Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 9:49:17 GMT -5
This is tantamount to saying you don't hate cars, you just hate it when people drive them on public roads, or keep the parked in public lots, or use the word "cars" in governmental documents. Strangely enough, you're still indistinguishable from somebody who hates cars. Call it what you want. We're no strangers to agreeing to disagree. My point is that it motivates your non-libertarian view on anti-discrimination laws. I remember someone on this board suggesting religion is like a penis. It only becomes an issue when someone pulls theirs out and starts playing with it in public. So change it to "Cars are like a penis. ..." My point being that despising public religion is tantamount to despising religion itself. If you want another analogy, back in the days when public homosexuality was illegal and homosexuals lived "in the closet", if a lawmaker supporting the status quo said to you "I don't hate homosexuality; I just hate public homosexuality.", would you believe him? I should hope not. And I should hope he'd have the compunction to admit he hates homosexuality.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 27, 2017 9:56:12 GMT -5
fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democrats-wave-could-turn-into-a-flood/the generic ballot was +18D the day after the tax bill. the GOP is counting on several things: 1) their tax-cut and borrow agenda will resonate with Reagan Democrats 2) as time goes on, this bill will be viewed as wildly popular among Independents 3) this is the first of many successes that will lead to ballot success in 2018 i think this is all wrong for a variety of reasons. but rather than giving you the temperature, why doesn't everyone here tell me why i am right (or wrong)? note: i have noted that the political divide is very strong on this, so i am especially interested in hearing from the INDEPENDENTS on this board (those that have no political affiliation) 1) After Obama Democrats (admittedly aided and abetted by the GOP) that mention the deficit will be greeted with a chuckle. Tax cuts ARE resonating- as is the end of the "new normal" which was just traded in for 4+ percent GDP growth, and full employment. 2) The overall Trump economic record- "Are you better off now than you were four years ago" will be widely popular. 3) On this point, they should be cautious. Trump is unpopular personally, and Congress is more unpopular than at any point in history. But more importantly- while the base loves Trump, members of Congress do not particularly excite the GOP base, whereas Democrats, encouraged by VA and AL, are very motivated. That being said- there are two important things you're missing: 1) The economy and more money in paychecks starting in February- 148 million Americans seeing their withholding decrease as their job prospects and salaries increase? That's going to matter. 2) The Democrats have no compelling alternative agenda. Their agenda is singular, and transparent: Impeach Trump- because "Russia", I guess? Or maybe because racistsexistbigothomophobexenophobeislamophobe and now rapistpedophile will work against every candidate? You need a positive alternative agenda to win, and the Democrats only have an anti-Trump agenda. Good for base turnout-- which will have an impact because there are more registered Dems than Republicans-- but will Impeach Trump excite independents watching in horror as the banana-republic style spying and coup attempt is unraveling? Doubtful. You also have to ask yourself if Americans are excited enough about going back to the individual mandate and highest in the world corporate tax rates to vote Democrat? Or maybe they like massive burdensome regulation? They might possibly be motivated to return to mass illegal immigration and the possibility of amnesty and citizenship for 12 million illegal aliens? Odds are pretty good actually that the long term trend of Democrats losing power will continue apace. The short term benefits of the tax cuts and deregulation should play well for Republicans. And as long as their leadership continues to prevent suicide on social issues, they will do okay.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 9:57:15 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 27, 2017 10:00:36 GMT -5
I remember someone on this board suggesting religion is like a penis. It only becomes an issue when someone pulls theirs out and starts playing with it in public. So change it to "Cars are like a penis. ..." My point being that despising public religion is tantamount to despising religion itself. If you want another analogy, back in the days when public homosexuality was illegal and homosexuals lived "in the closet", if a lawmaker supporting the status quo said to you "I don't hate homosexuality; I just hate public homosexuality.", would you believe him? I should hope not. And I should hope he'd have the compunction to admit he hates homosexuality. When was "public homosexuality" illegal?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 27, 2017 10:26:10 GMT -5
Love the sinner but hate the sin.
I don't believe it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2017 10:30:17 GMT -5
Actually the penis thing is more of a ‘dont force it down my throat’ kind of a thing...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 27, 2017 10:42:25 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 27, 2017 10:52:45 GMT -5
I think the problem Virgil is some conservatives like to invent words they think are catchy instead of caring whether they are useful, contribute anything meaningful to the dialogue (instead of just going for annoying pro conservative marketing), and make sense. I am not a fan of all the new gender terms like cis gender, but at least they exist to make sense of a spectrum of human gender behavior. They were created to enlighten, not to confuse, not to denigrate.
