"Liberals!"

[DesertPirate]

DesertPirate, you can use my new term anytime you like. It is RABD. How do you like it? Do you think it will stick?

I like it!

 

[wmrs2]

Exactly. Your "Self-evident" truths are opinions. You are quite entitled to have your own view, but not to but it forward as a received and accepted truth.

I may have an opinion that I hope people might agree with, but I won't say it is "self-evident" or an axiom. There are many statements that I might think are "self-evident" but unless they are accepted world-wide without controversy I can't claim they are.

Og

Og, do you suggest the Constitution of the USA should be taken down to please your opinion of self-evident terms? Self-evident terms are received and accepted truths by Western Civilization. Communist will never agree with the self-evident truths in our law but we can not wait for their agreement before we claim our rights. Do you know of any democratic principle that is accepted world-wide without controversy? You could not voice an opinion on any subject if you waited for universal agreement.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Og, do you suggest the Constitution of the USA should be taken down to please your opinion of self-evident terms? Self-evident terms are received and accepted truths by Western Civilization. Communist will never agree with the self-evident truths in our law but we can not wait for their agreement before we claim our rights. Do you know of any democratic principle that is accepted world-wide without controversy? You could not voice an opinion on any subject if you waited for universal agreement.

Where is there anything in the Constitution about that. I know the Declaration of Independence says "...truths to be self evident..." but where does anything like that appear in the Constitution?

 

[Guest]

The blind leading the fucking lost.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I like it!

Really? What do you like about it?

 

[wmrs2]

Where is there anything in the Constitution about that. I know the Declaration of Independence says "...truths to be self evident..." but where does anything like that appear in the Constitution?

It is common knowledge that all of the American documents, pledges, and mottoes are premised on the belief that natures God ordained certain rights for all men. There is no argument in the Constitution that our rights of protection from governments were anything but self-evident rights. The Preamble to the Constitution specifically mentions Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessing of Liberty, and Posterity as these self-evident rights.

All the rights in the Bill of Rights were self-evident to belong to the people. The Bill of Rights did not invent these rights but it did identify what these rights were. It can be debated whether these rights were specifically mentioned as self-evident, but it is clear that these rights were certainly mentioned. The Declaration of Independence confirms the purpose of government by the people was to insure these rights under God. Yes, the whole Constitution is saying this and naming the self-evident rights, not created by, but protected by the Constitution. Which of our rights would you want to abolish because the term self-evident is not used? Which right of the Constitution is not self-evident?

 

[Guest]

Really? What do you like about it?

Hey Stella, love. Wish you were here.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It is common knowledge that all of the American documents, pledges, and mottoes are premised on the belief that natures God ordained certain rights for all men. There is no argument in the Constitution that our rights of protection from governments were anything but self-evident rights. The Preamble to the Constitution specifically mentions Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessing of Liberty, and Posterity as these self-evident rights.

All the rights in the Bill of Rights were self-evident to belong to the people. The Bill of Rights did not invent these rights but it did identify what these rights were. It can be debated whether these rights were specifically mentioned as self-evident, but it is clear that these rights were certainly mentioned. The Declaration of Independence confirms the purpose of government by the people was to insure these rights under God. Yes, the whole Constitution is saying this and naming the self-evident rights, not created by, but protected by the Constitution. Which of our rights would you want to abolish because the term self-evident is not used? Which right of the Constitution is not self-evident?

A little learning is a dangerous thing, as this piece of nonsense makes evident.

I wish I were there too, SSS-- I'd be very much there

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

It is common knowledge that all of the American documents, pledges, and mottoes are premised on the belief that natures God ordained certain rights for all men. There is no argument in the Constitution that our rights of protection from governments were anything but self-evident rights. The Preamble to the Constitution specifically mentions Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessing of Liberty, and Posterity as these self-evident rights.

