ABC News Amy Robach caught on hot mic complaining that ABC spiked Epstein-Clinton story in 2016

Harshaw · Nov 17, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
Thank you so much for alerting me to your new responses to this thread.

Bah. Nothing in your behavior gives me reason to think you didn’t just bolt and then come back when I called you on it.

When I say 'not on the same planet', I meant nowhere near the same definitions and not pertaining to the same values. Meaning that they have little if anything to do with each other. But if you want to be literal, lets be literal.

Yes, I know, and I used that formulation in response to you when you said “modern liberalism” and “libertarianism” are “not on the same planet.” And then you backpedaled from it when I pointed out that under this formulation – yours –"modern liberals" don't believe in individual rights, personal freedom, the rule of law, democracy, etc., in the broad terms, and in individual issues like, say, personal choice, especially in the reproductive realm, relationship choice, especially in the same-sex marriage realm, bodily choice, especially in the drug realm, and, well, so many other things that libertarianism does believe in.

“Not pertaining to the same values.” “Have little or nothing to do with each other.” Your words. Therefore, “modern liberalism” doesn’t believe in that stuff. According to YOU.

So did you remember my posts from another thread verbatim through sheer memory power when you quoted them?

Pretty much, yep. As much as you seem not to be able to remember what even you say from post to post (see immediately above), I can understand why you might not believe that, though.

Are you afraid to contrast your understanding of these terms with the actual definitions? Because then we'd see who is making **** up and arbitrarily contorting definitions.

I'm actually interested to see if it lines up with a main definition, something you accused me of not doing. I haven't moved the goal-post, I've simply followed the boundaries you set for this discussion. Are you unable to conform to your own rules?

Please post a definition of progressive that agrees with your definition so we can settle this.

There have been plenty of definitions given in this thread by both you and me. Perhaps instead of moving your goalposts away from demanding that I give definitions in “my own words,” you should start demonstrating that what I said is incorrect, according to those definitions already posted.

I never said you were "flatly incorrect" on any such thing.

Click to expand...

So was I correct or incorrect? Half correct? Mostly correct?

You never made a statement on that point to be “correct” or “incorrect” on. You demanded that I:

define Classical British Liberal in contrast to Classical Liberal, using your own words. This should be entertaining.

Which I then proceeded to do – though it’s funny that you didn’t already know the difference, what with your self-described vastly superior knowledge of all these concepts and everything. Hmmm.

Except that Jordan Peterson refuses to identify as conservative or right-wing or libertarian or 'American classical liberal'. So who are you correcting, me or Jordan Peterson?

Neither, and nowhere did I claim to be “correcting” anything. You wanted the difference; I told you.

This is just a continuation of your lie that I said you were “flatly incorrect” about something.

But even here, you say yourself that Jordan Petersen "refuses to identify as" (among other things) an "American classical liberal." Indeed, he defines himself as a British classical liberal, which was, in fact, one of my points.

If you could keep your own line of argument straight from post to post, you might not commit nearly as many of these self-owns.

Jesus ****ing christ, will you guys just admit that you're conservative, libertarian, or right-wing without all this horse-**** co-opting of other ideological terms? You're not liberal, and classical liberalism is ideological camouflage. Why you hiding behind a usage of liberalism that was outdated when Americans wore powdered wigs?

I’m sure this tantrum made you feel really good, but all it really boils down to is “WHY WON’T YOU TELL ME I’M RIGHT, DAMMIT???”

I don't lie or move goal-posts.

You’ve done both numerous times now, as I have calmly pointed out.

I do let the other poster set the boundaries and then ask that the other poster adhere to them.

No, you don’t. You make demands and then try to shift the discussion when they’re met.

Dans La Lune · Nov 17, 2019

Harshaw said:
Bah. Nothing in your behavior gives me reason to think you didn’t just bolt and then come back when I called you on it.

Just FYI, I get dozens of notifications, and I don't bookmark my 'Who Quoted Me' page, which disappears of notifications the second its closed.

Yes, I know, and I used that formulation in response to you when you said “modern liberalism” and “libertarianism” are “not on the same planet.”

I stand by that.

And then you backpedaled from it when I pointed out that under this formulation – yours –"modern liberals" don't believe in individual rights, personal freedom, the rule of law, democracy, etc.

Except, again, that's not how definitions work. You don't need to contradict a definition to have a completely different definition.

“Not pertaining to the same values.” “Have little or nothing to do with each other.” Your words. Therefore, “modern liberalism” doesn’t believe in that stuff.

