Good news...
-
Oakman wrote:
Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves!
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities? You are the one who would deny them that, not me. In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities?
And this is your justification for the imposition of Sharia Law?
Stan Shannon wrote:
In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
As usual you seem to confuse your straw-men with the real world. I have told you before and I repeat in case you actually catch on. I think that each person is responsible for his own actions and can be held accountable for those actions by every other person. In "my world" I accept the fact that most people have turned over their judgement to the State and so I try to live in a manner that does not bring down the full force of that state on my head. But ultimately, I obey the laws I approve of, ignore the ones I can, and break the ones that are onerous as quietly and unobtrusively as possible. You, it seems, have no problems with judges making all the live and death decisions about your life, you simply want them to enforce your particular form of Sharia - outlawing socialism for instance. Nothing demonstrates how little you have in common with Jefferson's or Madison's political philosophies than your rabid insistence on controlling the minds of everyone in your "Jeffersonian" community.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
No, he doesn't. Stan hates those homos.
Wasn't it Will Rogers who said, "I never met a dyke I didn't like?"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Well, he said "I never met a man I didn't like" which would probably be interpreted in a completely different way nowadays...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
But the banks were not working out side the government - they were largely working at the behest of the government by making loans to those who could not afford to repay them and in an enviroment where government was actively tinkering with the parameters of the economy, setting them to completely arbitrary and artificial values - inerest rates for example. If the banks had been subject exclusively to the iron fist of the free markets, the entire problem would never have even gotten off the ground.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities?
And this is your justification for the imposition of Sharia Law?
Stan Shannon wrote:
In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
As usual you seem to confuse your straw-men with the real world. I have told you before and I repeat in case you actually catch on. I think that each person is responsible for his own actions and can be held accountable for those actions by every other person. In "my world" I accept the fact that most people have turned over their judgement to the State and so I try to live in a manner that does not bring down the full force of that state on my head. But ultimately, I obey the laws I approve of, ignore the ones I can, and break the ones that are onerous as quietly and unobtrusively as possible. You, it seems, have no problems with judges making all the live and death decisions about your life, you simply want them to enforce your particular form of Sharia - outlawing socialism for instance. Nothing demonstrates how little you have in common with Jefferson's or Madison's political philosophies than your rabid insistence on controlling the minds of everyone in your "Jeffersonian" community.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
And this is your justification for the imposition of Sharia Law?
You have a very strange mind, John. You say you want people to think for themselves, but actually allowing them to act on those thoughts means we will have 'Sharia Law'. I don't get it.
Oakman wrote:
You, it seems, have no problems with judges making all the live and death decisions about your life, you simply want them to enforce your particular form of Sharia - outlawing socialism for instance. Nothing demonstrates how little you have in common with Jefferson's or Madison's political philosophies than your rabid insistence on controlling the minds of everyone in your "Jeffersonian" community.
Utter bullshit. I've never even remotely implied any such thing. I am the one who belives people should be free to participate in the process of defining the rules and standards of civilization as long as they do not violate those actually inscribed in the federal constitution. How that becomes twisted into some sort of endorsement of 'sharia law' is absolutely beyond me. All you are saying is that you are comfortable with living in a oligarchy as long as that oligarchy is more or less on your side. Assuming your definition of oligarchy, at the very least I believe, with Jefferson, Madison, et al, that there should be competing oligarchies - the courts and the people. And as to your offense at my attitudes towards socialism, I maintain that the founders would have seen it for what it really is - a thinly disquised continuation of the principles of monarchy that they fought the revolution and wrote the constitution to free us from. I am absolutely certain they would have opposed it in every possible way and seen it accuratly as an abandonement of everything they tried to achieve. I would outlaw it. I would criminalize it. I would make open war on it to destroy it. It is pure, unadulterated evil.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 12:32 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What the entire document makes clear, is that the founders, and the first several generations of Americans, at the very least, were opposed to the underlieing justification for socialism. There is no hint of any kind that they were opposed to the tenants of free market capitalism.
Nor any hint that they had, were or would outlaw socialism. Which was my point. The authors of the Constitution believed in the free and open exchange of ideas, believing that truth would always drive out falsehood. And they were right - at least as long as we stayed a small republic with a very limited but well-informed electorate.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, you left out the biggest ones - the IRS,Social Security, etc.
