The Oregonian: Boy banned from wearing Obama mask in skit

[led mike]

ROTFLMAO I am so glad I didn't have a mouth full of coffee when I read that! :laugh:

[led mike]

Stan Shannon wrote:

What is clear

Nothing that you stated after that actually is clear. It's more of your fantasy, of which, you would wish to structure our our government. I would choose Jefferson's musings over your fantasies any day and twice on Sunday. There is no getting through to you at all. I have proven you wrong time and time again and you change the subject or disappear entirely, but in all cases you always refuse to accept that you were wrong about Jefferson. This one fault, the refusal to admit, being incapable of speaking the words "I was wrong", is in my opinion the greatest of all mans faults when in comes to governing in any capacity.

Stan Shannon wrote:

And frankly, I have rarely stated any expertise in Jefferson

I don't recall you ever doing that, I was obviously over dramatizing that for a humorous effect.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I refer to 'Jeffersonian Democracy'

Yes, however you also have on many occasion referenced what you "knew" Jefferson to believe. That is what I am speaking to. Obviously you didn't know and likely still don't since when his actual beliefs conflict with your ideology you will spin, abandon, ignore, excuse or whatever it takes to stick to your corrupted ideology. As I stated previously I am not nor will I ever be an expert on Jefferson. That said it is apparent that I have read more of him than you. Given that we have this as yet unrealized connection I suggest you do read him and about him. I believe he was a brilliant and interesting man. I did not unknowingly use the word "man". If you read Jefferson and about him, things he did, you will find that his beliefs did not always match his actions. Thus is the nature of most men, even great ones, for are we not ALL human. Good night and good tomorrow :laugh: Sometimes I crack myself up. By the way in case you don't know me yet, my written words can come across far more serious than my the reality of my mindset. :beer:

[Stan Shannon]

led mike wrote:

There is no getting through to you at all. I have proven you wrong time and time again and you change the subject or disappear entirely, but in all cases you always refuse to accept that you were wrong about Jefferson. This one fault, the refusal to admit, being incapable of speaking the words "I was wrong", is in my opinion the greatest of all mans faults when in comes to governing in any capacity.

Mike, posting a few out of context quotes is proof of nothing. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are correct, then our country was never Jeffersonian - ever. That somehow even when Jefferson was alive and in government, we were not a Jeffersonian republic. Either we were Jeffersonian when, for example, communities were free to outlaw abortion or sodomy or flag burning. Or we are Jeffersonian now. Both of those societies, then and now, can not be Jeffersonian. One is and one is not. Jefferson would have been opposed to the modern concept of 'Separation of Church and State' being used to empower the federal government to have any ability to tell local communities how they should govern themselves. There is no possibility of a doubt about that.

led mike wrote:

By the way in case you don't know me yet, my written words can come across far more serious than my the reality of my mindset.

Yeah, I know. We all have our opinions.

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.

[Ilion]

Bob Emmett wrote:

Yes, really.

Once again, I direct you back to your own post.[^] Why would you imagine that I would even imagine you are interested in a real discussion here?

[Lost User]

No discussion is required. Merely pointing out that the use of 'honestly believe' is incorrect. As to your mask question, I can only offer an opinion, based on the limited evidence presented in the link. Was the mask banned because of Obama's colour? Then, probably, a Bush mask would have been allowed. Was the mask banned because the parents' political affiliation? Then, unless the objections of Republican parents were upheld, probably, a Bush mask would have been allowed. If the kid had performed a skit wearing a Bush mask, would your post have been about single sex parenting, and a boy dancing and doing the splits? Probably. :)

Bob Emmett

[led mike]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Jefferson would have been opposed to the modern concept of 'Separation of Church and State'

See, there you go again. This is exactly what I am talking about not all that other crap you are going on about. You don't know shit about what Jefferson would think today, period, because you don't even know shit about what he thought back then. However even though I have read some Jefferson and therefore have some insight to what he thought then, I still don't know what he would think now, period. The fact that you seem to think it's possible to know what someone from 300 years ago would think today is a clear sign that your brain does not function correctly. That you are incapable of realizing simple fundamental aspects of human reality. Therefore everything you believe or have opinions on is suspect. On a good day, the best of us (humans with functioning brains, like Jefferson) have trouble thinking clearly. Based on your record you have no capacity to think clearly on any day, that's all I'm saying. Using your record of comments regarding Jefferson is a means to point that out, and not a discussion of Jeffersonian politics.

