Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Arguing with liberals  (Read 16681 times)

daveneu

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
  • You have no idea! But I do...
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2010, 06:11:44 pm »

Well - now we know why the left is so...LEFT!

The left are dolts - and they can say anything they want. Free speech gives them the right. THE RIGHT - not the left!

The left doesn't want a free thinking society. The left wants more controls, more government intervention, and more control over civilization.

Nazi Pelosi

That's exactly why they are dolts.

How in hell can you be a leftest libertarian? Did you read that in a freakin' moron book by Idiot the author? Someone told you so and you put on your sheep glasses and took a hike?

More whine and brie? This is how "skull-emptied" humans have become. We want our cake, eat it too, and not gain any COMMUNISM!

Dave N.
Logged
Dave N.
The world of me in an easy-to-take capsule

daveneu

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
  • You have no idea! But I do...
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2010, 06:29:16 pm »

Wendall -  Hopefully you just have a slight mental disorder. Left-Libertarian. Left-Right. Down-Up at the same time. I think there is a psychological term for this - DEMENTIA.

Here's an easy one - try to keep up with me. What happens physically when you try to go left-right at the same time?

Or that Bipolar illness???

It's like that Batman character with the two faces. We know how well that worked out.

This is why you are writing the way you are. You're mixed-up. Down-Up. Left-Right. Inside-Out. Left-Right. Cold-Hot.

If I were you, I'd contact a team of Specialists. - Really! You sound diseased.

Dave N.

I just plain feel sorry for you. You sound as if you need treatment.
Logged
Dave N.
The world of me in an easy-to-take capsule

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2010, 08:44:01 pm »

Wendall -  Hopefully you just have a slight mental disorder. Left-Libertarian. Left-Right. Down-Up at the same time. I think there is a psychological term for this - DEMENTIA.

Here's an easy one - try to keep up with me. What happens physically when you try to go left-right at the same time?

Or that Bipolar illness???

It's like that Batman character with the two faces. We know how well that worked out.

This is why you are writing the way you are. You're mixed-up. Down-Up. Left-Right. Inside-Out. Left-Right. Cold-Hot.

If I were you, I'd contact a team of Specialists. - Really! You sound diseased.

Dave N.

I just plain feel sorry for you. You sound as if you need treatment.

Everyone reading this please take note, do not make fun of other posters on this forum.  Thank you.

daveneu, As for the person you are replying to, he just knows a lot more about political philosophy than you, that's all.  Since you are missing a bunch of the information he has, you don't understand his perspective.  It isn't a big deal.
Logged

daveneu

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
  • You have no idea! But I do...
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2010, 09:29:02 pm »

Really - I don't know?

Well - I do keep an open mind. If I'm wrong - then I am wrong.

I revisited the Libertarian Party Website and typed "Left Libertarian" in the search box. There is a search box on the top right of the page.

I got nothing regarding that topic. Are they trying to dumb down the party principals to keep it simple? I really don't know. You'd think there would be some link for an interested party when it is typed in a search box.

Now I did retake the LP quiz. I did come on on the right side of their "top of the diamond" box (little red dot on the right side of the top of the Libertarian part of the diamond).

It gave me a personal score of "60" and an economic score of "100" - but it labeled me "Libertarian" and not left or right libertarian. If there are subdivisions then why are they a secret?

I did not answer the quiz as I really feel - I tried to see it as part left and part right. I really did.

Their quiz box states nothing about left and right libertarians when you originally view the main page. There is a diamond divided into political groups. I'm still trying to maintain an open mind.

Maybe they need to add more information onto different catagories of Libertarians.

As I said - I do try to keep an open mind. Even on this Bizzarro world.

Dave N.
Logged
Dave N.
The world of me in an easy-to-take capsule

daveneu

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
  • You have no idea! But I do...
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2010, 10:00:41 pm »

Ah - I knew something was up. Left Libertarians (as per Google) is just a slight backstep from Anarchists. Ahhh - Anarchists. I seeeeeee. And you think you run the Libertarian party. Interesting. You're organized as well. Oh well, I love a challenge - I am not in love with Anarchists. I don't see the need. You don't really "fit" anywhere. I knew I was on to something.