Of course I didn't. Both of those spring directly from the amendment to the Constitition that says the feds have the power to tax individuals, not States. I would have thought you knew that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
to run the experiment again with a knowledge of all the mistakes made
If you go back and study the thinking of the founding fathers, you will discover that they were running the experiment over again and that they knew the traps that their republic could fall into. Jefferson and Adams died in 1826 thinking they'd created a bulwark against the problems encountered by the Greek and Roman republics and all their imitators since. But they did not. They could not and neither could you. A capitalistic republic (rule of law) leads to a mixed democracy (rule of the mob) leads to a socialistic oligarchy (rule of the few) leads to a full-fledged dictatorship (rule of the leader). The only alternative is libertarianism and that, unfortunately requires the entire population to take responsibility for themselves rather than begging the all-wise and all powerful state to assume it - which happens way back in the set up of the republic.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, the only possible way that is going to happen, to run the experiment again with a knowledge of all the mistakes made, is to let everything collpase entirely and start over.
You talk like there's a choice in the matter. Wake up and smell the Armegeddon, Stan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside w
Oakman wrote:
Nor any hint that they had, were or would outlaw socialism.
Our founding documents are the most profound repudiation of the basic tenants of socialism that one could possibly devise.
Oakman wrote:
Of course I didn't. Both of those spring directly from the amendment to the Constitition that says the feds have the power to tax individuals, not States. I would have thought you knew that.
An amendment which would never have been approved by any earlier generation of Americans. The 16th amendment represents an overt violation of the fourth.
Oakman wrote:
The only alternative is libertarianism and that, unfortunately requires the entire population to take responsibility for themselves rather than begging the all-wise and all powerful state to assume it - which happens way back in the set up of the republic.
The irony of libertarianism is that it requires an all-powerful state to protect it. Absolute rights require absolute power or else they are not absolute. I reject your thesis that the failure of our first republic was inevitable. It was engineered. It can be rebuilt.
Oakman wrote:
You talk like there's a choice in the matter. Wake up and smell the Armegeddon, Stan.
I embrace the armegeddon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I don't know the extent of the ruling but as a viewpoint, the judges who said what they said might have done so because if the flag becomes almost religious in context that could cause constitutional difficulties in terms of "separation of state from church", and with church being religious and the flag almost gaining that kind of context, you can probably see the difficulties they may have assumed. But then, that may not be at all relevant to their deliberations, and probably was not.
The only point of the decision was to put the people in their place. It was an overt and purposeful statement that the old federalism was really and trully dead and that the new one had full control.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
And this is your justification for the imposition of Sharia Law?
You have a very strange mind, John. You say you want people to think for themselves, but actually allowing them to act on those thoughts means we will have 'Sharia Law'. I don't get it.
Oakman wrote:
You, it seems, have no problems with judges making all the live and death decisions about your life, you simply want them to enforce your particular form of Sharia - outlawing socialism for instance. Nothing demonstrates how little you have in common with Jefferson's or Madison's political philosophies than your rabid insistence on controlling the minds of everyone in your "Jeffersonian" community.
Utter bullshit. I've never even remotely implied any such thing. I am the one who belives people should be free to participate in the process of defining the rules and standards of civilization as long as they do not violate those actually inscribed in the federal constitution. How that becomes twisted into some sort of endorsement of 'sharia law' is absolutely beyond me. All you are saying is that you are comfortable with living in a oligarchy as long as that oligarchy is more or less on your side. Assuming your definition of oligarchy, at the very least I believe, with Jefferson, Madison, et al, that there should be competing oligarchies - the courts and the people. And as to your offense at my attitudes towards socialism, I maintain that the founders would have seen it for what it really is - a thinly disquised continuation of the principles of monarchy that they fought the revolution and wrote the constitution to free us from. I am absolutely certain they would have opposed it in every possible way and seen it accuratly as an abandonement of everything they tried to achieve. I would outlaw it. I would criminalize it. I would make open war on it to destroy it. It is pure, unadulterated evil.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 12:32 PM
Tell me Stan, isn't the Federal Constitution, with all of its amendments, as now applied a mere shadow of what your founding fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence. If that's the case, then man has spoken and redefined the rules and subsequently the standards of civilization. A further amendment here or there that reflects the wants and needs of the "today and now" is just an extension of what has already been done.
