Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[Coyote]

Now that you mention it, compared to most of the world at the time, the US was radically liberal. Slavery had gone out of vogue in more conservative Eurpope over a hundred years earlier.

No, that bird won't fly. The slavery issue was a conservative one: the preservation of a way of life plain and simple. Abolition was a liberal movement at the time.

 

[palerider]

No, that bird won't fly. The slavery issue was a conservative one: the preservation of a way of life plain and simple. Abolition was a liberal movement at the time.

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. Liberals, you see, have no problem at all with enslaving a particular group, or claiming that they aren't human beings so that they can do with them as they will. That goes back to the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. Back then it was slavery, for hitler it was the jews, for stalin it was the gypsys, and on and on. Today it is abortion and in 100 years perhaps, they will say that those who opposed abortion and eventually overturned roe were liberals.

 

[palerider]

This is another example of a cornered person changing the discussion to weasel out. Instead of addressing the things I wrote, you are now challenging me to do something that was not part of the initial post's scope. Your diatribe about Liberals is painfully lame--Libs pass laws and then ignore them? Once again you seem to be calling for some kind of a draconian, conservative police-state.{/quote]

Of course you won't take the challenge. To do so would force you to admit that you were wrong in your initial accusations. Unsurprising.

Pillars of society? Yep, we can all see that Canada went down in flames when they got marriage EQUALITY. What are there now, 6 first world countries and 1 US State that allow marriage EQUALITY, and you're still stuck in the 1500's on the subject? White supremacy was a "pillar of society" too, just like the superiority of men--but our discussions put paid to that idea, don't they?

Granting special rights based on sexual preference does not constitute equality. Granting special rights based on anything doesn't constitute equality. You like to suggest that people are guilty of redefining words, when you are the all time champ.

Like abrogating the Constitution to spy on Americans? Like setting up illegal prisons to torture people in direct contravention to the Geneva Convention to which the US was a signer? Like passing laws to enshrine religious dogma into law to protect imaginary "pillars of society"?

Liberals shouldn't accuse anyone of abrogating the constitution. There have been 45 million murders as a result of a liberal court abrogating the constitution. When any conservative measure equals that number, let me know.

You should go back to focusing on abortion arguments, Pale, your technicolor description and rhetorical fireworks coupled with incessant drumbeat of "murder, murder, murder..." was so nauseating that most people stopped arguing with you and left your thread--thus giving you the appearance of victory. Even though the deaths still continue. In the last paragraph in your post 142 you make a wild accusation without a shred of proof, but I wanted to address the misunderstanding we have there. Do you know who Fred Phelps is? He's the preacher of the Westboro Baptist Church and he and his sycophants are so egregiously abusive and stupid towards gay people that even religious folks who basically agree with his beliefs despise him for his insanely vitriolic diatribes. To a lesser extent that's how I feel about you. I don't always disagree with you, but you are such a violent extremist with your demands for draconian laws and your sweeping acerbic statements about vast numbers of people whom you lump together in groups under ill-defined rubrics that I don't want to be associated with you in any way. (Other than browbeating you on discussion sites.)

How you feel about me is irrelavent mare and whether you like it or not, certain minds were changed as a result of my arguments. Ask around, I am sure that it won't be hard to find a thinking person or two who changed their stance on abortion as a direct result of my arguments.

Please note that I didn't call you a single nasty name--like "ignorant twit" or "big mouth".

Should I bring some of the nasty names foreward and ignorant twit isn't even in the same league with the sort of slander you hurled at me.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. Liberals, you see, have no problem at all with enslaving a particular group, or claiming that they aren't human beings so that they can do with them as they will. That goes back to the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. Back then it was slavery, for hitler it was the jews, for stalin it was the gypsys, and on and on. Today it is abortion and in 100 years perhaps, they will say that those who opposed abortion and eventually overturned roe were liberals.

Wow! That's dumb even for you, Pale, are you okay? Time to get the ol' meds checked, I think.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Liberals shouldn't accuse anyone of abrogating the constitution. There have been 45 million murders as a result of a liberal court abrogating the constitution. When any conservative measure equals that number, let me know.

I see, this argument is based on the 2 wrongs make a right theory. Even for you, Pale, this is substandard.

Granting special rights based on sexual preference does not constitute equality. Granting special rights based on anything doesn't constitute equality. You like to suggest that people are guilty of redefining words, when you are the all time champ.

You are correct about special rights, but marriage can hardly be considered such since only a few percent of the population are denied marriage and the denial is based on ancient religious dogma.

How you feel about me is irrelavent mare and whether you like it or not, certain minds were changed as a result of my arguments. Ask around, I am sure that it won't be hard to find a thinking person or two who changed their stance on abortion as a direct result of my arguments.

Probably true, but hardly relevant. I used to know an optometrist who managed to convince a bunch of women that if they let him massage their breasts that it would improve their eyesight--so much for convincing. Ponzi schemes reel in suckers every day.

I would never slander you, Pale, your rep couldn't take the strain. This thread is not up to even your usual low standard, in fact I am asking the mods to rename this thread: Baloney--no matter how thinly sliced--is still baloney.

