Pelosi promises to be a bipartisan House speaker

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic
aidanjm's problem on this issue (and unfortunately I've come head-on with this before) is that he wants to be worshipped because he is gay, and the fact that I am so genuinely socially liberal that I really don't care whether someone is gay or not (as I consider sexual orientation to be in the "private sphere") is something that he simply cannot tolerate. Better to him if I were a homophobe (of course, after saying this, I'm sure he'll call me one :roll: ).

mostly I find you to be just a very tiresome old fart, and I have difficulty remembering past conversations with you - but I do have a recollection of you trying to mask a quite socially conservative outlook. Even the notion of sexuality as "belonging" in the private sphere is intrinsically conservative, and of course the underlying rational for a great deal of discrimination against gay people (or alternatively the rationale for a lack of action against discrimination against gay people - this is perhaps more your style - it's a homophobia or heterosexism that relies more on what isn't said, than what is said).

Really? So believing that what you do is your own business is "intrinsically" socially conservative and the cause of discrimination? Wow... black IS white... that's frickin' amazing!!!

it certainly is a socially conservative notion. it underlies a certain kind of response to discrimination against gay people: "I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but WHY do they have to flaunt their sexuality?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*breathe*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMG

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:laugh:

whew

Wow, your sexual insecurity is too much. No wonder most of the other gays here have come out more than once saying that you don't speak for them.

Listen. I'm straight. I don't expect you to care and I could give a sh!t if you do. You're gay. Whoop-de-doo. It's the same thing.

um, how are these comments in any way related to my comments? I am pointing out that the tendency of social conservatives to see sexual orientation as a matter best left to the private sphere is more often than not a block to progress on gay rights.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic
aidanjm's problem on this issue (and unfortunately I've come head-on with this before) is that he wants to be worshipped because he is gay, and the fact that I am so genuinely socially liberal that I really don't care whether someone is gay or not (as I consider sexual orientation to be in the "private sphere") is something that he simply cannot tolerate. Better to him if I were a homophobe (of course, after saying this, I'm sure he'll call me one :roll: ).

mostly I find you to be just a very tiresome old fart, and I have difficulty remembering past conversations with you - but I do have a recollection of you trying to mask a quite socially conservative outlook. Even the notion of sexuality as "belonging" in the private sphere is intrinsically conservative, and of course the underlying rational for a great deal of discrimination against gay people (or alternatively the rationale for a lack of action against discrimination against gay people - this is perhaps more your style - it's a homophobia or heterosexism that relies more on what isn't said, than what is said).

Really? So believing that what you do is your own business is "intrinsically" socially conservative and the cause of discrimination? Wow... black IS white... that's frickin' amazing!!!

it certainly is a socially conservative notion. it underlies a certain kind of response to discrimination against gay people: "I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but WHY do they have to flaunt their sexuality?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*breathe*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMG

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:laugh:

whew

Wow, your sexual insecurity is too much. No wonder most of the other gays here have come out more than once saying that you don't speak for them.

Listen. I'm straight. I don't expect you to care and I could give a sh!t if you do. You're gay. Whoop-de-doo. It's the same thing.

um, how are these comments in any way related to my comments? I am pointing out that the tendency of social conservatives to see sexual orientation as a matter best left to the private sphere is more often than not a block to progress on gay rights.

You wouldn't have to "fight" for rights under the Libertarian philosophy. You would have them inherently (in other words, without struggle). It's not the state's business who you choose to have sex with, nor who you choose to partner with, nor should the state be involved in dishing out privileges on the basis of such.
The sad fact for you IMO is that the socialists you have chosen to ally yourself with are just using you while your angst is useful. They don't really care about your rights, and will deal with your particular "health and social issue" as soon as you stop being useful to them. OTOH, Libertarians will defend your right to be who you are forever and without compromise, even if and when you choose to hate us.

 

[Steeplerot]

I don't buy it,

"defend your right to be who you are forever"


so what if a storeowner doesent want any jews or blacks frequenting his store?

Beyond your paranoid rantings about socialists your whole basis of personal freedom is flawed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I don't buy it,

"defend your right to be who you are forever"


so what if a storeowner doesent want any jews or blacks frequenting his store?

Beyond your paranoid rantings about socialists your whole basis of personal freedom is flawed.

