budget SURPLUS expected in California

[djAdvocate]

It began during the Roosevelt presidency when America experienced a major on­slaught of Leftism. The time was propi­tious: a huge economic crisis was under­way, causing real misery to grip the masses. People expected relief from the govern­ment, but since Americans are basically “conservative” (in the etymological sense of the word), socialism could not be promoted as “unmasked.” It was, and still is, a “bad” word.

this assertion requires a LOT of support, but it doesn't really get any.  and there is a good reason for that.  it is completely untrue.  socialism was worn with pride, right out in the open, throughout the FDR administration. 

[djAdvocate]

in the next four paragraphs, he makes his tortured case for socialists identifying as liberals.  the only problem is that it is not really true.

socialism was never a very large movement in American politics.  at it's apex, it captured two house seats and 6% of the vote.  that was PRIOR to WW2, when it was still well organized.  socialism slipped considerably, and was basically a non-player in American politics by 1960.  the Red Scare did the rest, driving it completely underground.  whether a small fraction of socialists have since identified as liberals or not is thus of no significance, since they were greatly outnumbered.  but i tend to think that they identified as Democrats, Social Democrats and with various Labor Parties.

the fact that this essay doesn't even mention the Cold War, the Red Scare, and the resulting demonization of "the left" (as perceived by "the right") is telling.  that is because it is is a competing thesis.  one that actually has a factual basis.  it was a political strategy used to marginalize liberals by associating them with communists, and it was very effective.

i have to get going for Thanksgivukah today.  but i will be back later, starting on Chapter 3......

[djAdvocate]

in chapter 3 is full of faulty logic.

first of all, the love affair that "America" had with socialism never really happened.  the social policies of the 30's were a rational response to the crisis, just as the social policies of today are.  enthusiasm for solving a problem doesn't equate with socialism.  and the brand of "socialism" practiced here was very restrained by world standards (they were grappling with the same crisis).  a willingness to investigate and cull out what is new and what might work is INDEED a liberal trait, and i have no doubt that many liberals entertained socialist ideas during that time, just as they have entertained such radical notions as ending slavery, allowing women to vote, and ending Jim Crow in the past.  again, the interest of solving problems using novel solutions doesn't make one an advocate of the political or economic philosophy that spawned that solution.

but the author seems to think so.  and he makes this assertion over and over and over again, without anything other than his anecdotal evidence to back it up. 

[djAdvocate]

American liberalism is not a closed ideol­ogy like Marxism-Leninism or National Socialism, but a very mixed bag with a number of internal contradictions. It is like a compendium of nearly every nonsense that we in the West have produced since the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. In spite of its lack of patriotism it has be­come part of the American scene, deriving advantage here and there from certain items of American folklore. It can do this because of its intellectual duplicity, which com­bines a masked elitism with a bogus popu­lism. American liberalism exalts the pro­verbial three men sitting on cracker barrels in the general store talking politics, but at the same time hides the arrogant contempt the half educated have for the common sense of simple people. What are the com­ponents of this “mixed bag”? Nearly noth­ing from the Founding Fathers, but a great deal from European democracy, a bit of Marxism, a few items from anarcho-liber­alism, and several loans from fashionable trends: philosophic relativism, hedonism, totalitarianism.

this is a regular "Gish's Gallup" of claims, riddled with arrogant disdain.  i really need to address these as i would any poster here.  one point at a time.

American liberalism is not a closed ideol­ogy like Marxism-Leninism or National Socialism, but a very mixed bag with a number of internal contradictions.

this is true of all political philosophies that have any degree of complexity to them.  conservatism is just as contradictory.

It is like a compendium of nearly every nonsense that we in the West have produced since the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

it is also a compendium of every exceptional idea since the enlightenment.  note that the author doesn't bother to enumerate the nonsense, but simply dismisses liberalism on that basis.  straw man.