-
The only point of the decision was to put the people in their place. It was an overt and purposeful statement that the old federalism was really and trully dead and that the new one had full control.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Tell me Stan, isn't the Federal Constitution, with all of its amendments, as now applied a mere shadow of what your founding fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence. If that's the case, then man has spoken and redefined the rules and subsequently the standards of civilization. A further amendment here or there that reflects the wants and needs of the "today and now" is just an extension of what has already been done.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Tell me Stan, isn't the Federal Constitution, with all of its amendments, as now applied a mere shadow of what your founding fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence. If that's the case, then man has spoken and redefined the rules and subsequently the standards of civilization. A further amendment here or there that reflects the wants and needs of the "today and now" is just an extension of what has already been done.
Of course. I don't believe I have ever declared any of these changes invalid. I am merely pointing out that they do represent an abandonment of the founding principles. If that is what the people want, that is what they should have. My real frustration is over why those founding principles are so threatening that any possibility of a government being established where those of us who wish to live in that way can go is viewed as some kind of radical extremism. I cannot comprehend why trully decentralized political power is viewed as such a threat by so many today.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
And this is your justification for the imposition of Sharia Law?
You have a very strange mind, John. You say you want people to think for themselves, but actually allowing them to act on those thoughts means we will have 'Sharia Law'. I don't get it.
Oakman wrote:
You, it seems, have no problems with judges making all the live and death decisions about your life, you simply want them to enforce your particular form of Sharia - outlawing socialism for instance. Nothing demonstrates how little you have in common with Jefferson's or Madison's political philosophies than your rabid insistence on controlling the minds of everyone in your "Jeffersonian" community.
Utter bullshit. I've never even remotely implied any such thing. I am the one who belives people should be free to participate in the process of defining the rules and standards of civilization as long as they do not violate those actually inscribed in the federal constitution. How that becomes twisted into some sort of endorsement of 'sharia law' is absolutely beyond me. All you are saying is that you are comfortable with living in a oligarchy as long as that oligarchy is more or less on your side. Assuming your definition of oligarchy, at the very least I believe, with Jefferson, Madison, et al, that there should be competing oligarchies - the courts and the people. And as to your offense at my attitudes towards socialism, I maintain that the founders would have seen it for what it really is - a thinly disquised continuation of the principles of monarchy that they fought the revolution and wrote the constitution to free us from. I am absolutely certain they would have opposed it in every possible way and seen it accuratly as an abandonement of everything they tried to achieve. I would outlaw it. I would criminalize it. I would make open war on it to destroy it. It is pure, unadulterated evil.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 12:32 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't get it.
You certainly don't. Or pretend that you paint yourself into a corner.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am the one who belives people should be free to participate in the process of defining the rules and standards of civilization as long as they do not violate those actually inscribed in the federal constitution. How that becomes twisted into some sort of endorsement of 'sharia law' is absolutely beyond me.
Stan, you aren't comfortable living in a community that permits anyone to do anything that you don't approve of. Somehow you think that somewhere there is actually a place on this earth that you could find a dictatorship of the majority and do things like "outlaw socialism" but you find it offensive. You realise that the Federal Government will never, ever come down on your side, you you have retreated back to a white-washed image of a past that never really existed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would outlaw it. I would criminalize it. I would make open war on it to destroy it. It is pure, unadulterated evil.
Thank you for proving my point. (You sound like Osama Bin Laden at his most rabid.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Those who protect the flag are essentially putting that flag onto a higher pedestal, becoming almost religious in context, a rallying point.
And where does the constitution say specifically that we cannot do that? Where does it specifically remove the poewr of we the people to protect those artifacts of our culture that we wish to protect?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where does it specifically remove the poewr of we the people to protect those artifacts of our culture that we wish to protect?
Where does it say we cannot impose Sharia if we want to, eh, Stan?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
Nor any hint that they had, were or would outlaw socialism.
Our founding documents are the most profound repudiation of the basic tenants of socialism that one could possibly devise.
Oakman wrote:
Of course I didn't. Both of those spring directly from the amendment to the Constitition that says the feds have the power to tax individuals, not States. I would have thought you knew that.
An amendment which would never have been approved by any earlier generation of Americans. The 16th amendment represents an overt violation of the fourth.
Oakman wrote:
The only alternative is libertarianism and that, unfortunately requires the entire population to take responsibility for themselves rather than begging the all-wise and all powerful state to assume it - which happens way back in the set up of the republic.
The irony of libertarianism is that it requires an all-powerful state to protect it. Absolute rights require absolute power or else they are not absolute. I reject your thesis that the failure of our first republic was inevitable. It was engineered. It can be rebuilt.
