AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 1, 2015 15:32:46 GMT -5
wrong. i have nothing in common with the description you provided of liberals. but that answers the question. you got nothing. your "liberal" doesn't exist. Of course you do. On everything from freedom of religion, to healthcare- you are a raving fan of big government controlling every aspect of people's lives, confiscating the product of their labor and redistributing it to others. You are in love with the idea of using the violence of government to compel people to behave the way you think they should.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 17:30:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 15:40:25 GMT -5
wrong. i have nothing in common with the description you provided of liberals. but that answers the question. you got nothing. your "liberal" doesn't exist. Of course you do. On everything from freedom of religion, to healthcare- you are a raving fan of big government controlling every aspect of people's lives, confiscating the product of their labor and redistributing it to others. You are in love with the idea of using the violence of government to compel people to behave the way you think they should. i am pretty sure DJ is not a liberal if you mean classic liberalism. What you describe probably describes him, but it is not what a liberal, in the honorable sense of that word, thinks. I think their are very few real liberals that post here, just statists and central planner types.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 1, 2015 15:43:31 GMT -5
Of course you do. On everything from freedom of religion, to healthcare- you are a raving fan of big government controlling every aspect of people's lives, confiscating the product of their labor and redistributing it to others. You are in love with the idea of using the violence of government to compel people to behave the way you think they should. i am pretty sure DJ is not a liberal if you mean classic liberalism. What you describe probably describes him, but it is not what a liberal, in the honorable sense of that word, thinks. I think their are very few real liberals that post here, just statists and central planner types. No- you are gonna have to ignore his argument on that. He's living in this weird parallel universe where he does not understand that conservatives are classical liberals in 2015, and liberals are communists in 2015.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 15:45:38 GMT -5
modern liberals have the same values as classical liberals, ime. what you guys are calling "liberals" are socialists and communists. what separates the two is collectivism. liberals place a low value on collectivism, particularly in regard to assets, wheras others place a high value on it. Correct. In America in 2015 liberals are socialists and communists. i know that is what you wrongly believe. but as i have said many times before, WF Buckley new the difference, even if you don't.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 17:30:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 15:47:38 GMT -5
i am pretty sure DJ is not a liberal if you mean classic liberalism. What you describe probably describes him, but it is not what a liberal, in the honorable sense of that word, thinks. I think their are very few real liberals that post here, just statists and central planner types. No- you are gonna have to ignore his argument on that. He's living in this weird parallel universe where he does not understand that conservatives are classical liberals in 2015, and liberals are communists in 2015. I do not know what label they should have. The people who want to call themselves liberals are not for freedom, are for endless war, are for corporatism. When all is said and done, they are pretty much the same as those who want to call themselves conservatives, just big government types squabling over who is more wrong.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 1, 2015 15:50:32 GMT -5
No- you are gonna have to ignore his argument on that. He's living in this weird parallel universe where he does not understand that conservatives are classical liberals in 2015, and liberals are communists in 2015. I do not know what label they should have. The people who want to call themselves liberals are not for freedom, are for endless war, are for corporatism. When all is said and done, they are pretty much the same as those who want to call themselves conservatives, just big government types squabling over who is more wrong. You're thinking of the confusion over Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are liberals, and Republicans are just moderate liberals. The best way to think of it is the spectrum of Utopianism or statism.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 16:01:11 GMT -5
of course the guy who tripled the deficit could have proposed this. DUH! You need to look at control of the House, not the White House. Unless you want to pin all the GOP spending since 2010 on Obama. of course. as i pointed out to you about a dozen times, the president sets the tone. Obama's tone is spending money. so YES. i would blame Obama for the budgets that he signed, which started in 2010, and by that standard, he is likely the worst deficit creator since FDR.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 16:02:49 GMT -5
Of course you do. On everything from freedom of religion, to healthcare- you are a raving fan of big government controlling every aspect of people's lives, confiscating the product of their labor and redistributing it to others. You are in love with the idea of using the violence of government to compel people to behave the way you think they should. i am pretty sure DJ is not a liberal if you mean classic liberalism. what makes you so sure?What you describe probably describes him, but it is not what a liberal, in the honorable sense of that word, thinks. I think their are very few real liberals that post here, just statists and central planner types. bingo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 16:04:08 GMT -5
i am pretty sure DJ is not a liberal if you mean classic liberalism. What you describe probably describes him, but it is not what a liberal, in the honorable sense of that word, thinks. I think their are very few real liberals that post here, just statists and central planner types. No- you are gonna have to ignore his argument on that. He's living in this weird parallel universe where he does not understand that conservatives are classical liberals in 2015, and liberals are communists in 2015. i don't understand things that are not true. there is no way that liberals would abide by the dildo controlling, drug banning, military-prison-industrial complex superfund monopoly loving conservatives of 2015. they would puke in their hair, Paul. seriously.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 16:05:34 GMT -5
