| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Roy Jose Lorr" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 12:57:51 PM |
| Object: |
Lberal Lunacy |
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
.
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
18 Sep 2006 02:12:42 PM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AYGdnegHwNIDQJPYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
the guy who wrote it is a liberal... so which part are you calling lunacy?
I'm going to bet that you're a dittohead that looks for any excuse to say
something about 'libruls"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
18 Sep 2006 06:01:19 PM |
|
|
GoDrex wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AYGdnegHwNIDQJPYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
the guy who wrote it is a liberal... so which part are you calling lunacy?
I'm going to bet that you're a dittohead that looks for any excuse to say
something about 'libruls"
A liberal who sees the liberal lunacy is a turncoat and
should be shot, eh?
OOh, don't dare say anything about liberals, they react like
mooselims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
18 Sep 2006 07:02:32 PM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37CdnZa0y6wjuZLYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com...
GoDrex wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AYGdnegHwNIDQJPYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
the guy who wrote it is a liberal... so which part are you calling
lunacy?
I'm going to bet that you're a dittohead that looks for any excuse to
say
something about 'libruls"
A liberal who sees the liberal lunacy is a turncoat and
should be shot, eh?
OOh, don't dare say anything about liberals, they react like
mooselims.
I guess I'm wrong then. I'm too used to trolls harping on liberals.
btw:
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its
war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the
world, and Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's
remarks on Islam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
18 Sep 2006 07:15:43 PM |
|
|
GoDrex wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37CdnZa0y6wjuZLYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com...
GoDrex wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AYGdnegHwNIDQJPYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
the guy who wrote it is a liberal... so which part are you calling
lunacy?
I'm going to bet that you're a dittohead that looks for any excuse to
say
something about 'libruls"
A liberal who sees the liberal lunacy is a turncoat and
should be shot, eh?
OOh, don't dare say anything about liberals, they react like
mooselims.
I guess I'm wrong then. I'm too used to trolls harping on liberals.
Liberal Anthem: 'Love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal.'
- Phil Ochs - liberal.
btw:
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its
war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the
world, and Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's
remarks on Islam.
So, what else is new?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "zzpat" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 11:52:04 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
As a fellow liberal I see many flaws in both logic and fact.
First, a lot of us liberals were right about WMD and the war in Iraq
causing more terrorism, not ending it. There were no conservatives who
got either of them right.
Second, liberals such as myself believe we should be living within our
means so we have to raise taxes when we don't have enough money to pay
the bills. There are no conservatives out there talking about doing this.
Finally, Islam has existed for thousands of years and was never a threat
to the US until AFTER the 1991 war in Iraq (though widespread hate of
the US goes back to our support of Israel during the 1982 war on Lebanon
- a war that resulted in Reagan putting peacekeepers in Lebanon and 241
being killed in 1983).
By all intellectual standards, liberals have been right about each and
every one of these actions, but not one conservative was right.
Now to destroy some of his idiocy.
"At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing
subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of
9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll
conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found
that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government
"assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them
so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe
that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets
smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had
secretly rigged them to explode."
Where in the poll does it say "liberals" believe these theories? He's
simply blaming liberals for something he can't prove - a Limbaugh
technique. Polls show(ed) 90% of the military believing Saddam did 911
and 80% of Fox viewers believed something about the war that was untrue.
Both Fox viewers and the military are filled with right wing
extremists who don't know what's real.
More from the author...
"For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder
noncombatants"
Bush went to war in Iraq for no reason and killed tens of thousands of
noncombatants. In Lebanon, Israel killed at least 1000 noncombatants -
far more if we add those killed from cluster bombs after the war. In
fact, it's highly likely Israel killed more noncombatants in one month
than Hezbollah killed in its entire existence. The argument therefore
has no merit whatsoever.
IMO, these deceptions and lies suggest he's as liberal as Rush Limbaugh
or a Fox News commentator.
--
Pat
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/
Articles of Impeachment
Center for Constitutional Rights
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/april_2006/articles_of_impeachment.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 04:07:31 PM |
|
|
zzpat wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
As a fellow liberal I see many flaws in both logic and fact.
