Oh, well thats ok then...
-
What I am talking about is your propensity to complain about the things that have to be done in order to protect our way of life. If you think so many things are so wrong, stop complaining about it and do something, become a leader in the military or government and do something other than criticize what others are doing. Just because you have the right to complain about anything and everything does not mean that you should ignore your right to remain silent. You sit in your little online world criticizing but doing nothing. Correct me if I am wrong. Tell me about the personal sacrifice that you have made even once in your life for the benefit or even potential benefit of someone other than your self. Then I will accept you righteous opinions as something other than liberal BS.
(I'm responding because in a way I feel it's also directed at me.)
Bob Flynn wrote:
What I am talking about is your propensity to complain about the things that have to be done in order to protect our way of life.
What about our leader's propensity for f*cking up those things that didn't need to be done to protect our way of life. Can we complain about that, please, oh please?
Bob Flynn wrote:
If you think so many things are so wrong, stop complaining about it and do something, become a leader in the military or government and do something other than criticize what others are doing.
So are we only allowed to discuss the good things? My my, you'd make a great North Korean citizen.
Bob Flynn wrote:
Just because you have the right to complain about anything and everything does not mean that you should ignore your right to remain silent.
Huh? I think most of us exercise our right to remain silent much more than you think. This administration is worthy of much more bashing than what I see on this board. I just think that after a while it gets old -- "Oh man, there they go again... *sigh*".
Bob Flynn wrote:
You sit in your little online world criticizing but doing nothing.
How do you know? And what do you do on this board? You defend this administration like it's perfect. Wake the f*ck up! We critize the government because we don't want it to suck! We genuinely care! We want to have the best government in the world -- one we can be proud to have elected. It's not a right vs left thing. It's a common sense thing. We want good leaders. That's all. And this is a general discussion board -- where people openly come and express their views about anything. If you don't like what you hear, do something about it. You're free to create your own "Bob Worships Bush" board where you can censor people who say what you don't want to hear.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
unless you're just ranting like a fool, of course
no Chris, I'll leave that to you as usual. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry! I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
you just made a claim of a capital crime. you'd better back that shit up, or people are gonna think you're just full of hot air. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
(I'm responding because in a way I feel it's also directed at me.)
Bob Flynn wrote:
What I am talking about is your propensity to complain about the things that have to be done in order to protect our way of life.
What about our leader's propensity for f*cking up those things that didn't need to be done to protect our way of life. Can we complain about that, please, oh please?
Bob Flynn wrote:
If you think so many things are so wrong, stop complaining about it and do something, become a leader in the military or government and do something other than criticize what others are doing.
So are we only allowed to discuss the good things? My my, you'd make a great North Korean citizen.
Bob Flynn wrote:
Just because you have the right to complain about anything and everything does not mean that you should ignore your right to remain silent.
Huh? I think most of us exercise our right to remain silent much more than you think. This administration is worthy of much more bashing than what I see on this board. I just think that after a while it gets old -- "Oh man, there they go again... *sigh*".
Bob Flynn wrote:
You sit in your little online world criticizing but doing nothing.
How do you know? And what do you do on this board? You defend this administration like it's perfect. Wake the f*ck up! We critize the government because we don't want it to suck! We genuinely care! We want to have the best government in the world -- one we can be proud to have elected. It's not a right vs left thing. It's a common sense thing. We want good leaders. That's all. And this is a general discussion board -- where people openly come and express their views about anything. If you don't like what you hear, do something about it. You're free to create your own "Bob Worships Bush" board where you can censor people who say what you don't want to hear.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Wake the f*ck up! We critize the government because we don't want it to suck! We genuinely care! We want to have the best government in the world -- one we can be proud to have elected. It's not a right vs left thing. It's a common sense thing. We want good leaders. That's all.
bravo. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So, if pouring gasoline on a fire doesn't put it out, then obviously, any clear thinking person would be compelled to pour even more gasoline.
The correct analogy would be that if a fire continues to burn, you probably need more water.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'd be happy if we would just concentrate on protecting our own, right here in this country.
