Ya know, I’ve read Hobbes in high school. (No, really. I had to read The Leviathan for a course in political philosophy.) Most boring goddamn book I’ve ever read, and that includes the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Methinks you need to read a little less Hobbes and a little more of the dictionary.
Robin
I’ve read Hobbes. And Locke. And Rousseau. And Tocqueville (which I just misspelled, I’m sure). And Hamilton, Jay and Madison. And several more whom you’ve probably not heard of, most of them more contemporary.
I found your “point” to be supercilious and trite. No one here claims a right to total liberty both of action and from the actions of others. What is typically claimed by modern liberals, and particularly liberals here, is a watered-down version of the libertarian ideal of “My rights end at your nose,” which is a classically liberal conceptualization of the nature and breadth of human rights. Of course, modern liberalism in regards to personal freedom has been lumped in modern America with a less-libertarian form of economic politics, which confuses the issue a bit.
And certainly no one is arguing for a Hobbesian state of nature (which likely never existed in the first place). Liberty does not equate to anarchy, Broken_Record.
So no one here is claiming as you seem to indicate, unless you can provide specific examples of such statements.
And you need to learn how this board works. When you make a point (which you’ve yet to do) in the Great Debates, it is expected that you will be able to back that point up with non-anecdotal evidence (and appealing to your own wisdom is anecdotal). You also may not insult others directly in the Great Debates, but you can do that here, in the Pit.
Replace the term “liberals” with the term “absolute anarchists” and you may have a point. But until you prove that all liberals are absolute anarchists, your statement is wrong. It may be able to keep crows away, or help Dorothy get to Oz, but it’s still wrong.
Actually spectrum I think you got Alexis de Tocqueville’s name spelled correctly. Although, I’ve seen it spelled without the “c” in Tocqueville. In respect to what you were saying about philosophy’s appilication to modern life. It sounds convincing on the surface for some (as in B/C’s approach) but doesn’t hold up when applied to modern events. The golden rule on the other hand still works pretty good for me. Think about Keke’s/Kant, moral imperatives etc. 
Our new friend and SDMB member sounds like he has recently been exposed to a college intro. to philosophy course. I remember the feeling of “superiority” when confronting issues and arguments in my phl. classes. Matter of fact, I took every phl. course that was offered. Picked it up as a second degree BTW.
I’ve actually written a couple of books on philosophy. It’s funny, the vast knowledge contained in all the books I’ve read regarding humanity and our quest for truth…can be found in a few simple words. If we could only live by them. It’s too bad that The_Broken_Column apparently missed that part of the lecture.
It’s what most of us already knew when we were children. It’s not statements which include an absolute such as:
So my statement “Liberals are Hypocrits” stands not only as a truth (subjective), but a fact (objective).
As a result of the many obtuse comments from this individual, I think that DNFTT is sound advice for now. 
Consider this stolen.
As to the OP…
I tend to post in a syncopated, one or two lines to a paragraph style. Because my thoughts tend to be…concise. And sometimes incomplete, but that’s something else entirely.
Or else I simply want to include a pause in my thoughts. (And I’m only partially doing it purposefully here.)
But that’s neither here nor there. We’re talking about T_B_C.
From the brief glimpse I’ve gotten of him here, what’s galling - stylistically - about him, is not his excessive enter-key usage (which, you have to admit, is better than ginormous blocks of text).
I can’t - quite - put my finger on it, but something about his diction makes me imagine him standing at a podium, back and neck stiff, arms not moving more than they have to to turn the page he’s reading from. He sounds - and looks - in my mind, like the Conservative MP in an old Monty Python bit, who droned on and on, foaming at the mouth, until he fell over backwards.
OK. I take it back. It’s not galling. It’s amusing.
Funny you should say this when you just got the US Constitution wrong in the 50 states thread. I would categorize a basic understanding of the defining document of our country as “general knowledge”.
Look, Brother, one of the many reasons quotes and cites are de riguer here is to help avoid exactly this situation. I’m sure you’ve read the USC and I’m sure you honestly forgot about the caveat concerning the approval of the Legislatures and Congress. Quoting the document in your post would have saved you looking like an idiot for asserting something that is completely untrue.
grem0517, P.M.