Well - now I see why the LP site had nothing when I used the search box. They are not exactly proud of this "other cousin table" at the back of the room - away from the others. Well - perhaps more like tortured souls...

I have an e-mail in to the Pres. of the LP. I await her reply. I'll get her take on this.

I'll report back...

Dave N.
Logged
Dave N.
The world of me in an easy-to-take capsule

greap

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1009
  • What we have here is a failure to communicate
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2010, 10:47:56 pm »

I'll report back...

Given you just ignored a global mod and continued to insult someone in the friendly forum I don't think you will. Also LP != Keepers of what is libertarianism and what isn't, many people (myself included) think they are more interested in getting elected then maintaining an objective ideal of liberty.

The FSP won't ultimately be successful unless they find a way to engage the left.

If you mean engage in battle I might agree :-) Personally I consider all socialist values to be entirely incompatible with liberty and if any liberty orientated organisations decided to start espousing them for whatever reason I would want nothing to do with them.
Logged
_____________________________________________________________

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2010, 11:34:31 pm »

p/s what's "PR"? I'm poking public relations with s stick?  ;D

Yeah. I meant, given the name, you're asking for people to be confused about your position... thinking you're right-wing or something.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 01:13:50 am by B.D. Ross »
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2010, 12:23:38 am »

One mark of a great book is a thesis so powerful that after a few years people take it for granted. Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions (1987) is such a book. Its thesis: The policy arguments between liberals and conservatives, socialists and libertarians, do not arise just from differences in priorities regarding freedom, equality, and security. At root, they draw from different conceptions of the nature of man. The Left holds an unconstrained vision: Given the right political and economic arrangements, human beings can be improved, even perfected. Success is defined by what people have the potential of becoming, not by people as they are. The Right holds a constrained vision: People come to society with innate characteristics that cannot be reshaped and must instead be accommodated. Success in political and economic policy must be defined in light of those innate characteristics.

As Sowell himself points out in his book, the range of beliefs about what's prreferable span far more than the two viable choices that individual voters have. But our federal system effectively constrains individual choice in the federal sphere to those two options. It may appear there are two distinct groups, but the political reality is otherwise. We frequently resort to the abstraction of Left and Right because it makes talking about politics easier. But The Left and The Right are abstract collections. The Left cannot hold a vision, nor can The Right. Unless the individual people associating with them are accepting some known principles. Which is hardly the case, as both the official principles of the Left and Right continually shift. And in practical terms, that would further assume that federal politicians even know what they're doing. Which, I humbly submit, is rarely the case.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 12:39:31 am by B.D. Ross »
Logged

swamp_yankee

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2010, 01:59:08 am »

Dr. Sowell is a conservative. His thesis is a classic conservative thesis that he illuminated, but did not create. The liberals social contract has been around  Rousseau. Innate nature to core values to principles to policy to party politics --- are all different arenas. People frustrate themselves when they conflate the arenas or when they engage in liberal egocentrism.

 
Logged

Pat McCotter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2010, 08:14:58 am »

You know - I've been sitting here for the last 10 minutes coming up with all kinds of crazy schemes on how to talk to a Naz...uh...liberal. Some of my thoughts were scaring the bejeezus out of me. Not...pretty. I had one involving lighter fluid and a comb. I had to stop and calm down.

OK - I'm back. I think the best thing I can say is something my mommy taught me. Mommy always gave me lessons. O.K. - she always GIVED me lessons. One thing she always told me is never to pick on people less fortunate than me. It's just not nice. Remember - no matter how emotionally vacant or intellectually simple a person is, it's always good to look for the positive qualities in them. It's like...when you're driving down the road and you pass someone in one of those kiddie cars...a...uh...Prius? You just drive by (not difficult to do at all), hold down the snickering until they're out of sight and then have your laugh.

Again in a car - you driving along and ahead of you you spot a 1989 Honda (like the Atchoo or the Stikit) - I don't know - the one with the four wheels.          Let me finish - the one with the four wheels with rubber band tires and there's an "Obama" sticker on it. Whatever you do - don't honk your horn - the displaced air currents from the sound of your vehicle could cause glass breakage and shimmy (more the driver than the car).