I thought you said Libertarians were all about profits, rot? So how would it profit a storeowner to keep any clientele from frequenting his store on the basis of race or ethnicity?

Perhaps you could answer that? It seems like your doublethinking is trying to have it both ways again.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I don't buy it,

"defend your right to be who you are forever"


so what if a storeowner doesent want any jews or blacks frequenting his store?

Beyond your paranoid rantings about socialists your whole basis of personal freedom is flawed.

I thought you said Libertarians were all about profits, rot? So how would it profit a storeowner to keep any clientele from frequenting his store on the basis of race or ethnicity?

Perhaps you could answer that? It seems like your doublethinking is trying to have it both ways again.

Dunno, seems like a valid question, you are welcome to dodge it though.

Here is a refresher in case you decide to:


So what if a storeowner doesent want any jews or blacks frequenting his store?

You state that the glorious libertarian way is to "defend your right to be who you are forever"


So... storeowner, doesent want blacks or jews, whatcha gonna do? Call the police?

There are very simple reasons why libertarianism is a utopian fantasy.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm out of this conversation, it's fruitless. These jackasses believe that forcing people do act in certain ways is not authoritarian, and that freedom to pursue your lifestyle in your own choosing is conservative. Talking to aidanjm and Steeplerot is like trying to reason with a couple of retarded 4 year olds.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm out of this conversation, it's fruitless. These jackasses believe that forcing people do act in certain ways is not authoritarian, and that freedom to pursue your lifestyle in your own choosing is conservative. Talking to aidanjm and Steeplerot is like trying to reason with a couple of retarded 4 year olds.

Freedom to pursue your lifestyle sounds good and all, but the concept that any type of market can regulate itself through pure competition of a "enlightened" people is a fools belief, same as communism.

Somehow you are going to have to regulate people from overstepping their freedoms onto someone else, and you are back at square one deciding which governmental power has to decide the boundries of when to limit freedom.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm out of this conversation, it's fruitless. These jackasses believe that forcing people do act in certain ways is not authoritarian, and that freedom to pursue your lifestyle in your own choosing is conservative. Talking to aidanjm and Steeplerot is like trying to reason with a couple of retarded 4 year olds.

Freedom to pursue your lifestyle sounds good and all, but the concept that any type of market can regulate itself through pure competition of a "enlightened" people is a fools belief, same as communism.

Somehow you are going to have to regulate people from overstepping their freedoms onto someone else, and you are back at square one deciding which governmental power has to decide the boundries of when to limit freedom.

There's a fair cry between regulating people from overstepping their freedoms by harming someone else, and abusing the power of government to do exactly that in the name of "the common good." But hey, you keep stubbornly and ignorantly confusing libertarianism with anarchy, and then acting confused every time you get called on it, only to troll your ignorance again later.

aidanjm, look closely at rot's post here. That's the socialist commitment to your freedom to pursue your lifestyle. It "sounds good and all," but sooner or later the common good might decide to you need "regulation", and you'll never know when that might be. So you'll always be fighting for what should be yours inherently.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

There's a fair cry between regulating people from overstepping their freedoms by harming someone else, and abusing the power of government to do exactly that in the name of "the common good."

This"fair cry" it is what kills the basis of your twisted thinking, it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly -civilization learned this 1000s of years ago.

Maybe if we lived in some utopia we could do what we pleased and the market would regulate itself, but alas, the world is how it is, and you are just another commie utopian dreamer to rational folks.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

There's a fair cry between regulating people from overstepping their freedoms by harming someone else, and abusing the power of government to do exactly that in the name of "the common good." But hey, you keep stubbornly and ignorantly confusing libertarianism with anarchy, and then acting confused every time you get called on it, only to troll your ignorance again later.

No "fair cry" it is what kills the basis of your twisted thinking, it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly.

Maybe if we lived in some utopia we could do what we pleased and the market would regulate itself, but your just another commie utopian dreamer in my book.

Pardon the typo. FAR cry.

I love that line, "it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly." You reveal your true colors at last.

BTW, do inmates in prison treat each other fairly? 'Cause it doesn't get more authoritarian that that. There's your answer about how well your authoritarian utopia would make people treat each fairly. Don't make me go further and cite the horrors of history.

edit: And I returned my post which you quoted back to its original form so that your idiocy in not addressing my actual arguments would be revealed.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

There's a fair cry between regulating people from overstepping their freedoms by harming someone else, and abusing the power of government to do exactly that in the name of "the common good."