No, that's false. My like of chocolate ice cream doesn't speak to my like or dislike of carrots. I don't have to like or dislike carrots to like chocolate ice cream. Do you get it now that I've dumbed it down to a child-like level of understanding?

According to YOU.

Again, you don't understand how to use language.

Pretty much, yep.

So you can randomly pull quotes from another poster, with their exact phrasing, without looking at their past posts? That's pretty amusing if you think anyone believes that.

As much as you seem not to be able to remember what even you say from post to post (see immediately above), I can understand why you might not believe that, though.

Except I just proved you incorrect. You should try proving your assertions before you use them as evidence.

There have been plenty of definitions given in this thread by both you and me.

I want a definition which conforms to this definition:

""Progressives" think they're the ones who get to define what constitutes "progress," but to them, "progress" is a classic left-wing laundry list which they're willing to implement however it can get done. By democracy if possible, but if the pesky people don't want to go along with then, then through unelected bureaucracy, the courts, through punitive taxation, etc., and they don't mind casting fundamental liberties like speech, association, or religion to the wind to get what they want. They are hostile to economic liberty and really, really want complete control of the economy and use "environmentalism" to attempt to achieve it, a la the "Green New Deal." "Social equality," as they define it, is their greatest good; and the end justifies the means. Short, I suppose, of mass incarcerations or pogroms (they're generally not full-throated Communists), but then you do see things like wanting to "put men in camps" now and then."

Or you can withdraw your definition and admit that you just made this **** up. And remember, you originally challenged me on my definition of progressive in relation to CNN. That was how this all started.

Neither, and nowhere did I claim to be “correcting” anything.

So you weren't 'correcting' me when you corrected me by saying, 'British Classical Liberal!'' A definition and usage of classical liberal which is so obscure that it confounds Google.

But even here, you say yourself that Jordan Petersen "refuses to identify as" (among other things) an "American classical liberal." Indeed, he defines himself as a British classical liberal, which was, in fact, one of my points.

You said British classical liberal is conservative, which Jordan Peterson rejects. I'm not a Jordan Petersonologist, but you seem invested in him and were quick to correct me.

If you could keep your own line of argument straight from post to post, you might not commit nearly as many of these self-owns.

Isn't the whole goal of 'British classical liberal', 'American classical liberal', 'modern liberal' designed to confuse the ideological debate? Do you consider yourself liberal in the modern usage?

I’m sure this tantrum made you feel really good, but all it really boils down to is “WHY WON’T YOU TELL ME I’M RIGHT, DAMMIT???”

Well, I am and have been consistently right. You actually can't point to any issue I've been wrong on.

No, you don’t. You make demands and then try to shift the discussion when they’re met.

I await your admission or concession with regard to the proper definition of progressivism. You have many choices before you, none of which require any effort. I'm not asking you to jump through any hoops.

Harshaw · Nov 17, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
Just FYI, I get dozens of notifications, and I don't bookmark my 'Who Quoted Me' page, which disappears of notifications the second its closed.

Yeah. You were eagerly following this one and responding within moments until that point.

I stand by that.

Except, again, that's not how definitions work. You don't need to contradict a definition to have a completely different definition.

No, that's false. My like of chocolate ice cream doesn't speak to my like or dislike of carrots. I don't have to like or dislike carrots to like chocolate ice cream. Do you get it now that I've dumbed it down to a child-like level of understanding?

You said there's no overlap and no "shared values" between "modern liberalism" and "libertarianism," and then when I point out, rightly, that this means "modern liberalism" doesn't "share" a whole list of values libertarians have, you try to pretend it doesn't mean that, because of course you want "modern liberalism" to share those values.

Lather, rinse, repeat, in a sordid show of craven mendacity.

Again, you don't understand how to use language.

I do. As such, I recognize your copious dishonesty.

So you can randomly pull quotes from another poster, with their exact phrasing, without looking at their past posts? That's pretty amusing if you think anyone believes that.

You should not believe other people must have the limitations you do. But, you do make many, many, many intellectual errors.

Except I just proved you incorrect.

No, you just said something (stupidly!) dishonest.

I want a definition which conforms to this definition:

""Progressives" think they're the ones who get to define what constitutes "progress," but to them, "progress" is a classic left-wing laundry list which they're willing to implement however it can get done. By democracy if possible, but if the pesky people don't want to go along with then, then through unelected bureaucracy, the courts, through punitive taxation, etc., and they don't mind casting fundamental liberties like speech, association, or religion to the wind to get what they want. They are hostile to economic liberty and really, really want complete control of the economy and use "environmentalism" to attempt to achieve it, a la the "Green New Deal." "Social equality," as they define it, is their greatest good; and the end justifies the means. Short, I suppose, of mass incarcerations or pogroms (they're generally not full-throated Communists), but then you do see things like wanting to "put men in camps" now and then."