That is prcisely why I support the president's politices and reject those of the left. What you propose is an essentially defensive response to terrorism, allowing it to be proactive while we are reactive, and treating it as a law enforcement issue, but at the same time tieing up the government's law enforcement abilities by crying about 'police state' and loss of civil rights everytime they do something to deal with the problem. So, to be blunt, you have no solutions at all.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Bush is an idiot
If so, he is a useful idiot for my purposes.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
As far as your continual ranting against the secularist/Marxist agenda
If the basic political principles of the left, including the US democratic party, are not fundamentally predicated upon an inherently Marxist world view, then would you be so kind as to educate me on the intellectual foundation which the modern left is building upon. Give me some names, principles, ideas and ideals from which modern liberalism receives its nourishment. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Stan Shannon wrote:
The correct analogy would be that if a fire continues to burn, you probably need more water.
Your analogy comprehension skills need a little work.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is prcisely why I support the president's politices and reject those of the left. What you propose is an essentially defensive response to terrorism, allowing it to be proactive while we are reactive, and treating it as a law enforcement issue, but at the same time tieing up the government's law enforcement abilities by crying about 'police state' and loss of civil rights everytime they do something to deal with the problem. So, to be blunt, you have no solutions at all.
No, I'm saying that the President's policies aren't doing jack to protect us. I've said before that targeted action overseas -- perhaps against actual terrorists and the countries that produce them -- would make more sense than what this jackass is doing. As for his actions at home, this borrow-and-spend "conservative" administration has run the deficit up while building a giant, ineffective, undertrained bureaucracy implementing a host of nonsensical policies (searching grandmothers and toddlers, shoe inspections!!?!) that don't address the problem, and overlooking simple things like hardening access to the flight deck and beefing up the sky marshal program. Much money spent, with what results? USA PATRIOT is being used to nab minor drug dealers, while we have the government's unverifiable, undocumented word that they have stopped some suspected terrorists, somewhere, from maybe doing something? Gee, I feel so much safer.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the basic political principles of the left, including the US democratic party, are not fundamentally predicated upon an inherently Marxist world view, then would you be so kind as to educate me on the intellectual foundation which the modern left is building upon. Give me some names, principles, ideas and ideals from which modern liberalism receives its nourishment.
I'm not a leftist -- certainly not as you would define the term -- but as for the political principles of the left in the US, they're the same as the right, with just a bit more social conservatism (the non-panderers among them do not want to turn the USA into a Christian religious state), and, at the moment a bit more fiscal conservatism as well. But I don't give a major
-
Bob Flynn wrote:
I guess you would rather wait until Americans ..[blah blah blah]
sounds like the two of you have a pretty interesting converstaion going on. but do you mind if i cut in ?
Bob Flynn wrote:
And how has this been a sacrifice for you?
right. the goalposts are now over...here. but, go right ahead, find my tax records and calculate the amount of free speech i'm allowed by law. take your time, i'll wait. and if you can cite the relevant sections of law you used to do those calculations, that'd be great.
Bob Flynn wrote:
You enjoy a very comfortable life, provide to you by the ones that came before us and fought for the ability to have these rights.
including those who fought to preserve our civil rights over the wishes of those who would prefer the government have unimpeded power over us.
Bob Flynn wrote:
And there you sit criticizing the means that are taken to secure those rights for the next generations.
when those "means" inpinge on what they claim to protect, it's time to reevaluate them. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
sounds like the two of you have a pretty interesting converstaion going on. but do you mind if i cut in ?
Your wit is just astonishing.
Chris Losinger wrote:
right. the goalposts are now over...here. but, go right ahead, find my tax records and calculate the amount of free speech i'm allowed by law. take your time, i'll wait. and if you can cite the relevant sections of law you used to do those calculations, that'd be great.
Another example of wit and complete idiocy. Who said you did not have the right to speak? I only said that should should chose to exercise your right to silence a little more. That should give some much need time to think before you comment.
-
(I'm responding because in a way I feel it's also directed at me.)
Bob Flynn wrote:
What I am talking about is your propensity to complain about the things that have to be done in order to protect our way of life.
What about our leader's propensity for f*cking up those things that didn't need to be done to protect our way of life. Can we complain about that, please, oh please?
Bob Flynn wrote:
If you think so many things are so wrong, stop complaining about it and do something, become a leader in the military or government and do something other than criticize what others are doing.
So are we only allowed to discuss the good things? My my, you'd make a great North Korean citizen.