On the other hand, it is obvious to me the made up terms of paleo conservative and paleo liberal are made to denigrate and make fun of whomever those labels are applied to. Paleo is from the greek word ancient. The US is too young to have ancient anything. The RW can market all they want, but the more made up words they start slinging around, the less I listen to anything at all that they say. To me, it becomes pure noise. Much like you seem to see any discussion of gender and your unwillingness to really understand what Richard was telling you about religion. He doesn't want religion practiced in public. Simple. It doesn't mean he hates it anymore than we should conclude you hate sex because you believe it should be practiced in private. Versteht?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 10:55:18 GMT -5
It means "old" or "ancient". Not "stone age". It appears in front of many words that have nothing to do with the stone age. You may be thinking of "paleolithic", in which the "lithic" means "stone". In any case, now that you're aware of what "paleoliberal" means, we can move on to more pressing matters.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 11:03:29 GMT -5
They were created to enlighten, not to confuse, not to denigrate. The terms "paleoliberal", "paleoconservative", and "paleolibertarian" were all coined by social scientists/philosophers who used them to describe their own ideologies. They're not disparaging, and they're invaluable when discussing specific types of liberalism, conservatism, etc. He doesn't want religion practiced in public. Simple. It doesn't mean he hates it anymore than we should conclude you hate sex because you believe it should be practiced in private. Public practice of religion is indispensable to its function. Public practice is unrelated to the function of sex.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 27, 2017 11:03:57 GMT -5
It means "old" or "ancient". Not "stone age". It appears in front of many words that have nothing to do with the stone age. You may be thinking of "paleolithic", in which the "lithic" means "stone". In any case, now that you're aware of what "paleoliberal" means, we can move on to more pressing matters. I do not agree to using the word or even the definition so we have nothing to move on to. If whoever coined this term was concerned about accuracy they would call it old school liberalism or something like that, which is funny that 1960 is allegedly the benchmark for old, in a country founded in 1776.
Obviously decided by young folk with no sense of history or scope. I'm not into trendy or stupid, so you'll need another fish.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 27, 2017 11:09:19 GMT -5
They were created to enlighten, not to confuse, not to denigrate. The terms "paleoliberal", "paleoconservative", and "paleolibertarian" were all coined by social scientists/philosophers who used them to describe their own ideologies. They're not disparaging, and they're invaluable when discussing specific types of liberalism, conservatism, etc. He doesn't want religion practiced in public. Simple. It doesn't mean he hates it anymore than we should conclude you hate sex because you believe it should be practiced in private. Public practice of religion is indispensable to its function. Public practice is unrelated to the function of sex.Disagree. We have buildings created simply for the practice of religion. Sure some wedding ceremonies and funerals are out in public view, but the majority of religion is practiced observed only by fellow congregation members.
Remember the early church in the bible had to practice in secret to simply exist. As happens with many religions, in many countries where they are not approved of or illegal per the ruling government. Yet more proof, that public practice of religion is not indispensable.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 11:19:50 GMT -5
Yet more proof, that public practice of religion is not indispensable. I'd have to rebut this in RD. Rather than go down that rabbit hole, I'll point out that your public sex analogy fails for another reason: most people (myself included) oppose public sex because they consider it indecent. Richard has gone on record in the past saying he considers nothing indecent except that which is inherently harmful to others (i.e. that which he hates). Hence he couldn't oppose public religion for the same reason I oppose public sex.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 11:25:13 GMT -5
I do not agree to using the word or even the definition so we have nothing to move on to. You could enlighten me by answering my original question: What specific policies (not already identified by Tall and myself) do you associate with social liberalism circa 2017? If you don't consider it a fair question, enlighten me as to why. Perhaps you believe social liberalism can't be tied to tangible policies, for instance. Or if you're simply not interested, an "I'm not interested." without an attack on my thesis, my person, or conservatism in general would be appreciated.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 14:04:02 GMT -5
1) After Obama Democrats (admittedly aided and abetted by the GOP) that mention the deficit will be greeted with a chuckle. Tax cuts ARE resonating- as is the end of the "new normal" which was just traded in for 4+ percent GDP growth, and full employment. under Obama the deficit was cut in half, and UE dropped 3%. under Trump, the deficit is GUARANTEED to rise, and he will be hard pressed to improve on full employment. you think Team Orange is holding a hand full of counters. you are mistaken. PS- 4% growth is a pipe dream. you can mark me down for doubting you on that. ever. edit: anticipating the reply- the deficit was $1.2T on 1/21/2009, before Obama ever laid pen to paper in the WH. the 2008/2009 budget contained stuff that was about 80% Bush and 20% Obama. blaming Obama for any more than 20% of that deficit is just flat out fraudulent. don't go there, unless you want to show off what kind of a liar and a fraud you are. tyia.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 14:05:48 GMT -5
Did you read my post? I was talking about voters I knew who voted for Obama, who snapped out of their delusions quicker than what I see here from Trump supporters. So I am comparing 2009 to now. Voters I know. Not politicians.