In spite of its lack of patriotism it has be­come part of the American scene,

i don't think patriotism has a lot to recommend it, but clearly this author does.

 deriving advantage here and there from certain items of American folklore. It can do this because of its intellectual duplicity, which com­bines a masked elitism with a bogus popu­lism.

i will go along with this one, actually.  this is indeed a feature of modern liberalism.  however, it is also a feature of modern conservatism.  it is, in fact, a feature of modern elitism, which is present in both camps.  along with the following assertion:

American liberalism exalts the pro­verbial three men sitting on cracker barrels in the general store talking politics, but at the same time hides the arrogant contempt the half educated have for the common sense of simple people.

it is this passage that is utter nonsense:

What are the com­ponents of this “mixed bag”? Nearly noth­ing from the Founding Fathers, but a great deal from European democracy, a bit of Marxism, a few items from anarcho-liber­alism, and several loans from fashionable trends: philosophic relativism, hedonism, totalitarianism.

modern liberalism borrows a great deal from classical liberalism.  you can view ten of them here (http://voices.yahoo.com/ten-principles-classical-liberalism-4841894.html).  it borrows perhaps nothing from Marxism.  but the last three in this sentence are sickeningly off-base, and illustrates how far out of touch with reality this writer is, and how contemptible, and incoherent he seems to think liberals are.

relativism is ethically invalid.  no rational person could possibly espouse this philosphy.  ditto with hedonism, which is actually a subset of ethical relativism.  and finally, and most ridiculously, totalitarianism and liberalism are complete opposites- mortal enemies.  the first to die under totalitarian regimes are always liberals, and for good reason.  they will never accede to illegitimate authority.

and with that totally annoyingly WRONG passage, i have to get moving.  enough of this a-hole for today.

[Virgil Showlion]

and with that totally annoyingly WRONG passage, i have to get moving. enough of this a-hole for today.

Me: He's describing the American elements that identify as "liberals", which he states a priori is not classical liberalism.

DJ: Look at what he's saying about classical liberalism! This is wrong. And this is wrong. And this is wrong. ...

Me: He's not talking about classical liberalism or what you call "modern liberalism" (which you've defined as contemporary classical liberalism). He's talking about another doctrine with the "liberal" label. Call it "neoliberalism" if it makes you feel better.

DJ: And this is wrong. And this is wrong. Oh, and this definitely isn't a part of classical liberalism. And neither is this. And this. And...

Me: He's. not. talking. about. classical. liberalism. He clearly explains that.

DJ: ...and this. And this. I can't believe what he's saying about classical liberalism! Look! Totalitarianism! Classical liberalism is the mortal enemy of the totalitarian. Boy golly gee, is this guy ever out to lunch. And this is wrong. And this is wrong. And...

Me: Wh...? What relev...? Why are you...? Are you listening, or are you just exploiting a golden opportunity to prattle off your theory about classical liberalism, which by the way still has absolutely nothing to do with what the ISI article is talking about?

DJ: ...and this. And this. And this definitely isn't liberalism. What a jerk. And this. And this. And...

Me: Hello? W... Can you hear me? Hello? Hello!

DJ: ...and this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. ...

Me: DJ, snap out of it, man! You're stuck in a loop!

DJ: ...and this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. ...

Me: Poor DJ. I'm going to miss him.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 14:49:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

and with that totally annoyingly WRONG passage, i have to get moving. enough of this a-hole for today.

Me: He's describing the American elements that identify as "liberals", which he states a priori is not classical liberalism.

DJ: Look at what he's saying about classical liberalism! This is wrong. And this is wrong. And this is wrong. ...

i never said that.  he is pretty much spot on about classical liberalism, Virgil.  but he seems to think that liberalism of that kind ceased to exist sometime around 1823, from what i can tell.  on the contrary.  that is where it actually BEGAN as a political entity.

what most people describe as "classical liberalism" is liberalism that predates political liberalism- that predates even the TERM.

edit: Virgil, i SPECIFICALLY SAID "modern liberalism" in the bottom part of post 123.  so you are just making things up, now.  i am taking a lot of time to critique this "essay".  you could do a lot better than building faulty assumptions and counterarguments about that critique.  but like the author of this "essay", you probably won't even try.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 14:49:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

a

Me: Wh...?

