16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal

 

See. In American politics that definition fits a Conservative, not a liberal. Here the 'L-word' means what I said above. The English language here and in the UK are similar, but not exactly alike. This is one place where the words are the same but the meanings are different.

 To get a better feel for American Liberalism and how it differs from the European meaning of the word, go to Wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

See. In American politics that definition fits a Conservative, not a liberal. Here the 'L-word' means what I said above. The English language here and in the UK are similar, but not exactly alike. This is one place where the words are the same but the meanings are different.

Do you also say "brass band" when you mean "string quartet"?

[wgscott]

29 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I merely gave you the accepted definition of an American liberal. 

 

Accepted by the alt-right only, and maybe by male separatist lunatics who view Feminism as an existential threat.  (I suspect the Venn diagram on that one shows a lot of intersection.)

 

 

[gmgraves]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

If people obeyed posted speed limits, the cameras would come down. Simple as that.

Here they would never go up. Your country once had NO speed limits. That's the kind of Liberal, freedom loving thinking that I could get behind!

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

See. In American politics that definition fits a Conservative, not a liberal. Here the 'L-word' means what I said above. The English language here and in the UK are similar, but not exactly alike. This is one place where the words are the same but the meanings are different.

 To get a better feel for American Liberalism and how it differs from the European meaning of the word, go to Wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Not only are the words identical, but the entire history of both Conservatism and Liberalism have their origin in the British system.  This is just profound historical ignorance and an attempt to efface history and re-define terms to fit an alt-right world-view.

[Sal1950]

34 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

US Liberals are generally in favor of of restricted freedoms ("for the common good"). And the restricted freedoms one finds in a police state are right-up the lefty's street and we all know that police-state tactics are something that Germans seem like. 

Yes, being Liberal in the US today means a push towards a Socialist form of government is the plain and simple. Much of it in direct opposition to our constitution.. 

 

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Here they would never go up. Your country once had NO speed limits. That's the kind of Liberal, freedom loving thinking that I could get behind!

 

They are up, everywhere.  Open your eyes.

 

Here's a hint:  The people that put them there do not fit the Anglo-American definition of Liberal or Conservative.  

 

Think about it.

[lucretius]

1 minute ago, Sal1950 said:

Yes, being Liberal in the US today means a push towards a Socialist form of government is the plain and simple. Much of it in direct opposition to our constitution.. 

 

 

But then, of course, the US has it's own definition of "socialism", LOL!

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

When you also say "brass band" when you mean "string quartet"?

Sorry, that makes no sense. See, in politics, platforms change. Over the last half-century the Democratic Party here in the USA has migrated strongly to the left. Democrats are referred to as "liberals" so, in the context of politics, the definition of the word liberal has changed. Many have opined that if John F. Kennedy were alive today, he would likely no longer be a Democrat. He was moderate and today, his views more strongly align with the Republican (Conservative Party) than with the left-wing Democrats. 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Here they would never go up. Your country once had NO speed limits. That's the kind of Liberal, freedom loving thinking that I could get behind!

Had people driven sensibly, maintaining a speed appropriate to the road and weather, nobody would have had the idea to institute speed limits. Btw, the German Autobahn is largely without speed limits. Here's a map: http://autobahnspeedhunter.de/

[Sal1950]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

But then, of course, the US has it's own definition of "socialism", LOL!

USSR, Communist China, Nazi Germany.

Socialism is easy to define.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Sorry, that makes no sense. See, in politics, platforms change. Over the last half-century the Democratic Party here in the USA has migrated strongly to the left. Democrats are referred to as "liberals" so, in the context of politics, the definition of the word liberal has changed. Many have opined that if John F. Kennedy were alive today, he would likely no longer be a Democrat. He was moderate and today, his views more strongly align with the Republican (Conservative Party) than with the left-wing Democrats. 

By that logic, if a group of vegans started eating meat, then the word "vegan" would suddenly mean "meat-eater."

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

USSR, Communist China, Nazi Germany.

Socialism is easy to define.

 

LOL!

