More Consequences of Liberal Utopia

[sirs]

Yea, LOOK at the title...it doesn't say "Utopians".  And look at the CONTEXT since, as it never has proclaimed that Liberals are some manner of "Utopians".  The context of utopia is a desired vision, NOT a descriptive adjective

Then again you probably knew that, and being unable to debunk the points being made, left you the only other alternate.....Deflection 101-to argue a point no one was making, similar in trying to make this about him slipping past all our border enforcement, or supposedly blaming you for Liberal SF Politicians' policies.  Count'em...3 completely bogus attempts at arguing something, I never referenced or claimed, in this 1 thread alone.  That could be a record even for you, before a 2nd tab were to get started

[Xavier_Onassis]

Liberals are pragmatists, not Utopians.

You used the word UTOPIA, not me. Clearly you have no clue as to its meaning.

You seem to just repeat dumb shit you found on the Internet without bothering to educate yourself as to the meaning of the words you use.

It is amusing.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' and 'a little learning is a dangerous thing' have been used synonymously since the 18th century.

Alexander Pope - A little knowledge is a dangerous thingThe version 'a little learning' is widely attributed to Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744). It is found in An Essay on Criticism, 1709, and I can find no earlier example of the expression in print:

    A little learning is a dangerous thing;
    drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
    there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
    and drinking largely sobers us again.

[sirs]

Liberals are pragmatists, not Utopians.

NEVER CLAIMED THEY WERE UTOPIANS EITHER

You used the word UTOPIA, not me.

YES, USED IN CONTEXT TO DESCRIBE A VISION LIBERALS HAVE.  A “utopia” is any ideal state, not an adjective describing a person, like a Klingon. Clearly you, a language professor for Christ's sake, have no clue as to its CONTEXT or MEANING. 

Now cue the rest of your attempt to argue a point no one is making

[Plane]

Liberals are pragmatists, not Utopians.

   I think you are right that a person can be liberal without being a Utopian, but I don't see how the whole crew of Liberaldom has earned the title of pragmatist either.

   

[Xavier_Onassis]

FDR was famous for saying, "Let's try something: if it doesn't work then we will try something else."
This was pretty much the opposite of Hoover, who insisted that the Great Depression could be solved by cutting government spending.

Republicans try something, like slashing taxes on the rich, and when it fails to work, they do it again, and again, and again. Then they blame toe poor for being poor and take away education subsidies.

Both parties are to some degree pragmatists, but the Democrats are far better at it. Libertarians are strict ideologues. And the wealthy do not give a shit, except they want government help to attain ever greater wealth.

If you don't want to be criticised for misusing the word "utopia", and other words you do not comprehend, do not use them.

[sirs]

If you don't want to be criticised for misusing the word "utopia", and other words you do not comprehend, do not use them.

Moving aside the standard nonsensical rant aimed at Republicans, the notion here is that I shouldn't use a word that was perfectly in context to the point being made because.....you couldn't deal with the point being made??

Sorry, not going to happen.  You're simply going to have to endure being spotlighted every time you try the deflectice tactic.  Case in point, the definition I used was directly from dictionary.com.  If you have a problem with its comprehension, you're going to have to take it up with those folks

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are a drooling ignoramus moron, sirs. It is a wonder that you do not trip on your own tongue.
There is nothing Utopian about Democrats or Liberals.

[sirs]

Nor did I ever claim they were.  Merely a vision/goal.  Boy, I feel for those students if a language professor never taught context to words used.  Sad....then again, anything to avoid the point being made

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is NO situation under which the Democrats have ever espoused a "LIBERAL UTOPIA". There is no context under which this stupid label makes sense to anyone with half a fucking brain.

[sirs]

Of course there is.....one in which government controls every aspect of life, cradle to grave service, and everything in between.  The rich is taxed at ....95%, and everyone is either working for or supported by the Government.  Government regulates every business that they do not outright own.  Borders are open to any and all who wish to come here, and only Government officials or those working for them in law enforcement are allowed to carry guns.  The media is largely a tool of the Government, and no one is allowed to make over a certain amount of income.  Free healthcare and tuition to anyone in the country.  Fox News has been banned from all media outlets and the Republican party has been abolished

That's pretty much a Liberal Utopia.  It's not an official platform, if you were just about to play the literal card, since I never claimed it was.  It's merely a desired outcome to is fullest, based on the ongoing rhetoric, from folks just like yourself .....which is both the concept and context to utopia, applied in the title.  I merely provided one of the exponential consequences to such a vision

I guess you're missing half a brain

[Plane]

There is NO situation under which the Democrats have ever espoused a "LIBERAL UTOPIA". There is no context under which this stupid label makes sense to anyone with half a fucking brain.

  It does suggest a thought experiment.

   If the Democratic party were to achieve its aims fully, what would the major features of the change be?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It depends on which parts of the Democratic Party were dominant.
But they would NOT lower taxes on the wealthy to create jobs. That has been proven not to work,
They would NOT monger useless wars .
They would NOT try to set Blacks against Whites as the Republican'ts do.

The Democrats are not totally perfect, but the Republican';ts are as close to totally imperfect as they can be on this side of prison.

[sirs]

Didn't quite answer the question now, did it.  Lemme help

- Do you not support major tax hikes on "the rich"
- Do you not favor a ban on civilian use of guns?
- Do you not support healthcare & tuition to all who live in the U.S.?
- Do you not believe that immigrants coming into this country, should not be impeded, but actually helped in?
- Do you not believe that the Government should regulate every private business?
- Do you not believe there should be a cap to how much a person should be allowed to earn?
- Do you not believe in the idea that the GOP should go away?

These are simple yes or no questions

[Plane]

Hey pretty good answer,
but I can still quibble.

It depends on which parts of the Democratic Party were dominant.

Yes that is true , and I expect your answer to be aspirational , what your favoriate Dems would do if they were given free reign.

But they would NOT lower taxes on the wealthy to create jobs. That has been proven not to work,

Ha! they surely would not ,even in the ways that have worked before.

They would NOT monger useless wars .

So you are not supporting a Clinton, who might wag the dog?

They would NOT try to set Blacks against Whites as the Republican'ts do.

There is a faction of the Democrat Party that does not demagogue racism? Who are these people and why are they never in the front?

The Democrats are not totally perfect, but the Republican';ts are as close to totally imperfect as they can be on this side of prison.

Just a matter of taste, confirmation bias helps us all forgive our favorites greater offense than we can't stand in the opposition.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Clinton did NOT monger any useless war. Get fucking real.

I am in favor of raising taxes on the rich, but not 95%.