Another Pompus Windbag:

[Travis Retriever]

*Sighs*  Another douche bag who thinks just because he can paraphrase a wikipedia article that his big arguement (essentially a no true scotsman) somehow holds.

Me (on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dovy9lWvNxRs ): "Fuck Conservatives, Fuck Liberals.  Libertarianism for the motherfucking win. X3"


hpso12xu: "conservatism and liberalism are general ideologies. to be exact, libertarians are fiscally con. and socially lib. therefor, libertarians are both conservative and liberal. so, to fuck both means to fuck yourself.  its sort of like saying "fuck artificial flavor, fuck sugar. kool-aid for the win!" it makes not sense.

sorry to bust your bubble.
and how this comment got +14 thumbs up, i'll never know. not unless this vid is crawling with RP sheep. no disrespect to ron paul, i love'm to death. he just has way too many followers who hang on his every word instead of having an original thought."


Me:  "Except they (conservatives) have been corporatist for at least a century now.
Also, Liberals still don't seem to mind government issuing of marriage licenses, or censoring of video games, or 'hate' speech, etc.
My comment still stands."

hpso12xu:".:sigh:.
alright, if you want to get into specifics, then check your inbox. i think you maybe a bit confused, so i sent you something.
also my comment was not an attack. it was a correction. if you want it to stand then let it do so in the corner, crowned with a dunce hat.
like i said, check your inbox. "

The private message he spoke of:
Him: "the term "conservative" encompasses a broad spectrum of ideologies.. ron paul, glenn beck, shawn hannity, john stossel,. jefferson davis, and martin luther king, jr are/were all "conservatives".... yet there are some very very key differences between all of them.

plus, i don't think you're grasping the stark differences between fiscal and social politics. when you say, "Except they (conservatives) have been corporatist for at least a century now.", then you are venturing off into the economic world, which is not fiscal or social sort of.

let me explain...

like i said, libertarians are fiscally conservative, which means free-market capitalism. to understand conservatism, you must understand our country's founders and their reasons for rebelling against king george. one of the reasons was that they didn't want "big brother" messing around in our wallets. what you earn is want you are due- bottom line. conservatives believe that people should be held responsible for THEIR OWN irresponsible behavior. our founders never established any kind of an economic safety net (e.g. bailouts)because it is inappropriate for a government for the people, by the people, to flip the bill for the risky business ventures of it's citizens (all this falls under the whole individualism vs. collectivism comparisons. YT search it). with that in mind, a corporation exists only as a marriage between private business AND the government (in truth, this is want defines fascism. look it up). when the government protects private business in exchange for guaranteed profits (as stated in the incorporated entitlement agreement signed by said business and the gov.), it creates a safety net for a select group. this is not how free-market capitalism works. THEREFOR, the government protection of any financial enterprise is NOT conservative, it's FASCISM. this is why libertarians ARE fiscally conservative in respect to economics. libertarians do not want government evolvement in private business at all. do you see how your statement "conservatives have been corporatist for at least a century now." sounds contradicting? a "conservative corporatist" is an oxymoron.

when you say, "Liberals still don't seem to mind government issuing of marriage licenses, or censoring of video games, or "hate" speech, etc.", now you're talking fiscal, not social. yes all these aforementioned topics are social issues, but the means by which liberals want to control them is by way of government control, which is fiscal. once again, libertarians want government out of almost everything, especially social issues. they want gov. out of our pockets and private lives. liberals want gov. control over everything all together, which is totalitarianism!

so, fiscal conservatism means it's the GOV. that is being controlled by us, not the other way around; and social liberalism means that individuals in our society are free to observe the liberty to choose what's best for themselves providing that those choices do not encroach upon the same liberty shared by others.

i wrote you this because there is so much incorrect name-calling and misinformation spread throughout the mainstream media that there's no wonder why people are so confused and don't even know it. liberalism and conservatism could be both good or bad. it all depends on the context in which it is used. they are both very very basic core principles that overlap all political ideologies. it's how they are applied that creates such a stark contrast in opposing ideologies. here's another analogy: it's like talking about the differences between a white man and a black man instead of the differences in cultures/environments of which these two individuals were raised in.

i dunno if any of this makes any sense to you, but i hope it does if not, let me know. maybe i can clarify.

