Paft: The Glass Steagal act is one example, and it's meant to prevent what happened to our economy in 2008. s: Well it didn't, so can you really consider it an example to be followed?
It likely would have if it had been left intact.
Is it your claim that Glass Steagal was not significantly undermined over the past few decades?
Paft Uh, no, it's not "primarily defined" that way except by right wingers opposed to liberalism. sw: And I could say the same thing about your definition of what it means to be right-wing. ;)
Your typically gassy and pretentious definition of liberal is "fetishization of a group/tribal identity over that of the individual emphasizing the concepts of both collective achievement/reward and collective guilt/punishment." That's a definition that could be applied to Nazi Germany, about as notorious a right-wing society as there is.
I realize that part of you guys playing around with language is an attempt to rewrite history so that the Nazis qualify as liberals rather than right wingers, but you really need to be honest about it while you're doing it. Admit that you want to fundamentally change the definition of "liberal" rather than pretend that you're invoking common usage. At least be that honest.
What is incorrect about my observation that "Typically being defined as 'right wing' rather than moderate in this country involves an emphasis on social issues -- as in opposition to feminism, gay rights, abortion rights -- a covert or overt appeal to white supremacists, and an opposition to Communism that borders on or overtakes McCarthyism."
sw: Do you have a core principal, or are you just in this for the crusade?
Well, my primary "core principal" in our discussions is a certain allegiance to language, i.e., the common usage of terms like "liberal," "conservative," "left wing" and "right wing." You don't seem to share that allegiance, possibly because you prefer that language not actually be connected in any meaningful way with reality.
no subject
s: Well it didn't, so can you really consider it an example to be followed?
It likely would have if it had been left intact.
Is it your claim that Glass Steagal was not significantly undermined over the past few decades?
Paft Uh, no, it's not "primarily defined" that way except by right wingers opposed to liberalism.
sw: And I could say the same thing about your definition of what it means to be right-wing. ;)
Your typically gassy and pretentious definition of liberal is "fetishization of a group/tribal identity over that of the individual emphasizing the concepts of both collective achievement/reward and collective guilt/punishment." That's a definition that could be applied to Nazi Germany, about as notorious a right-wing society as there is.
I realize that part of you guys playing around with language is an attempt to rewrite history so that the Nazis qualify as liberals rather than right wingers, but you really need to be honest about it while you're doing it. Admit that you want to fundamentally change the definition of "liberal" rather than pretend that you're invoking common usage. At least be that honest.
What is incorrect about my observation that "Typically being defined as 'right wing' rather than moderate in this country involves an emphasis on social issues -- as in opposition to feminism, gay rights, abortion rights -- a covert or overt appeal to white supremacists, and an opposition to Communism that borders on or overtakes McCarthyism."
sw: Do you have a core principal, or are you just in this for the crusade?
Well, my primary "core principal" in our discussions is a certain allegiance to language, i.e., the common usage of terms like "liberal," "conservative," "left wing" and "right wing." You don't seem to share that allegiance, possibly because you prefer that language not actually be connected in any meaningful way with reality.