100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Does anyone know what the definition of a liberal is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? Maybe they want to have a book burning. that is the sense I get sometimes. IMO not a very liberal attitude I think Rose hits on something of an important point. The modern American Liberal isn't a liberal at all.. The modern American Liberal, best exemplified in the person of Barack Obama, sees the Jeffersonian liberal ideology as an impediment to his quest for power. Obama gave an interview back in 2001 where he characterized the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a charter of negative rights, one that outlined pricipally what government "couldn't do to you" rather than what government "must do on you behalf". The Jeffersonian Liberal felt the purpose of government was to champion and uphold individual rights by restricting the power of government. He understood that a government with too much power tramples the rights of the individual. The modern American liberal seeks to expand the power of government in order to "make things fair". This is in direct opposition to the ideology of the Jeffersonian Liberal. that's what I've said in the past as well. I know it's not all liberal because my sister is what I would call a true liberal. but from what I've seen from some people....they are only liberals when it agrees with their stance on things. I've said that before and I'm sure I'll be saying it in the future ...and only liberal when it comes to spending other peoples' money. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? Maybe they want to have a book burning. that is the sense I get sometimes. IMO not a very liberal attitude I think Rose hits on something of an important point. The modern American Liberal isn't a liberal at all.. The modern American Liberal, best exemplified in the person of Barack Obama, sees the Jeffersonian liberal ideology as an impediment to his quest for power. Obama gave an interview back in 2001 where he characterized the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a charter of negative rights, one that outlined pricipally what government "couldn't do to you" rather than what government "must do on you behalf". The Jeffersonian Liberal felt the purpose of government was to champion and uphold individual rights by restricting the power of government. He understood that a government with too much power tramples the rights of the individual. The modern American liberal seeks to expand the power of government in order to "make things fair". This is in direct opposition to the ideology of the Jeffersonian Liberal. that's what I've said in the past as well. I know it's not all liberal because my sister is what I would call a true liberal. but from what I've seen from some people....they are only liberals when it agrees with their stance on things. I've said that before and I'm sure I'll be saying it in the future ...and only liberal when it comes to spending other peoples' money.
I don't really get into economics much...but I would think that would probably be accurate since conservatives, in general, are tight wads....so the other side would be, in general free, spenders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? Maybe they want to have a book burning. that is the sense I get sometimes. IMO not a very liberal attitude I think Rose hits on something of an important point. The modern American Liberal isn't a liberal at all.. The modern American Liberal, best exemplified in the person of Barack Obama, sees the Jeffersonian liberal ideology as an impediment to his quest for power. Obama gave an interview back in 2001 where he characterized the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a charter of negative rights, one that outlined pricipally what government "couldn't do to you" rather than what government "must do on you behalf". The Jeffersonian Liberal felt the purpose of government was to champion and uphold individual rights by restricting the power of government. He understood that a government with too much power tramples the rights of the individual. The modern American liberal seeks to expand the power of government in order to "make things fair". This is in direct opposition to the ideology of the Jeffersonian Liberal. that's what I've said in the past as well. I know it's not all liberal because my sister is what I would call a true liberal. but from what I've seen from some people....they are only liberals when it agrees with their stance on things. I've said that before and I'm sure I'll be saying it in the future ...and only liberal when it comes to spending other peoples' money.
No, you are wrong there. They are liberal when it comes to sex and drugs also. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? Maybe they want to have a book burning. that is the sense I get sometimes. IMO not a very liberal attitude I think Rose hits on something of an important point. The modern American Liberal isn't a liberal at all.. The modern American Liberal, best exemplified in the person of Barack Obama, sees the Jeffersonian liberal ideology as an impediment to his quest for power. Obama gave an interview back in 2001 where he characterized the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a charter of negative rights, one that outlined pricipally what government "couldn't do to you" rather than what government "must do on you behalf". The Jeffersonian Liberal felt the purpose of government was to champion and uphold individual rights by restricting the power of government. He understood that a government with too much power tramples the rights of the individual. The modern American liberal seeks to expand the power of government in order to "make things fair". This is in direct opposition to the ideology of the Jeffersonian Liberal. that's what I've said in the past as well. I know it's not all liberal because my sister is what I would call a true liberal. but from what I've seen from some people....they are only liberals when it agrees with their stance on things. I've said that before and I'm sure I'll be saying it in the future ...and only liberal when it comes to spending other peoples' money.