i don't know why you insist on beating yourself up over fictions that you create.  he is saying that modern liberals are "borrowing" from totalitarians, Virgil.  that is absolute crap.  you have to know that.  don't you?

here is what i think his point is: modern liberals, having borrowed from socialism, are now nothing more or less than communists.

that is completely false.  the OPPOSITE is true.  communists, attempting to hide from criticism, have borrowed from liberals.

now, if you tell me he is actually saying that, i disagree.  he is not.  this essay has a trajectory.  where it finishes is that there is nothing left in liberalism worth saving.  so, time to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  this is actually Paul's position, and i would assume, yours.  but what i am arguing is that the only thing wrong with liberalism is that so many people who are not liberal appropriate the term for their own uses (mostly conservatives who are trying to tarnish the brand, ime).  that is not uncommon.  bigots will often see themselves as guardians of their race/creed/religion: because guardian is so much nicer a term than bigot.  that doesn't diminish the brand "guardian", nor does it improve the brand "bigot". 

please let me finish.  i might find something of value in this "essay" yet.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 28, 2013 15:02:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 28, 2013 14:49:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Me: He's describing the American elements that identify as "liberals", which he states a priori is not classical liberalism.

DJ: Look at what he's saying about classical liberalism! This is wrong. And this is wrong. And this is wrong. ...

i never said that.  he is pretty much spot on about classical liberalism, Virgil.  but he seems to think that liberalism of that kind ceased to exist sometime around 1823, from what i can tell.  on the contrary.  that is where it actually BEGAN as a political entity.

what most people describe as "classical liberalism" is liberalism that predates political liberalism- that predates even the TERM.

What I'm saying is this:

Just imagine that there is a large group out there that embraces elitism, a touch of anarcho-liber­alism, "several loans" from philosophic relativism, hedonism, totalitarianism, a dab of Marxism, etc. and calls itself "liberal". The word "liberal" appears proudly on their websites, in their literature, on their placards. In Canada it appears in large print in their party name, "Liberal Party of Canada".

I get that you don't consider these philosophies to be a part of liberalism, but just bear with me and try to imagine that the term has been adopted and co-opted by groups based on this particular mashup. These are the groups the article is talking about. These are the self-identified "liberals" that the article is talking about. He's providing you with a rubric on how to identify them.

What you're doing is stamping your foot and saying "No, no, no. This is how modern liberalism is actually defined: It inherits thus and such from classical liberalism and doesn't espouse hedonism and..."

And fine. But this is not what the article is talking about. It's talking about the definition of "modern liberalism"--and I get that you vehemently reject this definition and consider it totally invalid--that conservatives use and that many self-identified "liberals" in fact conform to.

Replace the word "liberal" in the article with a philosophy you don't hold sacrosanct, such as "big government humanist, hedonist progressivism", read the article from that standpoint, and marvel "Oh! That's who conservatives are railing against when they rail against 'liberals'. Not true modern liberals, but people who subscribe to this mashup of philosophies and who simply call themselves 'liberals'."

If your intent is to attack the article on the basis of its description not conforming to "modern liberalism", you're going to be at it for a very long time and you'll have accomplished nothing because even Paul acknowledges that these "liberals" aren't actually liberals. It is just a label they use because they refuse to self-identify as "Marxist", "big government socialist", "hedonist", "statist", etc.--which are all "dirty" words--despite espousing these philosophies. As the article points out, "liberal" takes its root in "freedom". Freedom is a wonderful, treasured concept, and "liberal" is the label that these groups delight in applying to themselves. Conservatives went along with the misnomer, and thus "liberal" has become a dirty word in the conservative lexicon. "Libertarian" has somewhat usurped the position of "liberal" in conservative dialect.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 15:34:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 28, 2013 15:02:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i never said that.  he is pretty much spot on about classical liberalism, Virgil.  but he seems to think that liberalism of that kind ceased to exist sometime around 1823, from what i can tell.  on the contrary.  that is where it actually BEGAN as a political entity.

what most people describe as "classical liberalism" is liberalism that predates political liberalism- that predates even the TERM.