Bob Flynn wrote:
Just because you have the right to complain about anything and everything does not mean that you should ignore your right to remain silent.
Huh? I think most of us exercise our right to remain silent much more than you think. This administration is worthy of much more bashing than what I see on this board. I just think that after a while it gets old -- "Oh man, there they go again... *sigh*".
Bob Flynn wrote:
You sit in your little online world criticizing but doing nothing.
How do you know? And what do you do on this board? You defend this administration like it's perfect. Wake the f*ck up! We critize the government because we don't want it to suck! We genuinely care! We want to have the best government in the world -- one we can be proud to have elected. It's not a right vs left thing. It's a common sense thing. We want good leaders. That's all. And this is a general discussion board -- where people openly come and express their views about anything. If you don't like what you hear, do something about it. You're free to create your own "Bob Worships Bush" board where you can censor people who say what you don't want to hear.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
(I'm responding because in a way I feel it's also directed at me.)
A little paranoid are we?
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
So are we only allowed to discuss the good things?
Too much talk. Not enough action. Get off your keyboard and take action. Or are you happy just to complain?
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And what do you do on this board? You defend this administration like it's perfect.
No, I simply get tired of the one-sided atitude the Bush is always wrong. It is pathetic. Just for review, I actually have reason to dis-like Bush for his mistakes - I got to suspend my life for over a year to play in his war to rid Saddam of WMD, only to find that there was no WMD. Unfortunately Bush was still the best candidate that our country could produce. So I do not defend this administration, I simply challenge you to take action rather than just complain on a message board that will have absolutely no affect on any of these issues.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
sounds like the two of you have a pretty interesting converstaion going on. but do you mind if i cut in ?
Your wit is just astonishing.
Chris Losinger wrote:
right. the goalposts are now over...here. but, go right ahead, find my tax records and calculate the amount of free speech i'm allowed by law. take your time, i'll wait. and if you can cite the relevant sections of law you used to do those calculations, that'd be great.
Another example of wit and complete idiocy. Who said you did not have the right to speak? I only said that should should chose to exercise your right to silence a little more. That should give some much need time to think before you comment.
Bob Flynn wrote:
Who said you did not have the right to speak?
nobody - that's another conversation you're having by yourself. but you certainly seem to be demanding that i contribute to something (something you approve of, of course) in order to pay for the privilege of exercising it. and i still don't know WTF you meant by "Why don't you take that liberal BS..." . what "liberal BS" are you talking about ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 21:28 Thursday 29th December, 2005
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
(I'm responding because in a way I feel it's also directed at me.)
A little paranoid are we?
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
So are we only allowed to discuss the good things?
Too much talk. Not enough action. Get off your keyboard and take action. Or are you happy just to complain?
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And what do you do on this board? You defend this administration like it's perfect.
No, I simply get tired of the one-sided atitude the Bush is always wrong. It is pathetic. Just for review, I actually have reason to dis-like Bush for his mistakes - I got to suspend my life for over a year to play in his war to rid Saddam of WMD, only to find that there was no WMD. Unfortunately Bush was still the best candidate that our country could produce. So I do not defend this administration, I simply challenge you to take action rather than just complain on a message board that will have absolutely no affect on any of these issues.
Bob Flynn wrote:
Too much talk. Not enough action. Get off your keyboard and take action. Or are you happy just to complain?
Nope, I'd like to do more, but the election is 3 years away.
Bob Flynn wrote:
Just for review, I actually have reason to dis-like Bush for his mistakes - I got to suspend my life for over a year to play in his war to rid Saddam of WMD, only to find that there was no WMD. Unfortunately Bush was still the best candidate that our country could produce.
That sounded like a complaint. Get off your keyboard and take action! :rolleyes:
Bob Flynn wrote:
I simply challenge you to take action rather than just complain on a message board that will have absolutely no affect on any of these issues.
Complaining is action. It's a way to vent frustrations and to bring awareness to those who care enough to do something about it when the next election finally comes.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
(I'm responding because in a way I feel it's also directed at me.)
A little paranoid are we?
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
So are we only allowed to discuss the good things?
Too much talk. Not enough action. Get off your keyboard and take action. Or are you happy just to complain?
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And what do you do on this board? You defend this administration like it's perfect.
