I'm not sure I understand this.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Jefferson did not believe in a weak executive, he belived in a weak central government

Sure he did. In the Articles of Confederation (the document he did have something to say about) the executive was little more than a pawn of congress. The Constitution, written by Hamilton and Madison while Jefferson was overseas, instituted a strong executive.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Situational ethics does not equate to being unethical, it equates to applying one's own ethics when someone else's might cause harm if followed.

I've been defending situation ethics - my following only the laws I believe in for a long time. You are the one who has been telling me what a terribly immoral position that is.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Its a straight forward, honest question which should be easy to answer.

"Honest question?" You mean it's one where you might have to think about the answer - or is it one that you have your rebuttals prepared no matter what the answer is. Either way, as I said, the question is suitable for a naive 15 year old, not a grown man with a high IQ.

Stan Shannon wrote:

My only beef with Obma is that he is an ignorant socialist f*** wad.

He may be many things, but I am relatively sure that he is both intelligent and well-educated. Calling him names may make you feel better, but is one of the reasons people compare you to Ilion.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I disagree with his politics, but beyond that, I have no problem with him.

Then why did you waste my time talking about him?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

RichardM1 wrote:

John, you are off by anywhere from 10^4 to 10^5.

Could be. I have made mistakes before. Last time, I was about 12. . .

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

There is nearly no chance that such a tax would fail to reach the federal courts and be reversed there

Which still would accomplish every purpose the Congress and Obama would have in creating such a law. As you say, "theatre for the masses." Perhaps for a curtain call, they could all stand on the floor of the House and chant "We feel your pain!" before going off into their limos to their private dining clubs and where they could congratulate themselves on having earned their new and higher salaries.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

It is my plan

Stan, you don't have a plan. You have no power so you have no plan. You're not unique in this. I would guess that most or all of us have not real ability to affect what happens politically. If we did, we'd be out doing it, not chit-chatting in the Back Room.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I believe the only thing that will save human civilization now is a complete collapse of the entire economic system

With a total collapse of economics systems, won't save humans, it will sign their death warrant. By the very definition of "complete collapse" means that monies will no longer flow anywhere. This means that shops and supermarkets will not function. Middle-men and wholesalers will not function. Farms will not function and livestock will need to be destroyed as feed is unavailable, produce in the ground will rot. Utilities such as power and mains water will not work therefore that which depends on water and power, such as transportation systems, will not function. Civilization will stop dead in its tracks. Hunger and thirst will be insurmountable. Those fortunate enough to have gardens and seed stocks might plant/sow but it takes such time and water for them to mature to edible standard, the family may have starved by then yet if mains water is not functioning, then your life expectancy is measured in days (hours if it is very hot summery weather) as thirst overcomes all. We as a race have become far too dependent on the goodwill of others. Remove this humanity of goodwill and what you have left is a lack of individual and local-collective knowledge, a lack of experience, a lack of basic resources and a crisis that self-sufficiency would not be able to address.

Stan Shannon wrote:

collectivism, socialism, fascism and finally communism

They have economic systems as well. They may not exactly function in the same way as capitalism does, but they are also users of economic systems nonetheless.

Stan Shannon wrote:

People of faith and integrity

Will also perish alongside ordinary folk. The future will not be human, and our passing will not be noticed by anyone or anything.

[Rob Graham]

Bob Emmett wrote:

Voting a party out, without considering what they are voting in. Every bloody election: "Well, they can't be much worse than this lot."

Yeah, I prefer the attitude that was prevalent in Louisiana when I lived there: "better the thieves you know than the ones you don't...".

[Rob Graham]

That's why I added the closing sentence. Politicians love theater, even when it is stupid, bad theater. It would however, likely generate a court opinion that would be long remembered. Scalia has an acid wit.

[Stan Shannon]

No, really. I'm like the George Soros of Middletown. Only not as rich or good looking...

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.

[Lost User]

My Granny always voted for the party led by a 'gentleman'. She didn't vote after 1963 (not even for Thatcher - she wasn't a 'lady').

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'm like the George Soros of Middletown. Only not as rich or good looking

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

With a total collapse of economics systems, won't save humans, it will sign their death war...

Maybe, maybe not. It still needs to happen. The direction we are headed is the worse possible scenario for the human race. Better to die with a bang than a collectivist whimper.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Will also perish alongside ordinary folk. The future will not be human, and our passing will not be noticed by anyone or anything.

They will be less likely to. If anyone survives it will be the people with strong traditional values. Thats why we evolved the ability to have strong traditional values - survival.

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.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Better to die with a bang

There certainly are more than enough tensions around the globe that are not economic in nature, what with Russia wanting to re-arm and so forth. But in terms of economics, there are plenty still yet to unwind such as those ever so secretive 144A equity securities and the damning UCLA Law Review Vol 56 p 409 of 2008 [^] whole report via the download link.

Stan Shannon wrote:

survival

Of the fittest - perhaps - but not necessarily in large towns and cities where brutality of gangland might temporarily exist.