Liberal Forum

Now that the board is firmly in control of conservative posters......I've been a little caustic and insulting to the lunatic left during the prior 4 years and will try to modify the tone of my posts to one of pity and humor at their follies.
I can't guarantee anything though, sometimes they get so friggin' stupid, I can't stand it.

I don't know...I try so hard to reach out to the Pedo=Progs, Rinos and Pootin Sniffers but they just can't relate to normal everyday common sense.

They also don't relate to kindness and understanding like normal people do....and normal people do have a visceral reaction to their absolute degeneracy so that is a hard limit to most right there.

They just can't get past the election and the extreme *** beating they received in the 2024 "2 Big 2 Rig" election.

Oh...there I go rambling again (Humpity Bumpity)

RebelGator » Today, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:28 am

Now that the board is firmly in control of conservative posters......I've been a little caustic and insulting to the lunatic left during the prior 4 years and will try to modify the tone of my posts to one of pity and humor at their follies.
I can't guarantee anything though, sometimes they get so friggin' stupid, I can't stand it.

Trying to debate a liberal, especially one like BV, is like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it’ll just knock over the pieces, poop on the board, and strut around like it won.

Vegas » Today, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:36 pm

Trying to debate a liberal, especially one like BV, is like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it’ll just knock over the pieces, poop on the board, and strut around like it won.

I have yet to come across a liberal who can actually debate. I think the reason this is so is because most liberals do not have a core set of values.

If I were a liberal and wanted to engage in honest debate, I would first define my core set of values. It would be something like this:

• I favor collectivism over individualism - this means that, as a nation, all citizens must have the same culture and core understanding of what is important (note, this is inconsistent with open immigration)
• While I believe in reward based on merit, I do not believe that should translate to a dollar-for-dollar pay-off for those more capable than others.
• Society must have a "safety net" for people who cannot survive or thrive on their own.  The safety net should be set at............(some defined amount)
• I favor reward over punishment.  This means I do not believe in penalizing any criminal with incarcerations greater than 5 years. And, we should put a lot of resources in rehabilitating those who break our laws.
• I favor some totalitarian laws over freedom.  This means that as a nation, recreational drug use can't be tolerated.  Speech must be regulated.  Lethal defense of self cannot be permitted. 
• Rape and murder are just other crimes, for which punishment cannot exceed 5 years. Also, like England, once criminals complete their punnishment, they will be given new identities and jobs which will allow them to survive and start over.

So, if a liberal really does have a core set of values, not just political positions as defined by Progs and Democrats, they would be able to debate more effectively.  The biggest problem is that the political positions of Progs and Democrats are a hodgepodge of highly inconsistent political positions.  They try to be too inclusive for purely political reasons.  This makes what they say contradictory, hypocritical and easy to defeat in a genuine debate.
 

Skans » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

I have yet to come across a liberal who can actually debate. I think the reason this is so is because most liberals do not have a core set of values.

If I were a liberal and wanted to engage in honest debate, I would first define my core set of values. It would be something like this:

• I favor collectivism over individualism - this means that, as a nation, all citizens must have the same culture and core understanding of what is important (note, this is inconsistent with open immigration)
• While I believe in reward based on merit, I do not believe that should translate to a dollar-for-dollar pay-off for those more capable than others.
• Society must have a "safety net" for people who cannot survive or thrive on their own.  The safety net should be set at............(some defined amount)
• I favor reward over punishment.  This means I do not believe in penalizing any criminal with incarcerations greater than 5 years. And, we should put a lot of resources in rehabilitating those who break our laws.
• I favor some totalitarian laws over freedom.  This means that as a nation, recreational drug use can't be tolerated.  Speech must be regulated.  Lethal defense of self cannot be permitted. 
• Rape and murder are just other crimes, for which punishment cannot exceed 5 years. Also, like England, once criminals complete their punnishment, they will be given new identities and jobs which will allow them to survive and start over.

So, if a liberal really does have a core set of values, not just political positions as defined by Progs and Democrats, they would be able to debate more effectively.  The biggest problem is that the political positions of Progs and Democrats are a hodgepodge of highly inconsistent political positions.  They try to be too inclusive for purely political reasons.  This makes what they say contradictory, hypocritical and easy to defeat in a genuine debate.

Why debate when they can lie and create elaborate hoaxes to further their agenda. I believe liberalism is a mental disorder that even manifests itself in areas of the brain that regulate a person's sexual desires, principles, and common sense. For example, no liberal will define what a woman is because doing so would be proof we are all NOT the same and that runs contrary to their collective brain set and destroys any debate at the beginning. 

