patrick.net

Dan8267 says

What really drives liberalism is the idea that every person owns his or her own life and should be free to do what pleases him or her the most as long as he or she isn't infringing upon someone else's rights.

That is classic liberalism. It is NOT what the speaker is talking about.

You should look at that video on memes

indigenous says

That is classic liberalism. It is NOT what the speaker is talking about.

The speaker is making Straw Man arguments. And there is only one true liberal philosophy. Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something despicable so you than can ridicule people based on the new, lamer definition. I could redefine conservative to mean the same thing as pedophile and then go on a tirade about how awful conservatives are. Would you accept that as a legitimate debate tactic?

So you are saying there is no difference between a Democrat and a Libertarian?

Wow your critical thinking skills are worse than I thought...

SoftShell says

why not? libbys did....

Good point

Why not? Libbys did....

Dan8267 says

Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something

indigenous says

So you are saying there is no difference between a Democrat and a Libertarian?

Wow your critical thinking skills are worse than I thought...

I said nothing even remotely like that. Again, you are preferring to make your opponent's argument rather than listening to what he says. You conservatives are always arguing with your imaginary friends rather than real people, just like Clint Eastwood and his chair.

There are damn few Democrats that are even remotely liberal today. We have two wings of essentially conservative dumb asses, moderate (D) and extreme (R).

People like you wouldn't know a liberal if he bit you in the ass.

Splain please

SoftShell says

Why not? Libbys did....

Dan8267 says

Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something

Marriage equality is about equal rights under law for all people. It has nothing to do with redefining a word. The word marriage, as defined in secular law, is a legal entity not a religious or social institution.

The alternative to applying that legal entity to include same sex couples is to immediately repeal hundreds of thousands of laws that use the word "marriage" and that would be extremely disruptive to society.

If you want the word "marriage" to be defined as "one man and one woman" then that word should not appear in any law (federal, state, or local) or any government or business form. Create a new term if you want, but then that new term must used exclusively in all laws and all forms. To base ANY law or policy on the genders of persons is Unconstitutional and an affront to the very concept of equality under law.

It is the fault of you dumb ass conservatives for using the word marriage in law in the first place. A religious or social institution should have no place in secular law. Now either solve the problem by changing the wording of hundreds of thousands of laws and forms, or define the secular, legal definition to include same sex couples.

Also, you are missing the point. Redefining a legal term to refine its borders is a common and legitimate practice. It is the legal industry's equivalent of refactoring. Redefining a word in colloquial language for the purpose of preventing clear communication and discussion of a topic, which is what the idiot in the op video is doing, is nothing more than Newspeak.

Renaming a thing does not change it's essence. Expanding the scope of secular marriage to include same-sex couples ends the current system's violations of the 14th Amendment. And what possible legal justification can there be for taxing same-sex couples more than heterosexual couples? Or denying them spousal benefits like survival benefits?

You do realize that you are hurting our troops by opposing marriage equality? There are gay soldiers who give their lives for your country and then their spouses don't get survival benefits simply because they have the same genitals as their spouse. That's fucking Unamerican. Why do you want to hurt our troops?

ah sez bullllllsheeeet!

The word 'marriage' has been redefined to have different meanings over the centuries....

http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

implying that Indig by virtue of precedent, has the right to redefine any word he wants...

Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Why not? Libbys did....

Dan8267 says

Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something

Marriage equality is about equal rights under law for all people. It has nothing to do with redefining a word.

more precedent to back Indigineous God given right to change word meanings:

say goodbye to the meaning of "sexual relations"...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/15-years-ago-bill-clintons-historic-denial/

say goodbye to the meaning of "is"

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

And Dan response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk_-XWpUFmU

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't care.

That sums up all of your comments...

Certainly all responses to your posts.

I listened to about 3.5 minutes of that guys video. He's a black and white thinker.

According to him, if you're willing to even consider 2 sides of an issue, you're evil and wrong.

If you think it's even worth questioning whether we give terrorists reasons to hate America you're evil and you're wrong.