But if you want to go there, Bannon and Trump are more deranged after a year as are others like Ryan.
Yes, and I am referencing the Democratic leaders, and the angry women of today. They are all as hysterical today as they were the weekend after the election.. We can do this all day. i am starting to remember why i stopped posting here. one starts subject A, and the rebuttal is subject B.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 14:08:10 GMT -5
I think the problem Virgil is some conservatives like to invent words they think are catchy instead of caring whether they are useful, contribute anything meaningful to the dialogue (instead of just going for annoying pro conservative marketing), and make sense.
they also like to pretend that liberals of today are wildly different than liberals of 200 years ago in terms of basic principles. they really aren't. it is just that conservatives have adopted a lot of liberal ideas, and they just can't live with that idea, apparently. no amount of confessing is going to cleanse that sin.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 14:12:19 GMT -5
The short term benefits of the tax cuts and deregulation should play well for Republicans. And as long as their leadership continues to prevent suicide on social issues, they will do okay. i think Paul is wildly off base in thinking the Democrats have nothing to run on, as well. there are literally a DOZEN things that Trump is against or wants to prune/curtail that are wildly popular. all Democrats have to do is run on those things, and they will do fine. Trump's personal unpopularity will more than make up the difference. and yeah, that is just my opinion. and yeah, things could change wildly in the next year. but that is where things are right now. thanks to the Orange Team for proving that my thread title is spot on, btw.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 14:17:27 GMT -5
1) good. i am glad you have midterm concerns. they are warranted. 2) i am also glad you don't think Mueller is enough of a threat to be removed, and hope that it is a widely shared belief. 3) i would not be nearly that confident, were i you. Trump has single term written all over him. and it doesn't matter who they run, imo. nobody had heard of Obama before 2006. and that turned out to be a good thing. I left an important thought off my post. The democrats thought they could ride Obama's coat tails and continue to run the Congress and state capitals. Obama had no coat tail. Trump is basically the same thing. His coat tail will not carry the few party faithful he has to victory either. They win or lose on their own abilities in 2018 absolutely false. Obama left office more popular than at any point since 2009. Trump is the most unpopular at this point in his term of any president in history, TTBOMK. you really should stop comparing them. just because the GOP hates Obama and loves Trump doesn't mean THE REST OF AMERICA sees things your way. we don't. trust me on that. or if you don't, go look at the polls.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 15:19:34 GMT -5
I think the problem Virgil is some conservatives like to invent words they think are catchy instead of caring whether they are useful, contribute anything meaningful to the dialogue (instead of just going for annoying pro conservative marketing), and make sense.
they also like to pretend that liberals of today are wildly different than liberals of 200 years ago in terms of basic principles. they really aren't. it is just that conservatives have adopted a lot of liberal ideas, and they just can't live with that idea, apparently. no amount of confessing is going to cleanse that sin. You yourself admit you use an archaic definition of "liberal", so why would its intransigence surprise you? What you fail to perceive or acknowledge is that the number of self-identifying "liberals" whose basic principles bear no resemblance to those of classical liberals has risen precipitously in recent times. For any given issue, the number of self-identifying social liberals whose view is inconsistent with (or diametrically opposed to) the position of classical liberalism ranges anywhere from 35% (e.g. support for suppression of objectionable speech) to 100% (e.g. "reproductive rights"). A good overall summary of the schism between classical and contemporary liberalism is viewable here. When you don't count your garbage-filled back yard, your trash-stuffed attic, and your mouldering basement as part of your house, it really doesn't look so bad, does it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2017 15:23:45 GMT -5
Because you say so Virgil?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 15:47:51 GMT -5
Because you say so Virgil? I'm not the one who wrote the articles. ...or ran the polls. Do you want to see polls on what percentage of "socially liberal" college students believe colleges must be safe spaces? (Spoiler: 36%) How about polls on what percentage of young "social liberals" who believe screaming over an invited speaker to silence their objectionable opinions is appropriate? (Spoiler: 50%) Polls on what percentage of Democrats support carbon taxes (unfortunately I can't find polls that classify based on left versus right, but this isn't far off)? (Spoiler: 77%) Why don't you pick an item on the list and we'll go on a quest to discover just how much trash really is in your back yard?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 15:52:04 GMT -5
You yourself admit you use an archaic definition of "liberal", so why would its intransigence surprise you?
