About time
-
Oakman wrote:
Expressed myself badly, possibly
I thought it was pretty obvious you were having a dig at the poms. Any human right is only as good as the power that protects it. Where's the power that protects your constitutional rights that were eroded by the Patriot Act? If your definition of inalienable rights are those given by God then I hope you're a praying man.
Josh Gray wrote:
I thought it was pretty obvious you were having a dig at the poms.
At least that was obvious :-).
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Oakman wrote:
Expressed myself badly, possibly
I thought it was pretty obvious you were having a dig at the poms. Any human right is only as good as the power that protects it. Where's the power that protects your constitutional rights that were eroded by the Patriot Act? If your definition of inalienable rights are those given by God then I hope you're a praying man.
Josh Gray wrote:
I thought it was pretty obvious you were having a dig at the poms.
I thought Elaine was. I was just being sympathetic. Maybe neither of us should get an "A" for mind reading?
Josh Gray wrote:
Where's the power that protects your constitutional rights that were eroded by the Patriot Act?
Well, I set myself the task of doing my bit to remove my Congressman who voted for it. He is, today, unemployed. Not much, I agree, but it felt good. In truth I do not know if the U.S. can revert to being a constitutional republic. A great deal of our "public servants" seem to think they are our masters, and set themselves above both the electorate and the Constitution.
Josh Gray wrote:
If your definition of inalienable rights are those given by God then I hope you're a praying man.
I am (at my age it's called hedging your bets), but don't make the same mistake others make and think that the word "Creator," is a reference to the Bearded Guy in the sky so beloved by Fundamentalists. Jefferson, et al, were positing what has been called a "First Cause," not someone who dabbled in reordering natural laws to favor this preacher over that preacher.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Oakman wrote:
Are you toilet trained?
Why, do want some instructions? For your argument to be ad-rem, I'd need to claim some kind of authority on these matters, I did no such thing, I'm not a trained philosopher and talk of unalienable rights falls under this category. All I did was point out that you somehow believe people in the UK have no inalienable rights, whereas they do in the US, an impossible position given the definition of inalienable rights. In several places you dismiss arguments as "uninformed opinion" or "simplistic", without stating why. Clearly this is an attack on me, albeit indirectly, as you are attacking my ability to argue rather than the arguments themselves. Good use of a straw man attack in your earlier post BTW.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
Clearly this is an attack on me
Yes, Keith, it's all about you. :rolleyes:
Keith Barrow wrote:
All I did was point out that you somehow believe people in the UK have no inalienable rights,
Actually, I asked a question. Is the penalty for that still drinking hemlock?
Keith Barrow wrote:
In several places you dismiss arguments as "uninformed opinion" or "simplistic", without stating why
Doesn't matter. I am still dismissing your arguments on their face, not because you are making them. Were someone I respected a great deal to make those same arguments, I would dismiss them in the same way and for the same reasons. Sorry you don't see the difference, but I assure you, there is one.
Keith Barrow wrote:
Good use of a straw man attack in your earlier post BTW.
When did I misrepresent your opinion? I don't think I ever dignified it with a restatement, did I?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
UK government to scrap Control Orders[^] In effect they were perpetual hosue arrest without trial. Also if someone wanted to they could get around the restrictions so it was yet more security theatre at the cost of real security measures. :mad:
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Always remember: Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage; Minds innocent and quiet take That for an hermitage; If I have freedom in my love, And in my soul am free, Angels alone, that soar above, Enjoy such liberty. So, with the right frame of mind, perpetual house arrest confers more freedom than is enjoyed by any citizen of the USA. :)
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Always remember: Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage; Minds innocent and quiet take That for an hermitage; If I have freedom in my love, And in my soul am free, Angels alone, that soar above, Enjoy such liberty. So, with the right frame of mind, perpetual house arrest confers more freedom than is enjoyed by any citizen of the USA. :)
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Always remember: Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage; Minds innocent and quiet take That for an hermitage; If I have freedom in my love, And in my soul am free, Angels alone, that soar above, Enjoy such liberty. So, with the right frame of mind, perpetual house arrest confers more freedom than is enjoyed by any citizen of the USA. :)
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
So, with the right frame of mind, perpetual house arrest confers more freedom than is enjoyed by any citizen of the USA.
So says every sheep looking beyond the slaughterhouse's fence.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
ict558 wrote:
So, with the right frame of mind, perpetual house arrest confers more freedom than is enjoyed by any citizen of the USA.
So says every sheep looking beyond the slaughterhouse's fence.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
1 for having too literal a mind.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
1 for having too literal a mind.
"Literal" for using a metaphor? My Gawd, you'd probably string T.S. Eliot up by his thumbs!
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
ict558 wrote:
1 for having too literal a mind.
"Literal" for using a metaphor? My Gawd, you'd probably string T.S. Eliot up by his thumbs!
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
So, with the right frame of mind, perpetual house arrest confers more freedom than is enjoyed by any citizen of the USA. :) That is what is known as 'tongue in cheek', hence the smiley.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
So, with the right frame of mind, perpetual house arrest confers more freedom than is enjoyed by any citizen of the USA. :) That is what is known as 'tongue in cheek', hence the smiley.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
That is what is known as 'tongue in cheek'
See, now that just shows how out of date, I am. Here all these years, I though the smile stood for happiness or satisfaction while the wink implied a joke or double entendre. Gosh, gee whizz, I learned something new. ;)
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Marcus Kramer wrote:
At the end of the day, all systems of government are designed by human beings.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that some systems are not inherently better than others, or that we should not try to imagine and then create the best system we can.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
But who is to say which is better. That decision will again be based on a person's bias. As a Canadian, I would venture to say that our Canadian system or laws and government is a better representation of democracy than that of the US, but is that in fact the case? On the flip side of the coin, my guess would be that your opinion on the matter would be opposite to mine, but that doesn't make yours wrong or mine wrong, it just shows that we have a certain bias in our opinions on the matter.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
But who is to say which is better. That decision will again be based on a person's bias. As a Canadian, I would venture to say that our Canadian system or laws and government is a better representation of democracy than that of the US, but is that in fact the case? On the flip side of the coin, my guess would be that your opinion on the matter would be opposite to mine, but that doesn't make yours wrong or mine wrong, it just shows that we have a certain bias in our opinions on the matter.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
But who is to say which is better
Now, I know that you don't believe that the most iron-fisted despotism and the respect shown (more or less) for individual freedom by the governments of all English-speaking countries are pretty much the same -- do you?
Marcus Kramer wrote:
As a Canadian, I would venture to say that our Canadian system or laws and government is a better representation of democracy than that of the US
It's entirely possible that the Canadian system better embodies democracy than the American system - especially since the American system was created by men who were clear-sighted enough to see that democracy has always led to ocholocracy - something, as an American, I would say Canada is well on the way to becoming. See, we agree more than you think. ;)
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
ict558 wrote:
That is what is known as 'tongue in cheek'
See, now that just shows how out of date, I am. Here all these years, I though the smile stood for happiness or satisfaction while the wink implied a joke or double entendre. Gosh, gee whizz, I learned something new. ;)
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
See, now that just shows how out of date, I am.
Oh! No, no! It is just that I am old school:
:-)represented a smile, which, depending upon the context, indicated happiness or a humourous intent. Perhaps I expect too much of the modern reader? Should I hammer home my intent with a "Geddit?" or "Just kidding!"? I shall take your post to heart and use;-)on every future occasion. ;)2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain