to smoke or not to smoke, that is that question?
-
The simple fact of the matter remains, that I have absolutely nothing in common with Obama, Osama or any other such indviduals you can dredge up. I am a Jeffersonian. And fiercely so. The political principles I defend are exactly the ones that Jefferson defended. Civilization simply cannot exist with out some form of ordering principle. In a Jeffersonian society that ordering principle belongs to the states and to the people, with the federal government empowered only to enforce certain strictly defined constitutional principles. The only other possible place it can exist is in the hands of a centralized federal entity of some kind. It never was and was never intended to be in the hands of each and every individual to decide which laws they are going to pick and choose to obey. Jefferson, et al, intentionally created and articulated a form of government in which local governments could outlaw sodomy or flag burning or what ever else they wished to do as long as they were not violating the principles stated in the constitution. The existance of such laws was not some kind of bizarre aberation of the founding principles, they were a consequence of them. You can yawn about that all you like, it was the entire reason the revolution was fought and what distinquished AMerican civilization from every other society on the planet - not libertarianism.
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 political principles I defend are exactly the ones that Jefferson defended.
When you say that what we have had, at least since Wilson, but possibly since Lincoln is not the government in style or substance that was envisioned by Jefferson, Burr, and Madison, or Adams and Hamilton et al, I cannot help but agree with you. But when you claim that the theocratic, anti-liberty, small-minded, moralistic dystopia that seems to be founded on the twin pillars of hatred and fear you speak of so lovingly is what they had in mind, I can only laugh. You and Osama are so much alike, it is either hilarious or frightening. Though you would like to frame your arguments along the lines of it is either what we have now, or a return to all the fine moral traditions of Salem during the Witch-Hunts. I assure you that there are other, far more palatable alternatives. And your claim of "Well Jefferson never said we couldn't," is a far cry from the ringing affirmation of your dream world that one would expect to be able to find in his words. Yet, I have infuriated you to the point of calling him a redneck and other choice epithets, simply by quoting his written works and speeches. One would assume that if you walk in his footsteps and pray for his words to show us the way to salvation, you wouldn't have to reject so many of them, explain away even more, and triumphantly hold up the two or three documents that you can twist into supporting your point of view.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it was the entire reason the revolution was fought and what distinquished AMerican civilization from every other society on the planet - not libertarianism.
What a foolish thing to say. The revolution was fought for many reasons. They varied from state to state and region to region. But I assure you, the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence never ever gets around to complaining the George III didn't allow them to set up theocracies and exclusionary societies. Indeed, since he had done so, such a protestation would have struck a false note. As for libertarianism, I have never claimed that the War for Independence was fought for it, nor any other war. I simply suggest that the American revolution was a step in the right direction.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Uh, yes you have. Over and over and you've been called on it over and over.
Uh, no I haven't. I have merely defended the form of government this country was intended to have and did have throughout most of its history.
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:
Uh, no I haven't. I have merely defended the form of government this country was intended to have and did have throughout most of its history.
You've made it very clear that you want rule entirely by the local Bubba committee and the rights guaranteed in the US constitution are just window dressing. You do this because you believe the ratio of Bubbas to rational people is the same everywhere in the country as it is you your little white bread hell hole. Then when you find there's a majority out there who disagrees with you, you lable them socialists, communists, anti-Amierican, and traitors. Just look at your own hypocritical abrupt about face on how the sitting president should be treated.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
The political principles I defend are exactly the ones that Jefferson defended.
When you say that what we have had, at least since Wilson, but possibly since Lincoln is not the government in style or substance that was envisioned by Jefferson, Burr, and Madison, or Adams and Hamilton et al, I cannot help but agree with you. But when you claim that the theocratic, anti-liberty, small-minded, moralistic dystopia that seems to be founded on the twin pillars of hatred and fear you speak of so lovingly is what they had in mind, I can only laugh. You and Osama are so much alike, it is either hilarious or frightening. Though you would like to frame your arguments along the lines of it is either what we have now, or a return to all the fine moral traditions of Salem during the Witch-Hunts. I assure you that there are other, far more palatable alternatives. And your claim of "Well Jefferson never said we couldn't," is a far cry from the ringing affirmation of your dream world that one would expect to be able to find in his words. Yet, I have infuriated you to the point of calling him a redneck and other choice epithets, simply by quoting his written works and speeches. One would assume that if you walk in his footsteps and pray for his words to show us the way to salvation, you wouldn't have to reject so many of them, explain away even more, and triumphantly hold up the two or three documents that you can twist into supporting your point of view.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it was the entire reason the revolution was fought and what distinquished AMerican civilization from every other society on the planet - not libertarianism.