No, I simply get tired of the one-sided atitude the Bush is always wrong. It is pathetic. Just for review, I actually have reason to dis-like Bush for his mistakes - I got to suspend my life for over a year to play in his war to rid Saddam of WMD, only to find that there was no WMD. Unfortunately Bush was still the best candidate that our country could produce. So I do not defend this administration, I simply challenge you to take action rather than just complain on a message board that will have absolutely no affect on any of these issues.
Bob Flynn wrote:
Too much talk. Not enough action. Get off your keyboard and take action. Or are you happy just to complain?
Does that mean we'll be seeing less of you around here in the future? A whole lot less??? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
their precious little secularist/Marxist agenda is being implemented uninhibited by evil "neo-cons"
I drove to Texas for the Christmas holiday and drove a route that took me from Indy to ST. Louis, then ST. Louis to Dallas through the Ozarks and Oklahoma. It was a beautifull drive filled with great scenery, Christmas displays and American flags. The crap you see spewed here by the mindless (well, by folks incapable of critical thought and analysis) will stay trapped on either coast, doesn't have a chance in the heart land. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry! I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I drove to Texas for the Christmas holiday and drove a route that took me from Indy to ST. Louis, then ST. Louis to Dallas through the Ozarks and Oklahoma. It was a beautifull drive filled with great scenery, Christmas displays and American flags. The crap you see spewed here by the mindless (well, by folks incapable of critical thought and analysis) will stay trapped on either coast, doesn't have a chance in the heart land.
Ah, yes. The heart land: http://thechrisproject.com/images/map_nowvsthen.jpg[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Bob Flynn wrote:
Who said you did not have the right to speak?
nobody - that's another conversation you're having by yourself. but you certainly seem to be demanding that i contribute to something (something you approve of, of course) in order to pay for the privilege of exercising it. and i still don't know WTF you meant by "Why don't you take that liberal BS..." . what "liberal BS" are you talking about ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 21:28 Thursday 29th December, 2005
Chris Losinger wrote:
nobody - that's another conversation you're having by yourself.
You are the only one that keeps repeating that statement.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but you certainly seem to be demanding that i contribute to something (something you approve of, of course) in order to pay for the privilege of exercising it.
Wrong again. I said do more than JUST talk.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The correct analogy would be that if a fire continues to burn, you probably need more water.
Your analogy comprehension skills need a little work.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is prcisely why I support the president's politices and reject those of the left. What you propose is an essentially defensive response to terrorism, allowing it to be proactive while we are reactive, and treating it as a law enforcement issue, but at the same time tieing up the government's law enforcement abilities by crying about 'police state' and loss of civil rights everytime they do something to deal with the problem. So, to be blunt, you have no solutions at all.
No, I'm saying that the President's policies aren't doing jack to protect us. I've said before that targeted action overseas -- perhaps against actual terrorists and the countries that produce them -- would make more sense than what this jackass is doing. As for his actions at home, this borrow-and-spend "conservative" administration has run the deficit up while building a giant, ineffective, undertrained bureaucracy implementing a host of nonsensical policies (searching grandmothers and toddlers, shoe inspections!!?!) that don't address the problem, and overlooking simple things like hardening access to the flight deck and beefing up the sky marshal program. Much money spent, with what results? USA PATRIOT is being used to nab minor drug dealers, while we have the government's unverifiable, undocumented word that they have stopped some suspected terrorists, somewhere, from maybe doing something? Gee, I feel so much safer.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the basic political principles of the left, including the US democratic party, are not fundamentally predicated upon an inherently Marxist world view, then would you be so kind as to educate me on the intellectual foundation which the modern left is building upon. Give me some names, principles, ideas and ideals from which modern liberalism receives its nourishment.
I'm not a leftist -- certainly not as you would define the term -- but as for the political principles of the left in the US, they're the same as the right, with just a bit more social conservatism (the non-panderers among them do not want to turn the USA into a Christian religious state), and, at the moment a bit more fiscal conservatism as well. But I don't give a major
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Your analogy comprehension skills need a little work.
And your analogy suggest that we are the ones responsible for the fire in the first place. The only possible explanation for such a view is that somehow our culture is inherently flawed due to its commitment to the principles of capitalism and christianity - all of which suggests an inherently Marxist world view.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
No, I'm saying that the President's policies aren't doing jack to protect us.
