Sketchiness on Wikipedia

[bishop]

agreed...

morgan.. that definition of yours qualifies as absurd.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: bishop agreed... morgan.. that definition of yours qualifies as absurd.

What's absurd about it?

[bishop]

the blatantly visible bias of your definition is what makes it absurd to me. not to mention that it's entirely focused on material/financial wealth/status.. where does the liberal-inspired civil rights movement (focused on ending segregation, amongst other things) fit into this narrow definition of yours? liberals also tend to be pro-choice, which means that they're opposed to handing over power to the government to make decisions about what a woman can/cannot do with/to her own body.. that doesn't fit into your narrow definition either - in fact, it seems diametrically opposed to it.

[lsbskins1]

It is absurd for the same reason this is absurd:

Libertarian - a system of unaccountable private tyranny.

Though I believe with all of my heart that this is an accurate discription of where the brand of Libertainism expounded by many on this board will lead, it does not accurately contain the meaning of libertainian principle as it was conceived nor does it reflect the intentions of those who practice, even if it does, in fact, define the consequences of their stated policy choices.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Apeman81 Right to bear arms? (not by a long shot) Freedom of Speech? (as long as its PC) States Rights? (as long as the vote goes their way. If not, shop for a federal judge and stymie the will of the people) Freedom of religion? (as long as your very quiet, don't use your religious beliefs to decide who or what to vote for, and don't say Christ's name aloud) C'mon now! The modern special interest driven, single issue "liberal" is an outrageous deterioration from the Liberal that gave birth to the wikipedia definition. That's obvious

I'd have to agree. I remind everyone once again that I hate all political persuasions equally. But it seems that liberals want to force people to change the very way they think. If this isn't intrusion, I don't know what is. Certain groups are told to sit down and shut up while others are urged to be a general bawdy annoyance. I don't care for double standards. I also don't care for the manipulation of the political process on either side. I think on all points you hit the nail on the head. I really don't care for guns at all, but if you're going to claim to be totally for liberty, then you can't turn around and restrict something that is expressly enumerated in the Constitution.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: bishop the blatantly visible bias of your definition is what makes it absurd to me. not to mention that it's entirely focused on material/financial wealth/status.. where does the liberal-inspired civil rights movement (focused on ending segregation, amongst other things) fit into this narrow definition of yours?

The solution to segregation was not an increase in liberty. Instead, they outlawed private discrimination at the federal level. Clearly, liberals dont want anyone to have the liberty to discriminate.

Quote by: bishop liberals also tend to be pro-choice, which means that they're opposed to handing over power to the government to make decisions about what a woman can/cannot do with/to her own body.. that doesn't fit into your narrow definition either - in fact, it seems diametrically opposed to it.

Not at all. It simply depends on whether you consider the fetus to have legal rights as a human or not. Pro-lifers want liberty for the baby.

[belverron]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The solution to segregation was not an increase in liberty. Instead, they outlawed private discrimination at the federal level. Clearly, liberals dont want anyone to have the liberty to discriminate.

So we sacrifice liberty of conduct for liberty of opportunity--it's not a one-sided deal.

Do you honestly want to live in a world where blacks, women, and gays are discriminated against by their own government?

[bishop]

Quote by: morgan The solution to segregation was not an increase in liberty. Instead, they outlawed private discrimination at the federal level. Clearly, liberals dont want anyone to have the liberty to discriminate.

discrimination impedes on the constitutional rights of other americans.. you don't have a right to discriminate, and being able to discriminate on the basis of skin color is a pitiful example of what it means to exercise liberty.

Quote by: morgan Not at all. It simply depends on whether you consider the fetus to have legal rights as a human or not. Pro-lifers want liberty for the baby.

or, i could just use your logic and say that pro-lifers want the state to have dominion over a woman's body.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: belverron So we sacrifice liberty of conduct for liberty of opportunity--it's not a one-sided deal. Do you honestly want to live in a world where blacks, women, and gays are discriminated against by their own government?

No, I want to live in a world where I can choose to associate with people I choose -- not people the government dictates to me.