No "fair cry" it is what kills the basis of your twisted thinking, it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly.

Maybe if we lived in some utopia we could do what we pleased and the market would regulate itself, but your just another commie utopian dreamer in my book.

Pardon the typo. FAR cry.

I love that line, "it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly." You reveal your true colors at last.

BTW, do inmates in prison treat each other fairly? 'Cause it doesn't get more authoritarian that that. There's your answer about how well your authoritarian utopia would make people treat each fairly. Don't make me go further and cite the horrors of history.

Then tell me, in your libertarian utopia, how would you regulate a store owner from barring blacks and jews from his store?

C'mon Vic, your token "freedom" and "individualism" catch-phrases have an answer to everything right?

Or maybe they are just right-wing BS catchphrases for selfish people to say they want to do as they please. F' everyone else.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

There's a fair cry between regulating people from overstepping their freedoms by harming someone else, and abusing the power of government to do exactly that in the name of "the common good."

No "fair cry" it is what kills the basis of your twisted thinking, it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly.

Maybe if we lived in some utopia we could do what we pleased and the market would regulate itself, but your just another commie utopian dreamer in my book.

Pardon the typo. FAR cry.

I love that line, "it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly." You reveal your true colors at last.

BTW, do inmates in prison treat each other fairly? 'Cause it doesn't get more authoritarian that that. There's your answer about how well your authoritarian utopia would make people treat each fairly. Don't make me go further and cite the horrors of history.

Then tell me, in your libertarian utopia, how would you regulate a store owner from barring blacks and jews from his store?

In your authoritarian socialist utopia, how will you regulate homosexuals when public whimsy and government cost pressures decide that they are a "public health and safety issue"?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

In your authoritarian socialist utopia, how will you regulate homosexuals when public whimsy and government cost pressures decide that they are a "public health and safety issue"?

I am not into authoritarianism, nor am I a socialist utopion dreamer, thats you.

And your question makes no sense at all. Feel free to answer me how libertarianism would handle this rather kindegarten civics question and I will answer yours -if you can word it coherently.

 

[Arkaign]

Not to rain on the parade, but holy crap how off the topic can we get here? Holy smokes!

Regarding Pelosi, I read in the DMN that she had lunch with Bush Thursday .. wow that would have been priceless to witness

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I am not into authoritarianism, nor am I a socialist utopion dreamer, thats you.

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I am not into authoritarianism, nor am I a socialist utopion dreamer, thats you.

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly

Well, you are the one who describes simple civics as authoritarian, I am talking to you on your level. Your whole hate of authority to use this phrase is silly enough I should know better then use it as you would of course try to turn your own madness back on me.


Here let me rephrase that then: It takes authority of some sort to protect the freedoms of other individuals. Ones laid out hopefully by the people for the people, not by a person who wants to do their own thing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I am not into authoritarianism, nor am I a socialist utopion dreamer, thats you.

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly

Well, you are the one who describes simple civics as authoritarian, I am talking to you on your level. Your whole hate of authority to use this phrase is silly enough I should know better then use it as you would of course try to turn your own madness back on me.


Here let me rephrase that then: It takes authority of some sort to protect the freedoms of other individuals. Ones laid out hopefully by the people for the people, not by a person who wants to do their own thing.

It's amazing your capacity for straw man and doublethinking. When did I ever describe "simple civics" as authoritarian? Ooops, never. In fact, I have reiterated many times that classical liberalism (or libertarianism, as you prefer to call it) is not anarchy. I have explained many times how a government would exist under this system to protect the rights of the people, and how the government would be "by the people for the people" (or "deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed"). Yet you continually ignore all my intelligent arguments and create little stupid straw man for you to pretend are my arguments, and then use those as the basis for childish personal attacks.

There's really no point in continuing this discussion with such an immature person as yourself. It would be pointless for me to continue with someone who ignores all my arguments and replaces them with his ignorant prejudices. I suggest you get an education, and treatment for your deep-seated emotional issues.