If you are willing to even consider the history of what has happened to Palestinians in Isreal, and the possibility that they have legitimate grievances against Isreal, you're evil and you're wrong. He's the one who is surely willing to lie about that history.

If you're willing to even consider the possibility that Iraq might have been better off leaving Saddam in power, you're evil and you're wrong.

I listened to enough to hear him very clearly making the opposite of the case he wants to make about how liberals think.

He's right actually. Liberals think.

Dan8267 says

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very
least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify
as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the
contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs
of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources
with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that
is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be
evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent
individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse
liberalism as a value.

In the earlier stages of human evolution one of the main dangers facing people was to be kicked out of the group/herd and hence become vulnerable to being mauled by a predator or be destroyed by warriors of other tribes. Acting in a self centered manner increased the odds that people would be banished from the group and therefore face these risks.

Currently the risk of being abandoned and mauled by a predator does not really exist in our society. In fact the likeliest of predators that we face are other humans. Hence sharing resources actually increases the risk of adverse effects as it opens up the possibility of manipulators/schemers to take advantage of the altruistic target.

dublin hillz says

Hence sharing resources actually increases the risk of adverse effects as it opens up the possibility of manipulators/schemers to take advantage of the altruistic target.

Social safety nets hardly create a life of luxury and ease. Your analysis applies far more readily to the parasites at the top of the food chain:
- bailed out bankers and executives
- financial industry professionals committing white-collar crimes without the fear of legal reprisal
- giving tax breaks to corporations and/or letting corporations "relocate" to avoid taxes
- allowing lobbyists to openly bribe politicians
- granting corporations the same rights as people

marcus says

According to him, if you're willing to even consider 2 sides of an issue, you're evil and wrong.

If you think it's even worth questioning whether we give terrorists reasons to hate America you're evil and you're wrong.

If you are willing to even consider the history of what has happened to Palestinians in Isreal, and the possibility that they have legitimate grievances against Isreal, you're evil and you're wrong. He's the one who is surely willing to lie about that history.

If you're willing to even consider the possibility that Iraq might have been better off leaving Saddam in power, you're evil and you're wrong.

I listened to enough to hear him very clearly making the opposite of the case he wants to make about how liberals think.

He's right actually. Liberals think.

After 3.5 minutes...

Dan8267 says

- bailed out bankers and executives

- financial industry professionals committing white-collar crimes without the fear of legal reprisal

- giving tax breaks to corporations and/or letting corporations "relocate" to avoid taxes

- allowing lobbyists to openly bribe politicians

- granting corporations the same rights as people

And not once will it occur to Dan that this is all done through the government.

The guy is just claiming sour grapes because liberals have taken over the social and governmental apparatus. He wishes the neo cons controlled it so they could indoctrinate and make people do what they want.
Two sides of the same coin- battle over control of institutions and govt to force people to do what you want

smaulgld says

He wishes the neo cons controlled it so they could indoctrinate and make people do what they want.

What is the neo con agenda? Or blind spot?

"loss of critical thinking"

Iraq has WMD.

I wouldn't want "to have an opinion" so I'll just believe the Fucking Lie.

I think I'm turning Conservative.

marcus says

If you think it's even worth questioning whether we give terrorists reasons to hate America you're evil and you're wrong.

That's how the military industrial complex wants us all to think, he is just following what government wants him to do.

indigenous says

And not once will it occur to Dan that this is all done through the government.

Um honey, I know that government did that, or more specifically, the assholes jerks like you put in office did it.

The solution to bad government isn't anarchy. It's voting conservatives out of office.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

I have no idea what you're talking about,

That sums it up! Just another day on Patnet with Dan.

If I have no idea what you are talking about it is because you are being unintelligible.

Dan8267 says

It's voting conservatives out of office.

Conservatives generally want smaller government. You sure sound like a Democrat.

Dan8267 says

If I have no idea what you are talking about it is because you are being unintelligible.

