If Liberalism is supposed to be about tolerance and diversity of opinion, we have some pretty poor examples here.

First, he repeats, for the umpteenth time, the same old talking point that he uses to characterize anyone who is not of the left wing:

Laitres: “individuals with a totally different set of values based upon nothing less than a self-centric existence, where everything is measured by the following: Me, my, mine, here, and now. A philosphy based upon self-gratification.”

Then he accuses others of doing what he, pretty much alone, does on this site:

Laitres: “We keep losing posters of the “liberal” persuasion because they have come to the conclusion that it is a waste of time. What they all too frequently encounter are individuals who do not want to discuss but argue. And that definitely is a waste of time.”

And, of course, Laitres seldom, if ever, will get involved in a factual discussion. All one needs to do is look at the bottom of his post #9, where he makes a statment reagrding the use of the word “fight”. When challenged by me in post #10, he has no response. This is typical. When challenged, he runs.

And then, given that he never takes a position on factual matters, for fear that he will be challenged, he, instead refers posters to books. Like he does here:

“What this individual finds particularly interesting is that the opposition to what is termed “liberal” thinking or liberals, comes from those who, for whatever reason, are afraid of books and new ideas. Referring to a book appears to be a cardinal offense or, perhaps they are much too accustomed to using Cliff’s Notes as their sole source of information, either that or their ear is glued to the radio, being bombarded by such as Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, O’Reily…, where the constant mantra is nothing but “It’s their fault”, and never, “It’s mine.””

Laitres will NEVER, EVER, give us his interpretation, or understanding, of what his referred sources say. Again, he is afraid to take a position. Somehow this man believes that posters come to this site because they have an interest in his reading list.

Perhaps posters here would take his reading list seriously if they had an inkling that he understands what he reads.

We keep losing posters of the “liberal” persuasion because they have come to the conclusion that it is a waste of time. What they all too frequently encounter are individuals who do not want to discuss but argue. And that definitely is a waste of time.

What “liberals” see and encounter are individuals with a totally different set of values based upon nothing less than a self-centric existence, where everything is measured by the following: Me, my, mine, here, and now. A philosphy based upon self-gratification.

The basis of that is they have a very parochial view of the world. Others, on the other hand, have a much more catholic one. The latter, when they approach a question or issue, and in their discussion of specifics, they insist upon putting it in a context beyond themselves or what they can personally “get” from it. And, unless that is done, any further discussion on a particular subject is not only pointless but counter productive.

What this individual finds particularly interesting is that the opposition to what is termed “liberal” thinking or liberals, comes from those who, for whatever reason, are afraid of books and new ideas. Referring to a book appears to be a cardinal offense or, perhaps they are much too accustomed to using Cliff’s Notes as their sole source of information, either that or their ear is glued to the radio, being bombarded by such as Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, O’Reily…, where the constant mantra is nothing but “It’s their fault”, and never, “It’s mine.”

He once again displays his own ignorance.

Furthermore, in post #9, he states the following: “When looking at the statements of some, such as: “I fought fascism”, “I fought communism” and even “I fought socialism”, what they fail to realize (not understanding the terms) is that they were not “fighting” the “isms” themselves, they were fighting the armies of totalitarian regimes, whatever they claimed to use as the basis of their power. “Isms” are not physical, they are intellectual. As such, that is where they must be addressed. That cannot be done in the physical world.”

When in my post #10 it is explanined why he is wrong in this statement, he chooses not to respond. So, as is usually the case, he runs away when challenged.

Laitres keeps comming to this site to attack any poster who disagrees with his leftist philospophy and posts the same old tired anti-free market talking points.

His attacks are void of specifics and seldom address the subject matter. He refuses to enagage in substantive discussions and his posts are meanigless psychobabble that do nothing but take up space.

We keep losing posters on this site, of the liberal persuasion, who are willing to engage in discussion in a thoughtful and respectful manner. That’s too bad. Those of us on the other side would like to be challenged. Laitres poses no challenge.

The correct defintion of terms is NOT a technality. It is essential for effective communication. So, those who first introduce a term in a discourse, should be the first to define it, and tell us exactly what they mean.

david_cox: “capitalism, or the free market, is good because it has been dominant during a wholly unprecedented rise in living standards.”

And, that depends upon what type of “capitalism” you are speaking of, something that our libertarian type thinkers fail to recognize or accept. What Mr. Cox and others fail to realize is that the economic systems that led to serfdom, peasantry and slavery were also “capitalistic” all with disastrous results. So it is important to define that also.

Today, what the libertarians have been promoting is not the type of capitalism that has led to progress or advancement, but one that is measured only by how much one can “accumulate” not what or how much one can be “create.”

So, be careful when you use the terms around people, especially when presenting some value judgment, based upon what was, as opposed to what is.