No, you are wrong there. They are liberal when it comes to sex and drugs also. Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Wed 10/07/09 11:19 AM
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? Maybe they want to have a book burning. that is the sense I get sometimes. IMO not a very liberal attitude I think Rose hits on something of an important point. The modern American Liberal isn't a liberal at all.. The modern American Liberal, best exemplified in the person of Barack Obama, sees the Jeffersonian liberal ideology as an impediment to his quest for power. Obama gave an interview back in 2001 where he characterized the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a charter of negative rights, one that outlined pricipally what government "couldn't do to you" rather than what government "must do on you behalf". The Jeffersonian Liberal felt the purpose of government was to champion and uphold individual rights by restricting the power of government. He understood that a government with too much power tramples the rights of the individual. The modern American liberal seeks to expand the power of government in order to "make things fair". This is in direct opposition to the ideology of the Jeffersonian Liberal. that's what I've said in the past as well. I know it's not all liberal because my sister is what I would call a true liberal. but from what I've seen from some people....they are only liberals when it agrees with their stance on things. I've said that before and I'm sure I'll be saying it in the future ...and only liberal when it comes to spending other peoples' money.
No, you are wrong there. They are liberal when it comes to sex and drugs also. I do hope that you're joking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher.
I did say if it isn't hurting others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 10/07/09 11:27 AM
|
|
Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher.
I did say if it isn't hurting others. How does their being gay hurt anyone? Are you saying that homosexuality is wrong? And I must assume you are disgusted by David Letterman and Bill Clinton, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher.
I did say if it isn't hurting others. How does their being gay hurt anyone? Are you saying that homosexuality is wrong? And I must assume you are disgusted by David Letterman and Bill Clinton, right? Woah there. I never said being gay hurt anyone. I was responding to your comment about "any gay or adulterous conservative politican or preacher." As for Letterman and Clinton, their sex lives are not my issue. Stop assuming. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all very interesting... there are actually plenty of places in the bible where 'translation' of specific words are often debated. One kind of has to go with their God given common sense and their gut to figure out the most likely meanings from the content of the story surrounding it. It would be wrong to change the bible for the intent of supporting one side or another, it would be fine though to translate it (as people have already done hundreds of times) from its original text. The fact that it has been translated so many times makes figuring out likely meanings useless when looking for facts, no? First why would anyone assume that any of the bible is fact anyway? Written by man then manipulated by translation.. YOu say it's wrong to change the bible, but it's already been done hundreds of times. correction, I said its wrong to CHANGE the bible(meaning its meaning), not to translate it. We assume many translated documents are factual. There would be no global knowledge if we didnt give credit to translation. My only point was that thare are slight differences in the translations of some words that can make clear understanding difficult without knowing the full CONTEXT of the material. for instance, I work in travel and have to use translation software quite often for vendors and customers who speak in foreign language, there will sometimes be words, that once translated to english, dont seem to make sense. In those cases, I have to use the context of the material, and decide what DOES make sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher.
I did say if it isn't hurting others. How does their being gay hurt anyone? Are you saying that homosexuality is wrong? And I must assume you are disgusted by David Letterman and Bill Clinton, right? Woah there. I never said being gay hurt anyone. I was responding to your comment about "any gay or adulterous conservative politican or preacher." As for Letterman and Clinton, their sex lives are not my issue. Stop assuming. Now I'm confused. You said "Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others?" and insist that when a conservative commits adultery, it hurts their families. Since they are hurting their families, you care. But somehow, when Letterman and Clinton commit adultery, it's not your issue? Oh, I get it. Operative word: Conservative. Conservatives are held to a different standard than leftists. Make's sense now, sometimes you just have to talk it out... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher.
I did say if it isn't hurting others. How does their being gay hurt anyone? Are you saying that homosexuality is wrong? And I must assume you are disgusted by David Letterman and Bill Clinton, right? Woah there. I never said being gay hurt anyone. I was responding to your comment about "any gay or adulterous conservative politican or preacher." As for Letterman and Clinton, their sex lives are not my issue. Stop assuming. Now I'm confused. You said "Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others?" and insist that when a conservative commits adultery, it hurts their families. Since they are hurting their families, you care. But somehow, when Letterman and Clinton commit adultery, it's not your issue? Oh, I get it. Operative word: Conservative. Conservatives are held to a different standard than leftists. Make's sense now, sometimes you just have to talk it out... Is it my job to go around and get mad at all those who are cheating on someone? No. Would I be upset if someone cheated on me? Yes. Do I care what people are doing in their bedrooms if they are not bothering me? No. What standard are conservatives held to that is different than others? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? Maybe they want to have a book burning. that is the sense I get sometimes. IMO not a very liberal attitude I think Rose hits on something of an important point. The modern American Liberal isn't a liberal at all.. The modern American Liberal, best exemplified in the person of Barack Obama, sees the Jeffersonian liberal ideology as an impediment to his quest for power. Obama gave an interview back in 2001 where he characterized the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a charter of negative rights, one that outlined pricipally what government "couldn't do to you" rather than what government "must do on you behalf". The Jeffersonian Liberal felt the purpose of government was to champion and uphold individual rights by restricting the power of government. He understood that a government with too much power tramples the rights of the individual. The modern American liberal seeks to expand the power of government in order to "make things fair". This is in direct opposition to the ideology of the Jeffersonian Liberal. that's what I've said in the past as well. I know it's not all liberal because my sister is what I would call a true liberal. but from what I've seen from some people....they are only liberals when it agrees with their stance on things. I've said that before and I'm sure I'll be saying it in the future ...and only liberal when it comes to spending other peoples' money.