I do not know what label they should have. The people who want to call themselves liberals are not for freedom, are for endless war, are for corporatism. When all is said and done, they are pretty much the same as those who want to call themselves conservatives, just big government types squabling over who is more wrong. You're thinking of the confusion over Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are liberals, and Republicans are just moderate liberals. The best way to think of it is the spectrum of Utopianism or statism. liberals don't put the power of the gun over the power of the dollar. Republicans do, consistently. so do Democrats. so, i would argue that NEITHER are liberals, in the standard and well understood formulation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 16:08:27 GMT -5
No- you are gonna have to ignore his argument on that. He's living in this weird parallel universe where he does not understand that conservatives are classical liberals in 2015, and liberals are communists in 2015. I do not know what label they should have. The people who want to call themselves liberals are not for freedom, are for endless war, are for corporatism. huh? that sounds like a Republican to me, honestly. what Republicans call themselves liberals (other than me )? here, this is what I think liberal means (bolding for the political sense): lib·er·al ˈlib(ə)rəl/ adjective adjective: liberal 1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. "they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people" favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms. "liberal citizenship laws" synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; More permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient "the values of a liberal society" antonyms: narrow-minded, bigoted (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform. "a liberal democratic state" synonyms: progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical "a liberal social agenda" antonyms: reactionary, conservative of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party. adjective: Liberal (in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democratic Party. adjective: Liberal "the Liberal leader" Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change. 2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training. synonyms: wide-ranging, broad-based, general "a liberal education" 3. (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact. "they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation" synonyms: flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite "a liberal interpretation of divorce laws" antonyms: strict, to the letter 4. given, used, or occurring in generous amounts. "liberal amounts of wine had been consumed" synonyms: abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literaryplenteous "a liberal coating of paint" antonyms: scant (of a person) giving generously. "Sam was too liberal with the wine" synonyms: generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, big-hearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literarybounteous "they were liberal with their cash" antonyms: careful, miserly noun noun: liberal; plural noun: liberals 1. a person of liberal views.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 16:19:56 GMT -5
Paul- i am not sure i have ever stated this on this board, but i consider myself ANTI-STATIST. why?
because the state has shown itself incapable of wielding power. when given the authority to arm for war, we created a PERMANENT standing army (against the will of liberals like Jefferson). that authority was then used to EXPAND that army as the conflicts expanded. and now, it is used in place of the more liberal methods of negotiation, like diplomacy. prohibition was anti-liberal and widespread, and is still practiced for drugs other than alcohol. conservatives and statists have told us who we can sleep with, who we can live with, where we can live, and what we can consume since they had the power to decide for us, and it is only through effort and sometimes bloodshed on the part of liberals that we have clawed some of those liberties back into our possession.
what you mistake for MY "statism" i call "asserting that the powerful should not be able to trample the rights of the powerless". you seem to think that in this dog eat dog world that Liberty says that the powerful should be able to do whatever they like- to trample on the rights and liberties of those who have not the strength to fight- drawing lines around rights which cloister the rich and shut the poor out.
you guys have a really weird view of liberals. you should read some Adam Smith.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 17:04:46 GMT -5
to argue from the definition above:
i think that a person should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. this would include consuming whatever drugs he wants, owing whatever weapons he wishes, screwing whoever he wants, saying whatever he wants, and doing whatever he wants with his own body and life so long as he is not harming non-consenting others doing it.
you both CLAIM that conservatives are for maximizing liberty. would either of you make the above statement?
where Paul and i disagree is that i think government has a role in creating a civil society, and i am willing to pay for that. he isn't. i respect that position, however, i don't respect his military-industrial statism and foreign policy at all. i favor not resolving conflicts that are none of our concern, and concentrating instead on DEFENSE, which doesn't include thousands of soldiers being stationed in remote corners of the world. that is the worst kind of socialism and fascism- the kind that threatens liberties both at home and abroad. Eisenhower understood this kind of liberalism very well. he is the kind of Republican that i look up to. too bad that so few of us remain.
|
|
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 Oct 1, 2015 17:41:14 GMT -5
Of course you do. On everything from freedom of religion, to healthcare- you are a raving fan of big government controlling every aspect of people's lives, confiscating the product of their labor and redistributing it to others. You are in love with the idea of using the violence of government to compel people to behave the way you think they should. i am pretty sure DJ is not a liberal if you mean classic liberalism. What you describe probably describes him, but it is not what a liberal, in the honorable sense of that word, thinks. I think their are very few real liberals that post here, just statists and central planner types. Sacrilege! DJ is an odd creature. He's three-quarters classical liberal, one quarter neo-liberal. Generally on the straight and narrow, but occasionally a government apologist (exclusively for leftist policies) and a little bit too cozied up to her warm cradle-to-grave bosom at times. Barring this neo-liberal streak (which we'll forgive him, seeing as he's a resident of CA), he fits the definition of "classical liberal" as well as anyone else on the board. Now if only he could learn to accept that "liberal" no longer means "classical liberal".
