Wisconsin

[KermieD]

Back to the statement I responded to, umm..no. Sorry bro, but just because you say it's so doesn't make it show and the modern situation demonstrate the absolute clarity of your error.

You made the incorrect statement, I responded. I'm not interested in your vast self-inflated "knowledge" of history that was foisted on you by your freshman professor when you were young, idealistic and didn't know any better. The fact is, you were making a comment on today's proponents and opponents of personal freedom and your comment was the absolute opposite of what is currently accurate, no matter what sort of outdated poli-sci 101 horsecrap you try to whip out of your pants.

I don't care what sort of idealistic crap you try to misdirect it to. I directly responded to your clearly inaccurate statement on today's situation. The skidmarks you left in backpedaling 200 years to try to take the focus off of your prior statement to defend liberalism in general is the very demonstration I was looking for to make my case and, in fact clearly shows that you've already ceded the same..

 

[seenred]

+1.....................

 

[ChipCurtis]

Back to the statement I responded to, umm..no. Sorry bro, but just because you say it's so doesn't make it show and the modern situation demonstrate the absolute clarity of your error.

You made the incorrect statement, I responded. I'm not interested in your vast self-inflated "knowledge" of history that was foisted on you by your freshman professor when you were young, idealistic and didn't know any better. The fact is, you were making a comment on today's proponents and opponents of personal freedom and your comment was the absolute opposite of what is currently accurate, no matter what sort of outdated poli-sci 101 horsecrap you try to whip out of your pants.

I don't care what sort of idealistic crap you try to misdirect it to. I directly responded to your clearly inaccurate statement on today's situation. The skidmarks you left in backpedaling 200 years to try to take the focus off of your prior statement to defend liberalism in general is the very demonstration I was looking for to make my case and, in fact clearly shows that you've already ceded the same..

You keep ranting on about today's situation as if it were written in stone on some 6000 year old stone tablet or papyrus scroll. Todays' situation is what it is, that's all.

Nothing you've said has negated my basic premise. I pointed out that politics evolves, and political parties evolve (if they don't die out), and you keep coming back with "nothing to do with today's politics". Well, sheesh dude, it doesn't need to have anything to do with today's politics. If that's all you can see, that's all you will ever get.

Sure, I can't change the way the current Democratic party does business, but being liberal at least allows me to see beyond the parameters of where certain (Republican) powers-that-be would like to keep me confined. That's what I'm in it for. How about you?

 

[KermieD]

You keep ranting on about today's situation as if it were written in stone on some 6000 year old stone tablet or papyrus scroll. Todays' situation is what it is, that's all.

Nothing you've said has negated my basic premise. I pointed out that politics evolves, and political parties evolve (if they don't die out), and you keep coming back with "nothing to do with today's politics". Well, sheesh dude, it doesn't need to have anything to do with today's politics. If that's all you can see, that's all you will ever get.

Sure, I can't change the way the current Democratic party does business, but being liberal at least allows me to see beyond the parameters of where certain (Republican) powers-that-be would like to keep me confined. That's what I'm in it for. How about you?

Completely incorrect. You started by saying conservatives oppose individual rights and liberals defend them. That is 100% incorrect, both historically and today. If, at this point in the discussion, you cannot wrap your head around that, it's clear that you will never learn the bare beginning of the concepts you try to claim a superior level of expertise on.

How far back do you want to go? I can take you back to the Whigs with examples of how you completely misunderstand the concept.

And, yet again. I'm willing to do that, but frankly I don't have to. You were talking about today and you continue to try to avoid taking ownership of your own statements by trying to backpedal through history, even though it keeps landing you on the same downhill slope regarding the veracity of your initial point of view.

At some point in time, it behooves you to just stop. I'm not sure where you're going to find that epiphany and get off of your knee-jerk reactionism, but in all seriousness, you need to actually look things up in order to defend your point of view head on instead of trying to sidestep every point you get beaten on by pissing your "history" and "where the Democratic Party is going today" all over the floor.

The facts remain the same and you've done nothing but completely avoid standing up and making a case for your original point. Imagine that. As a conservative, I'm staying on point...how about you?

 

[KermieD]

And, honestly, with your damn near sociopathic aversion to taking responsibility for your own initial statements and actions, I'm not sure I'm averse to them "keeping you confined."

Oh. By the way, in your passionate throes of denial, you still have not said one word in actual defense of your initial statement. YOU were the guy who started this with today's politics.

Right now, on the original table, the score is Kerm: 3 Chip: 0 because Chip seems to have forgotten which table he started the game on.

 

[ChipCurtis]

Completely incorrect. You started by saying conservatives oppose individual rights and liberals defend them. That is 100% incorrect, both historically and today.

Okay, for ease of comprehension, I'll just point out one blatant example that completely refutes your assertion.

1860 = Republican Party = liberal
Lincoln wants to abolish slavery. Individual rights for black people. A change in policy. Change = liberal.

1860 = Democratic Party = conservative
The party defends slavery. Wants to continue NO human rights for black people. Keep things the same, keep the status quo = conservative.

The point is, you look at things through the distorting prism of what the parties stand for at this moment in time. Granted, "this moment in time" has been going on for some 30 years, but still. It's an era.

 

[WerkIt]

You started by saying conservatives oppose individual rights

They do. See abortion. What more 'individual' a right does one have than to choose whether to have a child or not?

 

[DrSquishems]

Brand New to Vaping here, got myself a Titan from Totally wicked, and some juice from strictley ejuice, I smoked a pack and a half a day from over ten years and then I got this bad boy in the mail 2 weeks ago and havent smoked but 1 analog since, and that was just to see if i could tell a difference, I have just now ordered some of the johnson creek red oak and I am stoked to get it tommorow, just looking for anyone in Wisconsin that vapes so I dont feel like the only one!!!! peace from MILTON!!!!

 

[kristin]

Hey, Chip. Who are the ones pushing gun control? Who are the ones who passed the mandataroy seat belt law? Who are the ones who made it a primary ofense? Pushed for making trans fat illegal in New York? You have your ideologies reversed.

Conservativism = less government, less restriction.
Liberalism = more government involvement in your life, including regulation.

Liberalism isn't about personal freedom. Liberalism is about protecting the aggregate sum of society. This, by definition, only comes at the expense of the individual.

I'm honestly confused. Are you making a distinction between just conservative and "conservative christian?" Is there a difference I haven't seen?

Because it seems to me, the conservatives are the ones the most against individual rights? Aren't they the ones who want to tell people who they can legally marry (gay marriage) and how many kids they can have (abortion/birth control)? Are Replublicans pretty much presumed to be "conservative" and the favorite party of the christian right? Aren't conservatives more for corporations over the individual worker, since most rich people seem to be republican or "conservative?"

The whole party system is so confusing to me!

 

[KermieD]

Well, since I'm being moderated away from making the clear statements about the current state of events that were initially referred to by my opponent, I shall defer to the arguments that cannot stand on their own without the PTB interfering, only for the fact that I would like to exercise my freedom to access the latest coupon codes and auctions, which cannot be done once those who Chip would clearly call "conservatives" remove my access to the Suppliers Forum if I continue to comment on the state of things as they exist today and not 150 years ago.

 

[Daifne]

KermieD,
I have no idea how the moderators handled the situation, but I will tell you that I am the person that reported your post for the personal attack you made on "your opponent". That is against forum rules here as well as at many other forums, including the very large one I moderate. Your attack was uncalled for and unnecessary.

 

[harmony gardens]

So sad this kind of thing happens in a thread that is supposed to be a place for people to find places that will listen.

 

[ramsey2toes]

I live in wisconsin and vape...your not alone
Tracy