[QUOTE=Liberal]
Are you going to change the meaning of “liberty” while you’re at it? And will you make it retroactive to the Latin “liber”?
[/QUOTE]
Are you going to keep pretending that an abstract ideal like “liberty” is unambiguously and exactly equivalent to your specific personal political philosophy?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Thanks. It’s a pretty laughable thread. Guy retires. God what a fucktard. How dare he.
[/QUOTE]
You are deliberately being provocative, aren’t you.
If Lott felt like retiring then he shouldn’t have run in order to quit a year later. Especially since he’s quitting because he doesn’t like the new ethics rules. Because having over a million dollars in the bank and 2 houses isn’t rich enough to serve the public like he promised he would. That’s what makes him a fucktard.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Are you going to keep pretending that an abstract ideal like “liberty” is unambiguously and exactly equivalent to your specific personal political philosophy?
[/QUOTE]
Well, you have a point, I suppose. I really should specify that I do not use the more authoritarian connotations of the term “liberty”. Also, when I add two plus two, I should make it clear that I am not using immoderately large values of two, lest anyone argue that the total should have been five.
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
You are deliberately being provocative, aren’t you.
[/quote]
“A vile piece of slander!” — Lord Percival Graves
He “served the public” for 35 years. What I fail to understand from you people is why his desire to pursue more wealth and power, which the new rules would obstruct, distinguishes him from most other politicians. It’s like singling out one used car salesman to Pit for being slick and a fast talker.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Well, you have a point, I suppose. I really should specify that I do not use the more authoritarian connotations of the term “liberty”. Also, when I add two plus two, I should make it clear that I am not using immoderately large values of two, lest anyone argue that the total should have been five.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, so now you’re going to be obstreperous.
In other words, “Why do you hate liberty?”
This is no different than what the neoconservative demagogues do.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Oh, so now you’re going to be obstreperous.
[/QUOTE]
You need a new thesaurus, unless you intended to imply that my posts are deafening and that you’re attempting to manage me. No wonder you don’t know what liberty is.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
“A vile piece of slander!” — Lord Percival Graves
He “served the public” for 35 years. What I fail to understand from you people is why his desire to pursue more wealth and power, which the new rules would obstruct, distinguishes him from most other politicians. It’s like singling out one used car salesman to Pit for being slick and a fast talker.
[/QUOTE]
Then-- get this-- HE SHOULD NOT HAVE RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
See, when you run for public office, you are promising to serve your public for a perscribed number of years and not until something better comes along. After 35 years Lott should know this. In fact, I’m sure he does. He just doesn’t fucking care.
Quitting because you won’t make enough money to suit after your term is supposed to be over is pittable. Senators even take an oath saying that they take on this obligation freely without any reservations and that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they are about to enter. No where do they promise to discharge the duties of office up to and until they can get a better deal.
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Then-- get this-- HE SHOULD NOT HAVE RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
See, when you run for public office, you are promising to serve your public for a perscribed number of years and not until something better comes along.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, I’ve got this bridge up in SF that you might want to buy. I’ll give you a really good deal on it, too!
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Senators even take an oath saying that they take on this obligation freely without any reservations and that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they are about to enter.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s that oath:
But do we really want to see him standing in a ragged three-piece suit by the freeway entrance with a sign reading “Will Ooze For Food”?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Hey, I’ve got this bridge up in SF that you might want to buy. I’ll give you a really good deal on it, too!
[/QUOTE]
Why is everyone acting as if this happens all the time? It doesn’t. Most senators do not quit in the middle of their term. And those who do are forced to quit because of scandal. It’s pretty Goddamned rare. Probably because it’s a shitty thing to do. So shitty that *n the post-World War II era, only two senators have resigned midterm to pursue life in the private sector, according to the Senate Historical Office. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) became a university president in 1994, and Albert B. “Happy” Chandler (D-Ky.) left the Senate to become commissioner of Major League Baseball in 1945.
So you can keep your snarky bridge, John.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Are you going to change the meaning of “liberty” while you’re at it? And will you make it retroactive to the Latin “liber”?
[/QUOTE]
All true Scotsmen are from Ireland.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
But do we really want to see him standing in a ragged three-piece suit by the freeway entrance with a sign reading “Will Ooze For Food”?
[/QUOTE]
Depends, will he do my windshield?
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Then-- get this-- HE SHOULD NOT HAVE RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
See, when you run for public office, you are promising to serve your public for a perscribed number of years and not until something better comes along. After 35 years Lott should know this. In fact, I’m sure he does. He just doesn’t fucking care.