No, you are wrong there. They are liberal when it comes to sex and drugs also.  More freedoms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? Maybe they want to have a book burning. that is the sense I get sometimes. IMO not a very liberal attitude I think Rose hits on something of an important point. The modern American Liberal isn't a liberal at all.. The modern American Liberal, best exemplified in the person of Barack Obama, sees the Jeffersonian liberal ideology as an impediment to his quest for power. Obama gave an interview back in 2001 where he characterized the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a charter of negative rights, one that outlined pricipally what government "couldn't do to you" rather than what government "must do on you behalf". The Jeffersonian Liberal felt the purpose of government was to champion and uphold individual rights by restricting the power of government. He understood that a government with too much power tramples the rights of the individual. The modern American liberal seeks to expand the power of government in order to "make things fair". This is in direct opposition to the ideology of the Jeffersonian Liberal.  This country used to have some serious human rights issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said...
Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? I replied... That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher. You replied to my reply...
I did say if it isn't hurting others. This is a tacit admission that you "care" what a conservative politician or preacher does in their own home / privacy. I'm sorry, it's not fair for me to back you into a corner like that, but your statements do seem to conflict here. Either you care or you don't. If you don't, then what did you mean by "I did say if it isn't hurting others."? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said... Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? I replied... That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher. You replied to my reply...
I did say if it isn't hurting others. This is a tacit admission that you "care" what a conservative politician or preacher does in their own home / privacy. I'm sorry, it's not fair for me to back you into a corner like that, but your statements do seem to conflict here. Either you care or you don't. If you don't, then what did you mean by "I did say if it isn't hurting others."? You are assuming again. If someone wants to have sex with someone of the same sex, I don't care. If someone wants to smoke pot in their own house, not around me, I don't care. What a conservative politician or preacher is doing in their own home, as long as it's win consenting adults, is none of my business. Please stop trying to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said... Do you mean that they don't care what a person does in their own home/privacy if it isn't hurting others? I replied... That's not true. Ask any gay or adulterous Conservative politician or preacher. You replied to my reply...
I did say if it isn't hurting others. This is a tacit admission that you "care" what a conservative politician or preacher does in their own home / privacy. I'm sorry, it's not fair for me to back you into a corner like that, but your statements do seem to conflict here. Either you care or you don't. If you don't, then what did you mean by "I did say if it isn't hurting others."? You are assuming again. If someone wants to have sex with someone of the same sex, I don't care. If someone wants to smoke pot in their own house, not around me, I don't care. What a conservative politician or preacher is doing in their own home, as long as it's win consenting adults, is none of my business. Please stop trying to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not. Even though I quoted you, you didn't say it. Gotcha! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? For pete sakes, where did you get the idea that anyone wanted to ban this new bible. People should be concerned about it if they intend to make it a text book for public schools, but no one is talking about banning it. You don't even have to read it to be concerned that changing it's wording to make it fit some conservative ideal, is not cool. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does one group making a new Bible hurt others???? just don't read it. we aren't seriously suggesting banning this are we? For pete sakes, where did you get the idea that anyone wanted to ban this new bible. People should be concerned about it if they intend to make it a text book for public schools, but no one is talking about banning it. You don't even have to read it to be concerned that changing it's wording to make it fit some conservative ideal, is not cool. for pete sake...I asked a question...not made za statement in that. even if these people wanted to make it as a text book...do you really think it will be allowed??? people sue over songs taught in schools and people will sue because someone looked at them the wrong way. just because they want to make it a text...doesn't mean it will be. I, for one would, be protesting it myself since it should be kept in private schools not public. but then again...you don't think the religion is cool any way...so??? that is your choice...not mine. but I don't insult or offend others that believe in other religions either...that's just me |
|
|
|
|