[Stan Shannon]

Mike, go out and do some real research on Jefferson with an actual open mind. The only research you have ever done was specifically to find anything that would confirm your own preconcieved biases. In other words, you were opposed to religion before you ever even heard of Thomas Jefferson. Than you went out looking for information to validate those beliefs, and encountered some out of context quotes on google some where and used those to 'prove' yourself correct. If there was one thing Jefferson was most clear about, it was that political power should not be dictated to the people from a centralized authority of some kind. This included the federal judicial branch. He would most certainly have been opposed to the supreme court useing some letter he wrote to some church as a justification for giving themselves the power to dictate religious principles to the entire nation. His entire political life was dedicated to that concept. Virtually every word out of the man's mouth or from his pen was some version of that theory. Did he occassional promote some anti-religious sentiment? Well, yeah. But he never once indicated a belief that religious people shouild be inhibited in anyway by the central government from full participation in defining the social parameters of our civilizationa.

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.

[led mike]

You are so wrong. I started reading Jefferson long before I got interested in Religion from a Political perspective. I mean I read quite a lot of the Bible when I was very young, prior to reading Jefferson, so my interest an knowledge of the Bible predates my reading of Jefferson, but not my thoughts regarding the political effects of religion.

Stan Shannon wrote:

If there was one thing Jefferson was most clear about

Sorry Stan but at this point you hold zero credibility regarding Jefferson.

Stan Shannon wrote:

it was that political power should not be dictated to the people from a centralized authority of some kind.

No Stan once again you are wrong. One thing that actually is crystal clear about Jefferson is that he was brilliant as opposed to you. And in the subject you attempt to discuss at a primitive level Jefferson was very aware of the complexity of that issue and the fact that there is no simple minded answer such as the ones you believe in. He absolutely believed in a centralized authority for protecting freedom and recognized the role of the Supreme Court as a necessary evil in that freedom must be protected AT ALL COSTS. Jefferson was was nothing like todays Social Conservatives in that he valued freedom and held it as the primary driving force for all his musings as well as his implementations of the government. Something you can't see because you are the one that read him with your own preconceived biases. Deflecting your own faults onto me is by the way a typical human failing so don't beat yourself up over that one. Jefferson would IN MY OPINION ( and as you should be well aware by now I hate to give my opinion. Mostly because with you as with most people it's not even possible to discuss facts let alone opinions ) be a moderate today. However he would still be completely against ANY erosion of freedom, he would laugh at your primitive attempts to disguise erosion of freedom as "states choice". He would certainly fight against any government attempts to control freedom of religion in any way. Or to incorporate a single religion into the government in any way. All you do is twist the fact that the court is upholding Jeffersons charter and recognition of the necessity of the court to uphold the constitution and protect freedom from usurpers such as yourself, as dictating. They are not dictating anything, they are upholding preexisting truths that the fou

[Stan Shannon]

First off, Mike, I have never once argued that religion should control anything aside from itself. I largly agree with Jefferson, or you for tht matter, on the dangers inherent in religion and why it should be kept out of the hands of the state. However, the fact remains that Jefferson, Madison, et al, realized that the more centralized the power of the federal state became, the more danger there would be of various factions fighting to control it. The reason we have never had any attempt by some kind of Christian madman to create a theocracy in this country is precisely becasue we have always had a weak central governmetn. And that was by design. Religious fanatics had to fight their battles out in the county seats because there was simply no power at the center for them to control anything. That is what Jeffersonian democracy was designed to achieve. It was not designed to surpress religion but to allow the people to work out such issues for themselves in their own ways. The only reason we have any problem with 'the religious right' today is because of the power we have allowed to gather at the center of our government. They are naturally going to fight for their share of it - as they should in a democracy. Jefferson had every opportunity to create the kind of society you are now promoting and he never tried to do it. He endorsed and participated in a society in which christians exercised their beliefs politically and in every other walk of life - and he never tried to do any thing about it - ever. IN MY OPINION a man who would write this: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." and this: I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and

[led mike]

First let me say, about your last post, there are only a few points I take exception with and even then sometimes not in total. Here is one that I completely disagree with.

Stan Shannon wrote:

would pretty much define modern conservatism.