What a foolish thing to say. The revolution was fought for many reasons. They varied from state to state and region to region. But I assure you, the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence never ever gets around to complaining the George III didn't allow them to set up theocracies and exclusionary societies. Indeed, since he had done so, such a protestation would have struck a false note. As for libertarianism, I have never claimed that the War for Independence was fought for it, nor any other war. I simply suggest that the American revolution was a step in the right direction.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Jon, every single word you wrote above is completely the opposite of the truth. The entire history of this country supports my opinion. I'm not the one trying to turn this nation into some kind of fascistic, theocratic destopia. People like you are. You are the one who wants the entire nation required to observe a narrowly defined morality and have that morality enforced from the most exclusive and anti-democratic institutions of our society. I, as with Jefferson, Madison, et al, am the one who wants the vast diversity of public opinion on matters of political importance to be controlled by the common man acting through state and local governments. If those decisions are based upon religious concepts, fine, if not, fine. That is the way things were supposed to work. That is the way they did work. The men who served at Valley Forge, the men who died defending Culp's hill, the men who waded ashore at Omaha Beach and Iwo did not do that so that people cold be free to burn flags or butt fuck each other. They did it so the people in their little towns could continue to have a say in their own civil standards as they always had. That is what they were dieing for and what people like you are promoting is nothing less than spitting in their faces. Nothing in our entire national history has been about establishing or justifying a libertarian society. Nothing. As in nada. I'm not a theocrat, I'm barely even a christian, let alone an evangelical fundamentalist of some sort. But you most certainly are in your own way. You believe yourself to be superior to most other people and that therefore the government should be enforcing your world view. All of which you think is reconciled by a childish "but I will disobey the laws I dont like" nobility. And the obvious fact that Craig and so many others support you on this is merely evidence to support my thesis. This government has worked the way it has, until mid 20th century or so, because that is the way it was designed to work. Purposefully, intentionally. Thats a simple, irrefutable fact. It no longer works that way for one reason only - the machinations of leftists having acquired positions of power and authority in our government, media and educational institutions, and the efforts by radical individualists and other anti-Jeffersonian types circling like vultures over the corpse of a once great nation. Now its time for you to conclude that I'm being non-responsive and discontinue the thread.
<
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Uh, no I haven't. I have merely defended the form of government this country was intended to have and did have throughout most of its history.
You've made it very clear that you want rule entirely by the local Bubba committee and the rights guaranteed in the US constitution are just window dressing. You do this because you believe the ratio of Bubbas to rational people is the same everywhere in the country as it is you your little white bread hell hole. Then when you find there's a majority out there who disagrees with you, you lable them socialists, communists, anti-Amierican, and traitors. Just look at your own hypocritical abrupt about face on how the sitting president should be treated.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
You've made it very clear that you want rule entirely by the local Bubba committee and the rights guaranteed in the US constitution are just window dressing.
No, I've made it clear that 'rule entirely (as specifically limited by the constitution) by the local Bubba committee' constitute the rights guaranteed in the US constitution. What you want, Tim, and what I am opposed to, is the federal government using fear mongering about our own society to steal the appropriate constitutional power from the people and control it exclusively themselves. You are the theocrat, Tim, not me. It is you who wants the entire society controlled by your agenda and no one else gets to have a say.
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.
-
Jon, every single word you wrote above is completely the opposite of the truth. The entire history of this country supports my opinion. I'm not the one trying to turn this nation into some kind of fascistic, theocratic destopia. People like you are. You are the one who wants the entire nation required to observe a narrowly defined morality and have that morality enforced from the most exclusive and anti-democratic institutions of our society. I, as with Jefferson, Madison, et al, am the one who wants the vast diversity of public opinion on matters of political importance to be controlled by the common man acting through state and local governments. If those decisions are based upon religious concepts, fine, if not, fine. That is the way things were supposed to work. That is the way they did work. The men who served at Valley Forge, the men who died defending Culp's hill, the men who waded ashore at Omaha Beach and Iwo did not do that so that people cold be free to burn flags or butt fuck each other. They did it so the people in their little towns could continue to have a say in their own civil standards as they always had. That is what they were dieing for and what people like you are promoting is nothing less than spitting in their faces. Nothing in our entire national history has been about establishing or justifying a libertarian society. Nothing. As in nada. I'm not a theocrat, I'm barely even a christian, let alone an evangelical fundamentalist of some sort. But you most certainly are in your own way. You believe yourself to be superior to most other people and that therefore the government should be enforcing your world view. All of which you think is reconciled by a childish "but I will disobey the laws I dont like" nobility. And the obvious fact that Craig and so many others support you on this is merely evidence to support my thesis. This government has worked the way it has, until mid 20th century or so, because that is the way it was designed to work. Purposefully, intentionally. Thats a simple, irrefutable fact. It no longer works that way for one reason only - the machinations of leftists having acquired positions of power and authority in our government, media and educational institutions, and the efforts by radical individualists and other anti-Jeffersonian types circling like vultures over the corpse of a once great nation. Now its time for you to conclude that I'm being non-responsive and discontinue the thread.
