|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
bhelliom
|
|
response 180 of 404:
| 
Jan 2 19:42 UTC 2006 |
If you're talking about definition of a Classical Liberal, as opposed to
an american liberal or economic liberal, which most folks these days
refer to as a classical liberal outside of academic context, it refers
to the belief in the government role to defend individual freedom and
personal property and a defesnive rather than interventionit,
government. Probably closer to Libertarianism as opposed to modern
liberalism.
Is that what you wanted to know, klg?
klg, you whine about people insulting you and detracting from the
argument, and then you do the same thing. Make up your mind. You
continue on the track you've been on lately, and you'll be the one no
one pays attention to.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 181 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:48 UTC 2006 |
The Ottawa treaty would prohibit the use of the claymor with a tripwire,
but not a claymor that was detonated by hand.
Some land mines, like the ones the US Army uses, self-detonate.
Perhaps we can get a treaty to prohibit people from using guns in war.
Reminds me of a Star Trek episode where war was simply a computer
simulation and casualties were required to report to death chambers.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 182 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:51 UTC 2006 |
I think I remember that episode.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 183 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:51 UTC 2006 |
Not when it first aired, of course.
|
keesan
|
|
response 184 of 404:
|
Jan 2 22:03 UTC 2006 |
Guns don't get left behind buried in fields and self-detonate years later.
|
cross
|
|
response 185 of 404:
|
Jan 2 22:53 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 186 of 404:
|
Jan 3 14:54 UTC 2006 |
There are a number of different types of anti-personnel land
mines. "Anti-personnel" just means they're not designed to disable a
vehicle.
They're not intended to kill anyone. In military terms, it's much more
effective to disable someone because it costs the other side manpower
and resources (money) to deal with an injured soldier. So, a year or 5
years after the military situation has changed, when a child steps on a
landmine while playing soccer in an abandoned minefield, it blows off
his foot and then the kid's family has to deal with a disabled child
and the kid has a ruined life.
|
klg
|
|
response 187 of 404:
|
Jan 3 17:09 UTC 2006 |
Here's a story about a "liberal" of the Curl variety:
from the WSJ OpinionJournal.com
Prejudice
Black Republicans should be able to live without fear.
BY TED HAYES
Monday, January 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
American blacks who are affiliated with the Republican Party are
vigorously vilified by Democrats, especially black Democrats. Uncle
Tom, sell-out, Oreo--the list of slurs is long.
But it is not only insults. I am the founder and director of a unique,
progressive homeless facility in downtown Los Angeles, known as the
Dome Village. Yet the 35 men, women and children and their pets who
call the Dome Village home are being "evicted" from privately owned
property after 12 1/2 years--apparently on account of my political
beliefs and activities. You see, though I am a leading homeless
activist, I am also a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of
President Bush.
Here's how the situation played out. Recently, I was invited to address
a local Republican Women's Club; my landlord read an article in the
local paper reporting on the event. Soon after, I received a notice
raising the Dome Village rent from $2,500 a month to $18,330. Shocked,
I inquired as to the seriousness of the change, and the property owner
blurted out that the cause of our "eviction" was "because you are
Republican." He said that as a Democrat, he was tired of helping me and
the Dome Village. In other words, let the homeless be damned.
And people think the Democrats are the party of compassion and
tolerance.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 188 of 404:
|
Jan 3 17:44 UTC 2006 |
KLG is nuts. I would support this Republican's charitable activity. I just
wouldn't vote for him if his politics follow those of Bush et al. (I am
surprised, though, that he isn't already receiving grief from his fellow
Republicans for doing a liberal thing - being charitable.)
|
klg
|
|
response 189 of 404:
|
Jan 3 17:49 UTC 2006 |
Do you also support the liberal charitable "activity" of the Democratic
landlord??
|
rcurl
|
|
response 190 of 404:
|
Jan 3 17:53 UTC 2006 |
Of raising the rent as "retaliation". No, I don't support any
vindictiveness. Remember? I'm a Liberal.
liberal (adj). 1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart;
bountiful. 2. Appropriate or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3.
Free from narrowness, bigotry, or bondage to authority or creed, as in
religion; inclined to democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to
monarchical or aristocratic, as in politics; broad, popular, progressive.
illiberal (adj.). 1. Not liberal; not generous in giving; parsimonious. 2.
Narrow-minded. 3. Lacking breadth of culture; hence, vulgar.
|
richard
|
|
response 191 of 404:
|
Jan 3 18:04 UTC 2006 |
klg is also quoting a wall street journal op-ed column, not a news
story but a column. There is a big difference. And a column from a
very conservative newspaper at that.
|
edina
|
|
response 192 of 404:
|
Jan 3 18:24 UTC 2006 |
Re 190 Would you suggest calling klg an illiberal as opposed to a
conservative?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 193 of 404:
|
Jan 3 20:07 UTC 2006 |
how about a theocratic corporatist?
|
klg
|
|
response 194 of 404:
|
Jan 3 20:10 UTC 2006 |
Richard Lies. The Wall Street Journal is a liberal newspaper with a
conservative editorial page.
|
cross
|
|
response 195 of 404:
|
Jan 3 21:06 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 196 of 404:
|
Jan 3 23:13 UTC 2006 |
I am conservative. klg is a republican.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 197 of 404:
|
Jan 3 23:25 UTC 2006 |
corporatist, not republican.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 198 of 404:
|
Jan 3 23:30 UTC 2006 |
Is there a difference anymore?
|
richard
|
|
response 199 of 404:
|
Jan 4 00:05 UTC 2006 |
klg is not a republican, he is a monarchist.
|
twenex
|
|
response 200 of 404:
|
Jan 4 00:09 UTC 2006 |
No, he's a theocrat. (Monarchists rule "by the grace of God". Theocrats think
they ARE God.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 201 of 404:
|
Jan 4 07:31 UTC 2006 |
Do you think maybe we could stop feeding the troll by talking about him all
the time?
|
slynne
|
|
response 202 of 404:
|
Jan 4 13:55 UTC 2006 |
I know! Especially when we could be talking about more important
things....LIKE ME!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 203 of 404:
|
Jan 4 18:44 UTC 2006 |
slynne is the monarcist of her house.
|
slynne
|
|
response 204 of 404:
|
Jan 4 19:36 UTC 2006 |
It's true!
|