First, a lot of us liberals were right about WMD and the war in Iraq
causing more terrorism, not ending it. There were no conservatives who
got either of them right.
1. There were and are WMD.
2. Terrorists alone cause 'more or less' terrorism.
Second, liberals such as myself believe we should be living within our
means so we have to raise taxes when we don't have enough money to pay
the bills. There are no conservatives out there talking about doing this.
You mean, destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.
Finally, Islam has existed for thousands of years and was never a threat
to the US until AFTER the 1991 war in Iraq (though widespread hate of
the US goes back to our support of Israel during the 1982 war on Lebanon
- a war that resulted in Reagan putting peacekeepers in Lebanon and 241
being killed in 1983).
Islam has been a threat to any civilization that resists it,
going back to its founder.
By all intellectual standards, liberals have been right about each and
every one of these actions, but not one conservative was right.
Just like a liberal to get it upside down.
<snip rest of liberal bull>
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
20 Sep 2006 12:20:14 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
zzpat wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
As a fellow liberal I see many flaws in both logic and fact.
First, a lot of us liberals were right about WMD and the war in Iraq
causing more terrorism, not ending it. There were no conservatives who
got either of them right.
1. There were and are WMD.
Really??? Where? The Pentagon couldn't find them, and even the Bushies
now admit there were none. Why do you Rightards keep lying about this?
2. Terrorists alone cause 'more or less' terrorism.
There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.
Second, liberals such as myself believe we should be living within our
means so we have to raise taxes when we don't have enough money to pay
the bills. There are no conservatives out there talking about doing this.
You mean, destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.
No, dimwit, it means you don't finance the war on the federal credit
card then leave a future administration to pay for it. We're suffering
the worst deficits in American history to support a war we could pay
for. It makes no sense whatsoever, except that it gets stupid fools
like yourself to vote for people who "lower taxes" while raising debt
(whichs is also a form of taxation).
Finally, Islam has existed for thousands of years and was never a threat
to the US until AFTER the 1991 war in Iraq (though widespread hate of
the US goes back to our support of Israel during the 1982 war on Lebanon
- a war that resulted in Reagan putting peacekeepers in Lebanon and 241
being killed in 1983).
Islam has been a threat to any civilization that resists it,
going back to its founder.
Islam is practiced mostly among miserably poor people in backward
countries. The religion is no threat. Our inability to deal with other
governments rationally is.
By all intellectual standards, liberals have been right about each and
every one of these actions, but not one conservative was right.
Just like a liberal to get it upside down.
Couldn't refute a thing he said, could you?
<snip rest of liberal bull>
Of course you snip it. It's inconvenient to face truth. You've been
conned by the Bushies and by the whole conservative scam. Admit it and
grow.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
20 Sep 2006 03:48:52 PM |
|
|
t1gercat wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
zzpat wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
As a fellow liberal I see many flaws in both logic and fact.
First, a lot of us liberals were right about WMD and the war in Iraq
causing more terrorism, not ending it. There were no conservatives who
got either of them right.
1. There were and are WMD.
Really??? Where? The Pentagon couldn't find them, and even the Bushies
now admit there were none.
Bull.
Why do you Rightards keep lying about this?
Projection is good.
2. Terrorists alone cause 'more or less' terrorism.
There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.
Bull.
Second, liberals such as myself believe we should be living within our
means so we have to raise taxes when we don't have enough money to pay
the bills. There are no conservatives out there talking about doing this.
You mean, destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.
No, dimwit, it means you don't finance the war on the federal credit
card then leave a future administration to pay for it.
That's what [succesful] societies do.
We're suffering
the worst deficits in American history to support a war we could pay
for. It makes no sense whatsoever, except that it gets stupid fools
like yourself to vote for people who "lower taxes" while raising debt
(whichs is also a form of taxation).
It shouldn't matter to a commie how taxes are raised.
Finally, Islam has existed for thousands of years and was never a threat
to the US until AFTER the 1991 war in Iraq
Moron.
