Who is the conservative?
-
BoneSoft wrote:
What we need is a non corrupt government, and I don't know how you pull that off.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Brilliant! I'm only through the fourth vid, but I'm on board. Much-os grassy-ass for the el-link-o.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oakman wrote: This kind of colletivist thinking is what leads to fascism and communism. No, it is absolutist principles that lead to fascism and communism. Such as 'radical individualism', for example.
Are you defending collectivist thinking?
This statement is false
Yes. I'm defending the principles American civilization was founded upon - grass roots, bottom up, collectivism. That is what has always defined Jeffersonian democracy. The only possible alternative is Marxist style, top down collectivism by a ruling elite. The notion that a civilization can be maintained by individuals living free of any moral restraint other than what they themselves feel appropriate, which oakman and other libertarians propose, might sound nice, but is simply unworkable.
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 completely mischaracterizing events so that you can make an argument about why conservatives should all support your 'centrist' political postion.
Along with your inability to grasp the idea that someone should have the right to live they want to as long as they do no harm to others; you simply can't understand the concept of accepting other points of view as having some validity at least for those who hold them, can you?
Stan Shannon wrote:
We conservatives are the centrists.
1. You are not a conservative; you are a reactionary dreaming fondly of a world that hasn't existed since the 19th century. 2. A conservative is not a centrist, any more than a liberal is. It may be hard for you to grasp this, too, but there really are other political points of view besides wanting to live in log cabins and wanting to live in communes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Along with your inability to grasp the idea that someone should have the right to live they want to as long as they do no harm to others; you simply can't understand the concept of accepting other points of view as having some validity at least for those who hold them, can you?
No, I simply recognize bullshit when I hear it. Who gets to define 'harm'? I think openly practiced and unrestrained sexual perversion harms my civilization. It might not harm me directly, but it most certainly harms me indirectly, as HIV attests. Your position is identical to that of every other libertarian I have ever encountered. You want a political system that defends your definition of 'harm' against any possibility of discussion on the part of anyone who might disagree with you. You do not want a democratic consensus, you want some sort of absolute power to assure yourself of absolute freedom to do what ever you damn well please. Ulitmately, you do the same thing to a civilization that any theocratic demagogue would. Except just a lot less sustainable.
Oakman wrote:
1. You are not a conservative; you are a reactionary dreaming fondly of a world that hasn't existed since the 19th century.
Yes, I am. In fact, I just recently discovered that I am a Paleoconservative[^] with only very reluctant acceptance of the need for neo-conservatism.
Oakman wrote:
. A conservative is not a centrist, any more than a liberal is. It may be hard for you to grasp this, too, but there really are other political points of view besides wanting to live in log cabins and wanting to live in communes.
Well, neither are libertarians. If simply being anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage makes someone a right wing extremist of some kind than the term has lost its meaning altogether.
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:
As a collective, not as individuals.
Stop interpreting the Constitution, You're as bad as the Supreme Court in the way you make things up. If Madison had wanted to say "The people as a collective entity," then that's what he would have said.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
If Madison had wanted to say "The people as a collective entity," then that's what he would have said.
And if he had wanted to say 'The people as individuals' than that is what he would have said. And virtually every reference Madison makes to "the people" refers to them explicitely as a group. The country did not become a libertarian society, ever. Madison could have fought to make it one, but he did not. He was obviously comfortable with the notion that "the people" was intended to mean a collection of indiviudals using their freedoms together to arrive at their own definitions of 'unalienable rights' without concern for a centralized ruling authority, includeing the courts, telling them what to do.
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 think the problem is that you simply fail to comprehend what you are saying.
Troy thinks he's a better writer than Robert Bloch; you think you understand what I say better than I do, even though I'm smarter, better read, more widely traveled, and more reflective than you. (I'm also better-looking, but that's not important in this context. :laugh: ) Just because the two of you are considered examples of intelligentsia in the boondocks, doesn't mean either of you can compete nationally. For starters, the two of you need to learn to spell.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:05 AM
Oakman wrote:
even though I'm smarter, better read, more widely traveled, and more reflective than you
No, you're not. I'm sure you are better read on material that supports your pre-concieved positions, but you have certainly not bothered to read anything contradictory to those positions. I, on the other hand, being a true student, avail myself of material from as many divergent points of view as possible. This is especially important in the study of history, btw.
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:
Along with your inability to grasp the idea that someone should have the right to live they want to as long as they do no harm to others; you simply can't understand the concept of accepting other points of view as having some validity at least for those who hold them, can you?
No, I simply recognize bullshit when I hear it. Who gets to define 'harm'? I think openly practiced and unrestrained sexual perversion harms my civilization. It might not harm me directly, but it most certainly harms me indirectly, as HIV attests. Your position is identical to that of every other libertarian I have ever encountered. You want a political system that defends your definition of 'harm' against any possibility of discussion on the part of anyone who might disagree with you. You do not want a democratic consensus, you want some sort of absolute power to assure yourself of absolute freedom to do what ever you damn well please. Ulitmately, you do the same thing to a civilization that any theocratic demagogue would. Except just a lot less sustainable.
