Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6
Feed the Homeless, Go To Jail; In Las Vegas
Topic Started: Jul 28 2006, 07:34 AM (2,004 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
You then tried to argue that so few cases of botulism exist that X would be better law. Of course it does not matter what X is, since that is the argument of utilitarianism. I pointed out the you made my case for me since we DO have food laws and licensure, and these laws seem to have diminished the spread of food borne illnesses. If they work so well for restaurants, school cafeterias, soup kitchens such as St Vincent DePaul, Salvation Army, and Goodwill, then why not insist that people handing out baloney sandwiches in the park must meet the same criteria for public health concerns?


This is where you lost me. You're telling me that this law in Las Vegas would significantly prevent the spread of food borne illnesses? Sorry, I don't buy it. I think a reasonable person would agree that for one, the number of cases of homeless people contracting food borne illnesses from handouts is VERY small, and for two, that wasn't even a consideration when they wrote the law. They seem to be trying to thin out the high crowds of homeless in public areas, and if anything, are trying to “protect” the taxpaying public, not the homeless.

Quote:
 
My point is not about banning the distribution of food to homeless -- if you go back and read my first message you will see that I am not opposed to that. But I have no problem with it being regulated and that poor people are protected as well by those entrusted to promote public health regarding the distribution of foods. That would also make a more consistent policy (which in matters of law is generally a good thing), and could avoid the obviously political hot button issue that this has become.


Again, I seriously doubt the law was created with the well being of the homeless in mind. Besides, no officials mentioned that in the article that would support this. Even if they did, I can’t see it as anything but spin.

Quote:
 
If a bunch of homeless want to picnic in the park, then they should have the right to do so -- that does not seem to be the case here. It is a private initiative that should best be done on private property.


Okay, so they're allowed to picnic in the park, but only with other homeless then, because if other people gave them food; that would be a private initiative. Well, I really don't see an afternoon picnic in the park as part of any homeless person's future in Las Vegas. That would require the making of food, something they don’t have, and what is bringing them to the park in the first place. That's like telling them they're allowed to buy their own homes if they wanted to.

Quote:
 
What precisely is the problem? Homelessness, food distribution, use of public space, freedom of assembly, citizens who can not safely use public spaces because of threatening behavior by homeless people, etc???? You first need to clearly state the problem before you determine the solution is ridiculous and ineffective.


Well I see what you mean with this being a private initiative, and yes people do have a right not to be harassed, but I imagine you're not left with a whole lot of options when you're in that position. At least some slack should be given.

As for the problem, I don't live in Las Vegas, but I bet I would be close if I hashed out a general idea: in a city with legalized gambling, prostitution, and severe drug and alcohol abuse, I'd be willing to bet they have a higher than average homeless population. Do the homeless favor private aid from citizens over social service programs? If so, why? I know that often times these programs are indeed inadequate, so that would be my first guess as to why they don’t use them.

I think it's pretty clear that this attempt to work at the problem does not have the interest of the homeless at heart. Moreover, it doesn't at all address the source of the problem (why their number is so large, why government programs cannot adequately accommodate them, etc.) You may keep people from donating to the homeless, but that does nothing to curb their numbers on the streets. They still have to go somewhere. And if they haven’t turned to government aid already, I doubt this would make them start.

I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Jul 29 2006, 09:08 AM
Quote:
 
And you've been unable to explain what it is. It just is for you, Larry. I see that sort of acceptance of one's own beliefs as the mark of a simpleton. Have faith in god, Larry, not in every belief of every kind that you may hold. You don't work anything through to its logical conclusion because to do so would challenge your basic (and, to my mind, flawed) view of just about everything. It's always easier to make the ignorant statement - again and again and again - that liberalism is a mental disorder rather than deal with each issue in turn as it comes up.


Of course you see it as a mark of a simpleton. That's because one of the marks of a liberal is the inability to REACH A CONCLUSION! You enjoy circle jerking, engaging in long, drawn out theorizing down every little rabbit trail you can find. Coming to a conclusion, making a decision, goes against your nature because to do so ends the mental circle jerk that you see as being "intellectual".

Let's put it in real world terms. Several people here are businessmen. We successfully built businesses that employ other people. Those here who have done this will tell you very quickly that it takes more than brains to be successful, or even smart. You have to be able to MAKE A DECISION.