you are free to lie about anything you wish, except my positions.
first of all, the word "admit" is not correct, here. i can't admit to something that i believe is false.
what i have said dozens of times, and which you can verify by looking back through our dozens of discussions (speaking of which, i don't believe for a second you don't remember any of that), is that i believe that there is little difference between liberals of yore and liberals of today. the changes that have been made are generally to the benefit of liberalism, including the recognition that there is nothing inferior across races and genders, among other things. because, you know....science?
there is nothing liberal about socialism, imo. you love to conflate them, and you love to post links to others that conflate them, but i can find just as many that don't conflate them, and i regard those sources as being more authoritative. i know you don't, and that's cool. but please desist in insisting that i have ADMITTED that your misuse of the term liberal is correct.
i have never done that, and i WILL NEVER DO THAT. EVER.
this ends this discussion, Virgil. i have had it with you once too often. please stop.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 16:04:20 GMT -5
no, THESE asshats are:
A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity
and their thesis included this marvelous paragraph:
the contemporary card-carrying liberal may cheerfully support:
distributing condoms and contraceptives to augment sexual freedom and brake the natural development of families providing governmental assistance and funding for abortion facilities removing all obstacles to the normalization of homosexuality (including homosexual “marriage”) supporting restrictions on speech, writings, and demonstrations that cast doubt on the arbitrary values espoused by the liberals themselves removing “freedom of conscience” guidelines for doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals who have religious objections to some of these values
i can't even begin to dissect these claims, but i will again take on the red one:
i would fight to the death for even the stupid fucking dreck in bold, above.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2017 16:06:17 GMT -5
Correlation. Worse, correlation without definition. Or citation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2017 16:13:58 GMT -5
Virgil. Do you support the right of parents to freely homeschool their children with no regulations set by the state?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 16:17:47 GMT -5
if anyone is responsible for Orwellian bullshit when it comes to liberals, it is conservatives, particularly those that came of age since Reagan.
but we won't let you take the word from us, and ascribe your own meaning. give up. now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2017 16:20:23 GMT -5
now, can we please get back to discussing whether the GOP has any awareness or fear of being shellacked in 2018?
edit: as boring as you may find this topic, Virgil, it really does beat the ever loving crap out of your semantics argument.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 16:20:29 GMT -5
You yourself admit you use an archaic definition of "liberal", so why would its intransigence surprise you? you are free to lie about anything you wish, except my positions. (2) first of all, the word "admit" is not correct, here. i can't admit to something that i believe is false. what i have said dozens of times, and which you can verify by looking back through our dozens of discussions (speaking of which, i don't believe for a second you don't remember any of that), is that i believe that there is little difference between liberals of yore and liberals of today. the changes that have been made are generally to the benefit of liberalism, including the recognition that there is nothing inferior across races and genders, among other things. because, you know....science? there is nothing liberal about socialism, imo. (3) you love to conflate them, and you love to post links to others that conflate them, but i can find just as many that don't conflate them, and i regard those sources as being more authoritative. i know you don't, and that's cool. but please desist in insisting that (1) i have ADMITTED that your misuse of the term liberal is correct. i have never done that, and i WILL NEVER DO THAT. EVER. (4) this ends this discussion, Virgil. i have had it with you once too often. please stop. 1. "admit you use an archaic definition of 'liberal'" ≠ "ADMITTED [my use] of the term liberal is correct" 2. You adhere to the dictionary definition, which hasn't changed in 200 years. It is, by definition, archaic. This is not to say you've admitted your definition is defunct, which seems to be how you're interpreting my statement. 3. You 'love to' deny their incestuous relationship in contemporary politics and 'love to' blindly disregard any and all evidence proving it. As for sources, you can heap up all the "authoritative sources" you want. Build a big wall out of them to keep out the world. One day not long from now, you're going to dragged kicking and screaming into reality. I won't be there to see it but I know it won't be pretty. 4. If you'd like me to respect a request to end a debate, please speak calmly and respectfully, do not present new arguments, and do not rebut existing ones. I would not expect anything less from myself if I was asking you to abort an argument. Alternatively, you can ignore me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 16:21:53 GMT -5
Virgil. Do you support the right of parents to freely homeschool their children with no regulations set by the state? Yes. How about you?
|
|