Allow me to begin this post by saying: a) Starting this thread is without the best thing I’ve done as a member of the Boards, and b) You, T_B_C, have no idea how much I’ve been hoping you’d poke your nose into this thread. (Much appreciation to Bruce_Daddy for pointing it out to you)
I’m going to explain something to you, and, because I’m now quite convinced that English is not your first language- or that you were raised by wolves- I’m going to explain it using very simple concepts.
First, the fact that Thomas Hobbes said something does not necessarily make it so. I should probably add that the fact that YOU say something doesn’t make it so either; you seem to have trouble with that one too.
In any case, as liberals, WE DO compromise with others in our society so as not to infringe upon their liberties. Hobbes was a liberal; I find it perplexing that you refer so often to the work of a man who essentially disagrees with you about everything. The whole point of the ‘State of Nature’ analogy is not that human society is bound to reflect the inherent flaws of man, but that human society can overcome these flaws. So far, it has worked quite well, thank you very much.
I’m aware that you hold the opinion that Western society is on the verge of fundamental collapse; frankly, I posit that the greatest threat to Western society is reactionary douchebags like you.
I imagine that your practice of citing to “general knowledge” and “commonly observed historical trends” which happen to be fundamentally incorrect works quite well on the morons you surround yourself with in real life. Won’t fly here, because- and this is key- we can read too. Not only that, but we can read and actually understand the text. Political philosophy is wasted on the semi-literate, although I applaud the fact that you waded through Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes without the slightest fucking clue what you were reading.
Are you crazy??
We need guys like this for proper perspective. Who else better to remind us how moderately sane the rest of us are.
After the occassional bout with the likes of TBC, the boards seem so open minded and refreshing again.
Now that’s a sig line if I ever saw one.
Now if we could get him exposed to an intro to remedial writing course he might just pass in MPSIMS.
This guy is a case study in “the more you know, the more you know you don’t know.”
Yours, with my blessing, if you want it.
This all seems very familiar.
No relation, I’m sure.
That guy made it nearly three weeks.
How long will The_Broken_Column last?
Algorithm , are you sure you linked to the right thread? I read it and I don’t see anything _Column-like. If you’re talking about Beryl_Mooncalf, her views are the opposite of his, in fact.
I think he was talking about O_o. A quick scan of his posts will show a striking similarity to TBC.
Oh… I see it now.
Does this mean everyone with an underscore in their username is a douchebag?
I have never pitted anybody yet but checked in only yesterday only yesterday intending to pit **T_B_C ** him but work got in the way - and now I see this. Made my day - fantastic! I cannot recall anyone being pitted so quickly - nor so justly.
He is irritating, insulting and dumb - a fatal combination.
But for me it not so much that the guy is dumb but that he is so sure he is smart and that it is everybody *else * who happens to disagrees with him that is dumb. That, plus the fact that almost immediately he appeared here he started heaping pretty much everybody else with insults. His debating style is to cram in facts he had learnt somewhere whilst demonstrating his lack of understanding on the subject (see the current thread on military tactics - which he never returned to after being corrected).
My guess is he will start foaming at the mouth and get himself banned before too long. Another december he ain’t - he ain’t that smart!
It was a shame though when he started exposing his political beliefs. Instantly disliking him as I did, it would have been refreshing to find he was a liberal and not to have my prejudices confirmed again.
My take? He’s about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
His screen name and his sig are both from the Masonic Third Degree ritual.
I think I’m insulted.
:Shows dutchboy208 the middle finger.:
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a relation actually. Broken_Record, I mean Column, constantly berates liberals, and so did O_o.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3786994#post3786994
Now compare it to here, here, and here.
So lets see: Similar writing style, similar attack of liberals, similar insulting of the people on this board in regards to attacks on their intelligence, similar problems with providing citations (pulling statistics out of thin air), The only difference I see is that O_o hates the education system, something I have not seen TBC say anything about, nor can I figure out if O_o has a degree, and I am pretty certain TBC claims college level education.
Very interesting parallels, don’t you think?
-oh, forgot to add, both incorrigible assholes.