I have several very intelligent people who work for me. Over the last 3 weeks, while they have engaged in their own version of your circle jerk, rabbit trailing down every little path they could find to "work everything through to its logical conclusion", I bought another building, remodeled it, and next week will be opening my 8th store in a chain of stores. They are still "working everything through to its logical conclusion", and I have created jobs for 6 more people, and put another wad of cash onto my annual paycheck as well.

They think I'm a simpleton also. But then - they are the employees, and *I* am the one who gives them the ability to earn a living. Left to their own devices, they'd sit there forever "working everything through to its logical conclusion", and never get a damned thing done. Simpletons like me get things done. That's because in the grand scheme of things, whether in business or in life, someone has to have a *working* intelligence instead of a theoretical one. You see me as a simpleton because I am able to find the answer, reach a conclusion, and then act on that conclusion, bypassing your mental circle jerk. I see the mental circle jerk as simple minded - it takes you far too long to arrive at a decision or a conclusion. You're too busy impressing yourself with your "intelligence" to get anything done.

And for simpletons like me who actually gets things done, your method is about as simple minded as it gets.

What you're talking about is boiled down in the saying, the perfect result is the enemy of the good result.

You have to know when good is good enough, and when the extra time and effort in improving the decision isn't justified by the minor improvements you might make. I've worked for and with people who have been paralyzed by the inability to make that kind of cost/benefit calculation.

But that's in the real world, not in a theoretical argument on a message board.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
katie
Fulla-Carp
I feel I should be able to share my lunch with anyone in a public park. What I object to is people who feed all those bloody geese & encourage all that poop. Talk about squatters: Yuk.

It's too bad this woman just can't go to city hall and get a free or low cost permit to distribute food as she's doing now. If she's giving it out to 25 or more, I think she should comply with rules & regulations in place for restaurants/events/outside gatherings, for the sake of public health. Setting aside this botulism thing being discussed, I'll say food borne illness is nothing to laugh about. It's serious.

:)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Jul 29 2006, 06:08 AM
Quote:
 
And you've been unable to explain what it is. It just is for you, Larry. I see that sort of acceptance of one's own beliefs as the mark of a simpleton. Have faith in god, Larry, not in every belief of every kind that you may hold. You don't work anything through to its logical conclusion because to do so would challenge your basic (and, to my mind, flawed) view of just about everything. It's always easier to make the ignorant statement - again and again and again - that liberalism is a mental disorder rather than deal with each issue in turn as it comes up.


Of course you see it as a mark of a simpleton. That's because one of the marks of a liberal is the inability to REACH A CONCLUSION! You enjoy circle jerking, engaging in long, drawn out theorizing down every little rabbit trail you can find. Coming to a conclusion, making a decision, goes against your nature because to do so ends the mental circle jerk that you see as being "intellectual".

Let's put it in real world terms. Several people here are businessmen. We successfully built businesses that employ other people. Those here who have done this will tell you very quickly that it takes more than brains to be successful, or even smart. You have to be able to MAKE A DECISION.

I have several very intelligent people who work for me. Over the last 3 weeks, while they have engaged in their own version of your circle jerk, rabbit trailing down every little path they could find to "work everything through to its logical conclusion", I bought another building, remodeled it, and next week will be opening my 8th store in a chain of stores. They are still "working everything through to its logical conclusion", and I have created jobs for 6 more people, and put another wad of cash onto my annual paycheck as well.

They think I'm a simpleton also. But then - they are the employees, and *I* am the one who gives them the ability to earn a living. Left to their own devices, they'd sit there forever "working everything through to its logical conclusion", and never get a damned thing done. Simpletons like me get things done. That's because in the grand scheme of things, whether in business or in life, someone has to have a *working* intelligence instead of a theoretical one. You see me as a simpleton because I am able to find the answer, reach a conclusion, and then act on that conclusion, bypassing your mental circle jerk. I see the mental circle jerk as simple minded - it takes you far too long to arrive at a decision or a conclusion. You're too busy impressing yourself with your "intelligence" to get anything done.

And for simpletons like me who actually gets things done, your method is about as simple minded as it gets.