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know that.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
I've said before that targeted action overseas -- perhaps against actual terrorists and the countries that produce them -- would make more sense than what this jackass is doing.
Targeted? You mean like with cruise missiles? So we are supposed to individually hunt down each terrorist and blow him up? Of course since every single country in the middle east is producing terrorists, and since you also do not know who the terrorists are until they have actually killed people, that is going to be one hell of a project. Yeah, thats what a really smart president would be doing - waiting for people to die and than sending cruise missiles into every single country in the middle east - wow, are you smart er whut?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for his actions at home, this borrow-and-spend "conservative" administration has run the deficit up while building a giant, ineffective, undertrained bureaucracy implementing a host of nonsensical policies (searching grandmothers and toddlers, shoe inspections!!?!) that don't address the problem, and overlooking simple things like hardening access to the flight deck and beefing up the sky marshal program. Much money spent, with what results? USA PATRIOT is being used to nab minor drug dealers, while we have the government's unverifiable, undocumented word that they have stopped some suspected terrorists, somewhere, from maybe doing something? Gee, I feel so much safer.
Any effective anti-terrorist effort by any president is going to have similar characteristics. There is simple no such thing as a perfect method for conducting such operations. To expect it is either lunacy or a political ploy calculated precisely to win the next election.
-
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Your analogy comprehension skills need a little work.
And your analogy suggest that we are the ones responsible for the fire in the first place. The only possible explanation for such a view is that somehow our culture is inherently flawed due to its commitment to the principles of capitalism and christianity - all of which suggests an inherently Marxist world view.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
No, I'm saying that the President's policies aren't doing jack to protect us.
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know that.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
I've said before that targeted action overseas -- perhaps against actual terrorists and the countries that produce them -- would make more sense than what this jackass is doing.
Targeted? You mean like with cruise missiles? So we are supposed to individually hunt down each terrorist and blow him up? Of course since every single country in the middle east is producing terrorists, and since you also do not know who the terrorists are until they have actually killed people, that is going to be one hell of a project. Yeah, thats what a really smart president would be doing - waiting for people to die and than sending cruise missiles into every single country in the middle east - wow, are you smart er whut?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for his actions at home, this borrow-and-spend "conservative" administration has run the deficit up while building a giant, ineffective, undertrained bureaucracy implementing a host of nonsensical policies (searching grandmothers and toddlers, shoe inspections!!?!) that don't address the problem, and overlooking simple things like hardening access to the flight deck and beefing up the sky marshal program. Much money spent, with what results? USA PATRIOT is being used to nab minor drug dealers, while we have the government's unverifiable, undocumented word that they have stopped some suspected terrorists, somewhere, from maybe doing something? Gee, I feel so much safer.
Any effective anti-terrorist effort by any president is going to have similar characteristics. There is simple no such thing as a perfect method for conducting such operations. To expect it is either lunacy or a political ploy calculated precisely to win the next election.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And your analogy suggest that we are the ones responsible for the fire in the first place. The only possible explanation for such a view is that somehow our culture is inherently flawed due to its commitment to the principles of capitalism and christianity - all of which suggests an inherently Marxist world view.
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know that.
They could offer evidence. Are you willing to accept the word of our government, without question or oversight? If so, then you're a sorry excuse for a patriot.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Targeted? You mean like with cruise missiles? So we are supposed to individually hunt down each terrorist and blow him up? Of course since every single country in the middle east is producing terrorists, and since you also do not know who the terrorists are until they have actually killed people, that is going to be one hell of a project. Yeah, thats what a really smart president would be doing - waiting for people to die and than sending cruise missiles into every single country in the middle east - wow, are you smart er whut?
That's every country in the Middle East except Iraq, the country we invaded. Any crime based on ideology -- even Republicans stealing elections, in theory -- could be fought first by removing the people who are inciting the perpetrators. Find evidence of a conspiracy and you can prevent the crime.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Any effective anti-terrorist effort by any president is going to have similar characteristics. There is simple no such thing as a perfect method for conducting such operations. To expect it is either lunacy or a political ploy calculated precisely to win the next election.
If you think the current methods are the only way, you're not listening or thinking. Besides, I'm not asking for perfect; I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Consider this, there are only two great political philosophies from which currnent political systems derive. One is that of John Locke and Adam Smith, via the
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
nobody - that's another conversation you're having by yourself.