Oakman wrote:
You talk like there's a choice in the matter. Wake up and smell the Armegeddon, Stan.
I embrace the armegeddon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Our founding documents are the most profound repudiation of the basic tenants of socialism that one could possibly devise.
Which does not mean the founders wanted to outlaw it or that the document itself does not permit it to replace capitalism. Admit it. You'll never be able to directly address my point (in other words trying desperately to change the subject) so why not give in and admit that you were wrong.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The 16th amendment represents an overt violation of the fourth.
You really don't understand how the Constitution works, do you. One amendment cannot, by definition, violate another. It supercedes it and like it or not, that was the intent of those marvelous representatives of the people assembled in Congress - whether you like it or not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The irony of libertarianism is that it requires an all-powerful state to protect it.
Where did you ever get that idea?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Absolute rights require absolute power or else they are not absolute
You need to get a better vocabulary - and a better education. There are no absolute rights in libertarian philosophy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I embrace the armegeddon.
Something tells me that you don't even own a gun.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
No, he doesn't. Stan hates those homos.
Wasn't it Will Rogers who said, "I never met a dyke I didn't like?"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Wasn't it Will Rogers who said, "I never met a dyke I didn't like?"
I think that was Gertrude Stein. Reminds me I still need to circulate Stan's picture in the Castro to see if anyone remembers him. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where does it specifically remove the poewr of we the people to protect those artifacts of our culture that we wish to protect?
Where does it say we cannot impose Sharia if we want to, eh, Stan?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Where does it say we cannot impose Sharia if we want to, eh, Stan?
It doesn't. But the point would be a choice between running the risk of sharia law being imposed in some burg in Alabama, or for the entire country from some court in Washington, DC. You act as if your theory removes the threat of being governed by sharia law. It doesn't. It merely changes the level of our society that is empowered to impose it. If the courts have the power to force us to accept a decision on flag burning having no actual basis in the constituion, it has the power to force us to accept sharia law. Actually, let me take that back. The first amendment says we cannot impose sharia law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't get it.
You certainly don't. Or pretend that you paint yourself into a corner.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am the one who belives people should be free to participate in the process of defining the rules and standards of civilization as long as they do not violate those actually inscribed in the federal constitution. How that becomes twisted into some sort of endorsement of 'sharia law' is absolutely beyond me.
Stan, you aren't comfortable living in a community that permits anyone to do anything that you don't approve of. Somehow you think that somewhere there is actually a place on this earth that you could find a dictatorship of the majority and do things like "outlaw socialism" but you find it offensive. You realise that the Federal Government will never, ever come down on your side, you you have retreated back to a white-washed image of a past that never really existed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would outlaw it. I would criminalize it. I would make open war on it to destroy it. It is pure, unadulterated evil.
Thank you for proving my point. (You sound like Osama Bin Laden at his most rabid.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Stan, you aren't comfortable living in a community that permits anyone to do anything that you don't approve of.
Jon, that is you, not me. I am the one saying people should have the right to decide such things whether I like them or not. You are the one saying that they should be forced by the courts to accept your view.
Oakman wrote:
You realise that the Federal Government will never, ever come down on your side, you you have retreated back to a white-washed image of a past that never really existed.
No, I realize the government worked perfectly well for a very long time by giving people precisely the sort of authority and freedom I am advocating.
Oakman wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. (You sound like Osama Bin Laden at his most rabid.)
I don't care. Socialism is no different than the tyranny we fought our first revolution to free ourselves from in the first place. You can embrace that tyranny all you like. I reject it as my ancestors did.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Our founding documents are the most profound repudiation of the basic tenants of socialism that one could possibly devise.
Which does not mean the founders wanted to outlaw it or that the document itself does not permit it to replace capitalism. Admit it. You'll never be able to directly address my point (in other words trying desperately to change the subject) so why not give in and admit that you were wrong.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The 16th amendment represents an overt violation of the fourth.
You really don't understand how the Constitution works, do you. One amendment cannot, by definition, violate another. It supercedes it and like it or not, that was the intent of those marvelous representatives of the people assembled in Congress - whether you like it or not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The irony of libertarianism is that it requires an all-powerful state to protect it.
Where did you ever get that idea?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Absolute rights require absolute power or else they are not absolute
You need to get a better vocabulary - and a better education. There are no absolute rights in libertarian philosophy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I embrace the armegeddon.