Look, give the less fortunate the benefit of the doubt. Forget the fact that they may be dealing with an anneurism. It just might be that you're doing very well and now you need someone to bring you down to earth. Sure - a loved one could probably do the job BU....T - employing the services of a weak-minded, neurologically deficient Naz...uh...liberal might be able to take you someplace that all the others just couldn't...

And when they get you there, now break out the lighter fluid and comb.

Dave N.

I couldn't resist.
The Little Nash Rambler
Logged
Visualize Whirled Peas

Give Pizza Chance

I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright

daveneu

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
  • You have no idea! But I do...
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2010, 10:03:39 am »

With due respect, I didn't mean to be insulting to the moderator. I apologize for that. I do know that this is a friendly forum - again, my mistake. However, I don't believe in Political Correctness and the path of destruction that it leaves lying in it's wake. It is the signal that alerts you to Communism. It is the Statist (what you define as "liberal" - which is nonsensical btw) who believes in controlling others - for their own self-protection. Not me! I will never apologize for my alertness - and BTW - there are foxes in the FSP henhouse. They use masks - fancy shmancy words - "distributive justice" is just such a term. Nothing LIBERTARIAN about "distributive." Now, while I will agree that everyone has a right to be who they want to be - I will further that response that this "right" ends at the tip of their nose. That's what I SAY! If you want "distributive justice" - well...that's just fine and dandy. However, try to be "distributive" with my stuff (physical / mental / JUDICIAL / whatever) and suffer the "friendly" consequenses that I will impose as a response. I mean this in the most "friendliest" of ways.

Here is an example (the "Left Libertarians" might appreciate this) - I had a friend who lived in my house and believed he could crap up my house by not cleaning his room. After all, he was living in the room alone and kept the filth to his own private area. I disagreed. I tried to get him to be respectful of the home I tried to provide - for six years. He's no longer living in my house - "distributing" his way of doing things OR his girth.  His rights ended with his almost destroying the carpeting in a section of my oasis. Now he pays 3 times as much for 1/2 as much freedom and space. There's my definition of Distributive Justice. I distributed his tushie into the street (in the friendliest of ways) and now there is "just us" - my wife and I.

My court, my game, my ball, my rules.
 
You know - Nikita Khrushchev stated (with regard to the United States) "We will destroy you from within." Now - I await response from the President of the LP with regard to this faction. If she is proud (or actually aware) of "left-libertarianism" then she will state as much. Just like I am proud of who I am. However, I have to say - I didn't get good news on Google with regard to them. As usual, Leftists are destroying every party - Democrat, Republican, and perhaps the party I affiliate myself with. All I know is "destroy from within" means exactly that. Agents have infiltrated our country and our political parties using the concepts of Liberty provided in our Sacred Documents. Maybe - concepts provided in the mission statement of the FSP as well. Hanging us with our own beliefs.  Most good and righteous people aren't aware of this because they are busy and have taken belief that if it is on TV or in the media, then it must be "correct" information - no spin attached. However - when I read a statement such as:

Keepers of what is libertarianism and what isn't, many people (myself included) think they are more interested in getting elected then maintaining an objective ideal of liberty.

Then I get the message that someone or some group is being employed to wants to change what is inherent within the philosophy of the party. That is in and of itself - WANTING TO CONTROL and DESTROY the original mission statement. Just like my friend destroying my carpeting. If you don't like the Party - then go someplace else. However - you will not because your job is to infiltrate and destroy. That's why this FSP group is not "taking off." The population "at large" sees this and just keeps away. Additionally, I do know that from what I am getting as response to my posts, that there is for sure - something going on in this henhouse. Something is rotten somewhere. I'm "happy" to report this in a friendly way.

"But Dave - why are you attacking this particular group - that is not nice!" I attack this group because of their inability to be direct and SAY WHAT THEY MEAN. SAY what is in their heart. Be proud of who you are and then the rest of us can respect you. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Dave N.

But again - I do apologize for not "respecting" the friendly part.