All the rights in the Bill of Rights were self-evident to belong to the people. The Bill of Rights did not invent these rights but it did identify what these rights were. It can be debated whether these rights were specifically mentioned as self-evident, but it is clear that these rights were certainly mentioned. The Declaration of Independence confirms the purpose of government by the people was to insure these rights under God. Yes, the whole Constitution is saying this and naming the self-evident rights, not created by, but protected by the Constitution. Which of our rights would you want to abolish because the term self-evident is not used? Which right of the Constitution is not self-evident?

They are seen by you and me as self-evident but that is because they have been there all our lives. They were not self-evident when the Bill of Rights was written and most of the world didn't have freedoms like those. They weren't even self-evident to a lot of Americans such as the John Adams administration, who tried to eliminate or severely weaken them. Even now, a lot of people don't think the Second Amendment means what it says and others think we can go to any church we want but not that we can eschew religion altogether.

 

[amicus]

Rather curious wmrs2, the staggering amount of venom and vitriol you have stirred among the 'usual suspects', here. Good job!

You see, these folks have no faith or if they do, they pick and choose what they will adhere to and what they will ignore, quite like a petulant child.

You have exposed their lack of faith and thus the absence of a faith based moral and ethical system, yet they cling to shreds of faith as they strike out at you, hoping against hope that God's wrath will rain down upon them as punishment.

It is a rock/hard place for them as they have rejected science, scientific method, reason, logic, rationality and an objective construction of a moral and ethical system and I had the pleasure of pointing that out.

Their little hippie/boomer/feminist world is crumbling about their shoulders and they are left with no solace and only a barren old age close at hand.

I understood that, as they attacked reason as a moral foundation, and now you have exposed their total lack of faith and their brutal lack of human kindness in dealing with your faith.

I suppose one should, in a Christian like manner, as you have said, have some sympathy for their lost souls, but not I.

They will stew in their own juices with no flavorings at all; it serves them well and good, over cooked and tasteless.



amicus...

 

[Guest]

Ami, you aren't a Christian.

Why would you post something like that?

Are you wrm's alt?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hardly curious at all. Ignorance plus didactics plus incredibly bad manners.

 

[Guest]

Hardly curious at all. Ignorance plus didactics plus incredibly bad manners.

Yeppers.



(off to bed in Chicago - it's after 3:00 a.m.)

 

[BentSecrets]

It's interesting that when I did some reading about what is a liberal, I found some concepts that I associate with conservatives as well as well as those that I thought of as more liberal. Liberals believe in individual liberty but also look to an expanded role of government in regulating to solve problems or perceived problems while the conservative would look to the private sector to deal with those issues. Those with a negative view about liberals are perhaps looking to the part of the expansion of government spending that occurred to help the poor starting around the Johnson administration. There are good intentions behind these programs, but a downside is the way they can expand and have a segment of society rely upon the assistance rather than improve their own situation.

It started well before the Johnson administration; look to Franklin Roosevelt, the closest America has ever come to having its own *King*

 

[BentSecrets]

Indeed. And many of those who call themselves Conservatives are in fact Reactionaries.

Also true, though unlike true Liberals, who have mostly died out, Conservatives are alive and well--and they're close friends with the Progressives.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Liberals want to ride and make the other guy pull them. They want you to earn your daily bread, and they want to eat it. They feel a huge debt to society, and they want you to pay it. They never change their minds, and they never change the subject. Liberal government never works for long because the people pulling the wagons, and baking the bread, and paying the bills walk away...and liberals starve.

 

[oggbashan]

Og, do you suggest the Constitution of the USA should be taken down to please your opinion of self-evident terms? Self-evident terms are received and accepted truths by Western Civilization. Communist will never agree with the self-evident truths in our law but we can not wait for their agreement before we claim our rights. Do you know of any democratic principle that is accepted world-wide without controversy? You could not voice an opinion on any subject if you waited for universal agreement.