(though widespread hate of
the US goes back to our support of Israel during the 1982 war on Lebanon
- a war that resulted in Reagan putting peacekeepers in Lebanon and 241
being killed in 1983).
Right, Israel should just march itself into the sea. Dream
on, retard.
Islam has been a threat to any civilization that resists it,
going back to its founder.
Islam is practiced mostly among miserably poor people in backward
countries. The religion is no threat. Our inability to deal with other
governments rationally is.
Moron.
By all intellectual standards, liberals have been right about each and
every one of these actions, but not one conservative was right.
Just like a liberal to get it upside down.
Couldn't refute a thing he said, could you?
Moron.
<snip rest of liberal bull>
Of course you snip it. It's inconvenient to face truth. You've been
conned by the Bushies and by the whole conservative scam. Admit it and
grow.
Moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
18 Sep 2006 06:13:48 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
:) Given that you post with the title "Liberal Lunacy" to alt.atheism
(among others), I'm guessing that calm, well-reasoned discourse is not
your intent, and that you don't particularly care about the credibility
of your online persona.
Now, as for the article, I agree with this bit:
"Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from
criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to
have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb
- and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise."
but think he overstates the case by a wide margin when he speaks of
"liberal denial." He does have something of a point wrt motivations
other than the often-stated "economic despair, lack of education and
American militarism" The correspondence he draws between liberal
thought and conspiracy theorists, however, is quite wrong-headed...
people of all ideological stripes are attracted to conspiracies because
they like the idea that "someone is in charge" (which I attribute to
primate instincts, and which I believe is some explanation for religion
itself), even if that someone is malevolent. Liberalism has little to
do with that.
Frankly, it seems to me that the author is terrified of terrorism, has
given up hoping that the current administration will effectively deal
with the problem, and is no blaming his fellow liberals for not being
able to take his fear away for him.
Eventually, people grow out of seeing monsters in their bedroom
closets, and under their beds. Those individuals willing to kill and
die to advance their agenda are a very real danger, but the author's
sort of histrionics aren't going to help anyone... especially him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
18 Sep 2006 07:07:26 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
:) Given that you post with the title "Liberal Lunacy" to alt.atheism
(among others), I'm guessing that calm, well-reasoned discourse is not
your intent, and that you don't particularly care about the credibility
of your online persona.
Lotsa lunatic libs at alt.atheism. Why deprive them of a
little needed therapy?
Now, as for the article, I agree with this bit:
"Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from
criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to
have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb
- and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise."
but think he overstates the case by a wide margin when he speaks of
"liberal denial."
Denial mixed with disingenuity.
He does have something of a point wrt motivations
other than the often-stated "economic despair, lack of education and
American militarism"
The correspondence he draws between liberal
thought and conspiracy theorists, however, is quite wrong-headed...
people of all ideological stripes are attracted to conspiracies because
they like the idea that "someone is in charge" (which I attribute to
primate instincts, and which I believe is some explanation for religion
itself),
even if that someone is malevolent. Liberalism has little to
do with that.
Liberalism has everything to do with precisely that. Unless
of course they are above being human which incidentally many
of them believe. Read: The Humanist Manifesto.
http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html
"Liberal" no longer fits the classic definition. The true
definition of "liberal" these days is: a conglomeration of
communist, nazi, fascist, utopean-sentimentalist malevolence.
Frankly, it seems to me that the author is terrified of terrorism, has
given up hoping that the current administration will effectively deal
with the problem, and is no blaming his fellow liberals for not being
able to take his fear away for him.
Perfectly rational fear.
Eventually, people grow out of seeing monsters in their bedroom
closets, and under their beds. Those individuals willing to kill and
die to advance their agenda are a very real danger, but the author's
sort of histrionics aren't going to help anyone... especially him.
Its the liberals who are hiding under their beds in denial
of the true monsters that beset us all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pouting Georgie Bush" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
18 Sep 2006 07:47:26 PM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:09adnZVn6LegqZLYnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
:) Given that you post with the title "Liberal Lunacy" to alt.atheism
(among others), I'm guessing that calm, well-reasoned discourse is not
your intent, and that you don't particularly care about the credibility
of your online persona.