What I'm saying is this:

Just imagine that there is a large group out there that embraces elitism, a touch of anarcho-liber­alism, "several loans" from philosophic relativism, hedonism, totalitarianism, a dab of Marxism, etc. and calls itself "liberal". The word "liberal" appears proudly on their websites, in their literature, on their placards. In Canada it appears in large print in their party name, "Liberal Party of Canada".

candidly, i don't think ANY such people exist, except in the minds of conservatives.  but if they do, they would have to be of such a small number to be of little consequence to anyone on the left, right, or in the center.  that would actually explain why the dictionary has not made the change, if you are looking for a reason.

I get that you don't consider these philosophies to be a part of liberalism,

they clearly are NOT.  even the author would have to admit that.

but just bear with me and try to imagine that the term has been adopted and co-opted by groups based on this particular mashup. These are the groups the article is talking about. These are the self-identified "liberals" that the article is talking about. He's providing you with a rubric on how to identify them.

and i would be happy with that, if he could come up with a proper term for what they are, rather than simply accepting "their" term for themselves (i use their in quotations because i fundamentally disagree BOTH that there are large numbers of people that do this, AND that they choose this term to identify themselves, even out of sheer laziness).

What you're doing is stamping your foot and saying "No, no, no. This is how modern liberalism is actually defined: It inherits thus and such from classical liberalism and doesn't espouse hedonism and..."

i never said anything about "espousing".  i said that hedonism is ethically invalid.  this is like calling someone a bigot, imo.  or a psychopath.  it is not a tenable moral position of any kind.  and for anyone to levy it as a critique of a branch of political philosophy is effectively to discredit it as having any moral grounds whatsoever.  i think that is conscious.  i also think it is absolutely wrong.

but, being generous, i can see how someone might make that mistake.  a liberal might ACCEPT hedonism (so long as it did not harm the person or property of a non-consenting other).  but i think the author is mistaking acceptance for support. 

And fine. But this is not what the article is talking about. It's talking about the definition of "modern liberalism"--and I get that you vehemently reject this definition and consider it totally invalid--that conservatives use and that many self-identified "liberals" in fact conform to.

no, Virgil.  that is NOT what the article is about.  what the article basically says is that liberalism is hopelessly contaminated with socialists to the point of being irredeemable.  and i disagree with that completely.

Replace the word "liberal" in the article with a philosophy you don't hold sacrosanct, such as "big government humanist, hedonist progressivism",

ok, i am getting angry now, because that is my main critique against this guy- is that he FAILS TO DO THAT.  he simply accepts that this redefining thing has gone to the point where the thing which he is criticizing as separate is no longer separate.

read the article from that standpoint, and marvel "Oh! That's who conservatives are railing against when they rail against 'liberals'. Not true modern liberals, but people who subscribe to this mashup of philosophies and who simply call themselves 'liberals'."

If your intent is to attack the article on the basis of its description not conforming to "modern liberalism", you're going to be at it for a very long time and you'll have accomplished nothing because even Paul acknowledges that these "liberals" aren't actually liberals. It is just a label they use.

no.  that is not what Paul says.  it is not what you say.  it is not what this guy says.  i will repeat it again:

here is what i think his point is: modern liberals, having borrowed from socialism, are now nothing more or less than communists.

yes or no?

[djAdvocate]

Virgil- to get back to hedonism for a minute.

now, it may be true that some liberals ARE hedonists.  it may also be true that some conservatives ARE hedonists.  but what this guy is saying is that it is an ingredient of LIBERALISM.  that is not true.  there is nothing in liberalism or conservatism that indicates hedonism. 

but that is not why i take this particular critique so badly.  hedonism and ethical behavior have no intersection.  but liberalism and ethical behavior DO.  therefore, the Venn diagram between those three things would have liberalism in the middle, with hedonism on one side and ethical behavior on the other.  the Venn diagram would be precisely the same for conservatism.  in other words, hedonism does not distinguish liberalism from any other branch of political philosophy.  and the same could be said of much of his critique: that he is attributing negative traits that exist in people who identify themselves with wide swaths of political philosophy as UNIQUELY liberal:  that he is effectively treating liberalism as a rubbish bin for "nonsense" that exists all across the political spectrum.  that is a very satisfying position to take if you are of the opposite political philosophy, but it is in no way accurate.

this article is short on iffs.