You are the only one that keeps repeating that statement.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but you certainly seem to be demanding that i contribute to something (something you approve of, of course) in order to pay for the privilege of exercising it.
Wrong again. I said do more than JUST talk.
Bob Flynn wrote:
You are the only one that keeps repeating that statement
golly. i wonder why that is... Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And your analogy suggest that we are the ones responsible for the fire in the first place. The only possible explanation for such a view is that somehow our culture is inherently flawed due to its commitment to the principles of capitalism and christianity - all of which suggests an inherently Marxist world view.
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know that.
They could offer evidence. Are you willing to accept the word of our government, without question or oversight? If so, then you're a sorry excuse for a patriot.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Targeted? You mean like with cruise missiles? So we are supposed to individually hunt down each terrorist and blow him up? Of course since every single country in the middle east is producing terrorists, and since you also do not know who the terrorists are until they have actually killed people, that is going to be one hell of a project. Yeah, thats what a really smart president would be doing - waiting for people to die and than sending cruise missiles into every single country in the middle east - wow, are you smart er whut?
That's every country in the Middle East except Iraq, the country we invaded. Any crime based on ideology -- even Republicans stealing elections, in theory -- could be fought first by removing the people who are inciting the perpetrators. Find evidence of a conspiracy and you can prevent the crime.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Any effective anti-terrorist effort by any president is going to have similar characteristics. There is simple no such thing as a perfect method for conducting such operations. To expect it is either lunacy or a political ploy calculated precisely to win the next election.
If you think the current methods are the only way, you're not listening or thinking. Besides, I'm not asking for perfect; I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Consider this, there are only two great political philosophies from which currnent political systems derive. One is that of John Locke and Adam Smith, via the
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm not seeing any of the former in the current Republican party or the current administration. They have grown government (and done this poorly, I might add), they have only marginally lowered taxes -- and then only for the wealthy -- and they are forcing their religion on the public, something that Jefferson (and Locke, and Smith) would have violently opposed. The problem I'm having is that neither party embraces the ideals you espouse.
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The figure is closer to 65%, and you are wrong regarding its origin.
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No president could, or should, stop social welfare spending completely
Many have, including Madison who thought it unconstitutional (and one would assume that the father of the constitution would know)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would suggest to you that Jefferson would appreciate the freedom of worship, and the fact that we don't force the non-Christians in our public schools to be indoctrinated into a religion against their will. Marx would probably a
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm not seeing any of the former in the current Republican party or the current administration. They have grown government (and done this poorly, I might add), they have only marginally lowered taxes -- and then only for the wealthy -- and they are forcing their religion on the public, something that Jefferson (and Locke, and Smith) would have violently opposed. The problem I'm having is that neither party embraces the ideals you espouse.
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The figure is closer to 65%, and you are wrong regarding its origin.
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No president could, or should, stop social welfare spending completely
Many have, including Madison who thought it unconstitutional (and one would assume that the father of the constitution would know)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would suggest to you that Jefferson would appreciate the freedom of worship, and the fact that we don't force the non-Christians in our public schools to be indoctrinated into a religion against their will. Marx would probably a
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only problem is that you cannot provide a single example of any such indoctrination. It has never happened. It has never even came close to happening. No one has ever even suggested that it should happen. You will not find a single christian in any position of responsibility who has ever suggested that any one should be indoctrinated into their religion.
BS, Stan. I'm old enough that I went to a public school where every day started with the teacher leading us in the "Lord's prayer", certainly a christian indoctrination. There was no choice. No one ever asked if anyone objected. Just stand up and recite. This was the norm across the country. And you're one of the ones who is in the forefront of wanting a return to those days. Always yammering about how prayer has been banned in the public schools. In this country anyone can pray any time and any place. If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you. Just don't be jumping up and rolling on the floor, shouting about devils around you, and distrupting the class. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only problem is that you cannot provide a single example of any such indoctrination. It has never happened. It has never even came close to happening. No one has ever even suggested that it should happen. You will not find a single christian in any position of responsibility who has ever suggested that any one should be indoctrinated into their religion.