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,208
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 1, 2015 17:48:31 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 17:59:11 GMT -5
i am pretty sure DJ is not a liberal if you mean classic liberalism. What you describe probably describes him, but it is not what a liberal, in the honorable sense of that word, thinks. I think their are very few real liberals that post here, just statists and central planner types. Sacrilege! DJ is an odd creature. He's three-quarters classical liberal, one quarter neo-liberal. Generally on the straight and narrow, but occasionally a government apologist (exclusively for leftist policies) and a little bit too cozied up to her warm cradle-to-grave bosom at times. Barring this neo-liberal streak (which we'll forgive him, seeing as he's a resident of CA), he fits the definition of "classical liberal" as well as anyone else on the board. Now if only he could learn to accept that "liberal" no longer means "classical liberal". oh, i am certainly odd. strange. weird. all of that. but i am not inconsistent. i am guided by the principle of rooting for the underdog. i don't believe in entrenched power or privilege. and i bristle and any instance where that privilege is exercised. you will find, almost universally, that when i am siding with the state, it is along those lines. however, i don't agree with you and several others that define "liberal" as being a synonym for "socialist". if MANY are confused by the conflation, it is forgivable. after all, the effort has been made since McCarthy to paint us into a corner using this meaning, so as to clear the path for his brand of neo-liberalism and neo-fascism, which also have no time for. it only appears inconsistent when you view it through extraordinarily distorted lenses, begging for a good cleaning.
|
|
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 Oct 1, 2015 18:55:45 GMT -5
Sacrilege! DJ is an odd creature. He's three-quarters classical liberal, one quarter neo-liberal. Generally on the straight and narrow, but occasionally a government apologist (exclusively for leftist policies) and a little bit too cozied up to her warm cradle-to-grave bosom at times. Barring this neo-liberal streak (which we'll forgive him, seeing as he's a resident of CA), he fits the definition of "classical liberal" as well as anyone else on the board. Now if only he could learn to accept that "liberal" no longer means "classical liberal". oh, i am certainly odd. strange. weird. all of that. but i am not inconsistent. i am guided by the principle of rooting for the underdog. i don't believe in entrenched power or privilege. and i bristle and any instance where that privilege is exercised. you will find, almost universally, that when i am siding with the state, it is along those lines. however, i don't agree with you and several others that define "liberal" as being a synonym for "socialist". if MANY are confused by the conflation, it is forgivable. after all, the effort has been made since McCarthy to paint us into a corner using this meaning, so as to clear the path for his brand of neo-liberalism and neo-fascism, which also have no time for. it only appears inconsistent when you view it through extraordinarily distorted lenses, begging for a good cleaning. Sticking it to the underdog is pretty much the only time you do side with big government. You railed against the Tea Party for the 2013 government shutdown, which was an underdog movement. You wanted the government to make an example of Cliven Bundy, and you used that same opportunity to express your contempt for the Sovereign Citizens' movement. Underdogs, both of them. Your response to Pres. Obama's invasion of Libya was 'meh, Bush did it too'. You didn't seem to care that Libya was the underdog there. Who can forget DJ "Obama as a rodeo clown is a threat! Shut 'em down!" polldancer in the rodeo clown thread? Or DJ "There was probably nothing in the Lois Lerner emails anyway." polldancer in the IRS-versus-conservative organizations threads? Or DJ "not too keen on vigilantism" polldancer in virtually every thread on vigilantism we've ever had on the board? You think the lesbian couple is the underdog in the Oregon Bakery case? You think the pizza parlour shut down by a barrage of threats and hate mail after answering a newscaster's question honestly is the aggressor? Dream on. No, my friend, when you side with the state in a contentious issue, you are one underdog-hating son of a gun. Now... I'm not saying that I disagree with your viewpoint in all of the above cases. I don't. But equating the dark, statist side of DJ with "bristling against entrenched power or privilege"? Not on your life. You make it very clear that the Tea Parties, Cliven Bundys, Sovereign Citizens, Libyas, rodeo clowns, conservative start-ups, vigilantes, stand-your-grounders, principled bakery owners, and all underdogs besides can go to hell if they choose to do battle with the almighty state.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 19:14:40 GMT -5
