|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
scholar
|
|
response 440 of 526:
| 
Mar 7 22:22 UTC 2006 |
whoa!
the geese are coming back!
flying over my house right now!
|
richard
|
|
response 441 of 526:
|
Mar 7 22:23 UTC 2006 |
very true, the NRA was once a gentlemanly hunter's club, but now it has become
a VERY conservative all purpose right wing political action committee.
|
crimson
|
|
response 442 of 526:
|
Mar 7 22:58 UTC 2006 |
Re #438: What about the conservatives who don't "see life as dictated by the
scriptures"? Or those who think portions of their scriptures are open to
interpretation?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 443 of 526:
|
Mar 7 23:30 UTC 2006 |
scholar, watch out for the birdflu poops.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 444 of 526:
|
Mar 8 00:11 UTC 2006 |
Re 441: Care to back that up with facts?
|
twenex
|
|
response 445 of 526:
|
Mar 8 00:26 UTC 2006 |
"More liberal" than conservatives would like is generally good no matter what
definition you choose to pick up on.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 446 of 526:
|
Mar 8 00:49 UTC 2006 |
Re #426: F 911 and Columbine are NOT "some examples of political liberals
not following the definition of liberal". They are documentaries that
cover a wide range of topics and events. Which specific event was not
based in, and which liberal depicted was not acting according to the
definition of liberal?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 447 of 526:
|
Mar 8 01:03 UTC 2006 |
F911 and Columbine are examples of Liberals not following the definition
of liberal. Michael Moore already had his mind made up when he began
making these movies. It wasn't "lets do some research and find out". It
was "I'm going to show the world why I am right". If that isn't
closed-mindedness, I don't know what is.
|
slynne
|
|
response 448 of 526:
|
Mar 8 01:06 UTC 2006 |
A documentary does not have to be objective.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 449 of 526:
|
Mar 8 01:09 UTC 2006 |
STILL no examples of "political liberals not following the definition of
liberal"! The conservatives here are struggling very hard, and obviously,
to avoid the question!
|
kingjon
|
|
response 450 of 526:
|
Mar 8 01:09 UTC 2006 |
But a documentary is supposed to be based in fact -- after all, it's a
DOCUMENTary ("document" being used as a verb).
|
kingjon
|
|
response 451 of 526:
|
Mar 8 01:11 UTC 2006 |
Curl slipped. (I believe the point klg, or whoever, was trying to make is that
the filmmaker Moore is such a one, and was avoiding naming present company.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 452 of 526:
|
Mar 8 01:15 UTC 2006 |
I'm not talking about those movies fitting a definition of documentary.
I'm talking about the closed-mindedness of the liberal moviemaker
involved. He not only acted contrary to the definition of liberal, he
misinformed others so that they would be unable to act liberally.
By the way, Rane, your silly taunts, even after having been given
examples, only serve to make you look more like RW and KLG. Are you
going to begin putting banners above and below your posts too?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 453 of 526:
|
Mar 8 01:15 UTC 2006 |
But what did Moore do that did not follow the definition of a liberal? He
was
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.
and not
illiberal (adj.). 1. Not liberal; not generous in giving; parsimonious. 2.
Narrow-minded. 3. Lacking breadth of culture; hence, vulgar.
|
gull
|
|
response 454 of 526:
|
Mar 8 02:04 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:442: I don't think they have much pull in the Republican Party
as it's currently run.
|
keesan
|
|
response 455 of 526:
|
Mar 8 02:58 UTC 2006 |
Rane, you should post your definition somewhere and just give the URL instead
of repeating it. Even I am getting tired of reading it.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 456 of 526:
|
Mar 8 04:07 UTC 2006 |
According to Merriam Webster, you can add "broad-minded" to the
definition of liberal. I believe Michael Moore was narrow-minded in his
making of Bowling for Columbine. For example, he tries to show (and
fails miserably) how firearms were used to supress minorities, but does
not show how minorities were able to use firearms to protect themselves
from racist violence. He attempts to portray the NRA as a racist
organization, but casually ignores the mountain of evidence to the
contrary....facts like a majority of the NRA's first presidents were
former Union military generals, including Grant...or other facts like
some of the first NRA chapters in the south were formed by blacks. When
Moore was displaying statistics of firearm-related homocides in various
countries he used different criteria, and data from different years. For
USA statistics he included accidental firearm deaths and cases of
justifiable homocide.