The Civil Rights Act affects what we as private individuals can do, not just the government.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: bishop discrimination impedes on the constitutional rights of other americans.. you don't have a right to discriminate, and being able to discriminate on the basis of skin color is a pitiful example of what it means to exercise liberty.

Well I wholeheartedly disagree. I say you have a very shallow understanding of the constitution.

Quote by: bishop or, i could just use your logic and say that pro-lifers want the state to have dominion over a woman's body.

Why in the world would they want that?

[bishop]

Quote by: morgan Well I wholeheartedly disagree. I say you have a very shallow understanding of the constitution.

sure i do..

Quote by: morgan Why in the world would they want that?

dunno, but that's what pro-lifers want - a government mandated change to current law so that the government can prevent women from having safe/legal abortions. the government would be taking their freedom of choice away.

but i digress, i said this before but it bears repeating:

Quote by: bishop clearly, you can't look at this definition in any other way than behind your political prejudices..

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: bishop dunno, but that's what pro-lifers want - a government mandated change to current law so that the government can prevent women from having safe/legal abortions. the government would be taking their freedom of choice away.

While protecting the freedom of the unborn child. So the issue may be freedom-neutral, but it certainly isn't a decrease in freedom to outlaw abortion.

[bishop]

it's a decrease in freedom as far as the woman's concerned.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: bishop it's a decrease in freedom as far as the woman's concerned.

But the woman isn't the only one involved, is she?

[bishop]

it is her body, not the state's..

[McAiden]

Liberals are very spoiled children of the 1960's who made a decision, based primarily on the support of their college instructors, to protest just about everything and every way America lived: Chomsky is still their Bible today.

They don't believe there's a God, that we just live and die, gooone.
They don't believe The Church is necessary, thank you, they have all the answers: Nature, education, themselves. They want the church gone while they still live, nevermind a gradual understanding may be healthier.

They don't, honestly, think a "family" is necessary. The "return to the family" and the rediscovery of discipline of children was fought by conservative religionists during the 1990's by new non-dominational religions coming together with fundamentalists, supporting one another in a number of progams.

They think women should dress any way they please, and use this sexiness to intimate men. Stand near one and you may get a surgery-made chest in your face, along with surgery-made face, mid-drift, belly and but. Many liberals have sex addictions, which did not survive the 12 steps

They say they are against war but don't believe it. What they do want is a return to power as it is unacceptable to them they don't get to finish what they started, which of course requires a Dem Administration. They are totally maddened by George Bush, who still sticks to his convictions.

There are some things wrong about the above, some right. That's, however, the way it is. If you think many of these people have changed during the past 46 years, think again. They are not on the side of America, even though America has grown, changed. To say they want "liberty" is ridiculous, they want free stuff because most have lived off their parents for too long - they may currently wish for retirement funds.

Wikipedia is written by people who want to prove a point by sending others there for information.

[bishop]

what nonsense...

Quote by: mcaiden To say they want "liberty" is ridiculous, they want free stuff because most have lived off their parents for too long - they may currently wish for retirement funds.

so, liberals are the ones who support the patiot act, which is an undeniable restriction on civil liberties? funny, i always thought that it was the "conservatives" who supported limiting freedomes in the interests of enlarging the police state.

[McAiden]

bishop, it's difficult to think liberals actually think the Patriot Act "limits freedom of Americans" by enlarging the police state. We are at war, and liberals hate Bush. They want him to fail, period. So, are liberals exposing our war secrets to punish Bush? It just really does seem that's true.

[bishop]

does the patriot act impede upon civil liberties or not? yes, it does. who vociferously supports the patriot act - "liberals" or "conservatives"? the "conservatives" do.

reciting the "we are at war" mantra doesn't invalidate the fact that the patriot act limits civil liberty.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: belverron So we sacrifice liberty of conduct for liberty of opportunity--it's not a one-sided deal.

How does "liberty of opportunity" exist? (No, this is not a loaded question.)

Quote by: belverron Do you honestly want to live in a world where blacks, women, and gays are discriminated against by their own government?

No, I do not.

Of course, if there were no government, there would be no government discrimination either. (If this is too polemical, I apologize. That is not my intention.)

- Rob