Thank you for that, Larry. Your comments are astute and I appreciate that you took the time to express them. Surely there is great value in the doers of society, but we weren't talking about starting a business and employing people. At least I wasn't. Among other things, you were making pronouncements about my mental health and I was objecting by focusing on what you said. You may not believe this, but I read your posts very carefully. I agree with virtually nothing you say in the political realm, mostly because I find your reactions to be knee-jerk and short on reasoning. That said, I believe that there is usually a solid reason or two for pursuing courses of action with which I disagree, and I always appreciate hearing them. That's why I hang out here with fascists like you, JB, Mik and IT (if I could bear using emoticons, I'd put a smiley face here). You all may not change my mind, but I am happy both to hear opposing viewpoints and to credit thought, and the work that goes into it, where it arises. If I've ever made any of you a little slower to dismiss my opinions, I've contributed enough.

All of that being said, I'm a liberal without a mental illness (that anyone's been able to diagnose anyway). As for making decisions, I've made plenty and will continue to, as long as my wife says it's OK.

It's a Saturday afternoon and I'm going to the Yankee game with my son. I'll admit to being a lifelong Yankee fan, but that's as far as I'll go in admitting to mental illness.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 29 2006, 05:21 AM


Quote:
 
Indigent:

"1) n. a person so poor and needy that he/she cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter) for himself/herself."


What a shock! Indigent means poor! And someone who is poor might not be able to afford housing! Call the newspapers, IT has made a major discovery!

Indigent means poor. It doesn't mean only one kind of poor. It doesn't just mean people who don't have a permanent address. There are plenty of people who are indigent who have a permanent address. IT is cherry-picking the pieces of a definition that he wants, and ignoring the rest. Typical tactic on his part.

Q accuses me of "cherrypicking" when I appeal to a LAW DICTIONARY to define a LEGAL TERM, and I use the FIRST DEFINITION.

Of course, Q is even wrong that "indigent" is to be deemed synonymous with "poor". Indigent has come to mean "poor" in the realm of socioeconomics. One would not say "that was an indigent performance for an otherwise great athlete", or even "Q shows indigent analytical skills and social graces in conversation". But the word means not just "poor" but indicates a dire lacking. There are many poor people who are not indigent, and they typically live in houses and slums and projects and apartments and trailer parks. But they are not generally called "indigent". (In the legal profession, those who cannot provide their own legal counsel are considered indigent -- maybe that's what's stuck in Q's craw, but that is no reason for rudeness or his maniacal insistence on his definition.)

Why not? Because "indigence" does not mean "poor" but "lacking". It comes from the Latin "indigere" meaning "to lack" or "to want". That is why in the mental health and social care professions, "homelessness" and "indigency" are practically synonymous. It also explains why in the legal profession, a person is considered indigent if they are lacking the resources to pay for a lawyer. But it does not mean "poor" per se.

This use and understanding is attested to in the OED regarding indigent, indigency, indigence:

1. The fact or condition of wanting or needing (a thing); want or need of something requisite; lack, deficiency; need, requirement.
2. spec. Want of the means of subsistence; straitened circumstances; poverty, penury, destitution.
3. An instance of want; a want, a need. Obs.

The quality or condition of being indigent.

1. Want, deficiency; need; = INDIGENCE
2. spec. Want of the means of subsistence; = INDIGENCE
3. with pl. A want, a need; = INDIGENCE 3. Obs.

1. a. Lacking in what is requisite; falling short of the proper measure or standard; wanting, deficient. arch.
b. Destitute of, void of.
c. In need of; requiring the aid of. Obs.

2. spec. Lacking the necessaries of life; in needy circumstances; characterized by poverty; poor, needy. Of persons, their condition, etc.
B. n. An indigent person; one poor and needy.

And that is why the working definition is the LAW DICTIONARY that describes not just poor people, but those who are "so poor and needy that [they] cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter)", seems appropriate and hardly "cherrypicking".

Of course, had Q been gracious he could have simply said "Oh, I see how you are using the term and, though I would not use it that way, I understand". But instead he needs to assert his ego and continue with his rude, abusive and ill tempered attacks -- no doubt part of his pathology.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
As I've said before, IT, you are one of the rudest people around here, whether or not you sometimes try to hide it in a velvet glove. You're a charlatan, and what's scariest is that you're deceiving yourself. You really believe the tripe you say about yourself. Sad, and scary.