Oh - just one more thing - do I seem to "know enough" now?
Logged
Dave N.
The world of me in an easy-to-take capsule

daveneu

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
  • You have no idea! But I do...
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2010, 11:17:50 am »

The Little Nash Rambler - I apologize for not watching the entire video. I have dial-up so videos can take long times to load. I did view the first half however.

What was the particular year of this auto? I didn't see it posted - maybe my tired old eyes. It was copper so I'm thinking mid-60's. However was that Nash or was that now considered Rambler?

They weren't all that powerless. I looked at specs from cars produced in the '60's. These were 6 cyl autos. My Jeep Commander - pretty big - has a 6 cyl. It has a curb weight of somewhere around 4000+ lbs. The little Ramblers looked to be around a ton - more or less.

Gas of course was around 32 - 35 cents / gal (+/ -). The cars were all metal in structure. No paper mache.

I have nothing against small cars - but i appreciate the biggest roomiest one I can get my hands on. I'm a bit claustrophobic.

I would never buy a Prius - I know how they produce the batteries. Talk about "earth-unfriendly." The place where they produce the batteries looks like Mars. Nothing as far as wildlife can survive there. I've read up on them. They also have a 100,000 mile life. Toss and buy another one. Now maybe that's changed with their new model. I don't think they tow much.

My father never gave them (compact cars) a second glance. The smallest car he ever had was a 1962 Mercury Monteray (sp?). If the car couldn't climb a hill with the same power as a straight and level highway, he never considered it safe. His view - not mine. I owned an '82 Ford EXP. Talk about small and light on power - a two seater with a hatchback and a 4 cyl.. My first car was a 1974 Ford Pinto Explodeabout. I was a road musician at the time - killed that car by driving 28000 miles in the first year - loaded with suitcases, electronic keyboards (have you ever seen an 88 key Fender Rhodes Suitcase Piano?) and amps. I believe I actually loaded it with more stuff than the vehicle weighed. Oh - and you know what made the Ford Cars so quiet? Newspaper. Found that out when I pulled the rear panels to install speakers for my 8 track.

As far as the EXP - I didn't buy it however because of it's size - I liked it's "chick-appeal." I was 28 years old at the time. It had front wheel drive and I had moved north from NYC (MA)  ::) and wanted something more "snow-worthy." Out of the 23 or so cars I had owned, it was perhaps the smallest one. And...the reddist. I thought red cars go faster than others.

Dave N.

I was sad when I had to part with my '07.5 Chevy Silverado 3/4 ton. A $50K beast! The diesel was killing my wife's wallet (she wanted me to work so I figured she could pay for the fuel) - at the time almost 60 cents more per gallon than the "89" octane. To get to work, I drove 84 miles a day. That was a sad, sad, day. I did not originally buy it because I'm power hungry. I had an Arctic Fox 26X trailer with a tongue weight of about 1500 lbs and 3000 lbs. of carrying capacity bringing it to around 105000 fully loaded. You never want a truck that pulls to capacity - you want emergency and mountain climb capability.
Logged
Dave N.
The world of me in an easy-to-take capsule

RichW

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2010, 11:40:18 am »

The Little Nash Rambler...

Now, that was one of the funniest responses ever.  Thanks Dave.
Logged
"... it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds...."  ~  Samuel Adams

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2010, 02:08:04 pm »

Quote
Personally I consider all socialist values to be entirely incompatible with liberty and if any liberty orientated organisations decided to start espousing them for whatever reason I would want nothing to do with them.

Well it depends on what you mean by "socialism" doesn't it?

There is state socialism and there is state capitalism.

There is also socialism where labor individually owns their own means of production, gets their full and just reward, but isn't collectivist in nature (mutualism).

There is also the more or less "freed" markets of private individuals voluntarily trading goods and services.

Mutualism falls broadly under left-libertarianism.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Arguing with liberals
« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2010, 02:18:47 pm »

Quote
Now - I await response from the President of the LP with regard to this faction. If she is proud (or actually aware) of "left-libertarianism" then she will state as much.

http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/index.php

There are people within this movement who are self-described "left-libertarians"
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up