BS, Stan. I'm old enough that I went to a public school where every day started with the teacher leading us in the "Lord's prayer", certainly a christian indoctrination. There was no choice. No one ever asked if anyone objected. Just stand up and recite. This was the norm across the country. And you're one of the ones who is in the forefront of wanting a return to those days. Always yammering about how prayer has been banned in the public schools. In this country anyone can pray any time and any place. If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you. Just don't be jumping up and rolling on the floor, shouting about devils around you, and distrupting the class. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
This was the norm across the country.
And it was the norm for nearly 200 years. Obviously the principles that this country was founded upon provided for prayer in school. If it is now denied, then some other set of principles must now be in effect. If those principles cannot be traced to the founding principles, and if the need for the government to counter the power of religion in a society can overtly be traced to some other set of political principles, such as Marxism, than what are we left to conclude? There is absolutely nothing in the Jeffersonian vision of government that empowers the federal government to deny prayer in local schools. The rationalization for such power derives from entirely contrary political principles.
Tim Craig wrote:
If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you.
Where in the constitution is "free exercise of religion" defined? Where is it suggested that such exercise must be limited to sitting quietly? Where has the government or you acquired the power to define how religion can be practiced? No law means no law. If the government now has the power to deny free exercise of religion in any form, than a law has certainly be established by the federal government to do so in direct contradiction of the first amendment. The only source of political philsophy that rationalizes such empowerment can only be attributed to an adhernece to Marxist ideals.
Tim Craig wrote:
And you're one of the ones who is in the forefront of wanting a return to those days. Always yammering about how prayer has been banned in the public schools. In this country anyone can pray any time and any place. If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you. Just don't be jumping up and rolling on the floor, shouting about devils around you, and distrupting the class.
That isn't true at all. I am entirely opposed to saying prayer in school. But, as a Jeffersonian, I believe it is entirely a local issue of no concern at all to the federal government which has no legitimate authority at all to deny it. At the very least, I would like those who promote the notion that religion must be driven from the public sector of our society by the federal government to be at least a little honest about the source of their political idealogies. "Patriotism is the fir
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm not seeing any of the former in the current Republican party or the current administration. They have grown government (and done this poorly, I might add), they have only marginally lowered taxes -- and then only for the wealthy -- and they are forcing their religion on the public, something that Jefferson (and Locke, and Smith) would have violently opposed. The problem I'm having is that neither party embraces the ideals you espouse.
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The figure is closer to 65%, and you are wrong regarding its origin.
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No president could, or should, stop social welfare spending completely
Many have, including Madison who thought it unconstitutional (and one would assume that the father of the constitution would know)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would suggest to you that Jefferson would appreciate the freedom of worship, and the fact that we don't force the non-Christians in our public schools to be indoctrinated into a religion against their will. Marx would probably a
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
A relatively small group of people used to be resentful and angry at the way the USA wielded its economic and cultural power like a bludgeon. That led -- directly or indirectly -- to 9/11, after which many of those people offered sympathy. Then, using 9/11 as an excuse, we invaded Iraq, a secular nation with no ties to 9/11, no connection to Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda's leaders considered Hussein an enemy of Islam), no WMD, and no sane reason to be the target of the US military. The world is now massively resentful of us wielding our military might like a bludgeon. Gasoline on the fire.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
So we're expected to just bend over, close our eyes and believe?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are embracing, decrying, or even thinking about anything approaching the Marxist ideal. That is fringe philosophy. You seem to be confusing Marxism with liberalism. Liberalism as a philosophy embraces the rule of law (political liberalism), supports individual choices of lifestyle and conscience (cultural liberalism), and believes in laissez-faire capitalism (economic liberalism). Social liberalism might have been an area of contention, but by any unbiased definition I've seen, Jefferson was a liberal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
More idiotic neo-conservative bullshit. Social welfare spending was minimal under JFK, compared to what it is now. Are you saying that Carter and Clinton were so
-
Tim Craig wrote:
This was the norm across the country.
And it was the norm for nearly 200 years. Obviously the principles that this country was founded upon provided for prayer in school. If it is now denied, then some other set of principles must now be in effect. If those principles cannot be traced to the founding principles, and if the need for the government to counter the power of religion in a society can overtly be traced to some other set of political principles, such as Marxism, than what are we left to conclude? There is absolutely nothing in the Jeffersonian vision of government that empowers the federal government to deny prayer in local schools. The rationalization for such power derives from entirely contrary political principles.