[lucretius]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Sorry, that makes no sense. See, in politics, platforms change. Over the last half-century the Democratic Party here in the USA has migrated strongly to the left. Democrats are referred to as "liberals" so, in the context of politics, the definition of the word liberal has changed. Many have opined that if John F. Kennedy were alive today, he would likely no longer be a Democrat. He was moderate and today, his views more strongly align with the Republican (Conservative Party) than with the left-wing Democrats. 

 

Bigger changes can be seen in the Republican party since it's domination by social "conservatives" and the religious right.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Bigger changes can be seen in the Republican party since it's domination by social "conservatives" and the religious right.

If the names of the parties are indicative of their differences, we can infer that one is in favour of monarchy while the other wants a dictatorship (without a title of King/Emperor).

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

USSR, Communist China, Nazi Germany.

Socialism is easy to define.

 

Only if you rely on Fox News as your primary source of education.

 

None of those countries had socialist governments. Communism is not the same as socialism and the Nazis were not socialists despite the official name of their party.

 

 

[Sal1950]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Only if you rely on Fox News as your primary source of education.

 

None of those countries had socialist governments. Communism is not the same as socialism and the Nazis were not socialists despite the official name of their party.

 

 

Funny, that is how many others describe them including the countries fathers.

"The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was a socialist federation in Eurasia that existed from 1922 to 1991. Nominally a union of multiple national Soviet republics, its government and economy were highly centralized. Wikipedia"

[lucretius]

7 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Funny, that is how many others describe them including the countries fathers.

"The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was a socialist federation in Eurasia that existed from 1922 to 1991. Nominally a union of multiple national Soviet republics, its government and economy were highly centralized. Wikipedia"

 

We all know what political parties say and do differ.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Sal1950 said:

Funny, that is how many others describe them including the countries fathers.

Any country with a qualifier in its name isn't that thing. A prime example is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is not democratic, definitely not the people's, and no longer even a republic.

[Sal1950]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Any country with a qualifier in its name isn't that thing. A prime example is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is not democratic, definitely not the people's, and no longer even a republic.

Kind of like today's US Democratic party.

[wgscott]

2 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Kind of like today's US Democratic party.

 

You got that one right.

 

With the Super-delagates used to exclude voices like that of Bernie Sauders, 

35 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Sorry, that makes no sense. See, in politics, platforms change. Over the last half-century the Democratic Party here in the USA has migrated strongly to the left. 

 

Note to mansr:   "Left" here in non-Newspeak means "Right" (or at best, "neo-liberal").

[wgscott]

47 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Bigger changes can be seen in the Republican party since it's domination by social "conservatives" and the religious right.

 

Good job with the quotation, since it is in reality as far from genuine conservatism as is a New-Deal Liberal of old.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

US Liberals are generally in favor of of restricted freedoms ("for the common good"). And the restricted freedoms one finds in a police state are right-up the lefty's street and we all know that police-state tactics are something that Germans seem like. 

Wow, George - are you trying to win a contest for placing as many stereotypes in as a small amount of words as possible? Try to get out of your mind set of automatically classifying everything according to left-right stereotypes. As with all stereotypes, they have little to do with reality.
In terms of searches and the constitution, you are welcome to your opinion. But the reality is that your idea of what the constitution says is only your idea - it means nothing in reality to anyone but you. There's decades of court rulings backing up another definition of what a probable cause for a search is. The fact that you don't agree is irrelevant to everyone but you.

Part of the meaning of the constitution is that courts get to decide what it means when there's a disagreement. Courts have pretty much forever interpreted the "probable cause" for a search to have a very low bar. And in spite of your claims, the bar is probably higher today than decades ago, when authorities could get away with just about anything without consequence. 

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 

 I merely gave you the accepted definition of an American liberal. Of course within that broad definition, there people at each end of that spectrum as well as in the middle.  

No you gave the "accepted" definition by people on the right who like to reduce the world to simplistic stereotypes that have little to do with reality, so they can continually reconfirm their own point of view without ever actually challenging their own assumptions and way of thinking.

 

[RickyV]

59 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Many have opined that if John F. Kennedy were alive today, he would likely no longer be a Democrat. He was moderate and today, his views more strongly align with the Republican (Conservative Party) than with the left-wing Democrats. 

That was a different time. In that time women belonged in the kitchen and racism was also normal.