[Virgil Showlion]

candidly, i don't think ANY such people exist, except in the minds of conservatives. but if they do, they would have to be of such a small number to be of little consequence to anyone on the left, right, or in the center. that would actually explain why the dictionary has not made the change, if you are looking for a reason.

Then open your eyes and get out into the great wide world, my friend.

If we had all the time in the world, you and I could draft a survey that asked a thousand questions designed to gauge popular support for policies that you and I would agree were "big government, "socialist", "humanist", "relativist", "elitist", "Marxist", "statist", etc., etc. and administer it. After all the questions were answered, we'd also ask respondents whether they believed they were "liberal", "socialist", etc., to find out how people's perceptions correlated with reality. I'd bet you all the rice in China that the number of American respondents with "moderately strong" to "strong" support for many of the philosophies you claim are virtually nonexistent would blow you away. Moreover, the number of those people that claimed to be "liberal" would stagger you.

I can't prove that without actually administering the survey of course, but suffice it to say that this is what I'm convinced would happen.

i never said anything about "espousing". i said that hedonism is ethically invalid. this is like calling someone a bigot, imo. or a psychopath. it is not a tenable moral position of any kind.

I'm not getting into a debate on ethical validity with you.

You've already locked yourself in a contradiction, insisting out of one side of your mouth that the Kantian standard of "ethical validity" is intrinsic to liberalism, and insisting out of the other side of your mouth that liberalism equals its dictionary definition where "ethical validity" is never mentioned, implied, or included as a prerequisite in any way, shape, or form.

he simply accepts that this redefining thing has gone to the point where the thing which he is criticizing as separate is no longer separate.

I'll have to re-read the article. Later. I didn't get that out of it.

[AGB]

Nov 27, 2013 23:48:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 27, 2013 21:37:43 GMT -5 AGB said:

Presumably the neocons have all self-identified as such...

But I am glad to hear you're in my corner on self-identifying, so allow me to state for the record that I do not self-identify as a member or supporter of hate groups, nor as a racist, nor is my dislike of presidential policies in any which way related to the president being of mixed race... glad that's settled once and for all.

AGB- i haven't seen you around much.  but i wish you a happy Thanksgiving, if you are inclined to celebrate it. 

Thanks, DJ. Life kicked me in the teeth a bit; I am kicking back, but had to focus my energy elsewhere for the time being. 
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

[Deleted]

Just think about it, we are here in this wonderful bounty!

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 16:11:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

candidly, i don't think ANY such people exist, except in the minds of conservatives. but if they do, they would have to be of such a small number to be of little consequence to anyone on the left, right, or in the center. that would actually explain why the dictionary has not made the change, if you are looking for a reason.

Then open your eyes and get out into the great wide world, my friend..

i travel a lot, and meet a lot of liberals.  none of them are anything like you describe.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 16:11:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'd bet you all the rice in China that the number of American respondents with "moderately strong" to "strong" support for many of the philosophies you claim are virtually nonexistent would blow you away. Moreover, the number of those people that claimed to be "liberal" would stagger you..

red herring.  that was not my argument.  my argument was that ALL of those things, in combination, don't exist in my universe of acquaintances.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 16:11:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

i never said anything about "espousing". i said that hedonism is ethically invalid. this is like calling someone a bigot, imo. or a psychopath. it is not a tenable moral position of any kind.

I'm not getting into a debate on ethical validity with you.

there is nothing to debate.  take it up with Kant.

[mmhmm]

Nov 28, 2013 16:50:10 GMT -5 AGB said:

Nov 27, 2013 23:48:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

AGB- i haven't seen you around much.  but i wish you a happy Thanksgiving, if you are inclined to celebrate it. 