 

[fitzov]

I have explained many times how a government would exist under this system to protect the rights of the people, and how the government would be "by the people for the people" (or "deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed").

You're simply repackaging quotes from a bygone era--the era in which our country was founded. So what you're saying is that we should go back to the way things were in the 18th century? Hmm...I guess we have slavery and the great depression to look forward to all over again.

The fact of the matter is that libertarians, while they like to quote Locke and Jefferson, are the anti-government party. Classical liberalism espouses the idea of a government that helps people by securing liberties, not by not existing. You like to equate libertarianism with CL because you can then point to thinkers like Locke and Kant and Mill and say, "See? They were libertarians too!" But they were not, and they did not agree with the idea that "that government is best which governs least."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

I have explained many times how a government would exist under this system to protect the rights of the people, and how the government would be "by the people for the people" (or "deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed").

You're simply repackaging quotes from a bygone era--the era in which our country was founded. So what you're saying is that we should go back to the way things were in the 18th century? Hmm...I guess we have slavery and the great depression to look forward to all over again.

The fact of the matter is that libertarians, while they like to quote Locke and Jefferson, are the anti-government party. Classical liberalism espouses the idea of a government that helps people by securing liberties, not by not existing. You like to equate libertarianism with CL because you can then point to thinkers like Locke and Kant and Mill and say, "See? They were libertarians too!" But they were not, and they did not agree with the idea that "that government is best which governs least."

Really? I suppose that's why contemporary classical liberal and American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson is said to have coined the phrase, right?

And as I already explained in this thread, I am a classical liberal. I use Libertarian for convenience's sake because most Americans (rot especially it seems) don't understand what a classical liberal is.

 

[fitzov]

Part of the problem in having such a conversation is that the arguments tend to be semantic. In other words, we use the same words differently and then talk past each other. I don't know what term of Jefferson's that you speak of, but the term 'liberal' surely does not have the same connotation that it used to.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Part of the problem in having such a conversation is that the arguments tend to be semantic. In other words, we use the same words differently and then talk past each other. I don't know what term of Jefferson's that you speak of, but the term 'liberal' surely does not have the same connotation that it used to.

Yes, today in America, the word "liberal" means socialist. At the time of Jefferson, Kant, Locke, Mill, etc., (i.e. "the age of Enlightenment"), the word "liberal" derived from liberty and meant that. It was first and foremost an anti-monarchist, anti-state religion, anti-mercantilist economy movement. Most of the rest of the world understands this. In Europe, politicians who would be called liberals in America have no problem calling themselves and their parties socialist. In Venezuela, cult of personality socialist president Chavez never seems to tire of deriding the evils of liberalism, using precisely that word, while some in America would wrongly think of Chavez' politics as being liberal.
Because of this, the Libertarian party arose as a resurgence of the classical liberal philosophy in America. Yes, there are kooks and crazies in the LP, just like there are eco-terrorists in the DNC and abortion clinic bombers in the GOP. That does not mean that the views of those extremists accurately represent the views of the party mainstream.
It is on these 2 points where we "talk past each other." You think of "liberal" as being LBJ, and the Unabomber as representing the LP, neither of which are correct.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Yes, today in America, the word "liberal" means socialist.

I got this far before laughing my ass off. Vic, get a clue.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Yes, today in America, the word "liberal" means socialist.

I got this far before laughing my ass off. Vic, get a clue.

Originally posted by: Vic
Text

Historian of liberalism Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans that liberalism was "redefined" in the United States over time from the laissez-faire policy embodied by Thomas Paine's famous formulation "that government is best which governs least" to "the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security." The term "classical liberalism" refers to the political philosophy prior to this redefinition.

 

[senseamp]

I hope they don't let Republicans get too out of hand. I mean GOP wouldn't let dems offer ammendments, and they used all sorts of dirty tricks. While I do think reps should be able to offer ammendments on occasion, it should be a reward for good behavior, and there should be limits when it comes to those losers.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope they don't let Republicans get too out of hand. I mean GOP wouldn't let dems offer ammendments, and they used all sorts of dirty tricks. While I do think reps should be able to offer ammendments on occasion, it should be a reward for good behavior, and there should be limits when it comes to those losers.

You seem to have short memory as the democrats did the very same thing when they were in power. Maybe you will complain with the democrats start doing it again, but I doubt it.