<
Stan Shannon wrote:
The entire history of this country supports my opinion.
Unfortunately, you just can't find a lot of citations, except for the rise of the Know-Nothing Party, the American NAZI party, and the Ku Klux Klan. Inflamatory, for no good reason except low blood sugar when I wrote it. My apologies.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are the one who wants the entire nation required to observe a narrowly defined morality and have that morality enforced from the most exclusive and anti-democratic institutions of our society.
Stan, I am beginning to worry about your reading skills. Even when I type real slow and try not to use big words, you just don't get it. I want the government - Federal, State, and Local to have one moral law: It will protect its citizens from forcible coercion. Any other laws it passes should be to provide redress when contracts are broken. The closer we could get to that (it's unlikely that we'll see a do-over in my lifetime) the better I would like it. Hopefully that's simple enough for you, plain enough for you and clear enough for you to begin the grasp where I am coming from and why I see so little difference between your version of paradise and Osama's.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I, as with Jefferson, Madison, et al, am the one who wants the vast diversity of public opinion on matters of political importance to be controlled by the common man acting through state and local governments.
I on the other hand want as little control from the common sheeple as possible. I have no more faith in the good citizens of South Carolina to determine the good, the true and the proper than I do the Congress - which is, as I must remind you, elected by these same "common" men you put such stock in.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the men who waded ashore at Omaha Beach and Iwo did not do that so that people cold be free to burn flags or butt f*** each other.
You force me to wonder if you are dumb enough to think that there were no homosexuals - active, practicing homosexuals in the armed services during WWII.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Nothing in our entire national history has been about establishing or justifying a libertarian society.
A. You've never indicated that you understand what a libertarian
-
Tim Craig wrote:
You've made it very clear that you want rule entirely by the local Bubba committee and the rights guaranteed in the US constitution are just window dressing.
No, I've made it clear that 'rule entirely (as specifically limited by the constitution) by the local Bubba committee' constitute the rights guaranteed in the US constitution. What you want, Tim, and what I am opposed to, is the federal government using fear mongering about our own society to steal the appropriate constitutional power from the people and control it exclusively themselves. You are the theocrat, Tim, not me. It is you who wants the entire society controlled by your agenda and no one else gets to have a say.
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 I am opposed to, is the federal government using fear mongering about our own society to steal the appropriate constitutional power from the people and control it exclusively themselves.
Ah, you mean like Dub did and then you praised him for trashing the constitution?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are the theocrat, Tim, not me.
Looks like "theocrat" is another word you're going to abuse the meaning of. :doh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Jon, every single word you wrote above is completely the opposite of the truth. The entire history of this country supports my opinion. I'm not the one trying to turn this nation into some kind of fascistic, theocratic destopia. People like you are. You are the one who wants the entire nation required to observe a narrowly defined morality and have that morality enforced from the most exclusive and anti-democratic institutions of our society. I, as with Jefferson, Madison, et al, am the one who wants the vast diversity of public opinion on matters of political importance to be controlled by the common man acting through state and local governments. If those decisions are based upon religious concepts, fine, if not, fine. That is the way things were supposed to work. That is the way they did work. The men who served at Valley Forge, the men who died defending Culp's hill, the men who waded ashore at Omaha Beach and Iwo did not do that so that people cold be free to burn flags or butt fuck each other. They did it so the people in their little towns could continue to have a say in their own civil standards as they always had. That is what they were dieing for and what people like you are promoting is nothing less than spitting in their faces. Nothing in our entire national history has been about establishing or justifying a libertarian society. Nothing. As in nada. I'm not a theocrat, I'm barely even a christian, let alone an evangelical fundamentalist of some sort. But you most certainly are in your own way. You believe yourself to be superior to most other people and that therefore the government should be enforcing your world view. All of which you think is reconciled by a childish "but I will disobey the laws I dont like" nobility. And the obvious fact that Craig and so many others support you on this is merely evidence to support my thesis. This government has worked the way it has, until mid 20th century or so, because that is the way it was designed to work. Purposefully, intentionally. Thats a simple, irrefutable fact. It no longer works that way for one reason only - the machinations of leftists having acquired positions of power and authority in our government, media and educational institutions, and the efforts by radical individualists and other anti-Jeffersonian types circling like vultures over the corpse of a once great nation. Now its time for you to conclude that I'm being non-responsive and discontinue the thread.