But let's go to the first two words of the definition you first cited. "So poor". Seems to me to be a fairly obvious synonym, huh? Even to one as mentally constipated as you are. The rest is just a qualification of what how poor you have to be.

Now let's go to dictionary.com:



Quote:
 
in·di·gent  Audio pronunciation of "indigent" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nd-jnt)
adj.

  1. Experiencing want or need; impoverished. See Synonyms at poor.
  2. Archaic. Lacking or deficient.


See synonyms at poor! What a shock, I would never have expected that.

So let's try Wordnet:

Quote:
 
indigent

adj : poor enough to need help from others [syn: destitute, impoverished, necessitous, needy, poverty-stricken]


Poor enough! And all the synonyms mean poor, too.

As I said before, it's a great laugh watching IT twist himself in gyrations trying to explain why "poor" doesn't mean "poor". Every time I see him post, I'm reminded of Humpty Dumpty:

Quote:
 
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Given that neither OED nor Law.com legal dictionary are persuasive for Q to even acknowledge that "indigence" is an especially dire state of being "poor", and "indigent" can be a practical substitute for "homeless" (which is the point of this whole fabricated argument) there is little point going on.

Of course, I never really expected Q to acknowledge anything that would challenge his alpha male narcissism.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Law.com works just fine for me. The first two words. "So poor". I can't help it if your own source makes you look like an idiot.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 29 2006, 11:35 AM
Law.com works just fine for me.  The first two words.  "So poor".  I can't help it if your own source makes you look like an idiot.

Does anyone else appreciate the irony that Q is arguing from a partial definition and accuses me of "cherrypicking"? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I wonder if this is part of the storm that is coming. :lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
"So poor". The rest is a qualification of exactly how poor is "so poor".

It's English, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Maybe try it in Latin.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 29 2006, 11:44 AM
"So poor".  The rest is a qualification of exactly how poor is "so poor".

It's English, I wouldn't expect you to understand.  Maybe try it in Latin.

For those of you who wonder why conversations with Q are often so unproductive, here is a perfect example. He challenges me to try in Latin, which I already did above, and showed that indigent does not mean "poor", but "lacking".

His grasp of the term is presumably based in his legal experience that indigents are afforded legal counsel because they are poor and lack the resources to provide their own counsel.

As much as I tried to show that the simple term "poor" is not the best synonym, and does not do justice to the meaning of the term "indigent", he has this stuck in his craw and will not even acknowledge that other uses are fully appropriate and even give a fuller explanation of what indigence entails, which is essentially a dire lack of resources.

So here is where I am getting off the semantic merry go round at Quirtland(tm).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
but we weren't talking about starting a business and employing people.


I gather you were unable to follow the point.

Quote:
 
I agree with virtually nothing you say in the political realm, mostly because I find your reactions to be knee-jerk and short on reasoning.


Of course you do. We've already discussed why that is.

Quote:
 
All of that being said, I'm a liberal without a mental illness


That is an impossibility, as liberalism by its nature is a mental illness - at least modern liberalism is.

Dave, I don't mean to single you out - when I say "you" in reference to liberals, I'm usually talking about the collective "you".

Let me ask you - I asked another person here who said she was "100% liberal" what being a liberal meant, and she blew me off. I've always said that 90% of the liberals in the general population don't have a clue what liberalism actually is. What do *you* think being a liberal means? What is liberalism, in your opinion?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
What do *you* think being a liberal means?


Here's a definition of "liberal", the first one I found. I like it just fine:

lib·er·al
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

In my opinion, Liberalism reflects the characteristics above. So what is Liberalism to you? Extra points for finding it listed in the DSM IV.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Isn't it strange that conservatives don't want the government interfering in our everyday lives unless we want to give our sandwiches to a homeless person?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I don't want a dictionary answer. I want to hear *your* answer. If you have to look it up in a book, then you don't know why you are a liberal in the first place, because you don't know what a liberal is. About the only thing your dictionary answer gives me is that you like plenty of potatoes.

So, without the aid of books, simply tell me what *you* think liberalism is. I want to hear why *you* choose to call yourself one.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Jul 30 2006, 05:02 AM
I don't want a dictionary answer. I want to hear *your* answer. If you have to look it up in a book, then you don't know why you are a liberal in the first place, because you don't know what a liberal is.