Oakman wrote:
1. You are not a conservative; you are a reactionary dreaming fondly of a world that hasn't existed since the 19th century.
Yes, I am. In fact, I just recently discovered that I am a Paleoconservative[^] with only very reluctant acceptance of the need for neo-conservatism.
Oakman wrote:
. A conservative is not a centrist, any more than a liberal is. It may be hard for you to grasp this, too, but there really are other political points of view besides wanting to live in log cabins and wanting to live in communes.
Well, neither are libertarians. If simply being anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage makes someone a right wing extremist of some kind than the term has lost its meaning altogether.
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 think openly practiced and unrestrained sexual perversion harms my civilization.
You sound like some Harvard freshman crying because the world isn't everything his mommy and daddy told him it was.
Stan Shannon wrote:
as HIV attests
Here's a clue: heteros who practice only missionary sex can get HIV. You really ought to get a basic grounding in viruses before yappinbg on about what you don't understand.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You want a political system that defends your definition of 'harm' against any possibility of discussion on the part of anyone who might disagree with you.
Once again, you attribute to me things I have never said. Harm is really easy to define, Stan and it doesn't mean hurting somebody's itty bitty feelings. Using force against me harms me. Everything else may irritate me or disgust me, or make me feel sad, but I am not harmed by it. Every kid that hears 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me' has learned this lesson - why can't you? I am so tired of collectivists running aound saying that if someone's feelings are hurt by what is said or done by other people it needs to be outlawed. Grow the fuck up, people.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, neither are libertarians
Damn straight. Libertarians, even modified ones like me are so far out there, it takes an extra day for the light of the sun to reach us. We actually believe that you shouldn't run around depending on society to tell us when to eat and when to sleep and when to take a dump. Shocking eh?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If simply being anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage makes someone a right wing extremist of some kind than the term has lost its meaning altogether
Plenty of people, some of them regs on this board, believe in those things. What makes you an extremist is your great hunger to force everyone else to live within the narrow confines of your fears and nighmares.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
If Madison had wanted to say "The people as a collective entity," then that's what he would have said.
And if he had wanted to say 'The people as individuals' than that is what he would have said. And virtually every reference Madison makes to "the people" refers to them explicitely as a group. The country did not become a libertarian society, ever. Madison could have fought to make it one, but he did not. He was obviously comfortable with the notion that "the people" was intended to mean a collection of indiviudals using their freedoms together to arrive at their own definitions of 'unalienable rights' without concern for a centralized ruling authority, includeing the courts, telling them what to do.
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:
And if he had wanted to say 'The people as individuals' than that is what he would have said.
Not at all. Any grouping of humans is made of individuals. I realise that collectivists like you findly imagine that we are all joined at the hip, but it's safe to assume that Madison, child of the enlightenment that he was, understood that groups do not exist separately from the individuals in them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He was obviously comfortable with the notion that "the people" was intended to mean a collection of indiviudals using their freedoms together to arrive at their own definitions of 'unalienable rights' without concern for a centralized ruling authority, includeing the courts, telling them what to do.
ROFL, talk about spin! You must have Jimmy spinning in his grave. But Earl Warren would understand you interpreting the Constitution to suit your personal foibles, oh yes, indeed he would.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
even though I'm smarter, better read, more widely traveled, and more reflective than you
No, you're not. I'm sure you are better read on material that supports your pre-concieved positions, but you have certainly not bothered to read anything contradictory to those positions. I, on the other hand, being a true student, avail myself of material from as many divergent points of view as possible. This is especially important in the study of history, btw.
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:
No, you're not.
Yes, I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes, I am, yes, I am; YES I AM! ;P Stan, you really need to develop a sense of humor. Not only am I all that, I also make better blueberry pies than you do. ;P
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes, I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're not.
Yes, I am, yes, I am; YES I AM! ;P Stan, you really need to develop a sense of humor. Not only am I all that, I also make better blueberry pies than you do. ;P
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Yes, I am, yes, I am; YES I AM!
No, you're not.
Oakman wrote:
Stan, you really need to develop a sense of humor.
See, I do have a sense of humor... I win...
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:
Yes, I am, yes, I am; YES I AM!
No, you're not.
Oakman wrote:
Stan, you really need to develop a sense of humor.
See, I do have a sense of humor... I win...
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.
-
Brilliant! I'm only through the fourth vid, but I'm on board. Much-os grassy-ass for the el-link-o.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I'm on board
Super! back to your concern on honest politicians: these efforts are coming together with TEA Party groups and 9-12 Project groups for a consolidated effort. The goal to support and elect representatives (local, state, national) that will adhere to the Constituition and founding principles, regardless of party affiliation - an honestly organic effort.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.