Lotsa lunatic libs at alt.atheism. Why deprive them of a little needed
therapy?
Now, as for the article, I agree with this bit:
"Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from
criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to
have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb
- and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise."
but think he overstates the case by a wide margin when he speaks of
"liberal denial."
Denial mixed with disingenuity.
He does have something of a point wrt motivations
other than the often-stated "economic despair, lack of education and
American militarism"
The correspondence he draws between liberal
thought and conspiracy theorists, however, is quite wrong-headed...
people of all ideological stripes are attracted to conspiracies because
they like the idea that "someone is in charge" (which I attribute to
primate instincts, and which I believe is some explanation for religion
itself),
even if that someone is malevolent. Liberalism has little to
do with that.
Liberalism has everything to do with precisely that. Unless of course
they are above being human which incidentally many of them believe. Read:
The Humanist Manifesto.
http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html
"Liberal" no longer fits the classic definition. The true definition of
"liberal" these days is: a conglomeration of communist, nazi, fascist,
utopean-sentimentalist malevolence.
Frankly, it seems to me that the author is terrified of terrorism, has
given up hoping that the current administration will effectively deal
with the problem, and is no blaming his fellow liberals for not being
able to take his fear away for him.
Perfectly rational fear.
Eventually, people grow out of seeing monsters in their bedroom
closets, and under their beds. Those individuals willing to kill and
die to advance their agenda are a very real danger, but the author's
sort of histrionics aren't going to help anyone... especially him.
Its the liberals who are hiding under their beds in denial of the true
monsters that beset us all.
Thanks for supporting America, Billy Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
18 Sep 2006 09:09:20 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 12:37:13 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pouting Georgie Bush" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 09:22:55 AM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 10:48:22 AM |
|
|
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "2684Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 11:11:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 04:08:58 PM |
|
|
2684Dead wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
Projection is good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 12:16:51 PM |
|
|
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right". The present
word is "libertarian", because of the misuse of liberal.
To a libertarian, you can believe in whatever religion
or pseudo-religion you want as long as you do not make
any attempt to impose it on others. As libertarians are
strongly against fraud, even making a claim about someone's
situation in the afterlife would require justification,
which would mean it could not be done. One might politely
suggest that one's religion or other ism is best, but not
make any attempt to impose it or legislate any of its dicta.
Governments exist only to protect individuals from those
who would directly harm them in any way, and this includes
taking away their money to give to others. It would not
prevent people or organizations from giving to the poor,
but would prohibit coercion by those organizations.
I think I have provided enough to give you an idea.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 03:19:18 PM |
|
|
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right". The present
word is "libertarian", because of the misuse of liberal.
To a libertarian, you can believe in whatever religion
or pseudo-religion you want as long as you do not make
any attempt to impose it on others. As libertarians are
strongly against fraud, even making a claim about someone's
situation in the afterlife would require justification,
which would mean it could not be done. One might politely
suggest that one's religion or other ism is best, but not
make any attempt to impose it or legislate any of its dicta.
Governments exist only to protect individuals from those
who would directly harm them in any way, and this includes
taking away their money to give to others. It would not
prevent people or organizations from giving to the poor,
but would prohibit coercion by those organizations.
I think I have provided enough to give you an idea.
In other words the current definitions of "liberal" and
"libertarian" are mutually exclusive.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 01:05:19 PM |
|
|
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
The present
word is "libertarian", because of the misuse of liberal.
Well I beleive that they are two different things now.
To a libertarian, you can believe in whatever religion
or pseudo-religion you want as long as you do not make
any attempt to impose it on others. As libertarians are
strongly against fraud, even making a claim about someone's
situation in the afterlife would require justification,
which would mean it could not be done. One might politely
suggest that one's religion or other ism is best, but not
make any attempt to impose it or legislate any of its dicta.
I believe this would apply to liberals as well.
Governments exist only to protect individuals from those
who would directly harm them in any way, and this includes
taking away their money to give to others. It would not
prevent people or organizations from giving to the poor,
but would prohibit coercion by those organizations.