Something tells me that you don't even own a gun.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Which does not mean the founders wanted to outlaw it or that the document itself does not permit it to replace capitalism.
So what? It also does not explicitely outlaw Naziism. Is that a legitimization of Naziism? The intnet of the founders is clear.
Oakman wrote:
Admit it. You'll never be able to directly address my point (in other words trying desperately to change the subject) so why not give in and admit that you were wrong.
I'm not wrong. You are. And obviously so. The point you are trying to make is ridiculous at every level. It is intellectually indefensible. The founders purposefully created a society with carefully divided powers specifically to get power out of the center. That is the complete and utter opposite of socialistic collectivism. Does that mean they would have outlawed it? Yes, I think it does. If they had any clue the power that such concepts would eventually carry, they would have much more clearly defined the constitution to prohibit it. "Congress shall have no power to redistribute public wealth from one group to another for any purpose." Every word they wrote was an overt repudiation of the very concept of government having any such power.
Oakman wrote:
You really don't understand how the Constitution works, do you. One amendment cannot, by definition, violate another. It supercedes it and like it or not, that was the intent of those marvelous representatives of the people assembled in Congress - whether you like it or not.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The meaning of the fourth amendment cannot be changed by the 16th. Its unconstitutional to do so based upon the 9th.
Oakman wrote:
Where did you ever get that idea?
From you (and every otehr libertarian I've ever spoken with).
Oakman wrote:
You need to get a better vocabulary - and a better education. There are no absolute rights in libertarian philosophy.
Than there can be no libertarianism. If the right is not absolute, than it is up for debate. If it is up for debate than someone in society has to decide upon its limits. That means either the courts or the people. That i
-
Oakman wrote:
Where does it say we cannot impose Sharia if we want to, eh, Stan?
It doesn't. But the point would be a choice between running the risk of sharia law being imposed in some burg in Alabama, or for the entire country from some court in Washington, DC. You act as if your theory removes the threat of being governed by sharia law. It doesn't. It merely changes the level of our society that is empowered to impose it. If the courts have the power to force us to accept a decision on flag burning having no actual basis in the constituion, it has the power to force us to accept sharia law. Actually, let me take that back. The first amendment says we cannot impose sharia law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The first amendment says we cannot impose sharia law.
Not really. It just says we can't call it Sharia. the U.S. has always said that all religions were equal, but Christianity was more equal than the others. And of course you are on record as declaring war on, wiping out, socialism because it is "evil" - not mistaken, wrong-headed, or shortsighted, but evil. Makes you in favor of Sharia in my book.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
Stan, you aren't comfortable living in a community that permits anyone to do anything that you don't approve of.
Jon, that is you, not me. I am the one saying people should have the right to decide such things whether I like them or not. You are the one saying that they should be forced by the courts to accept your view.
Oakman wrote:
You realise that the Federal Government will never, ever come down on your side, you you have retreated back to a white-washed image of a past that never really existed.
No, I realize the government worked perfectly well for a very long time by giving people precisely the sort of authority and freedom I am advocating.
Oakman wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. (You sound like Osama Bin Laden at his most rabid.)
I don't care. Socialism is no different than the tyranny we fought our first revolution to free ourselves from in the first place. You can embrace that tyranny all you like. I reject it as my ancestors did.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are the one saying that they should be forced by the courts to accept your view.
Now you're just trolling. You do that when you know you've lost the argument, hoping that no-one will notice.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I realize the government worked perfectly well for a very long time by giving people precisely the sort of authority and freedom I am advocating.
By people, you mean white males over 21 who own property - which may include slaves, right?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
Which does not mean the founders wanted to outlaw it or that the document itself does not permit it to replace capitalism.
So what? It also does not explicitely outlaw Naziism. Is that a legitimization of Naziism? The intnet of the founders is clear.
Oakman wrote:
Admit it. You'll never be able to directly address my point (in other words trying desperately to change the subject) so why not give in and admit that you were wrong.
I'm not wrong. You are. And obviously so. The point you are trying to make is ridiculous at every level. It is intellectually indefensible. The founders purposefully created a society with carefully divided powers specifically to get power out of the center. That is the complete and utter opposite of socialistic collectivism. Does that mean they would have outlawed it? Yes, I think it does. If they had any clue the power that such concepts would eventually carry, they would have much more clearly defined the constitution to prohibit it. "Congress shall have no power to redistribute public wealth from one group to another for any purpose." Every word they wrote was an overt repudiation of the very concept of government having any such power.