I don't care what you "want." You seem to think you make the rules. You don't.

Plenty of definitions have been provided. Pick one; show me how this is wrong.

Or you can withdraw your definition and admit that you just made this **** up. And remember, you originally challenged me on my definition of progressive in relation to CNN. That was how this all started.

Then you should have no trouble comparing what I said.

So you weren't 'correcting' me when you corrected me by saying, 'British Classical Liberal!'' A definition and usage of classical liberal which is so obscure that it confounds Google.

Not by explaining the difference, no. And again, it's something you should have already known, being as you supposedly know so much more about all this stuff.

You haven't even attempted to refute that difference.

You said British classical liberal is conservative,

No, I said it skews closer to conservative than American classical liberalism.

which Jordan Peterson rejects.

He never rejected any such thing. He didn't say anything about it.

I'm not a Jordan Petersonologist, but you seem invested in him and were quick to correct me.

Oh, good grief; discussing YOUR example means I'm "invested" in him.

The juvenile dishonesty never stops with you.

Isn't the whole goal of 'British classical liberal', 'American classical liberal', 'modern liberal' designed to confuse the ideological debate?

No. That it confuses you does not mean the "goal" is to "confuse debate."

Well, I am and have been consistently right. You actually can't point to any issue I've been wrong on.

Again, I'm 100% certain you think this is true.

I await your admission or concession with regard to the proper definition of progressivism. You have many choices before you, none of which require any effort. I'm not asking you to jump through any hoops.

Yes, you are. You have you what you need. If you decide the definition you provided yourself isn't sufficient to show what I said is wrong, then so be it. That's a you problem, not a me problem.

Dans La Lune · Nov 17, 2019

Harshaw said:
Yeah. You were eagerly following this one and responding within moments until that point.

Yes, then you paused for whatever reason.

You said there's no overlap and no "shared values" between "modern liberalism" and "libertarianism," and then when I point out, rightly, that this means "modern liberalism" doesn't "share" a whole list of values libertarians have, you try to pretend it doesn't mean that, because of course you want "modern liberalism" to share those values.

Lather, rinse, repeat, in a sordid show of craven mendacity.

Okay, I will amend 'no shared values' to 'no [listed] shared values'.

You should not believe other people must have the limitations you do.

No, I just think it's very unlikely that someone could randomly copy and paste verbatim, via memory, what another poster randomly posts. I find it so unlikely that I'd lean towards you being a liar.

I don't care what you "want." You seem to think you make the rules. You don't.

*cluck cluck cluck*

We'll get to this later.

Not by explaining the difference, no. And again, it's something you should have already known, being as you supposedly know so much more about all this stuff.

I never claimed to be an expert on classical liberalism, other than the main definition, its connection to modern libertarianism, and that people like yourself, and David Rubin, have tried to supplant modern liberalism in its favor.

No, I said it skews closer to conservative than American classical liberalism.

Yes, and Jordan Peterson has said that he is not right-wing, which skews conservative.

He never rejected any such thing. He didn't say anything about it.

He said that he is not of the right-wing.

That it confuses you does not mean the "goal" is to "confuse debate."

Of course it confuses the debate. Again, do you think of yourself as liberal? I notice you didn't answer this question. It should be EASY for you.

Yes, you are. You have you what you need.

Okey-dokey:

progressive
[ pruh-gres-iv ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR progressive ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective
1) favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2) making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

Your definition:

1) ""Progressives" think they're the ones who get to define what constitutes "progress," but to them, "progress" is a classic left-wing laundry list which they're willing to implement however it can get done. FALSE

2) By democracy if possible, but if the pesky people don't want to go along with then, then through unelected bureaucracy, the courts, through punitive taxation, etc., and they don't mind casting fundamental liberties like speech, association, or religion to the wind to get what they want. FALSE

3) They are hostile to economic liberty and really, really want complete control of the economy and use "environmentalism" to attempt to achieve it, a la the "Green New Deal." "Social equality," as they define it, is their greatest good; and the end justifies the means. FALSE

4) Short, I suppose, of mass incarcerations or pogroms (they're generally not full-throated Communists), but then you do see things like wanting to "put men in camps" now and then." FALSE

Ding-ding-ding! Looks like you lied and/or simply don't know what you're talking about. You make up and contort definitions to fit your incredibly biased views. Which is ironic considering how this discussion started:

From Harshaw:

"If it were "progressive," it wouldn't be "liberal," because "progressives" and anyone to left of "progressives" aren't liberals."