~bo"

Me:  "I was going by the Nolan chart.  Included in the video attached.  Cheers.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAiYlaGxyV0"

Him:  "yea, i've seen it. however a chart cannot truly dictate a person's political orientation. only education can do that

~bo"

So is this guy right?
Why/why not?

[FSBlueApocalypse]

That was a pretty good sum up actually, and speaks to how those words have been hijacked by the two main parties. I'm sure when you wrote that, you we're using those words as placements for Republicans and Democrats, yet that is demeaning to the words.

[Travis Retriever]

That was a pretty good sum up actually, and speaks to how those words have been hijacked by the two main parties.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I'm sure when you wrote that, you we're using those words as placements for Republicans and Democrats

That's EXACTLY how I was using them.

[MrBogosity]

But let's face it, people, language changes, and the meaning of words is not fixed. As people gradually start using a word differently, it takes on its new definition, just as "gay" now means "homosexual" and not "happy."

[Travis Retriever]

But let's face it, people, language changes, and the meaning of words is not fixed. As people gradually start using a word differently, it takes on its new definition, just as "gay" now means "homosexual" and not "happy."

Well, I suppose I COULD have worded my first comment as: "Fuck Republicans.  Fuck Democrats.  Libertarians for the motherfucking win!" to avoid this issue.

However:
They have been used interchangeably for as long as I can remember.  As such, my comments still stand.

I hate to break it to him, but because the Republicans call themselves "conservative", when they are fascist/corporatist, then he needs to tell them to stop hijacking the word and pick another, not me.
They're the ones morphing the word.
Same logic for the Democrats and "Liberal".

It goes into that complaint of the socialists attempting to hijack capitalism to equal bad.
You've read the comments from these people to know what I mean.
Especially the whole equivocation with Capitalism = Corporatism insanity with Widdip and them a few months ago.
As I said in my quote from Matt Dillahunty, (paraphrased).  If for a debate, you completely warp the definition of a word, but don't refute the point behind it, you haven't won any debate, you've just warped a word.
Also, I see the same with Atheism and Anarchism.
Many people conflate Atheism with dogmatic anti-theism and/or the positive (sorta of) claim of belief that there is no god, when it just means lacking a belief in deities; and Anarchism with Anomie (lawlessness/without rules: yes, there are laws in an Anarchy, and yes, they may be enforced, but the institutions used to enforce/make said laws are simply a free market:  no monopoly of them by a State).
As you yourself said, words have meaning.  Even if people aren't going to agree on the ones we're using, you think they could at the very least, recognize that we're using them differently, and know that when we say them, we're not using it the way they do.
It's like when I argued against that sophistic Tolstoy moron, he kept trying to tell me that "Atheism is like fundamentalism, only instead of believing in a god, they deny it!).
I kept trying to explain, and even give him sources to it, yet he kept blathering on.

PS:  I'll say it again:
Fuck Republicrats.
Fuck Demopublicans.
Libertarians for the:
Mother
Fucking
Win.
X3

[AHPMB]

Shane makes a good point.  I'm actually in the process of prepping a dissertation about how the political right changed the meaning of the words conservative and liberal in the 1920s-30s, and how those terms became synonymous with political parties instead of philosophies.  They've since largely lost their original meaning.

[Travis Retriever]

Hence why I consider hpso12xu's points moot and lame.

[Travis Retriever]

But let's face it, people, language changes, and the meaning of words is not fixed. As people gradually start using a word differently, it takes on its new definition, just as "gay" now means "homosexual" and not "happy."

Reminds me of the episode of south Park called, "The 'F' Word"