UK would not do such a thing, then yay them, by all means. The UK has three political parties which demands a more complicated political spectrum. I've long thought that the principle failing of american political thought was the one dimensional axis created by a two party system. But, and this is the whole point, in America, that axis is the liberal idea of generous govt. with the conservative idea of minimal governance. This is not to say that the other axis of individual liberties does not exist, just that it does not divide the political parties. It divides people within those political parties.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 9:34 PM

Nobody agreed with you. I said you were wrong, Citizen said you were wrong and Finn --- well known liberal activist -- said you were wrong.
As to what any of your friends think it means who cares? I'm sure PirateNews's friends think "Jew" means all kinds of dirty things but that doesn't mean it is correct.

More over, even if we accept your theory that the meaning of the word has evolved, that wouldn't "retro" the meaning of its latin root.

Can liberal mean "generous?" Absolutely, and nobody ever disputed that, someone who is generous can also be described as "free spending" for the self same reasons. As for not wanting to be associated with "generous" are you suggesting that libertarians are not also generous people?

My problem with your spin is principly your murder of the language. If you want to believe that liberals have no intrinsic love of freedom or believe they are a little too free spending other people's money then that's fine. I won't even bother arguing that with you, you are free to draw your own conclusions based on your life experience. If you believed that they were baby sacrificing satanists bent on world domination you could say it as much as you like with no problem from me. I believe your problem lies in your methodology. You start out by defining a meaning for the word "conservative" (or rather cherry pick the meaning that suits your political opinion) then seek to find a meaning of "liberal" that opposes it. The problem is that liberal isn't the opposite of conservative in terms of meaning. In fact they don't actually clash at all which is why "conservative libertarian" is not a contradiction.

Conservative and liberal in the current political context are primarily labels that groups use to define themselves and each other not nescessarily a shopping list of attributes tied directly to the meaning of the word. If liberals today were nazis it still wouldn't change the fact that the root meaning of the word is "free" it would just become ironic.

What a word means is important, when you redefine it to mean something different you fundementally change the mind-space it exists in. As I said before it is a technique of low propaganda and when someone tries that it puts me on guard against them.

The latin and the OED incident only backs up my opinion that this is driven by your need for ideological purity and the horror that "liberal" and "libertarian" may be linked at all, even as far back as the first century AD.

As for your Democrats, they strike me as piss poor liberals since they seem perfectly willing to sacrifice any principle in a grubby attempt to gain transient popularity. I respect politicians that back their beliefs even when those beliefs are obviously wrong, at least they have the backbone to stand for something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 2:38 PM

It was your insinuation that I was somehow being deceptive thaqt angered me. I know that brits are always going to think that americans are murdering the language. In this case, if the word was murdered it happened long before I came along.

Yes, I recognize that the democrats are to the right of a lot of european parties of the same name, they recognize it too. America, like Australia, is full of conservatives and pseudo-conservatives.

My point was, in American political discourse, liberal and conservatives are polar opposites, and that is the axis in which they oppose, so any other meaning is normally not used in American politics. Thus the 'liberal' justices of the supreme court are liberal in the sense of opposite to the 'conservative justices.' As such, they favor increase govt. role in providing services, and that led them to the anti-libertarian position in New London.

I apologize for the rant. I'm really rarely that angry. I don't hark from an unshakeable ideological position, a beckon from the middle, somewhere in the right. Sometimes I agree with pat Buchanan, other times with Ralph Nader, and my positions are constantly shifting on the basis of the evidence I have at the moment, but not given to wild swings as the balance of evidence is not given to wild swings.

From where I was standing it looked like you were running up a radical interpretation and calling everyone a crook and liar if they didn't bow down and solute it, in particular, me. I took offense. I try not to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 4:13 PM

Radical, no. In fact if anything a conservative interpretation. Just because two groups of people who chose to call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" happen to oppose each other doesnt mean that the meaning of the words themselves have to be opposite. Certainly the fact that a group calls itself something does not mean that they are in fact what they claim. We already established that American "Social Democrats" were in fact Trotskyists. By your methodology the meaning of the word "Democracy" and it's latin root would now have to be changed to reflect the dogma associated with this one groups political useage.

Like I said I don't really care what you think of liberals. The meaning of the word still derives from the same root as "free man" just as it does for Libertarian. It does not come from "gernerous." You don't redefine the entire meaning and history of a word just to make it appear more consistant with it's use as a political label.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 6:29 PM

Quote:
Just because two groups of people who chose to call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" happen to oppose each other doesnt mean that the meaning of the words themselves have to be opposite.

No it doesn't, ... and yet it does. Words themselves have no meaning outside of the context in which they are used, and what they are used to be meant, by their proponents, their opponents, in the mind of the people. A treasure is worth what someone will pay for it, a word means what someone uses it for. There are no absolutes.

Quote:
Certainly the fact that a group calls itself something does not mean that they are in fact what they claim. We already established that American "Social Democrats" were in fact Trotskyists.

