TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:I think your sustainably mined, fair-trade tinfoil beanie is too tight.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!



That is the first time in months that I almost sprayed coffee all over my laptop.

Zee wrote:

bdickens wrote:Then how did the Obamessiah get elected?

Obama 375 electoral votes
McCain 173 electoral votes

This is how US presidents are elected in this republic. Do you not respect the process in this country or are you just in the minority of 2008 preidential voters?

Obama 66,882,230 popular votes
McCain 58,343,671 popular votes

I believe it was a rhetorical question, meaning "how on earth could that many people be deceived about what Obama is most likely to do?"

But of course, you knew that was his intent...

Purplehood wrote:LOL, but I agree with you Annoyed...

Hums Kumbayah (or however it is spelled).

Thank you man. Coming from you, that means something to me.

Zee wrote:Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) English philosopher, political theorist, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential Classical liberal thinker of the 19th century whose works on liberty justified freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control.

Context, context, context!

If you read up on political theory, you will find that "Classical Liberalism" more closely resembles "modern Conservatism" than it does "modern liberalism." In point of fact, it probably actually resembles modern libertarianism more than it does either of the above (egad, did I actually say that?). The context in which Mill wrote those words was one in which a landed aristocracy had rights above and beyond those afforded to the common man. His use of the word "conservative" in that context was to describe that landed aristocracy which resisted individual freedoms... ...much like today's modern liberalism. If you try to use what Mill said in a modern context, then it merely confirms that modern liberalism is also elitist, since it boldly proclaims that the conservative is an individual who needs the superior intellect of the liberal to guide them — which is not only stupid on its face, but immoral to boot.

Both "classical liberalism" and "modern conservatism" would defend the use of the "N" word as a freedom of speech matter - as in its use in Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn," or Joseph Conrad's "The N***** of the Narcissus" — both of which speak eloquently to egalitarian principles and racial reconciliation. It took modern liberalism to make that into a hate crime in modern usage.

Classical Liberalism relentlessly defends the RKBA. Modern liberalism relentless seeks to restrict it. Classical liberalism relentlessly defends equality of opportunity, and stresses that the success of the individual depends upon the strength is their character. Modern liberalism relentlessly seeks to impose equality of outcome, and stresses that the success of the individual depends upon government's ability to enforce the outcome.

I could go on, but what is the use? You could dispute what I've written by pointing out that Thomas Jefferson (also an 18th century Classical Liberalist) was a slave owner, and I could point out to you that Charles Rangel (a modern liberalist) cheats on his taxes and is truthfully an oligarch. You're still going to believe that modern conservatism is stupid, and I'm still going to believe that modern liberalism ignores the lessons of history and is thus condemned to repeat them.

So instead of calling each other names, can we agree that most Americans really just want the same things, but we disagree on how to attain them? We both want personal freedoms, we just disagree as to whether it is government's role to guarantee them, or to hem them in. We both want justice to prevail, but we disagree as to whether it is best achieved through equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. And come to think of it, we all really want people to live successful lives, but we disagree as to whether or not it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain it by exhibiting the traits of good character, or the responsibility of government to guarantee it by freeing the individual from the consequences of their own lack of character.

[quavering voice]
Can't we all just get along?
[/quavering voice]

Keith B wrote:Pray for Obama - Psalm 109:8

Keith

I like the cut of your jib.

...Oh, and take a look at my first signature line.