Thanks, DJ. Life kicked me in the teeth a bit; I am kicking back, but had to focus my energy elsewhere for the time being. 
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

I hope you're okay, AGB! 

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 16:11:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You've already locked yourself in a contradiction, insisting out of one side of your mouth that the Kantian standard of "ethical validity" is intrinsic to liberalism,

i never claimed anything of the sort.  i have, however, claimed that Kant was a liberal.  liberalism is more akin to an approach, or a way of seeing things, than a set of "rules" or an objective "thing".  what i have suggested is that each one of these views should be subjected to the Kantian test of universalizability, and it if they fail, they should be jettisoned.  that is MY POSITION.  i have no idea whether it is the standard liberal position or not.

and insisting out of the other side of your mouth that liberalism equals its dictionary definition where "ethical validity" is never mentioned, implied, or included as a prerequisite in any way, shape, or form.

red herring argument, as usual.  you are really good at them, i must say.  this one was particularly bizarre.  i am going to save it for the archives. 

[AGB]

Nov 28, 2013 17:24:38 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Nov 28, 2013 16:50:10 GMT -5 AGB said:

Thanks, DJ. Life kicked me in the teeth a bit; I am kicking back, but had to focus my energy elsewhere for the time being. 
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

I hope you're okay, AGB! 

Always, mmhmm. "There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence." Or so I keep telling myself.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 17:43:05 GMT -5 AGB said:

Nov 28, 2013 17:24:38 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I hope you're okay, AGB! 

Always, mmhmm. "There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence." Or so I keep telling myself.

with that sort of attitude, you can never go wrong. 

[djAdvocate]

Virgil- i noted, with some irritation, that you still have not addressed the simple question in post 128, which i brought forward from an earlier post.  if you have time, i would appreciate a response.  tyia.

[mmhmm]

Nov 28, 2013 17:43:05 GMT -5 AGB said:

Nov 28, 2013 17:24:38 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I hope you're okay, AGB! 

Always, mmhmm. "There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence." Or so I keep telling myself.

LOL!  I hear you, AGB.  I'll warn ya, though ... a few of those opportunities for excellence have beaten the livin' tail offa me a few times.  They're sneaky, and they're vicious!  Watch yerself! 

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 28, 2013 17:30:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 28, 2013 16:11:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You've already locked yourself in a contradiction, insisting out of one side of your mouth that the Kantian standard of "ethical validity" is intrinsic to liberalism,

i never claimed anything of the sort.  i have, however, claimed that Kant was a liberal.  liberalism is more akin to an approach, or a way of seeing things, than a set of "rules" or an objective "thing".  what i have suggested is that each one of these views should be subjected to the Kantian test of universalizability, and it if they fail, they should be jettisoned.  that is MY POSITION.  i have no idea whether it is the standard liberal position or not.

and insisting out of the other side of your mouth that liberalism equals its dictionary definition where "ethical validity" is never mentioned, implied, or included as a prerequisite in any way, shape, or form.

red herring argument, as usual.  you are really good at them, i must say.  this one was particularly bizarre.  i am going to save it for the archives. 

It must've been the 5000 times you insisted the members of NAMBLA weren't liberals, despite their claiming to be so and their meeting the dictionary definition. You based your entire argument on the fact that their views aren't ethically valid. Ergo, you claimed, NAMBLA couldn't really be a liberal organization.

"Fine," I said. "But then you're saying to heck with the dictionary definition of 'liberal' since the definition doesn't include any such caveat."

Then you went off into a tirade demanding to know whether I thought NAMBLA's views were ethically valid, and I gave up caring.

Nov 28, 2013 17:49:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil- i noted, with some irritation, that you still have not addressed the simple question in post 128, which i brought forward from an earlier post.  if you have time, i would appreciate a response.  tyia.

What specifically do you want a yes or no answer to?

Yes or no, modern liberals are now nothing more or less than communists?

Yes or no, is this the main argument the article is trying to make?

Yes or no, does the article successfully make this argument?