Quitting because you won’t make enough money to suit after your term is supposed to be over is pittable. Senators even take an oath saying that they take on this obligation freely without any reservations and that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they are about to enter. No where do they promise to discharge the duties of office up to and until they can get a better deal.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that has nothing to do with my question — how does pursuing wealth and power differentiate him from most other politicians — but forget that for now. There’s also no great big deal about a Senator resigning. Bob Dole did it when he decided to seek the presidency. Others have done it for various reasons, including scandal. In fact, 13 Senators resigned between 1980 and 1996. (I don’t have any newer figures handy.) And going way back, 47 of them resigned in the years leading up to the American Civil War. You don’t even like the guy anyway, so you should be glad to see him leave. One bobble-head gets replaced by another, and the beat goes on. This just isn’t something to get all bent out of shape about, is all I’m saying.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
All true Scotsmen are from Ireland.
[/QUOTE]
If that had something to do with anything, I don’t get your point. It was acsenray who demanded that I not use the term the way I do, and therefore the way he does — the right way. So it seems to me that you should give your Scotsman trophy to him.
Yeah, but it means you end up having to explain your entire political philosophy over and over again. You don’t want that, do you?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Yeah, but it means you end up having to explain your entire political philosophy over and over again. You don’t want that, do you?
[/QUOTE]
Look, kiddo, I’m going to explain what freedom is to you if I have to tie you down and tape your mouth shut to do it. 
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Actually, that has nothing to do with my question — how does pursuing wealth and power differentiate him from most other politicians — but forget that for now. There’s also no great big deal about a Senator resigning. Bob Dole did it when he decided to seek the presidency. Others have done it for various reasons, including scandal. In fact, 13 Senators resigned between 1980 and 1996. (I don’t have any newer figures handy.) And going way back, 47 of them resigned in the years leading up to the American Civil War. You don’t even like the guy anyway, so you should be glad to see him leave. One bobble-head gets replaced by another, and the beat goes on. This just isn’t something to get all bent out of shape about, is all I’m saying.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, what question? You said-- and I quote (for the second time):
And it is something to get bent out of shape for. The man took an oath to serve the public and he shit on it. No big deal to you? Well, I never took you for that kind of man but I have been wrong before.
He took the oath to serve them while he’s a Senator. When he resigns, he will no longer be a Senator. There is no contract or anything — not even a pledge — binding him to six full continuous years (beyond the 35 he’s already served). Lots of people agree to go to work serving other people, and then move on when something comes along that will be better for them and their families.
And honestly, if you’re judging what kind of man I am by my opinion on this trivial matter, I don’t know what to say. I don’t want to be your enemy, but I’m not going to formulate my own views just to suit you anymore than you would do so to suit me. I think we can disagree about this without one of us being a monster.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
If that had something to do with anything, I don’t get your point. It was acsenray who demanded that I not use the term the way I do, and therefore the way he does — the right way. So it seems to me that you should give your Scotsman trophy to him.
[/QUOTE]
No he didn’t.
You posted
[QUOTE=Liberal]
For the record, the term “liberal” as I use it is the way it is commonly understood in most of the world, including Europe. It is only in the US that the term has come to mean practically the opposite of what it once did. With hope, the term as used here will eventually revert to meaning advocacy of liberty.
[/quote]
YOU were the first one in the thread to post that people ought to use the term “liberal” the “right way”; that is, the way you do. (You also made a dubious assertion about the common meaning of the term outside the U.S.)
Acsenray replied:
[QUOTE=acsenray]
With one-liners like this, you get to pretend that your opinions regarding policy questions are merely a matter of linguistic usage, and, thus, imply that it is matter of scientific fact that anyone who “loves liberty” must, by definition, reach the same conclusions you have regarding public policy. That’s demagoguery.
[/QUOTE]
NOT “Liberal shouldn’t call himself a liberal because he doesn’t meet the definition of a true liberal”; rather, he was calling you out for doing what you just said he was doing: asserting that people who use the term “liberal” differently from the way you do, are using it all wrong and ought to stop.
BrainGlutton then posted:
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Until it does, please stop using the word to refer to yourself or your politics. You are an American, like it or not, and in America liberal != libertarian.
[/QUOTE]
But his request that you not use the term the way you do (and therefore that you ought to use the term the way most other people do–the “right way”) was in response to your request that everyone else ought not use the term the way we all do, and therefore we ought to use the term the way you do–the “right way”.
In other words, you started it.