 

Skans » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

I have yet to come across a liberal who can actually debate. I think the reason this is so is because most liberals do not have a core set of values.

If I were a liberal and wanted to engage in honest debate, I would first define my core set of values. It would be something like this:

• I favor collectivism over individualism - this means that, as a nation, all citizens must have the same culture and core understanding of what is important (note, this is inconsistent with open immigration)
• While I believe in reward based on merit, I do not believe that should translate to a dollar-for-dollar pay-off for those more capable than others.
• Society must have a "safety net" for people who cannot survive or thrive on their own.  The safety net should be set at............(some defined amount)
• I favor reward over punishment.  This means I do not believe in penalizing any criminal with incarcerations greater than 5 years. And, we should put a lot of resources in rehabilitating those who break our laws.
• I favor some totalitarian laws over freedom.  This means that as a nation, recreational drug use can't be tolerated.  Speech must be regulated.  Lethal defense of self cannot be permitted. 
• Rape and murder are just other crimes, for which punishment cannot exceed 5 years. Also, like England, once criminals complete their punnishment, they will be given new identities and jobs which will allow them to survive and start over.

So, if a liberal really does have a core set of values, not just political positions as defined by Progs and Democrats, they would be able to debate more effectively.  The biggest problem is that the political positions of Progs and Democrats are a hodgepodge of highly inconsistent political positions.  They try to be too inclusive for purely political reasons.  This makes what they say contradictory, hypocritical and easy to defeat in a genuine debate.

Agreed. Classical liberalism is obsolete. That was a great ideology. Regretfully, the left hijacked it and turned it into progressivism.

RebelGator » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

Why debate when they can lie and create elaborate hoaxes to further their agenda.
 

I tend to enjoy debating, that's my only reason.

 I believe liberalism is a mental disorder....

I tend not to believe that. If we are talking about a mental problem, I think you have to examine the individual.  Not a set of beliefs we call "liberalism". Sure, a number of leftists are mentally deranged, weak, brainwashed or low IQ. Not all of them.  A true Marxist will be more consistent in their arguments than Democrats and Progs.  This is because they are not trying to "include" everyone in their group.  They know what they are and what they believe.

For example, no liberal will define what a woman is because doing so would be proof we are all NOT the same and that runs contrary to their collective brain set and destroys any debate at the beginning

A true liberal or leftist with a core set of "left" values would define a biological woman and a biological man to be the same as what we conservatives would.  A Marxist, for example, would simply declare that "all people, men, woman or whatever you think you are will be treated the same.  They will use the same bathrooms, play the same sports fight in the same wars with no distinction", and let the chips fall where they may.  Then, they would outlaw sex-changes and systematically execute "perverts".  They will do this because, in a Marxist society, "sameness" matters, not individualism.  And, trannies are too individualistic to be allowed in a Marxist society.

RebelGator » Today, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:28 am

Now that the board is firmly in control of conservative posters......I've been a little caustic and insulting to the lunatic left during the prior 4 years and will try to modify the tone of my posts to one of pity and humor at their follies.
I can't guarantee anything though, sometimes they get so friggin' stupid, I can't stand it.

Longitudes and platitudes?

Longitudes are vertical as are attitudes and time zones.

Latitudes are horizontal as are temperate zones between tropics and each polarity of solstices north and south and equinoxes day and night, dawn to dusk daily.

Relative time theory defines a day midnight to noon end of the day noon to midnight, dawn to dusk, what is the conflict of interest there?

31stArrival » 41 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

41 minutes ago

Longitudes are vertical....

LOL!  Do you really believe that?

Skans » 46 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

46 minutes ago

LOL!  Do you really believe that?

Better, I understand the geometrics of it. What makes the intellectual optics of 24 hours a day?

RebelGator » Today, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:28 am

Now that the board is firmly in control of conservative posters......I've been a little caustic and insulting to the lunatic left during the prior 4 years and will try to modify the tone of my posts to one of pity and humor at their follies.
I can't guarantee anything though, sometimes they get so friggin' stupid, I can't stand it.

Well everything is going phooking South quick.

 

JohnnyYou » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

Well everything is going phooking South quick.

Except the Price of Eggs.

I say We call it the EnGulfment of Knowledge.

It's all good, the South will rise again....
 

RebelGator » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

It's all good, the South will rise again....

It's moving North..  Ehhh?

A Phooking Tariff on Tesla in Canada could be devastating to the spaceship.

Zelensky is gonna start WW3. All Trumpocalypse the loser will get credit for is the Second World War.