I have no trouble following him, hell I even understand you and the Wogster, except you two are wrong.

indigenous says

Conservatives generally want smaller government.

Bullshit. The warfare industry, the police state, and the war on drugs all independently disprove that.

indigenous says

smaulgld says

He wishes the neo cons controlled it so they could indoctrinate and make people do what they want.

What is the neo con agenda? Or blind spot?

Neo con agenda?
Forced unopposed justification for wars against "terrororists" because america is "good"(increased military spending), forced defense of "moral" behavior" (drug war,teaching of anti promiscuity by the government) forced imposition of curriculum in school that does not teach progressive thought.

In short he wants the government to impose his view of the world and is pissed off the the liberals use it to impose theirs.

The solution isn't "protecting" traditional marriage or providing same sex marital rights but rather offering no state sponsored benefits or imposing penalties for being married or single. "Liberals" and "conservatives" then can do what they wish and not worry that they are supporting one another's life styles

I disagree that voting solves anything- conservatives win the ballot and ban gay marriage, liberals win and use the schools to teach gay marriage relativism.
Both ballot solutions just put the government moral stick and funding in the ideology that wins the most votes.

It comes down to contract law. The state should enforce contracts between consenting adults
The government should not provide special rights for those that have entered into contracts other than the rights provided in the contract
Ex:you buy a house- the government protects your ownership but shouldnt give you special tax treatment
You get married the government should protect your choice to have your affairs handed over to your spouse in case of incapacitation but not provide special tax breaks
All special rights and benefits emanating from government and its ability to enforce its will in wars (foreign, drug or otherwise) come from the very fact that the government has collected so much money in taxes that it has so much to fight over.
Begging or petitioning the government to respect or reject marital rights presupposes that government grants you these rights in the first place rather than respecting your own right to voluntarily arrange your own affairs as you see fit

It gets even more out of hand when both parties further petition the government to officially PROMOTE their marital choices. (DOMA/ teaching of same sex marriage in schools)

smaulgld says

In short he wants the government to impose his view of the world and is pissed off the the liberals use it to impose theirs

Wow you actually watched the video, thanks.

Fair enough, can't argue that the Rs don't have the war agenda. I don't remember him talking about the same sex marriage thing, but that is a R thing.

Blind spots, memes on both sides. The government dispensing either flavor as long as they get their vigorish, but at 18% of the GDP it is getting out of hand.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. The warfare industry, the police state, and the war on drugs all independently disprove that.

They will argue that "war is temporary", Hillary is as hawkish as McCain, O did not slow down on any war efforts.

The police state is more D than R. The war on drugs was sure as fuck continued by O, Holder and Fast and Furious, ring a bell?

indigenous says

The police state is more D than R.

Hardly. Democrats aren't liberals by any means, but Republicans are batshit crazy tyrants.

Dan8267 says

Hardly. Democrats aren't liberals by any means, but Republicans are batshit crazy tyrants.

As pointed out by Ryan, both sides are full of shit. BTW so are you.

I love the fact that you conservatives hate me. It shows how much you fear me.

Dan8267 says

I love the fact that you conservatives hate me. It shows how much you fear me.

Right, you live a weird world...

Ah denial, you like Worf are accustom to it.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/edflm7Hh3hs

Dan8267 says

Ah denial, you like Worf are accustom to it.

Like I said you live in weird world, I'm that one asking why?

Yes, humor must be an alien concept to a soulless old fart like you.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

Conservatives generally want smaller government.

Bullshit. The warfare industry, the police state, and the war on drugs all independently disprove that.

War on drugs isn't a bad war, I've seen plenty of people in my generation as well as next generation get hooked and have their lives screwed up. And many turn into homeless and crime, and it's us who have to see that suffering and pay for it.

I know you libbies like to smoke pot and other hard drugs, but you people sure as hell don't want to deal with consequences, you like taxpayers to deal with consequences of your irresponsibility. So as long as you people are irresponsible with drugs, there will and should be a war on them until you people learn to make smarter decisions in life.