 

[Coyote]

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. Liberals, you see, have no problem at all with enslaving a particular group, or claiming that they aren't human beings so that they can do with them as they will. That goes back to the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. Back then it was slavery, for hitler it was the jews, for stalin it was the gypsys, and on and on. Today it is abortion and in 100 years perhaps, they will say that those who opposed abortion and eventually overturned roe were liberals.

You are mixing issues.

First off - we have a problem with definitions.

You:

Liberal: all things bad, evil, and icky that have happened and will ever happen.

Conservative: all things good, brave, honerable that have happened and will ever happen.

That just ain't so.

Second you are mixing issues - slavery and abortion. Two seperate issues.

Third - your entire statement is one logical fallacy.

A is like C
B is like C
There fore A is B

Wrong.

 

[arbitor]

on the contrary. slavery killed millions as well as abortion. they always say that the ones who put an end to immoral laws were liberal. there were plenty of liberals who thought it was THEIR RIGHT to own slaves and there were many, many conservetives that thought slavery was an abomination (the majority in fact) pale has a perfectly valid point. in a 100 years i hope that they remember it was the conservetives that put an end to abortion and all its mass murdering splendor.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

on the contrary. slavery killed millions as well as abortion. they always say that the ones who put an end to immoral laws were liberal. there were plenty of liberals who thought it was THEIR RIGHT to own slaves and there were many, many conservetives that thought slavery was an abomination (the majority in fact) pale has a perfectly valid point. in a 100 years i hope that they remember it was the conservetives that put an end to abortion and all its mass murdering splendor.

Could you give a source for the information on these Liberals who thought it was their right to own slaves please. And are these Christian Liberals, you know the ones who used Scripture to justify slavery?

 

[arbitor]

no these were liberals from the south who thought taking away slavery was an attack on their rights as white americans. christian liberals? thats something you dont see every day. are you saying conservetives just sit on their asses all day and never want to change any laws? you dont understand conservetive ideology at all.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

no these were liberals from the south who thought taking away slavery was an attack on their rights as white americans. christian liberals? thats something you dont see every day. are you saying conservetives just sit on their asses all day and never want to change any laws? you dont understand conservetive ideology at all.

You appear to be as confused as Pale.

 

[palerider]

I see, this argument is based on the 2 wrongs make a right theory. Even for you, Pale, this is substandard.

Nope, just pointing out the congenital hypocricy of your position.

You are correct about special rights, but marriage can hardly be considered such since only a few percent of the population are denied marriage and the denial is based on ancient religious dogma.

I am correct about special rights, but you want special rights granted to a few based on their sexual preference and cry religious dogma in an attempt to distract from the fact that you want special rights.

Probably true, but hardly relevant. I used to know an optometrist who managed to convince a bunch of women that if they let him massage their breasts that it would improve their eyesight--so much for convincing. Ponzi schemes reel in suckers every day.

Now look who is changing gears. First people left because I am so hatefull and now you admit that people had thier minds changed but it is irrelavent. The people who left were the ones who were unable to defend their positions mare. They either left or resorted to slander and name calling like you.

I would never slander you, Pale, your rep couldn't take the strain. This thread is not up to even your usual low standard, in fact I am asking the mods to rename this thread: Baloney--no matter how thinly sliced--is still baloney.

You are still a liar mare. I can remember when you called comments like these "good natured ribbing".

"It's not men and Catholics that I have a problem with Pale--it's YOU, personally, up-close, down and dirty, the misogynist Pale."

"Are you really a sick and twisted, miserable soul living in a damp, dank basement with rats scuttling around, vampiring your internet wirelessly off the people in the nice apartments upstairs, typing away in a frenzy of rage and impotence because of your low-station in life? "

"I think Mr. Pale is an abusive, despicable misogynist and a man with a secret agenda. Be that as it may, sometimes one has to wade through sh*t despite the foul smell."

Once a liar, always a liar mare.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am correct about special rights, but you want special rights granted to a few based on their sexual preference and cry religious dogma in an attempt to distract from the fact that you want special rights.

You, sir, are a liar. You receive special rights for your sexual preference but wish to deny it to others.

You said "slander", Pale:
Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
"It's not men and Catholics that I have a problem with Pale--it's YOU, personally, up-close, down and dirty, the misogynist Pale."

"Are you really a sick and twisted, miserable soul living in a damp, dank basement with rats scuttling around, vampiring your internet wirelessly off the people in the nice apartments upstairs, typing away in a frenzy of rage and impotence because of your low-station in life? "

"I think Mr. Pale is an abusive, despicable misogynist and a man with a secret agenda. Be that as it may, sometimes one has to wade through sh*t despite the foul smell."

The above comments aren't slander--THEY'RE THE TRUTH. Truth is not slander. No more discussion with a person who will not speak the truth.

 

[Coyote]

no these were liberals from the south who thought taking away slavery was an attack on their rights as white americans. christian liberals? thats something you dont see every day. are you saying conservetives just sit on their asses all day and never want to change any laws? you dont understand conservetive ideology at all.

What defined them as "liberals"?

 

[9sublime]

Lets all calm down here eh? These look like personal attacks to me.

 

[Coyote]

I think we all ought to crack open a good beer, put our feet up.


Maybe a pale India Ale.


And some cheetos.