Very true. And the social democrats of Germany are not, and are probably more pro-democratic with a social conscience. But the Totskyites believed that's what they were, so they chose the name. The believe that a compound majority of shut out votes constitutes a democracy, answering to the will of 3% of the people.

The only thing that makes them wrong is that there are other people in those cultures they seek to rule who are also democrats who believe a democracy is something different, and those who oppose democracy, who believe it is something different. But were it not for that fact, democracy would become what they said it was.

I recall once having an argument with a group of street kids that fancied themselves neonazis. They tried to tell me what national socialism was. Because they said it, it would have been that, had there not been Nazis. But because there were Nazis, all of us have a knowledge of what nazis are, and in our minds it that is likely to remain.

Quote:
By your methodology the meaning of the word "Democracy" and it's latin root would now have to be changed to reflect the dogma associated with this one groups political useage.

There are other democrats. I would agree with your assertion though. The word democracy no longer means 'rule by the people' because greek is not the language we are speaking. Democracy is a system in which you vote for elected officials who then try to represent your views in the writing of laws. If someone were to design a system where everyone voted for every law via internet, and legal ideas were submitted by anyone through forums and blogs, it would become something new, and gain a new name. Maybe we'd call it "True Democracy" or perhaps "Referendocracy." We took the greek roots, and we applied them, and it became a living thing. Now it is what we use it to mean. But not one groups usage, collectively, the useage. If this one group were isolated, not globalist, but on an island, and they used the word democracy to mean 'shachtmanite compound democracy,' then it would mean that to them.

Quote:
Like I said I don't really care what you think of liberals.

Nor should you. What I think of liberals is not at issue and bears not at all on this debate. I do not dislike liberals as much as you seem to think I do, or as much as you seem to dislike conservatives, I would, after all consider voting for Mr. Feingold, who I consider a liberal. I quite like Mr. Galloway, a socialist. But again, it's irrelevent to the discussion.

Quote:
The meaning of the word still derives from the same root as "free man" just as it does for Libertarian. It does not come from "gernerous." You don't redefine the entire meaning and history of a word just to make it appear more consistant with it's use as a political label.

Nor do I intend to. The latin dictionaries I could find agree with me, by the way. Your denials are broad and sweeping, and based largely on preheld belief. I know nothing of the subject, but I'm not dumb, so let me lay it out as I understand it to be:

Liber, the giver, a roman god, was parallel to Dionesyus. He was known for his generosity, his love of free society, ale, and merriment.

His name became a word, in latin, liber.

I do not know the conjugation of latin, but I do not need to, it is over and over conjugated for me. Just as freely, freedom, and freeing come from free, as well as others such as 'free-love', so too latin words have their derivatives.

These, all of them, from a latin dictionary.

liber : child, offspring.
liber libri : book.
liber libera, liberum : free, independent, unrestricted.
liberalis : courteous, generous, gentlemanly.
liberalitas : courtesy, kindness, generousity / a grant.
liberaliter : courteously, generously, honorably.
liberatio : release, liberation, acquittal, setting free.
libere : freely, openly, frankly.
libero : to liberate, set free.
libero : to lift (an obstacle), raise.
libero : to set free, deliver, liberate, release / exempt
libertas : freedom, liberty, independence / frankness, candor.

All are born from the original liber, the god, the word, the concept. I know each of these is just a contectual form of liber, but that's the issue. The contextual form of free.

Now when speakers of English or French come to adopt these roots into words, they choose one, and they bastardize it into an vernacular pronunciation. Immediately, it becomes a word of their language, and begins to mean what they use it to mean.

American dictionaries of English agree with thes derivations, that the two forms 'liberalis' and 'libertas' evolved into our two words 'liberal' and 'liberty.' Through the use of those words, their meaning evolves, and it is amazing that the words are as true as they are to their origins.

Americans are a simple people. We don't tend to labor over the origins or meanings of words. We invent words to suit our gorram purpose, sometimes in the middle of the sentence, if it is sentenceable. We're not scholars, and we're not much for long standing tradition, not longer than the US anyways.

I have friends in england, one who is a professor, he's head examiner for history, actually, A levels I think. Anyway, a very learned man, it'll be interesting to have this dicussion with him next time I see him.

What I do wonder is: Did the words evolves as you said, and get corrupted by Americans, undoubtedly long before me; or: Did they evolve as I said, and then later, after the language was passed on to America, did British scholars go back and redefine the words in an attempt to be truer to their latin roots?

I know this happened in France after the French Revolution, so the idea is not as absurd as it may sound.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:26 PM

No surprises here. We know that the word can be used for both generous and free, the political context has been highlighted. Liberal in a political context comes from the notion of "liberalism." Let's look into that.

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:

American dictionaries of English agree with thes derivations, that the two forms 'liberalis' and 'libertas' evolved into our two words 'liberal' and 'liberty.' Through the use of those words, their meaning evolves, and it is amazing that the words are as true as they are to their origins.

Ah a theory we can test. Excellent.....

from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Quote:

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
- lib·er·al·ly /-b(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
- lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given . GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift . BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing . MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes .

Quote:

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib·er·al·ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib·er·al·is·tic /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective

note "protection and of political and civil liberties" not "tax me and spend my money (b*ards.)

But wait, maybe Webster isn't one of those "American" dictionarys. Let's try one with "American." in the title.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Quote:

liberal

SYLLABICATION: lib·er·al
PRONUNCIATION: lbr-l, lbrl
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. 2a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes. 3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation. 4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education. 5a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman. b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
NOUN: 1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions. 2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, generous, from Old French, from Latin lberlis, from lber, free. See leudh- in Appendix I.

Once again let's look at "Liberalism"

Quote:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

liberalism

SYLLABICATION: lib·er·al·ism
PRONUNCIATION: lbr--lzm, lbr-
NOUN: 1. The state or quality of being liberal. 2a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party. 3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard. 4. Liberalism a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology. b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

I'm told these are considered the big two, definative dictionaries for Americans so unless the "American Dictionary" you are talking about is the "Redneck book of big words" or the Wiki entery you wrote yourself this morning I think we dispelled that myth.

Quote:

Americans are a simple people. We don't tend to labor over the origins or meanings of words. We invent words to suit our gorram purpose, sometimes in the middle of the sentence, if it is sentenceable. We're not scholars, and we're not much for long standing tradition, not longer than the US anyways.

Nice!! ---an attempt to appeal to what some Americans believe is European bigotry. In essence "Don't blame me if my people are stupid." Unfortunately Europeans don't think Americans are stupid (well the French do but they think everyone is stupid) so as a technique it only pissed your fellow Americans off.

Word of advice, once a country has walked on the moon trying the "we're only dumb country rubes" excuse doesn't work

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 11:32 PM

Quote:
well the French do but they think everyone is stupid

Of course, the French are the master race.

I wouldn't mind the French if they were just arseholes as a nation, but the fact that they're utter c**ts in person is what really gets to me.

The riots were no surprise to me what-so-ever, theres only so long you can treat a group of people like dirt (which in France means anyone who isn't white and of 'pure' French descent) before they kick off.

Yes, I really don't like the French. Only country in world I have those feelings about actually.

Anyway, rant satisfied I'm going to go away now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 11:43 AM

Wow, I go to Washington for a few days, and the whole Latin thing starts up again in earnest. I’ve never seen this much mileage from Latin Lexicology.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 7:53 PM

Those definitions have a fair amount of reference to Britain. In colloquial Americanism, since the two specific instances this started over were 1) Discussing what a liberal-leaning economic stance might be, and 2) what the 'liberal' justices of the court ruled, 3) the meaning of liberal in the context as it opposes conservative. The first I'm not sure of, and I never was to begin with, I thought it was ambiguous. The second is this one, and I am sure. I know that the libdems are using it in this sense, not arguing that. Liberals of America aren't. But this argument has lost it's point, or I've lost this argument.

What I mean is that I can't win this debate with you because brits are scholarly, and can argue that a cardboard box is a spaceship, not that we are less intelligent than you. You equate those, we don't. We can build a spaceship, but aren't lawyers of words. We make up words. I will not win this argument, but I'm not wrong. The present useage and the evolution seem very much in the too much time I already wasted in the idea to be what I said they were. I'm far more convinced of my own position than when I started, but I really am sick of this debate.

You have completely failed to convince me, but I concede the point. You have failed to show that liberal is free in opposing conservative, which would have to mean controlled in the context, and you have failed to show that liberal was not derived from liberalis, not of liber, the giver, and not meaning generous, and you've failed to show that it is used in this way to mean freedom loving in American politics, but rather in British politics, a point I didn't disagree with.

On liberalism, I agree these would support the free society ideals, in a jeffersonian sense. Since jefferson said he was a liberal and a conservative, the two were not used in opposition, because he wasn't being ironic.

But, moreover, liberal in current political discourse is applied to people supporting a system which is socialist-leaning in nature, a philosophy you support. I'm sure you consider yourself a liberal and a socialist, and support generous spending policies. But the liberalism definitions would be in support of laisez-faire economics, as well as civil libertarianism. Such a policy certainly defines no type of socialism, anywhere. And it most definitely does not define the American Democratic party, the Greens, the SWP, or the ACP. Since these are our liberals, clearly the use of the word in not in line with classic 'liberalism.'

Anyway, you make a strong argument, stronger than me, kudos. But you avoid the specifics of the argument, the proper applications and twist it to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the proper context would draw, so you're not right. The american 'tax-and-spend liberal' stereotype wasn't just the invention of spin machines, but derived out a of long period of practice, in which it was very clear that the liberals were strongly in favor of a govt. which provided services to the people, (generously,) and not in any way hands off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 8:18 PM

First I'm not a socialist, I think I made that clear before.

Second, if you are saying that American liberals do not uphold the concepts of liberalism, personal and economic freedom, then the problem isn't the definition of the word "liberal" it's that you are using the wrong word to describe these people. Perhaps "statist" is a better choice?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 9:12 PM