oh, i am certainly odd. strange. weird. all of that. but i am not inconsistent. i am guided by the principle of rooting for the underdog. i don't believe in entrenched power or privilege. and i bristle and any instance where that privilege is exercised. you will find, almost universally, that when i am siding with the state, it is along those lines. however, i don't agree with you and several others that define "liberal" as being a synonym for "socialist". if MANY are confused by the conflation, it is forgivable. after all, the effort has been made since McCarthy to paint us into a corner using this meaning, so as to clear the path for his brand of neo-liberalism and neo-fascism, which also have no time for. it only appears inconsistent when you view it through extraordinarily distorted lenses, begging for a good cleaning. Sticking it to the underdog is pretty much the only time you do side with big government. You railed against the Tea Party for the 2013 government shutdown, which was an underdog movement. You wanted the government to make an example of Cliven Bundy, and you used that same opportunity to express your contempt for the Sovereign Citizens' movement. Underdogs, both of them. Your response to Pres. Obama's invasion of Libya was 'meh, Bush did it too'. You didn't seem to care that Libya was the underdog there. Who can forget DJ "Obama as a rodeo clown is a threat! Shut 'em down!" polldancer in the rodeo clown thread? Or DJ "There was probably nothing in the Lois Lerner emails anyway." polldancer in the IRS-versus-conservative organizations threads? Or DJ "not too keen on vigilantism" polldancer in virtually every thread on vigilantism we've ever had on the board? You think the lesbian couple is the underdog in the Oregon Bakery case? You think the pizza parlour shut down by a barrage of threats and hate mail after answering a newscaster's question honestly is the aggressor? Dream on. No, my friend, when you side with the state in a contentious issue, you are one underdog-hating son of a gun. Now... I'm not saying that I disagree with your viewpoint in all of the above cases. I don't. But equating the dark, statist side of DJ with "bristling against entrenched power or privilege"? Not on your life. You make it very clear that the Tea Parties, Cliven Bundys, Sovereign Citizens, Libyas, rodeo clowns, conservative start-ups, vigilantes, stand-your-grounders, principled bakery owners, and all underdogs besides can go to hell if they choose to do battle with the almighty state. you and i seem to have a different definition of underdog. yours MIGHT be more correct. let's find out. here is mine: the underdog for me is the law abiding individual or group that has been HISTORICALLY repressed, either for reasons of race, class, or gender. it is the group that has had to fight for their rights against powerful opposition to obtain the status of "protected class". other "underdogs" can generally fend for themselves well enough. IE, Trump could be considered an "underdog" in the presidential race, but i see no reason to root for him on that basis. none of the groups or individuals above qualify as underdogs, so let's move on to your second class of objections. i never sided with Obama on Libya, or on Lois Lerner's emails. however, you should know by now that i am strongly opposed to interventionism, including Libya (see war crimes, below). and yes, i think that GAYS, AS A CLASS, are UNDERDOGS. if you don't, you are a poor student of history. so, i take it that you think of criminals as underdogs? well, sure, in a sense they are. but they are not underdogs worth defending. if you expect me to extend my umbrella of sympathy to protect and defend them, you have really come to the wrong guy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 19:17:50 GMT -5
regarding the RODEO CLOWN thread, i advocated decorum. i never suggested that Bush be trampled to death, ever- even though i loathe him to a degree that would make an Obama hater blush. i did suggest that he should be tried for war crimes. i have suggested that we do that for Obama, Clinton, Carter, and every other president since WW2, so you can't claim i am not consistent. are you suggesting that it is OK to advocate for extra-judicially murdering a president, Virgil? is that the kind of "underdog" you would have me or anyone else defend? no way, bro. no way. edit: i appreciate the loving archiving you have given my posts. glad to see that you think i am worth the effort.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 19:43:14 GMT -5
Virgil- you know, i think this board creates a distorted view of me for the following reason.
what is mostly done here is railing against the government. i happen to think the government does SOME good. there are MANY here that want it dismantled, brick by brick. but that would leave the most vulnerable members of our society without recourse to the powerful, imo. if you can't see that as siding with the little guy, then fine. i accept that. my GENERAL defense of the INSTITUTION of government doesn't undermine my anti-statism at all. i think the government should ONLY be directed to the defense of individuals against powerful forces inside and outside our nation. if it would limit it's role thusly, it would be vastly smaller than it is.
i am not advocating for a stateless society. does that make me a statist? not really. i don't think that the government should control any aspect of society, only that it should provide a framework to protect those who can least protect themselves.