Oakman wrote:
You really don't understand how the Constitution works, do you. One amendment cannot, by definition, violate another. It supercedes it and like it or not, that was the intent of those marvelous representatives of the people assembled in Congress - whether you like it or not.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The meaning of the fourth amendment cannot be changed by the 16th. Its unconstitutional to do so based upon the 9th.
Oakman wrote:
Where did you ever get that idea?
From you (and every otehr libertarian I've ever spoken with).
Oakman wrote:
You need to get a better vocabulary - and a better education. There are no absolute rights in libertarian philosophy.
Than there can be no libertarianism. If the right is not absolute, than it is up for debate. If it is up for debate than someone in society has to decide upon its limits. That means either the courts or the people. That i
Stan Shannon wrote:
So what?
ROFL. I'll take that as an admission that you were totally wrong. It's as close as you can come to admitting it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, I think it does.
It doesn't matter what you think. or I think, for that matter. I asked you to point me to the clause that outlawed socialism. You can't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
From you (and every otehr libertarian I've ever spoken with).
More trolling. I shan't waste my time debating with you on things you are willing to lie about.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is precisely why the courts are so important to you
Which is why, of course, you are talking about outlawing this and outlawing that, while I speak of refusing to accept laws with which I disagree.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Come around, you'll find out.
Did you play this macho game with someone else here not too long ago? Do you think it makes you look tough? It doesn't. You look like an idiot. Stan, if you owned a gun, you'd have identified it. Tell me this - while you served in the Navy or the National Guard, did you ever even qualify on a weapon? I'm not talking about being Combat Infantryman or Expert Rifleman - just the ability to hit the broad side of a barn if that is what you are aiming it. C'mon now. tell the truth. No-one will know if you are lying of course, except you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So what?
ROFL. I'll take that as an admission that you were totally wrong. It's as close as you can come to admitting it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, I think it does.
It doesn't matter what you think. or I think, for that matter. I asked you to point me to the clause that outlawed socialism. You can't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
From you (and every otehr libertarian I've ever spoken with).
More trolling. I shan't waste my time debating with you on things you are willing to lie about.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is precisely why the courts are so important to you
Which is why, of course, you are talking about outlawing this and outlawing that, while I speak of refusing to accept laws with which I disagree.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Come around, you'll find out.
Did you play this macho game with someone else here not too long ago? Do you think it makes you look tough? It doesn't. You look like an idiot. Stan, if you owned a gun, you'd have identified it. Tell me this - while you served in the Navy or the National Guard, did you ever even qualify on a weapon? I'm not talking about being Combat Infantryman or Expert Rifleman - just the ability to hit the broad side of a barn if that is what you are aiming it. C'mon now. tell the truth. No-one will know if you are lying of course, except you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
It doesn't matter what you think. or I think, for that matter. I asked you to point me to the clause that outlawed socialism. You can't.
Oakman wrote:
ROFL. I'll take that as an admission that you were totally wrong. It's as close as you can come to admitting it.
Jon, you're a fool. The constitution doesn't outlaw having a king either - but the people who wrote it did fight a war to free themselves from one. So I think most normal, sane people can draw the appropriate conclusions. I'm actualy pretty damn sure that they never considered a generation as entirely possesed by the kind of stupidity you demonstrate with this inanae argument. But, fine, does the constitution outlaw socialism? No. There, you win. Laugh your ass off.
Oakman wrote:
I shan't waste my time debating with you on things you are willing to lie about.
Thats because you can't debate me on it. Libertarianism is an unworkable political principle precisely because it cannot possibly survive without the very thing that if most vilifies - some source of civil control and some means of defining when and where to employ it.
Oakman wrote:
while I speak of refusing to accept laws with which I disagree.
no, you just want the ones you do agree with imposed by some all powerful centralized authority of some kind.
Oakman wrote:
Stan, if you owned a gun, you'd have identified it. Tell me this - while you served in the Navy or the National Guard, did you ever even qualify on a weapon? I'm not talking about being Combat Infantryman or Expert Rifleman - just the ability to hit the broad side of a barn if that is what you are aiming it. C'mon now. tell the truth. No-one will know if you are lying of course, except you.
I own two glock 17 9mm's, and 2 remington 870's. At one time I was qualified on the M16, the M60, M203 the 50 cal, and 8 inch howitzers, 155mm howitzers, and 105mm howizers. The national guard has to pass exactly the same qualifications that the regualr army does.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.