So, without the aid of books, simply tell me what *you* think liberalism is. I want to hear why *you* choose to call yourself one.

I've said I agree with the definition I posted. I can't help you if you're unwilling to accept this. You, on the other hand, seem to have a different understanding of the word. Please share it with us so we can all see why those who ascribe to "liberal" values are mentally ill.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Dave, all you've done is show me that I'm correct when I say most liberals don't even know what it means. I don't need a dictionary to help me figure out why I'm *not* a liberal.

Can you, or can you not, tell me what liberalism means to *you*, in your own words? I don't think you can, because I don't think you even know.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Jul 30 2006, 05:11 AM
Dave, all you've done is show me that I'm correct when I say most liberals don't even know what it means. I don't need a dictionary to help me figure out why I'm *not* a liberal.

Can you, or can you not, tell me what liberalism means to *you*, in your own words? I don't think you can, because I don't think you even know.

We've reached a stalemate, Larry. It's very difficult to argue against what "liberal" actually means, isn't it? But some have with great success. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and the rest have developed booming businesses based on describing liberals as something they are not - creating something really detestable (pathetic, waffling milquetoasts, without a spine or moral among them) - then tearing them down. I gave you more credit than that, but you seem to take these hyenas at their word. I honestly believed that when push came to shove you would admit that you were joking about liberalism being a mental illness.

OK. I don't believe it's my responsibility at this point to invent a new definition of "liberal" for you. So if you're serious, please share with me your opinion of what liberalism is, though I assume it will be contrary to the dictionary definition. It must be a doozy of a definition if it leads you to believe that it is pathological, or leads people to mental illness, or however you want to think about it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
In other words, you *can't* tell me what liberalism means to you personally, what it means, why you are one, without a dictionary.

As I said: Most liberals don't even know what it means. For Dave, it appears that he is a liberal because he likes potatoes, and doesn't want a conservative to make him a sandwich because he might not put enough mayonnaise on it.

I'll wait just a little longer to give you one more chance to show me that you know what your own principles are, and then I'll tell you what liberalism *really* is, without the fluff descriptions you've hidden behind, such as "b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes."

Can you do it? I don't think you can. I don't think you even know what your own principles are.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
fluff descriptions


Nice talking with you, Larry. I believe we're done here.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Number 6
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Allow me:

A liberal is tolerant.
Takes the time to evaluate ALL sides of the issue before jumping in with rash conclusions.
Realizes that another persons opinions may have validity.
Believes that God put us here with the purpose of helping others (among other reasons).
Does not spew hatred.
Number 6: Who are you?
Number 2: The new Number 2.
Number 6: Who is Number 1?
Number 2: You are Number 6.
Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Dave Spelvin
Jul 30 2006, 05:39 AM
Quote:
 
fluff descriptions


Nice talking with you, Larry. I believe we're done here.

Dave, yesterday you told me you saw me as simple minded. Today, it is *you* that seems to be simple minded. When I finally *do* answer the question you seem incapable of answering, you'll discover that I am far from being simple minded.

I've given you 3 chances now to explain why you are a liberal. You offer a dictionary definition instead of telling me what *you* think, what being a liberal means to you. I'll give you one more. So far, you have told me you like extra potatoes, but you have yet to give me one single reason that you've chosen liberalism as the basis for your principles. You are proving my point, that liberals *have* no principles, nor do they have a clue why they identify themselves with liberalist ideology.

I don't want to know about your eating habits, Dave - I want to know what you base your principles on, what your ideology is built upon, and why you think liberalism best fits with your principles. I don't think you know. I don't think you can. No liberal has ever been able to answer me. Now - you're a "deep thinking liberal" - show me you can.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
deleted
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
I'm surprised no one has brought up the example of NYC under Dinkens, and the changes made by Rudy, regarding the homeless.

Ultimately, it is a quality of life issue for the community...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I think wikipedia has a pretty good description.

Liberalism

Please don't let this article get in the way of the insultathon. It's so much more fun to shout and call each other names than to actually try and listen to ideas which clash with our own. After all, everyone who disagrees with me is by definition an idiot.

Why is so difficult to except that there are positive sides to both conservative thinking, and to liberalism and social democracy?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6