|
|
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 Oct 2, 2015 0:45:27 GMT -5
I agree with you that the government does some good. I agree with you that some government is far better than no government. I agree that occasionally siding with government doesn't make one a statist. I agree with your arguments in many of the examples listed, particularly your positions against SYG and criminals taking on the US government. Your specific claim was that when you support government, you side with the underdog against entrenched powers. This simply isn't true. Your disclaimer about historical underdogs (as opposed to contemporary underdogs) explains your position in the Oregon bakery debates. I can accept that. In the rodeo clown thread, you advocated decorum but also denounced depictions of violence against the President as "threats" against the President. You had no problem with the state treating them as such. I'm not commenting on the correctness of your position. I'm saying that by any reasonable definition, the rodeo clowns or Bush-burning yokels are the underdogs in the clowns-vs-the-state standoff, and you clearly sided with the state. The same is true for Cliven Bundy. I happen to agree with you that the man was a criminal. Irrelevant. It was government SWAT teams versus Cliven Bundy and his tin pot militia, Bundy was clearly the underdog going up against Harry Reid et al. (who happened to have a personal stake in the contested land, if you'll recall), and you most certainly weren't rooting for the underdog. Regarding Libya, you fell prey to one of your other vices, "Bush blindness", a.k.a. "I will defend Pres. Obama because some former President was worse". You invariably append a harsher criticism of either Reagan, Nixon, or Bush to any criticism of Pres. Obama you concede, which, in fairness to you, seems to be habitual reactionism. In some cases you invest so much effort into redirecting blame that it smacks of apologism. The Libya issue was one such case. The board is littered with threads like this and this, where your only substantive contribution is "Well, all Presidents abuse their power now and again." You may not intend it, but you really do come across as not giving a flying snow leopard about anything Pres. Obama does. Hence let's compromise: I strike this one off the list of "DJ siding against the underdog" if you can go through a whole thread critical of Pres. Obama without emphasizing how much worse some former President was. (Good luck with that. ) Your record in vigilantism threads stands on its own. Again, I'm not commenting on right or wrong. But to characterize yourself as "siding with the underdog"... beam me up. Another example that comes to mind: DJ "Wood is foul." polldancer in the Government Saves Us from Cheese thread. Fortunately the law turned out to be so stupid that the government ultimately backed away from it, but not before you rode in on your white horse to explain to us all how government destroying millions in small business capital was really a good thing. "Siding with the underdog"... beam me up. For the last time with you and Weltz: I do not archive, bookmark, store links or maintain any kind of record of YMAM content. I happen to have a good memory for these kinds of things, as well as the ability to use the "Search" function with its many useful filters. In this case, my memory doesn't have to be particularly good because finding DJ-versus-the-underdogs threads is like shooting fish in a barrel. If you want to astound me, dig up a thread or two where you've supported the government in a case where they aren't crushing some tin pot militia, conservative charity, or cheese artisans under heel.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 2, 2015 8:14:26 GMT -5
What is the problem here, if this was a car we would just trade up for a newer model. My wife would trade me in if she wasn't so worried about how much it would cost to take me off her hands! The bankruptcies were just good strategic financial planning. that's all have you ever been on the LOSING end of a bankruptcy? i have. one this year cost me $7,000. edit: four bankruptcies tells me Trump is gaming the system for his benefit. does that make him a good businessman? sure. does it make him a scumbag, as well? yes, it does, imo. this is a defining moment for the GOP, imo. are they "Wall Street" or "Main Street"? If I added up all bankruptcies it would be over $150,000, if you throw in noncollectable debt over half million $'s
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 10:12:16 GMT -5
I agree with you that the government does some good. I agree with you that some government is far better than no government. I agree that occasionally siding with government doesn't make one a statist. I agree with your arguments in many of the examples listed, particularly your positions against SYG and criminals taking on the US government. Your specific claim was that when you support government, you side with the underdog against entrenched powers. This simply isn't true. Your disclaimer about historical underdogs (as opposed to contemporary underdogs) explains your position in the Oregon bakery debates. I can accept that. In the rodeo clown thread, you advocated decorum but also denounced depictions of violence against the President as "threats" against the President. You had no problem with the state treating them as such. I'm not commenting on the correctness of your position. I'm saying that by any reasonable definition, the rodeo clowns or Bush-burning yokels are the underdogs in the clowns-vs-the-state standoff, and you clearly sided with the state. The same is true for Cliven Bundy. I happen to agree with you that the man was a criminal. Irrelevant. It was government SWAT teams versus Cliven Bundy and his tin pot militia, Bundy was clearly the underdog going up against Harry Reid et al. (who happened to have a personal stake in the contested land, if you'll recall), and you most certainly weren't rooting for the underdog. Regarding Libya, you fell prey to one of your other vices, "Bush blindness", a.k.a. "I will defend Pres. Obama because some former President was worse". You invariably append a harsher criticism of either Reagan, Nixon, or Bush to any criticism of Pres. Obama you concede, which, in fairness to you, seems to be habitual reactionism. In some cases you invest so much effort into redirecting blame that it smacks of apologism. The Libya issue was one such case. The board is littered with threads like this and this, where your only substantive contribution is "Well, all Presidents abuse their power now and again." You may not intend it, but you really do come across as not giving a flying snow leopard about anything Pres. Obama does. Hence let's compromise: I strike this one off the list of "DJ siding against the underdog" if you can go through a whole thread critical of Pres. Obama without emphasizing how much worse some former President was. (Good luck with that. ) Your record in vigilantism threads stands on its own. Again, I'm not commenting on right or wrong. But to characterize yourself as "siding with the underdog"... beam me up. Another example that comes to mind: DJ "Wood is foul." polldancer in the Government Saves Us from Cheese thread. Fortunately the law turned out to be so stupid that the government ultimately backed away from it, but not before you rode in on your white horse to explain to us all how government destroying millions in small business capital was really a good thing. "Siding with the underdog"... beam me up. For the last time with you and Weltz: I do not archive, bookmark, store links or maintain any kind of record of YMAM content. I happen to have a good memory for these kinds of things, as well as the ability to use the "Search" function with its many useful filters. In this case, my memory doesn't have to be particularly good because finding DJ-versus-the-underdogs threads is like shooting fish in a barrel. If you want to astound me, dig up a thread or two where you've supported the government in a case where they aren't crushing some tin pot militia, conservative charity, or cheese artisans under heel. i already stated that i don't think of criminals as underdogs. i don't see anything romantic about Bonnie and Clyde, but i understand that this is a popular idea in the states: the lone "outlaws" going it alone, and living life large and their way. i think they are scumbags, and i can't condone that. practically all of your objections are covered by that one fact. so go ahead and beam up, if you don't see that. you were mistaken about Libya, plain and simple. my contempt for Bush might mask my objection to Obama, but it doesn't mean i approve of him. and by the way, if you can find a thread on drone strikes and spying, you will find me comparing Obama to Bush UNFAVORABLY. same with deficits. find threads on those, using your marvelous search capabilities, and you will very likely have your answer (though i don't see Obama as an underdog, so i don't really know what the point is). regarding the cheese thread, i have a special interest in food processing and food safety. it is my industry. i can't very well spend 40 hours a week advocating that people replace wooden shit for stuff that is easier to clean and then sit around here during my breaks and spare moments and say how cool wood is, Virgil. so, yeah, i am not going to side with the artisan cheesemaker, here. you got me bro. man, am i a hypocrite.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 10:17:56 GMT -5
Virgil- for the record, i wasn't thinking of the government when i said "entrenched power". i was thinking of ELITISM.