I can go on and on and on... But the fact still remains that GUESS WHAT:
Narrow-mindedness is a trait found in liberal extremists as well as
conservative extremists.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 457 of 526:
|
Mar 8 05:56 UTC 2006 |
Excuse me...but when "firearms were used to supress minorities" it was an
oppression of civil rights, while when "minorities were able to use
firearms to protect themselves" it was justifiable self defense, but what
has this to do with Moore's liberal credentials?
And all I recall of his portrayal of the NRA was their support of easy
access to guns, to the extent they were given away as gifts for opening a
bank account, and the US has the highest level of gun violence in the
civilized world. And how was omitting NRA chapters formed by blacks of any
particular significance in regard to Moore's liberal credentials?
You are arguing against perhaps some sloppy and even slanted episode
choices, but none of that detracts from his liberal credentials. Which
element in the definition of liberal are you claiming he violated?
Re #455: then don't read it.
|
twenex
|
|
response 458 of 526:
|
Mar 8 13:23 UTC 2006 |
I can believe that MM is narrow-minded in some ways, but that doesn't mean
I have to disagree with his politics.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 459 of 526:
|
Mar 8 13:37 UTC 2006 |
> Which element in the definition of liberal are you claiming he
> violated?
Did you even read the first sentence of what you were responding to? Or
other posts where I said that Michael Moore violated the BROAD-MINDED
definition of liberal.
Here is it again: Michael Moore violated the BROAD-MINDED definition of
liberal.
The proof is that one can conclude that his "documentaries" were not
BROAD-MINDED, but very NARROW-MINDED constructs based on his perception
BEFORE he began investigating. I mean, if a detective was investigating
a murder and had already made up his mind about who the murderer was
before finding any evidence, and focused said investigation on solely
finding evidence against said suspect, would you consider him BROAD-
MINDED, or NARROW-MINDED?
> I can believe that MM is narrow-minded in some ways, but that doesn't
> mean I have to disagree with his politics.
That isn't the point. I am simply refuting Rane's statement about there
not being any liberals who don't fit the definition of liberal.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 460 of 526:
|
Mar 8 16:54 UTC 2006 |
I disagree with your characterization of MM as "narrow-minded". He
performed a broad-minded public service by bringing the behavior of the
NRA to public notice. What nharmon wrote in #459 failed to be specific in
providing any evidence, just an accusation, in answering the question of "
Which element in the definition of liberal are you claiming he violated?"
- it was just a diatribe about indefinite accusations of mindedness.
If you want narrow-mindedness, just look to the NRA itself.
|
klg
|
|
response 461 of 526:
|
Mar 8 17:34 UTC 2006 |
(Reading through these posts, I have had a difficult time containing my
laughter.)
Curl - Before I waste more time responding to your questions, please
tell us what you define as a "political liberal." I don't know if you
mean elected/appointed government officials or people who are directly
involved in elections as candidates or people who are involved in
elections, but not as candidates or advisors to any of the previous
groups or people who are involve in organizations that attempt to
influence public opinion or people who individually attempt to
influence public opinion or etc.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 462 of 526:
|
Mar 8 18:21 UTC 2006 |
I intended to mean persons elected to office. Those are who the
right-wingers are usually attacking as "liberals". The question is, what
specific violations of the definition of "liberal" have been committed by
elected officials others have identified as liberal and who accept that
designation? This is to find the extent to which the dictionary definition
of "liberal" applies as used and accepted.
|
richard
|
|
response 463 of 526:
|
Mar 8 18:39 UTC 2006 |
You know there are also "liberal republicans", although that wing of the GOP
is admittedly dying. Lowell Weicker, the former Connecticut Senator, was a
liberal republican.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 464 of 526:
|
Mar 8 18:56 UTC 2006 |
Stupid comments like #460 really annoy me. He says I failed to point
out specific examples in 459, when THEY'RE IN FUCKING #456!
Rane, you are a perfect example of a closed-minded liberal. You ask
people to cite things, and then totally ignore them when they do. You
go even further, and ATTACK people for not giving you examples, when
they HAVE.
Instead of trying to boast liberalism, why don't you teach by example?
|