Which is actually the second time Harshaw lied:

"Most of them consider themselves "progressives."

None of them consider themselves progressive, except maybe Van Jones.

Harshaw · Nov 17, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
Yes, then you paused for whatever reason.

:roll:

"Paused"? I signed off the for night; you posted; I responded when I saw it the next morning. I don't live on this board.

Okay, I will amend 'no shared values' to 'no
[listed] shared values'.

That doesn't help you. You don't seem to understand why. At best, it means you had no idea what "values" libertarians have in the first place and had no business making the statement, nor lecturing anyone on what you think is ignorance of these topics.

No, I just think it's very unlikely that someone could randomly copy and paste verbatim, via memory, what another poster randomly posts. I find it so unlikely that I'd lean towards you being a liar.

As I said, you shouldn't go by your own limitations as to what's actually "likely" or "unlikely."

I never claimed to be an expert on classical liberalism

You passed yourself off as quite an expert on political philosophy.

Yes, and Jordan Peterson has said that he is not right-wing, which skews conservative.

He said that he is not of the right-wing.

So? You've lost the plot.

Of course it confuses the debate. Again, do you think of yourself as liberal? I notice you didn't answer this question. It should be EASY for you.

By the definition of liberal I linked to several sources stating, sure.

Okey-dokey:

[/B]

Your definition:

1) ""Progressives" think they're the ones who get to define what constitutes "progress," but to them, "progress" is a classic left-wing laundry list which they're willing to implement however it can get done. FALSE

2) By democracy if possible, but if the pesky people don't want to go along with then, then through unelected bureaucracy, the courts, through punitive taxation, etc., and they don't mind casting fundamental liberties like speech, association, or religion to the wind to get what they want. FALSE

3) They are hostile to economic liberty and really, really want complete control of the economy and use "environmentalism" to attempt to achieve it, a la the "Green New Deal." "Social equality," as they define it, is their greatest good; and the end justifies the means. FALSE

4) Short, I suppose, of mass incarcerations or pogroms (they're generally not full-throated Communists), but then you do see things like wanting to "put men in camps" now and then." FALSE

Ding-ding-ding! Looks like you lied and/or simply don't know what you're talking about. You make up and contort definitions to fit your incredibly biased views. Which is ironic considering how this discussion started:

Saying "false" repeatedly doesn't make it false. Nothing I said conflicts with the definition you posted, and indeed, you've even admitted yourself some of it is true, such as hostility to economic liberty. You certainly have not explained why what I said was wrong.

As for "progressives" wanting to put men in camps, well, I showed you an example of it some time ago:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/bias...igious-scholar-debacle-12.html#post1070838919

(This is why you shouldn't assume others have your limitations when it comes to memory.)

None of them consider themselves progressive, except maybe Van Jones.

Do you have statements corroborating what they do or don't consider themselves? Of course you don't, as I already admitted I did not.

Look, at this point, it’s clear you’ve gotten out waaaaay over your skis, you don’t know which way is up anymore, and you are loath to admit it, so . . .

As all of this has entered an endless cycle of just repeating the same thing over and over, and frankly, it's gotten boring, you come up with whatever last word makes you feel the best about yourself and I’ll let you have it.

Dans La Lune · Nov 18, 2019

Harshaw said:
:roll:

"Paused"? I signed off the for night; you posted; I responded when I saw it the next morning. I don't live on this board.

I didn't receive notifications the next morning from any poster. I did start receiving notifications the next day from other posters.

That doesn't help you. You don't seem to understand why. At best, it means you had no idea what "values" libertarians have in the first place and had no business making the statement, nor lecturing anyone on what you think is ignorance of these topics.

The sheer audacity of this statement after the origins of your participation in this this is astounding.

As I said, you shouldn't go by your own limitations as to what's actually "likely" or "unlikely."

So you can randomly quote me verbatim, without looking at my previous posts, but you can't remember whether CNN anchors identify themselves as progressive? BULL****.

You passed yourself off as quite an expert on political philosophy.

Well, perhaps compared to you.

By the definition of liberal I linked to several sources stating, sure.

You mean a definition which is not in common use outside of libertarian circles. Why aren't you liberal in the common usage? Do you not have shared values? That would kind of destroy your entire purpose for being in this thread and challenging me in the first place.