please note BEFORE you take me to task for this that i conceded to one of your objections IN SPITE OF this.
|
|
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 Oct 2, 2015 13:30:06 GMT -5
If criminals can't be underdogs in your view, as you say, that "explains" most of the examples. I'll add it to my DJ lexicon. underdog n. One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics.underdog n. One who is not a criminal that was historically expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics. The rest isn't worth quibbling over.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 13:48:13 GMT -5
If criminals can't be underdogs in your view, as you say, that "explains" most of the examples. I'll add it to my DJ lexicon. underdog n. One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics.underdog n. One who is not a criminal that was historically expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics. The rest isn't worth quibbling over. i already gave you my definition. i also noted that it might not be accurate. i was saying what I MEANT when i said underdog. you can choose to accept that, or you can reject it, but the fact remains that i didn't mean to include criminals. if you prefer, you can call whoever the hell you like underdog, but just add that i don't root for criminals. edit: if you can think of a better term, i would love to hear it. underdog is not quite right, but is the only one i could think of.
|
|
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 Oct 2, 2015 15:16:27 GMT -5
I honestly don't know what you intended "underdog" to mean. You say in Reply #802, "the underdog for me is the law abiding individual or group that has been HISTORICALLY repressed, either for reasons of race, class, or gender." This explains your anachronistic choice of underdog in the religious freedom debates. It explains your indifference to targeting of conservative start-ups by the IRS (one wouldn't characterize these groups as "historically" oppressed). It explains your anachronistic support for "Black History Month" while you reviled the notion of a "White History Month". You've conceded the cheese artisans are underdogs. (I think.) You've ruled out Bundy and Sovereign Citizens with your esoteric definition. You've argued that what I've claimed is apologism for Pres. Obama isn't apologism. I don't want to debate you, so let's take those threads out of the pool too. The definition still doesn't explain your antipathy for vigilantism (which was legal in all of the cases we discussed) or SYG (also legal). (It's fair to say that both groups have been historically oppressed, and that there are elitist, entrenched powers looking to do away with both.) It doesn't explain your position in the rodeo clown thread. It doesn't explain your total indifference to the FCC sticking goons into national newsrooms to police the news. Are newsrooms not law-abiding agencies that have historically been oppressed by government? So why side with an elitist government there? How about DJ in the Invited Anti-Bully Speaker is a Bully thread? You didn't give a flying snow leopard about the unde... oh wait. They haven't been historically oppressed, so I guess it's " WAAAAAAAAAH!" No elitism there. I could go on and on but hopefully it's clear by this point that I have no blessed clue what "underdogs" actually means to you. Homosexuals and blacks? Is that the sum of it? And by "elitism" and "entrenched power", you're referring exclusively to haters of homosexuality and black ethnocentrism? Reply #800 makes it plain as day: "i am guided by the principle of rooting for the underdog. i don't believe in entrenched power or privilege. and i bristle and any instance where that privilege is exercised. you will find, almost universally, that when i am siding with the state, it is along those lines." Hence colour me confused about why every last thing I've found suggests that you love elitism, you love entrenched power and privilege being exercised, just so long as the government grinding citizens underfoot comports with your interests. I've done enough searching. I give up. You should know what you've written. Go out and find me a thread where you're standing up for (whatever you think is) an "underdog" by siding with the government against elite "entrenched powers". Maybe it will at least clue me in as to what those terms mean to you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 16:00:09 GMT -5
I honestly don't know what you intended "underdog" to mean. You say in Reply #802, "the underdog for me is the law abiding individual or group that has been HISTORICALLY repressed, either for reasons of race, class, or gender." This explains your anachronistic choice of underdog in the religious freedom debates. It explains your indifference to targeting of conservative start-ups by the IRS (one wouldn't characterize these groups as "historically" oppressed). It explains your anachronistic support for "Black History Month" while you reviled the notion of a "White History Month". You've conceded the cheese artisans are underdogs. (I think.) You've ruled out Bundy and Sovereign Citizens with your esoteric definition. You've argued that what I've claimed is apologism for Pres. Obama isn't apologism. I don't want to debate you, so let's take those threads out of the pool too. The definition still doesn't explain your antipathy for vigilantism (which was legal in all of the cases we discussed) or SYG (also legal). (It's fair to say that both groups have been historically oppressed, and that there are elitist, entrenched powers looking to do away with both.) It doesn't explain your position in the rodeo clown thread. It doesn't explain your total indifference to the FCC sticking goons into