Tim Craig wrote:
If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you.
Where in the constitution is "free exercise of religion" defined? Where is it suggested that such exercise must be limited to sitting quietly? Where has the government or you acquired the power to define how religion can be practiced? No law means no law. If the government now has the power to deny free exercise of religion in any form, than a law has certainly be established by the federal government to do so in direct contradiction of the first amendment. The only source of political philsophy that rationalizes such empowerment can only be attributed to an adhernece to Marxist ideals.
Tim Craig wrote:
And you're one of the ones who is in the forefront of wanting a return to those days. Always yammering about how prayer has been banned in the public schools. In this country anyone can pray any time and any place. If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you. Just don't be jumping up and rolling on the floor, shouting about devils around you, and distrupting the class.
That isn't true at all. I am entirely opposed to saying prayer in school. But, as a Jeffersonian, I believe it is entirely a local issue of no concern at all to the federal government which has no legitimate authority at all to deny it. At the very least, I would like those who promote the notion that religion must be driven from the public sector of our society by the federal government to be at least a little honest about the source of their political idealogies. "Patriotism is the fir
Stan Shannon wrote:
And it was the norm for nearly 200 years.
Gee, you got away with breaking the law for nearly 200 years. Instead of rejoicing at the illicit profits, you're arguing that because you got away with it, you should be allowed to continue doing so.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where is it suggested that such exercise must be limited to sitting quietly?
We have free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.
Stan Shannon wrote:
am entirely opposed to saying prayer in school. But, as a Jeffersonian, I believe it is entirely a local issue of no concern at all to the federal government which has no legitimate authority at all to deny it.
Well, for someone who is so opposed, you're awfully vocal in promoting it. I'd love to see what would happen if one of your kids ended up in a school district that was predominately Muslim under your plan. You'd be bleating like a stuck pig when she came home wanting to buy a burkkah and bowing east 5 times a day. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
A relatively small group of people used to be resentful and angry at the way the USA wielded its economic and cultural power like a bludgeon. That led -- directly or indirectly -- to 9/11, after which many of those people offered sympathy. Then, using 9/11 as an excuse, we invaded Iraq, a secular nation with no ties to 9/11, no connection to Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda's leaders considered Hussein an enemy of Islam), no WMD, and no sane reason to be the target of the US military. The world is now massively resentful of us wielding our military might like a bludgeon. Gasoline on the fire.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
So we're expected to just bend over, close our eyes and believe?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are embracing, decrying, or even thinking about anything approaching the Marxist ideal. That is fringe philosophy. You seem to be confusing Marxism with liberalism. Liberalism as a philosophy embraces the rule of law (political liberalism), supports individual choices of lifestyle and conscience (cultural liberalism), and believes in laissez-faire capitalism (economic liberalism). Social liberalism might have been an area of contention, but by any unbiased definition I've seen, Jefferson was a liberal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
More idiotic neo-conservative bullshit. Social welfare spending was minimal under JFK, compared to what it is now. Are you saying that Carter and Clinton were so
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A relatively small group of people ...
Than, as I said, you see the issue as being caused by the fundamental principles of American culture, that we are the ones who need to change, we are the cause, we are the problem, evil capitalism and cultural imperalism, we need to humbly submit to the international Marxist ideal - just as I said origininally.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So we're expected to just bend over, close our eyes and believe?
Its known as 'the benefit of the doubt'. Read a little American history, you'll understand it I'm sure.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Liberalism as a philosophy
And as a philosophy it now promotes an intrinsically Marxist world view, certianly not a Jeffersonian one.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he also proposed a federal bill to help distribute bibles
We'll how thoroughly non-Marxist of the bastard!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
let's see, Republicans are advocating a return to prayer in school ...
No, in fact, they are not. Sheer Marxist propaganda. We are in the midst of an anti-secular revolt as Americans instinctively detest having morality imposed upon them by an elitist minority. The truth about who is imposing what upon whom is clearly apparent to anyone with an open mind.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet you've supported these things in other posts.
Find any of my posts where I have supported any such thing. Hell,if anything I've pissed the religious people off around here a lot more than I have the Marxist. Edit - http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&Page=2&userid=12343&mode=all&select=1312714&df=100&fr=757#xx1313742xx[^] "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 16:25 Friday 30th December, 2005