Only if you unrealistically exclude the religious right from modern conservatism which would not be the current truth of conservatism in the US. If there is a true conservative movement in the country it is not currently represented in politics and certainly NOT by the Republican party.

Stan Shannon wrote:

He wanted politics to be worked out by the local community.

This is a subject where you start sound but then twist the meaning of that to conclude that Jefferson would be "ok" with local legislation that erodes freedom. I contend that is absolutely false since the foundation for all his beliefs was freedom. He would have been horrified with the state laws on abortion that prompted Roe V Wade, not because he agrees with abortion or revels in the death of embryos (as is the retarded cry of the social conservative), but because he valued freedom above all else. This fact is of course not surprising given the history of the founders with Britain etc. He would have 100% agreed with the decision of the court ruling those state laws unconstitutional. We know this about Jefferson from our past discussion where we quoted his letters to Marbry regarding the necessary evil of the role of the court in our government, while admitting the inherent danger of such centralized power and certainly not liking it.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Religious fanatics had to fight their battles out in the county seats because there was simply no power at the center for them to control anything. That is what Jeffersonian democracy was designed to achieve. It was not designed to surpress religion but to allow the people to work out such issues for themselves in their own ways.

No and yes again for the same reason, you twisting the truth to match your own ideology that would have Jefferson rolling over in his grave. Yes it's not designed to suppress religion but no, it was not designed to have religious fanatics battle to legislate religion into local government. This is the typical twisting of the truth that you do to arrive at the point where you favor erosion of freedom. Jefferson would never had agreed with

[Stan Shannon]

led mike wrote:

This is a subject where you start sound but then twist the meaning of that to conclude that Jefferson would be "ok" with local legislation that erodes freedom.

But how does one define freedom? Jefferson did profess overtly libertarian beliefs, but again, he did nothing to institute those into law. I don't think he would have considered laws being created by citizens of a community based upon religious principles as being an erosion of freedom. I think he would have considered it an expression of freedom. Thats why he tolerated social traditions that he otherwise found reprehensible. I have big problems with defining such behavior as 'social conservatism' for the purpose of demonizing it. And I think Jefferson would have had problems with it also. My parents were social conservatives, my grand parents were social conservatives as were their parents and so on all the way back to the Jeffersonian era itself. What you call social conservatism is nothing more than the values and traditions that once defined American society. There is nothing wrong with changing those traditions, and I think Jefferson would have expected such change. But I don't think he would have approved of the judicial branch simply taking the power to make those changes without regard to the moral sentiments of the people themselves. He would have expected some respect for the process of making changes by amending the constitution as it was designed to be amended. I think you are correct, for example, that he would have been in favor of reproductive rights for women, as am I. But I think he would have considered the Roe v Wade decision as reprehensible, as do I. Consider this quote: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [X Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791. and this: "The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation and

[led mike]

Stan Shannon wrote:

But how does one define freedom?

Actually asking that question illustrates the problem. One does not define freedom, it is already defined. Thinking that you can or need to redefine it, is the start to all this bullshit and oppression.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Consider this quote:

I have, for many years, and I am very comfortable with knowing that you and others like you are incapable of seeing the truth of it. You prefer to twist it into saying exactly what it does NOT say.

Stan Shannon wrote:

all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States

Protecting freedom IS power delegated to the Unites States and eroding it IS prohibited to the states. Your second Jefferson quote, and spinning of it, is another great example of you simpleton asswipe oppressors twisting the meaning of things that Jefferson has said. As a side note, you are fooling yourselves if you think that any of your garbage is ever going to work on people like me ( and there are plenty of people like me, that have the ability to actually read and comprehend the written word without spinning it into support for our own evil causes ).

Stan Shannon wrote:

I think he clearly would have expected such issues to be worked out

Bullshit, that's not what this says even remotely:

Stan Shannon wrote:

Let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally

National govt. entrusted with national defense. States with the defense of civil rights. THE DEFENSE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, not giving the states rights to abolish or deny civil liberties. Frack Stan, how fracking stupid does a person have to be to read into Jefferson some fantasy notion of oppression at the hands of local government. It seems to me that people inclined to do this are suffering some form of mental disease or incapacitation. I'm completely serious, where the frack in any of our founders document, letters or even fracking twitters do they discuss the establishment of our Government for the purpose of oppression! WHAT THE FRACK Stan!