Self-evident terms might be received and accepted terms by Western Civilisation but what you claim as self-evident are not among them.

The US Declaration of Independence was a wonderful piece of justification for what had already happened. It was not, and is not, an example of logic but an example of rhetoric. You do not appear to appreciate the difference.

Whenever the term "self-evident" is used, a logician is likely to ask "Who says so?". In your case, the answer is wmrs2. That makes your statements assertions that require proof, and you haven't given us any - just more unsupported assertions.

You are effectively yelling "I'm right! You are all wrong!" and asking us to accept your word for your rightness.

I don't accept your word. I wouldn't accept it if you said that a particular greenback was real and not a fake because you have demonstrated no credibility at all.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

It started well before the Johnson administration; look to Franklin Roosevelt, the closest America has ever come to having its own *King*

Came closer to having a king with George Washington. There were actually movements to offer him a crown.

 

[sr71plt]

Liberals want to ride and make the other guy pull them.

As I posted to Sweetpea, "liberals" as a whole don't do any one thing. And I used this very point as an example. LaJoke went ballistic on me (and has brought it up again periodically) when I didn't agree with him on an instance where he was advocating this free ride and I was suggesting the person take personal responsibility and not expect a free ride. And I proudly am an Eleanor Roosevelt liberal (who didn't advocate giving as much as enabling to earn).

So, your statements (and those of others like you here) collapse when you assert "everybody of a label of your choosing does one single thing." Just shows the closed state of your mind and the emptyness of your argumentation.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Came closer to having a king with George Washington. There were actually movements to offer him a crown.

Washington turned it down, or put the kibosh on the movement. If it had been Adams, he probably would have accepted it. He probably came closer to thinking of himself as royalty and being treated that way than anybody else. Jefferson's actions before his electons and in retiring after two terms probably quashed any idea of a king of The United States.

 

[wmrs2]

Self-evident terms might be received and accepted terms by Western Civilisation but what you claim as self-evident are not among them.

The US Declaration of Independence was a wonderful piece of justification for what had already happened. It was not, and is not, an example of logic but an example of rhetoric. You do not appear to appreciate the difference.

Whenever the term "self-evident" is used, a logician is likely to ask "Who says so?". In your case, the answer is wmrs2. That makes your statements assertions that require proof, and you haven't given us any - just more unsupported assertions.

You are effectively yelling "I'm right! You are all wrong!" and asking us to accept your word for your rightness.

I don't accept your word. I wouldn't accept it if you said that a particular greenback was real and not a fake because you have demonstrated no credibility at all.

Og

This is a typical response of a liberal. You cry for proof but there is nothing in this world that you accept as proof or evidence. It is a fact that our founding fathers recognized self-evident truths and that is why they mentioned these truths. It can be argued what these truths are and what these mean, but that the founding fathers believed they existed along with the creation of man is not in dispute.

The US Declaration of Independence was a wonderful piece of justification for what had already happened. It was not, and is not, an example of logic but an example of rhetoric. You do not appear to appreciate the difference.

The Declaration of Independence states the premises and authority for the freedom of Americans. You are not required to accept these premises or the logical deductions that follow from these premises but the fact that the founding fathers stated their reasons for independence is not in dispute. However, the king of England would have agreed with all your assertions and would have been pleased to have kept all the taxes arrived from the Colonies under the control of the Crown.

You would like to drag this discussion into a pissing contest. That is what happens when liberals retort with "it was not an example of logic" but clearly it was logic; it simply does not agree with what you see as your premises for logic.

We who agree in the existence of self-evident rights have stated our premises for believing. Whether these premises are true can be disputed but that we have stated these premises is not in dispute. Would you please state your premises that prove there are no self-evident truths? If you will not do this, it must be concluded that you are not interested in the logic of this discussion but only the rhetoric. You do know the difference between logic and rhetoric and you appreciate the difference also, but you appear not to be intellectually strong enough to accept any idea that disagrees with your interpretation of the world.