[mmhmm]

Here's the question dj asked in Reply #128, Virgil Showlion.  It seems pretty straight-forward to me.  Is the statement being questioned true, or is it false?

here is what i think his point is: modern liberals, having borrowed from socialism, are now nothing more or less than communists.

yes or no?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 29, 2013 1:59:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 28, 2013 17:30:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

red herring argument, as usual.  you are really good at them, i must say.  this one was particularly bizarre.  i am going to save it for the archives. 

It must've been the 5000 times you insisted the members of NAMBLA weren't liberals,

don't exaggerate. i doubt it was more than 50.

despite their claiming to be so

do they? you never actually provided any proof of this. you simply laid that down, and i argued on a moral basis.

and their meeting the dictionary definition.

in the trivial sense. the KKK meets the definition of conservative in the trivial sense, as well. you want to claim them?

You based your entire argument on the fact that their views aren't ethically valid. Ergo, you claimed, NAMBLA couldn't really be a liberal organization.

Virgil- i need a point of order here.  are you arguing for the "trivial" sense of the word "liberal" being ascribed to NAMBLA?  in other words, NAMBLA could call themselves "conservative" in this sense, as well.  after all, sex with children in the Old World was quite common and generally accepted.  they also fit the sub-definition of liberal that means "licentious" to a Tee.  anyone can call themselves anything they like, and there is little that we can do about it.  the greater question is: is that meaningful.

what i have been arguing for is "liberal philosophy".  ANY time i use the term liberal in the context of politics, religion, or ethics, that is what i mean.  if you are arguing STRICTLY in the trivial sense of the word, you can have it.

oh, and if you want to circle back, liberal philosophy is in no way in conflict with the dictionary/common use of the term.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 29, 2013 12:07:00 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Here's the question dj asked in Reply #128, Virgil Showlion.  It seems pretty straight-forward to me.  Is the statement being questioned true, or is it false?

here is what i think his point is: modern liberals, having borrowed from socialism, are now nothing more or less than communists.

yes or no?

precisely.  is the bold statement true or false, iyo?  i think the AUTHOR would say it was TRUE.  i think PAUL would say it was TRUE.  what do YOU say?

[djAdvocate]

edit: dem/mmhmm- i just found THIS:

nambla is a collection of sickos, I'm sure there are both liberals and conservatives, as pervert is not defined by political alliances. Frankly, you're despicable for even making the insinuation.

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100429103718AA7FuQX

i think this is probably all i needed to say on the subject.

Nov 29, 2013 11:53:42 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

My, has this thread run downhill. Luckily this time of year all dreck freezes upon contact with the ground here, and it hasn't over run my space.

It must've been the 5000 times you insisted the members of NAMBLA weren't liberals

I mean really....

Are they liberals in the way Hitler and the Nazi's were conservatives?  How about Mayor Ford?  Or is he just an average conservative?

I guess having some measure of respect for our political brethren who hold different opinions is just waaay too much to ask.

dem- i apologize for indulging Virgil, here.  but since it was my thread, i figured i could ruin it in a guilt-free way.  

[Deleted]

 Watching ideologues split hairs... is like watching paint dry.

[Deleted]

Nov 29, 2013 14:59:53 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Nov 29, 2013 14:51:47 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 Watching ideologues split hairs... is like watching paint dry.

Yeah, I suppose that's really it. Ideologues. It really doesn't matter what end of the spectrum one is on, once it is determined that "the other" is the enemy.

It's also can be very dangerous to fixated on your ideology alone.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 29, 2013 16:22:46 GMT -5 @nia said:

Nov 29, 2013 14:59:53 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Yeah, I suppose that's really it. Ideologues. It really doesn't matter what end of the spectrum one is on, once it is determined that "the other" is the enemy.

It's also can be very dangerous to fixated on your ideology alone.

the next step is to devalue your enemy to the point where they are a subspecies.  then there is no amount of ill that you will not wish them.

any "liberal" that does this is a "liberal" i want nothing to do with.  they are no better than the people they curse.