national newsrooms to police the news. Are newsrooms not law-abiding agencies that have historically been oppressed by government? So why side with an elitist government there? How about DJ in the Invited Anti-Bully Speaker is a Bully thread? You didn't give a flying snow leopard about the unde... oh wait. They haven't been historically oppressed, so I guess it's " WAAAAAAAAAH!" No elitism there. I could go on and on but hopefully it's clear by this point that I have no blessed clue what "underdogs" actually means to you. Homosexuals and blacks? Is that the sum of it? And by "elitism" and "entrenched power", you're referring exclusively to haters of homosexuality and black ethnocentrism? Reply #800 makes it plain as day: "i am guided by the principle of rooting for the underdog. i don't believe in entrenched power or privilege. and i bristle and any instance where that privilege is exercised. you will find, almost universally, that when i am siding with the state, it is along those lines." Hence colour me confused about why every last thing I've found suggests that you love elitism, you love entrenched power and privilege being exercised, just so long as the government grinding citizens underfoot comports with your interests. I've done enough searching. I give up. You should know what you've written. Go out and find me a thread where you're standing up for (whatever you think is) an "underdog" by siding with the government against elite "entrenched powers". Maybe it will at least clue me in as to what those terms mean to you. you say you don't know my definition, then you give it. huh. i haven't ruled out sovereign citizens. i have ruled out Bundy because he is a criminal. Obama is not an underdog. period. he is the POTUS. so i am not going to side with him and against an underdog. ever. if i compare him to greater criminals, like Bush, it is only for sake of perspective, not because i celebrate the lesser criminal. vigilantes are criminals, by definition. i thought that was pretty simple. note: self defense is not vigilantism, it is self defense. i am against the FCC being in newsrooms, and said so in those threads. edit: i have no opposition to them monitoring content of public airwaves, but the don't need to camp out in newsrooms to do it. historically oppressed groups are those that are covered by anti-discrimination laws. i DID actually mention that. i loathe entrenched power. i actually loathe all forms of authority, and think they should be continually challenged for legitimacy. if they fail that test, they should be dismantled. i have no idea how you have concluded otherwise, but then again, i am often astonished at how wrong people can be about their own FRIENDS, and we are not even near that. but thanks for giving up. you are actually engaging in a fruitless activity. i am starting to feel kinda picked on.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 2, 2015 22:06:23 GMT -5
I honestly don't know what you intended "underdog" to mean. You say in Reply #802, "the underdog for me is the law abiding individual or group that has been HISTORICALLY repressed, either for reasons of race, class, or gender." This explains your anachronistic choice of underdog in the religious freedom debates. It explains your indifference to targeting of conservative start-ups by the IRS (one wouldn't characterize these groups as "historically" oppressed). It explains your anachronistic support for "Black History Month" while you reviled the notion of a "White History Month". You've conceded the cheese artisans are underdogs. (I think.) You've ruled out Bundy and Sovereign Citizens with your esoteric definition. You've argued that what I've claimed is apologism for Pres. Obama isn't apologism. I don't want to debate you, so let's take those threads out of the pool too. The definition still doesn't explain your antipathy for vigilantism (which was legal in all of the cases we discussed) or SYG (also legal). (It's fair to say that both groups have been historically oppressed, and that there are elitist, entrenched powers looking to do away with both.) It doesn't explain your position in the rodeo clown thread. It doesn't explain your total indifference to the FCC sticking goons into national newsrooms to police the news. Are newsrooms not law-abiding agencies that have historically been oppressed by government? So why side with an elitist government there? How about DJ in the Invited Anti-Bully Speaker is a Bully thread? You didn't give a flying snow leopard about the unde... oh wait. They haven't been historically oppressed, so I guess it's " WAAAAAAAAAH!" No elitism there. I could go on and on but hopefully it's clear by this point that I have no blessed clue what "underdogs" actually means to you. Homosexuals and blacks? Is that the sum of it? And by "elitism" and "entrenched power", you're referring exclusively to haters of homosexuality and black ethnocentrism? Reply #800 makes it plain as day: "i am guided by the principle of rooting for the underdog. i don't believe in entrenched power or privilege. and i bristle and any instance where that privilege is exercised. you will find, almost universally, that when i am siding with the state, it is along those lines." Hence colour me confused about why every last thing I've found suggests that you love elitism, you love entrenched power and privilege being exercised, just so long as the government grinding citizens underfoot comports with your interests. I've done enough searching. I give up. You should know what you've written. Go out and find me a thread where you're standing up for (whatever you think is) an "underdog" by siding with the government against elite "entrenched powers". Maybe it will at least clue me in as to what those