 

[Safe_Bet]

This is a typical response of a liberal. You cry for proof but there is nothing in this world that you accept as proof or evidence. It is a fact that our founding fathers recognized self-evident truths and that is why they mentioned these truths. It can be argued what these truths are and what these mean, but that the founding fathers believed they existed along with the creation of man is not in dispute.



The Declaration of Independence states the premises and authority for the freedom of Americans. You are not required to accept these premises or the logical deductions that follow from these premises but the fact that the founding fathers stated their reasons for independence is not in dispute. However, the king of England would have agreed with all your assertions and would have been pleased to have kept all the taxes arrived from the Colonies under the control of the Crown.

You would like to drag this discussion into a pissing contest. That is what happens when liberals retort with "it was not an example of logic" but clearly it was logic; it simply does not agree with what you see as your premises for logic.

We who agree in the existence of self-evident rights have stated our premises for believing. Whether these premises are true can be disputed but that we have stated these premises is not in dispute. Would you please state your premises that prove there are no self-evident truths? If you will not do this, it must be concluded that you are not interested in the logic of this discussion but only the rhetoric. You do know the difference between logic and rhetoric and you appreciate the difference also, but you appear not to be intellectually strong enough to accept any idea that disagrees with your interpretation of the world.

You got a mouse in your pocket? Or maybe you're French? Who the hell is "We"???? Ain't nobody in this entire forum agreeing with your silly little punk ass...

 

[oggbashan]

Your words including "self-evident":

The American belief, that the Western Civilization values life over government deciding who lives or who dies, is now at risk as the self-evident right of children to live and be happy is abolished through abortion laws.

The statement "the self-evident right of children to live and be happy" would have been acceptable except for the rest of that sentence "is abolished through abortion laws".

By adding those four words you go far beyond self-evident into virulently disputed definitions - What is a child? When does independent life begin? What are the rights of a mother? What are the rights of a fetus?

I am not going to widen this debate into the rights and wrongs of US law but you cannot have it both ways. Self-evident might be acceptable until you modify the statement by assertions about abortion. Whatever opinions are held about abortion it is obvious that there is no consensus in the US about the rights and wrongs so your self-evident is no longer valid.

Og

 

[BentSecrets]

Came closer to having a king with George Washington. There were actually movements to offer him a crown.

The difference you're failing to discern is that Washington *didn't want that power*, whereas Roosevelt DID. Washington walked away from power--Roosevelt had to die in order to be pulled from power.

And thank goodness he did. Congress' subsequent implementation of Presidential Term Limits is probably the smartest thing they did in the 20th century.

 

[wmrs2]

As I posted to Sweetpea, "liberals" as a whole don't do any one thing. And I used this very point as an example. LaJoke went ballistic on me (and has brought it up again periodically) when I didn't agree with him on an instance where he was advocating this free ride and I was suggesting the person take personal responsibility and not expect a free ride. And I proudly am an Eleanor Roosevelt liberal (who didn't advocate giving as much as enabling to earn).

So, your statements (and those of others like you here) collapse when you assert "everybody of a label of your choosing does one single thing." Just shows the closed state of your mind and the emptyness of your argumentation.

So, your statements (and those of others like you here) collapse when you assert "everybody of a label of your choosing does one single thing." Just shows the closed state of your mind and the emptyness of your argumentation.

[/QUOTE]
If what you say is true about labeling, why do you attack the emptiness and closed state of mind rather than his arguments? Is it a characteristic of liberals that they always label conservatives by attacking their persons rather than their ideas? How many post on this thread by liberals do not contain an attack on the person as an argument that conservatives are in error by nature. It may be conservatives are in error but it would not be because of their nature but because their logic is incorrect. That is what conservatives say about liberals, that is, they say liberals have faulty logic. Your task is not to call everybody a SOB that disagrees with you but to show them how illogical they are.