Saying "false" repeatedly doesn't make it false. Nothing I said conflicts with the definition you posted, and indeed, you've even admitted yourself some of it is true, such as hostility to economic liberty. You certainly have not explained why what I said was wrong.

So where in the definition is 'hostile to economic liberty' listed? Are you reverting back to your blatant ignorance of how to use a dictionary?

As for "progressives" wanting to put men in camps, well, I showed you an example of it some time ago:

That has nothing to do with the definition. That's like saying conservatives burning a cross in front of a black person's lawn is a function of conservatism.

Do you have statements corroborating what they do or don't consider themselves? Of course you don't, as I already admitted I did not.

So why did you make the claim? Did you mis-remember? How does that square with your ability to take mental photographs of my posting history?

As all of this has entered an endless cycle of just repeating the same thing over and over, and frankly, it's gotten boring, you come up with whatever last word makes you feel the best about yourself and I’ll let you have it.

My only parting words to you is to not sign checks that you can't cash.

tres borrachos · Nov 19, 2019

Grim17 said:
Who accused him? Link please.

If you're talking about Virginia Roberts Giuffre, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

From Politico:

Your Google button broken?

Grim17 · Nov 19, 2019

tres borrachos said:
Your Google button broken?

The truth is, you have nothing.

Are you just too ashamed to admit it, or was your intention all along to deceive everyone?

.

tres borrachos · Nov 20, 2019

Grim17 said:
The truth is, you have nothing.

Are you just too ashamed to admit it, or was your intention all along to deceive everyone?

.

So your Google button is broken then. Just say so. Do you want us to start a fundraiser to buy you a new one?

Grim17 · Nov 20, 2019

tres borrachos said:
So your Google button is broken then. Just say so. Do you want us to start a fundraiser to buy you a new one?

I searched and came up with nothing.

You are the one who made the claim, so it falls upon you to back it up. If you can't, then do what any honest person would and retract your post.

Surely you wouldn't sacrifice your integrity to spread hatred for Donald Trump?

tres borrachos · Nov 21, 2019

Grim17 said:
I searched and came up with nothing.

You are the one who made the claim, so it falls upon you to back it up. If you can't, then do what any honest person would and retract your post.

Surely you wouldn't sacrifice your integrity to spread hatred for Donald Trump?

Well, you didn't search very well, but that's no surprise.

"Hatred for Donald Trump". How dramatic! Did I make you cry because I don't love Donald Trump, like you do?

Here's the information you couldn't find. No charge for doing what you were incapable of doing.

The lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl, explained - Vox

Grim17 · Nov 21, 2019

tres borrachos said:
Well, you didn't search very well, but that's no surprise.

"Hatred for Donald Trump". How dramatic! Did I make you cry because I don't love Donald Trump, like you do?

Here's the information you couldn't find. No charge for doing what you were incapable of doing.

The lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl, explained - Vox

That was over 3 years ago and it even said in your link that many of her allegations were "fishy". Anyone can make accusations but the question is, are those accusations credible? If they were, then why don't we hear a peep from the main stream liberal media?

The sad fact is, the left is now famous for manufacturing phony allegations to attack their political adversaries with, and since it's been more than 3 years since this story was published and we haven't heard a peep, it appears those allegations fall into that category. Especially when you take into account what Virginia Roberts Giuffre said in public and in court documents:

The unsealed files don’t appear to include any allegation that Trump had sex with Giuffre or other women working for Epstein.

Giuffre also denied aspects of a reporter’s claim that she said: “Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey’s. He didn’t partake in any sex with any of us but he flirted with me. He’d laugh and tell Jeffrey, ‘you’ve got the life.’”

“’Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey’s.’ That part is true. ‘He didn’t partake in any’ of — any sex with any of us but he flirted with me.’ It’s true that he didn’t partake in any sex with us, but it’s not true that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me,” Giuffre clarified later.

The Kavanaugh hearing exposed to the American people just how shameless and dishonest the left and their cohorts in the democratic party really are, and it's a shame that people like yourself promote this behavior by using these phony allegations as a means to bolster your political hatred for Donald Trump.

Trump's own behavior provides a never ending source of legitimate criticism for those who oppose him, so I've never understood why so many people on the left have felt it necessary to manufacture phony accusations over and over again.

ABC News Amy Robach caught on hot mic complaining that ABC spiked Epstein-Clinton story in 2016

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dans La Lune

Moral Clarity

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dans La Lune

Moral Clarity

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dans La Lune

Moral Clarity

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

Grim17

Battle Ready

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

Grim17

Battle Ready

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

Grim17

Battle Ready