Let's burn up 'em trails, pard'ner!!!

Voil...Do liberals even know how to read correctly or do you have your own language. Where do you see " ALL liberals" as in your remarks:

ALL liberals attack the rich and the big corporations"
"... NO liberals have ever started 'small' an grew through hard work and ingenuity"
"... ALL liberals are lazy"
"... NO liberals want to go to college"
"... NO liberals ever have worked 16 hours a day to make their own wealth"
"... ALL liberals expect that ALL others should help them out out with medical bills, and why not, ALL other bills"
"... NO liberals have ever grown up"
"...ALL liberals whine about ALL those that have made a success of their lives (that is the TRUE mark of a liberal)"

Now I know its futile to have any intelligent discussion here.

No Serchin, not with some people, that's for sure

But what do you mean, andrea?

Please explain....

Don't you know me??

No andrea, tell me more..........

Now honey, there are people willing to listen and to learn, and there are people you can't have an intelligent discussion with, if you get my drift.

Here you go Rambill!
7 minutes of freedom...........

http://johnedwards.com/media/video/cleveland-ohio-trade/

omggggggggggggggg you guys are still at it????

Btw Rambill.....I'm a liberal!!!!!

I swear last night you said something about having great sex with me!!! lol Omg........treason!!!!

Serchin4MyRedWine,

I was making a point about generalization, and some of the general statements you had posted. Here is the cornerstone statement you made, on which I based my response:

"... you liberals always want to attack the rich or the big corporations..."

That is a broad and general statement by any standard IMO, I would trust you would agree. It does not qualify 'liberals' with a simple 'some' for example, nor does it qualify it as 'liberals of such and such persuasion', it remains voluntarily or not, an 'unqualified' statement, which confers it a vague and general nature.

Such vague unqualified statements can than only refer to what is written: 'liberals'. Left unqualified it can reasonably be taken, by default, to refer to all liberals.

My point was to give you an opportunity to qualify 'liberals'. Surely you could not have meant 'ALL' liberals! And yet that was what you implied. Thus the point about such broad generalization' being stripped of all meaning, and offering no means to pursue the debate.

Now instead of taking me up on my respectful invitation to qualify your statements about 'liberals' you replied instead with a rather condensending and downright judgmental 'general statement' as an opening to your reply to me:

"... Voil...Do liberals even know how to read correctly or do you have your own language."

Is this a question to me, or is it an affirmation on your part, I'm not sure?

Again the very nature of this 'generalization' form, is:
... CONFUSED, and CONFOUNDING! A well read person such as yourself would certainly have put a question mark at the end of the sentence had it been a question you sincerely expected me to answer.

When I read the rest of your response, I became clear that you were IMO, making another 'general affirmation', not a question in good faith at all. Again IMO.

The problem is I don't know what you are referring to with this affirmation as an opening to your reply to me. Why would you ask me about ‘liberals’? Did you assume I was a liberal? Also, are you really concerned that 'liberals' (again unqualified) do not know how to read, or that they might actually have their own language??? Or was that SARCASM?

Don't answer 'search', I am pretty well sold on sarcasm.

The point I was trying to make with generalization had to do with the 'invitation' of this post.

As a reminder, 'rambill79’ as the host of this post, stated as an opening :

‘… what liberalism means to me.’

Now, granted, that is not a question. But surely ‘rambill79’ did post this statement on a ‘public forum’ under ‘current news and events’ to make a statement! It is reasonable to presume that ‘rambill79’ was offering that statement as a ‘kick-start’ to a debate on the meaning of liberalism to people including himself; given the public debate nature of these forums. Furthermore, in raising the meaning of liberalism in this debate, surely ‘rambill79’ must have expected, even hoped, a few liberals were going to respond. (if not, it doesn't change the fact that these are open, free, and public forums).

Now back to what compelled me to address your ‘general statements’ about ‘liberals’. I felt strongly that without some form of qualifier to your general statements about ‘liberals’, ‘some’ liberals might reasonably consider that this was a ‘cooked-up’ debate. Not really, nor genuinely open to what liberalism means to them as 'liberals' given your statements.

How can you have an open minded debate about the meaning of liberalism, without liberals of all walks. That’s what these forums are about! Open minded debates and exchanges of different viewpoints, whether one agrees with the viewpoints or not.

Now, again, in good faith and with all due respect to you ‘Serchin4MyRedWine’ , do you wish to qualify the specific ‘liberals’ you link to the type of liberalism you have already described, so we are not left with the implied 'ALL', and re-open in earnest this debate to all whom might feel like giving their version of ‘…what liberalism means to them’?

I did before, and am again making this point in all due respect to you the person ‘Serchin4MyRedWine’. I expect you will conduct yourself in similar fashion with me, and by doing so, honor the simple code of ethics of this public forum.

Remember, the point I am making is:
... generalization as a form of expressing oneself, ‘generally’ strips one’s statements of all its constructive meaning, creates confusion, animosity, and will ‘generally’ end up killing an otherwise good debate (free exchange of different opinions).

I think an intelligent exchange is yet ‘possible’. I haven’t given up on you yet ‘Serchin4MyRedWine’!!!

voileazur,

Liberals DO have our own language. It's called English.

We're not greedy, however. We'll gladly share it with Conservatives and allow them to use it anytime they like, at no charge.

You are very generous, Knoxman

knoxman,

Glad to see I might have had something to do with making 'liberals' (the geeral form is acceptable here...) feel safe again, to visit this post.

Sort of a 'Batman' moment for me!!!

As for the comment about language, it is nice to observe that 'liberals' (in general again), whether or not they 'own' the language, would have such open minded and generous dispositions to share it with their conservative fellowmen.

Redwine did you seriously say that you couldn't have "an inteligent" conversation with Voil?

I'm rolling on the floor.... laughing.

'anoasis',

Would you do me the honor of this dance?


:)

im not talking about any particular liberal... im talking about the liberal platform.

But if you don't understand the liberal platform in general how can you talk about it??????

Voil- Lol. I would be delighted I'm sure.


Ram- again the point that several people have made, and that I feel I addressed somewhat exhaustively earlier in this thread, is that people are *not* platforms.

Therefore it is *less* than the height of intelligence to continue to make blanket statements about a group of people with a common primary ideological affilitation as if it were absolute and without gradiations of support from the members of that affiliation.

This is why I abhor extremism from anyone. Anyone who unilaterally adopts a "platform" without questioning or daring to disagree with any individual element therein has ceased to think and in effect infantalized themselves.

'rambill79', I'll assume you are addressing this reply to me. Let me know if it is not the case.

you wrote:
"... im not talking about any particular liberal... im talking about the liberal platform.

No one said you were talking 'about' any particular liberal... 'rambill79'. You are quite right about that.

And for clarity sake, helping keep YOUR post rolling gingerly, you are talking about 'liberalism' (general topic if there is one) remember:

‘… what liberalism means to me.’

That is the topic headliner. That is what you're talking about 'rambill79', and 'liberalism' is the topic on which you're inviting people to express their views. Part of YOUR view on 'liberalism', which is what you're talking about, included some geneneral statements about the liberal platform, which is a subpoint of 'what you're talking about'.

I don't mind helping clarify some of your statements 'rambill79', since I truly think you have initiated a great debate here. It is of course with the sole intent of maintaining a necessary degree of clarity, and to stay on purpose with your great topic 'rambill79', that I volunteer these clarifications.

Hope you don't mind my help!