Very good and this is where liberal departs from libertarian.
We liberals believe that society owes it weakest members
some quality of life, and this was mainly arrived at after
the Irish immigrated. You see they witnessed the English
government stand by and do nothing while thousands starved
in Ireland.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 03:28:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
The present
word is "libertarian", because of the misuse of liberal.
Well I beleive that they are two different things now.
To a libertarian, you can believe in whatever religion
or pseudo-religion you want as long as you do not make
any attempt to impose it on others. As libertarians are
strongly against fraud, even making a claim about someone's
situation in the afterlife would require justification,
which would mean it could not be done. One might politely
suggest that one's religion or other ism is best, but not
make any attempt to impose it or legislate any of its dicta.
I believe this would apply to liberals as well.
Liberals are intent on forcing their ideology on society as
a whole. Read: the "Humanist Manifesto".
http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html
Governments exist only to protect individuals from those
who would directly harm them in any way, and this includes
taking away their money to give to others. It would not
prevent people or organizations from giving to the poor,
but would prohibit coercion by those organizations.
Very good and this is where liberal departs from libertarian.
We liberals believe that society owes it weakest members
some quality of life, and this was mainly arrived at after
the Irish immigrated. You see they witnessed the English
government stand by and do nothing while thousands starved
in Ireland.
Forcing one segment of society to support another, (taking
from the rich to give to the poor), is far from the concept
of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 02:10:05 PM |
|
|
In article <1158689119.005953.179500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
No, this defines a radical. A libertarian will rarely
even consider putting an obstacle to doing this, but
both conservatives and liberals believe in such obstacles.
In fact, at this time it is the liberals who want to
block new ideas. Among the ideas they want to block,
and alas some "conservatives" have gone along with
them, is that children should be educated according
to their abilities, and not their ages. They are
against anyone gaining an academic "advantage" because
of ability, but they are willing to give them such
advantages for quite a few other reasons. This was
started in the Depression; before then, there were
(inadequates) adjustments for ability.
The present
word is "libertarian", because of the misuse of liberal.
Well I beleive that they are two different things now.
To a libertarian, you can believe in whatever religion
or pseudo-religion you want as long as you do not make
any attempt to impose it on others. As libertarians are
strongly against fraud, even making a claim about someone's
situation in the afterlife would require justification,
which would mean it could not be done. One might politely
suggest that one's religion or other ism is best, but not
make any attempt to impose it or legislate any of its dicta.
I believe this would apply to liberals as well.
The present liberal philosophy is that of "political
correctness" and socialism. Socialism is quite strong;
"taxing the rich" will not make the poor rich, but it
can make the rich poor. Along with this is the
government almost taking over the direction of research,
by the mere method of funding it. This was foreseen
almost 60 years ago, and could have been, with great
difficulty, circumvented then.
Governments exist only to protect individuals from those
who would directly harm them in any way, and this includes
taking away their money to give to others. It would not
prevent people or organizations from giving to the poor,
but would prohibit coercion by those organizations.
Very good and this is where liberal departs from libertarian.
We liberals believe that society owes it weakest members
some quality of life, and this was mainly arrived at after
the Irish immigrated. You see they witnessed the English
government stand by and do nothing while thousands starved
in Ireland.
This was NOT arrived at in this country after the Irish
immigrated. The poor laws were not made any stronger.
The large need for labor kept the Irish from starving in
the US, and the advancements were made largely by private
individuals doing things, often over government objections.
But now the government is not only objecting, but actually
interfering.
To allow those who can contribute intellectually, the
present public school essentially monopoly must be
broken. Giving a bright socio-economically handicapped
child SUPPOSEDLY the same chance at a good college
education cannot work with classes dumbed down to the
weak students, and right now the schools have done so
much damage that it is not clear they do any good. We
need academic schools, not social schools, and we will
not have many of them as long as the government funds
junk as "equalizing opportunity". The rich with
ability can do something, not enough, but the middle
class and poor are blocked by the government.