terms mean to you. I don't go on any of DJ's assigned wild goose chases. He is not a classical liberal- meaning conservative (another absolutely silly debate which I will not have)- because he is not a lover of liberty. He does not believe in the only legitimate role of government- which is force- to defend the inalienable natural rights of the individual. He believes in the use of government force to "make things fair" for the "underdog" which right there tells you that he's a liberal- a statist. He believes in the arbitrary use of force to fix things that are subjectively "unfair". The redistribution of wealth, and the right to use force to appropriate the product of someone's labor for another who has not earned it, and to whom it has not be voluntarily given. Liberal. Socialist. Communist. Statist. It's all the same Utopian tripe that doesn't work because it's very foundations are immoral: envy and theft.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 3, 2015 10:50:40 GMT -5
I honestly don't know what you intended "underdog" to mean. You say in Reply #802, "the underdog for me is the law abiding individual or group that has been HISTORICALLY repressed, either for reasons of race, class, or gender." This explains your anachronistic choice of underdog in the religious freedom debates. It explains your indifference to targeting of conservative start-ups by the IRS (one wouldn't characterize these groups as "historically" oppressed). It explains your anachronistic support for "Black History Month" while you reviled the notion of a "White History Month". You've conceded the cheese artisans are underdogs. (I think.) You've ruled out Bundy and Sovereign Citizens with your esoteric definition. You've argued that what I've claimed is apologism for Pres. Obama isn't apologism. I don't want to debate you, so let's take those threads out of the pool too. The definition still doesn't explain your antipathy for vigilantism (which was legal in all of the cases we discussed) or SYG (also legal). (It's fair to say that both groups have been historically oppressed, and that there are elitist, entrenched powers looking to do away with both.) It doesn't explain your position in the rodeo clown thread. It doesn't explain your total indifference to the FCC sticking goons into national newsrooms to police the news. Are newsrooms not law-abiding agencies that have historically been oppressed by government? So why side with an elitist government there? How about DJ in the Invited Anti-Bully Speaker is a Bully thread? You didn't give a flying snow leopard about the unde... oh wait. They haven't been historically oppressed, so I guess it's " WAAAAAAAAAH!" No elitism there. I could go on and on but hopefully it's clear by this point that I have no blessed clue what "underdogs" actually means to you. Homosexuals and blacks? Is that the sum of it? And by "elitism" and "entrenched power", you're referring exclusively to haters of homosexuality and black ethnocentrism? Reply #800 makes it plain as day: "i am guided by the principle of rooting for the underdog. i don't believe in entrenched power or privilege. and i bristle and any instance where that privilege is exercised. you will find, almost universally, that when i am siding with the state, it is along those lines." Hence colour me confused about why every last thing I've found suggests that you love elitism, you love entrenched power and privilege being exercised, just so long as the government grinding citizens underfoot comports with your interests. I've done enough searching. I give up. You should know what you've written. Go out and find me a thread where you're standing up for (whatever you think is) an "underdog" by siding with the government against elite "entrenched powers". Maybe it will at least clue me in as to what those terms mean to you. I don't go on any of DJ's assigned wild goose chases. He is not a classical liberal- meaning conservative (another absolutely silly debate which I will not have)- because he is not a lover of liberty. He does not believe in the only legitimate role of government- which is force- to defend the inalienable natural rights of the individual. He believes in the use of government force to "make things fair" for the "underdog" which right there tells you that he's a liberal- a statist. He believes in the arbitrary use of force to fix things that are subjectively "unfair". The redistribution of wealth, and the right to use force to appropriate the product of someone's labor for another who has not earned it, and to whom it has not be voluntarily given. Liberal. Socialist. Communist. Statist. It's all the same Utopian tripe that doesn't work because it's very foundations are immoral: envy and theft. i am absolutely NOT a conservative in the contemporary formulation, in that i don't want to deny rights to gays or start wars in distant lands over POTENTIAL threats. classical liberals don't want those things, either. a person should be able to do with their person or property whatever they wish, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. if you CONSERVATIVES would rely on that principle, i would proudly call myself conservative. and i never said "make things fair". EVER. go look. what i said was to MAKE ACCESS TO JUSTICE fair. nothing more or less. it is actually up to the oppressed to FIND that avenue, though i lament the job that government has done advertising it. i am actually not in favor of "the distribution" of wealth by means of socialism, as Paul says above. liberals and socialists are enemies. socialists know it. liberals know it. only people who are neither don't know it. edit: lastly, i am wealthy beyond the dreams of most people. i have nothing to envy, and nothing to steal.
|
|