For another example, space development, which will
eventually be of great importance, and the sooner the
better, would take off if individuals could put their
money where they think it should be spent, instead of
where the government things it should be spent. We
would already have had several space stations, and at
least a "permanent" moon operation, if not many living
and working in space in various ways.
Larry
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 03:38:12 PM |
|
|
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1158689119.005953.179500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
No, this defines a radical.
No, a "radical" is someone who believes that the root ideas of a
society need to be changed.
A libertarian will rarely
even consider putting an obstacle to doing this, but
both conservatives and liberals believe in such obstacles.
In fact, at this time it is the liberals who want to
block new ideas. Among the ideas they want to block,
and alas some "conservatives" have gone along with
them, is that children should be educated according
to their abilities, and not their ages. They are
against anyone gaining an academic "advantage" because
of ability, but they are willing to give them such
advantages for quite a few other reasons. This was
started in the Depression; before then, there were
(inadequates) adjustments for ability.
The present
word is "libertarian", because of the misuse of liberal.
Well I beleive that they are two different things now.
To a libertarian, you can believe in whatever religion
or pseudo-religion you want as long as you do not make
any attempt to impose it on others. As libertarians are
strongly against fraud, even making a claim about someone's
situation in the afterlife would require justification,
which would mean it could not be done. One might politely
suggest that one's religion or other ism is best, but not
make any attempt to impose it or legislate any of its dicta.
I believe this would apply to liberals as well.
The present liberal philosophy is that of "political
correctness" and socialism. Socialism is quite strong;
"taxing the rich" will not make the poor rich, but it
can make the rich poor.
Taxing the rich does not make the rich poor because the rich are always
exempted by legislation - it is always and only the rich who sponsor
and approve and permit legislation.
Taxing the "rich" means only the abolition of the Middle Class.
Along with this is the
government almost taking over the direction of research,
by the mere method of funding it. This was foreseen
almost 60 years ago, and could have been, with great
difficulty, circumvented then.
Governments exist only to protect individuals from those
who would directly harm them in any way, and this includes
taking away their money to give to others. It would not
prevent people or organizations from giving to the poor,
but would prohibit coercion by those organizations.
Very good and this is where liberal departs from libertarian.
We liberals believe that society owes it weakest members
some quality of life, and this was mainly arrived at after
the Irish immigrated. You see they witnessed the English
government stand by and do nothing while thousands starved
in Ireland.
This was NOT arrived at in this country after the Irish
immigrated. The poor laws were not made any stronger.
The large need for labor kept the Irish from starving in
the US, and the advancements were made largely by private
individuals doing things, often over government objections.
But now the government is not only objecting, but actually
interfering.
To allow those who can contribute intellectually, the
present public school essentially monopoly must be
broken. Giving a bright socio-economically handicapped
child SUPPOSEDLY the same chance at a good college
education cannot work with classes dumbed down to the
weak students, and right now the schools have done so
much damage that it is not clear they do any good. We
need academic schools, not social schools, and we will
not have many of them as long as the government funds
junk as "equalizing opportunity". The rich with
ability can do something, not enough, but the middle
class and poor are blocked by the government.
Beautifully stated.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 02:32:08 PM |
|
|
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1158689119.005953.179500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
No, this defines a radical. A libertarian will rarely
even consider putting an obstacle to doing this, but
both conservatives and liberals believe in such obstacles.
Not according to JFK
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who
cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil
liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate
and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what
they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 03:34:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1158689119.005953.179500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
< > wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
No, this defines a radical. A libertarian will rarely
even consider putting an obstacle to doing this, but
both conservatives and liberals believe in such obstacles.
Not according to JFK
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who
cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil
liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate
and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what
they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Campaign platitudes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miriam Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 05:08:13 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1158689119.005953.179500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should
be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the
repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you
might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
No, this defines a radical. A libertarian will rarely
even consider putting an obstacle to doing this, but
both conservatives and liberals believe in such obstacles.
Not according to JFK
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who
cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil
liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate
and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what
they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Campaign platitudes.
and JFK died 43 years ago a lot has changed in that time, not the least
of which is that "liberals" aren't anymore anything that even vaguely
resembles what JFK claimed "liberals" were back then.
--
L'Chaim
Miriam
In the beginning
the Word already was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 06:29:35 PM |
|
|
Miriam Cohen wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1158689119.005953.179500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should
be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the
repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you
might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
No, this defines a radical. A libertarian will rarely
even consider putting an obstacle to doing this, but
both conservatives and liberals believe in such obstacles.
Not according to JFK
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who
cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil
liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate
and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what
they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Campaign platitudes.
and JFK died 43 years ago a lot has changed in that time, not the least
of which is that "liberals" aren't anymore anything that even vaguely
resembles what JFK claimed "liberals" were back then.
Liberals such as JFK claimed weren't any more "liberal" back
then as they are now. The Lenny Bernsteins et al didn't
like being designated as communists, which was their true
affiliation, so they labeled themselves "liberals".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 06:31:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:29:35 -0700, in alt.atheism
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
<k5mdnd39g4BA4Y3YnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com>:
Miriam Cohen wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
.....
Not according to JFK
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who
cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil
liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate
and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what
they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Campaign platitudes.
and JFK died 43 years ago a lot has changed in that time, not the least
of which is that "liberals" aren't anymore anything that even vaguely
resembles what JFK claimed "liberals" were back then.
Liberals such as JFK claimed weren't any more "liberal" back
then as they are now. The Lenny Bernsteins et al didn't
like being designated as communists, which was their true
affiliation, so they labeled themselves "liberals".
Thanks for proving that your ignorance manages to cross all boundaries.
By the way, red baiting is out of fashion. Now all the American
reactionaries bait Arabs and other Moslems.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NefeshBarYochai" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 06:01:36 PM |
|
|
Vote for Ed Perlmutter in Colorado. He's a democrat and a Jew. I'm
neither democrat or republican but we need Jews in office especially
here in Colorado because there are to many Catholic Nazi thinkers.
Hitler was a devout Catholic Nazi. If you don't beleive me read Mein
Kampf and read the end result of what happens when the government goes
to far right. I remain Likud though.
Tek
Miriam Cohen wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1158689119.005953.179500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <fk50h29fse1n1mc0ohdoalkus7mueotqoa@4ax.com>,
2684Dead <zepp#22112684dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:22 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pouting Georgie Bush wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C7ednVs71OIaHJLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Roy Jose Lorr
<Kenthz@comcast.net> posting the following on Mon, 18 Sep 2006
10:57:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Roy, you do realize this guy thinks that all religions should
be done
away with, right?
Well, he does say right up front he's a "liberal".
"Liberal" has become a repug's catchall phrase for what the
repugs refuse to
be held accountable for.
The classic definition of "liberal" no longer applies. The
new definition of "liberal": communist, nazi, fascist,
utopian-sentimentalist malevolence.
In other words, the few remaining things left that you think you
might
still be superior to.
The original meaning of "liberal" was someone believing in
individual freedom, rather than requiring people to obey
the dictates of government, religion, or anyone who wants
you to do something because it is "right".
For some reason I always thought that it meant someone
who beleived in trying new ideas.
No, this defines a radical. A libertarian will rarely
even consider putting an obstacle to doing this, but
both conservatives and liberals believe in such obstacles.
Not according to JFK
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who
cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil
liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate
and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what
they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Campaign platitudes.
and JFK died 43 years ago a lot has changed in that time, not the least
of which is that "liberals" aren't anymore anything that even vaguely
resembles what JFK claimed "liberals" were back then.
--
L'Chaim
Miriam
In the beginning
the Word already was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Lberal Lunacy |
19 Sep 2006 06:41:40 PM |
|
|
NefeshBarYochai wrote:
Vote for Ed Perlmutter in Colorado. He's a democrat and a Jew. I'm
neither democrat or republican but we need Jews in office especially
here in Colorado because there are to many Catholic Nazi thinkers.
Hitler was a devout Catholic Nazi. If you don't beleive me read Mein
Kampf and read the end result of what happens when the government goes
to far right. I remain Likud though.
Voting race and/or religion (and you advocate both) is the very essence
of bigotry.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