<
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The entire history of this country supports my opinion.
Unfortunately, you just can't find a lot of citations, except for the rise of the Know-Nothing Party, the American NAZI party, and the Ku Klux Klan. Inflamatory, for no good reason except low blood sugar when I wrote it. My apologies.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are the one who wants the entire nation required to observe a narrowly defined morality and have that morality enforced from the most exclusive and anti-democratic institutions of our society.
Stan, I am beginning to worry about your reading skills. Even when I type real slow and try not to use big words, you just don't get it. I want the government - Federal, State, and Local to have one moral law: It will protect its citizens from forcible coercion. Any other laws it passes should be to provide redress when contracts are broken. The closer we could get to that (it's unlikely that we'll see a do-over in my lifetime) the better I would like it. Hopefully that's simple enough for you, plain enough for you and clear enough for you to begin the grasp where I am coming from and why I see so little difference between your version of paradise and Osama's.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I, as with Jefferson, Madison, et al, am the one who wants the vast diversity of public opinion on matters of political importance to be controlled by the common man acting through state and local governments.
I on the other hand want as little control from the common sheeple as possible. I have no more faith in the good citizens of South Carolina to determine the good, the true and the proper than I do the Congress - which is, as I must remind you, elected by these same "common" men you put such stock in.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the men who waded ashore at Omaha Beach and Iwo did not do that so that people cold be free to burn flags or butt f*** each other.
You force me to wonder if you are dumb enough to think that there were no homosexuals - active, practicing homosexuals in the armed services during WWII.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Nothing in our entire national history has been about establishing or justifying a libertarian society.
A. You've never indicated that you understand what a libertarian
-
Jon, every single word you wrote above is completely the opposite of the truth. The entire history of this country supports my opinion. I'm not the one trying to turn this nation into some kind of fascistic, theocratic destopia. People like you are. You are the one who wants the entire nation required to observe a narrowly defined morality and have that morality enforced from the most exclusive and anti-democratic institutions of our society. I, as with Jefferson, Madison, et al, am the one who wants the vast diversity of public opinion on matters of political importance to be controlled by the common man acting through state and local governments. If those decisions are based upon religious concepts, fine, if not, fine. That is the way things were supposed to work. That is the way they did work. The men who served at Valley Forge, the men who died defending Culp's hill, the men who waded ashore at Omaha Beach and Iwo did not do that so that people cold be free to burn flags or butt fuck each other. They did it so the people in their little towns could continue to have a say in their own civil standards as they always had. That is what they were dieing for and what people like you are promoting is nothing less than spitting in their faces. Nothing in our entire national history has been about establishing or justifying a libertarian society. Nothing. As in nada. I'm not a theocrat, I'm barely even a christian, let alone an evangelical fundamentalist of some sort. But you most certainly are in your own way. You believe yourself to be superior to most other people and that therefore the government should be enforcing your world view. All of which you think is reconciled by a childish "but I will disobey the laws I dont like" nobility. And the obvious fact that Craig and so many others support you on this is merely evidence to support my thesis. This government has worked the way it has, until mid 20th century or so, because that is the way it was designed to work. Purposefully, intentionally. Thats a simple, irrefutable fact. It no longer works that way for one reason only - the machinations of leftists having acquired positions of power and authority in our government, media and educational institutions, and the efforts by radical individualists and other anti-Jeffersonian types circling like vultures over the corpse of a once great nation. Now its time for you to conclude that I'm being non-responsive and discontinue the thread.
<
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not a theocrat, I'm barely even a christian
Yet, every chance you get you extol the virtues of christianity here and proclaim that civilization would never have existed without it, our civilization will fail unless everyone embraces it, and it's the duty of the locals to set up their little Bubba theocracies forcing it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And the obvious fact that Craig and so many others support you on this is merely evidence to support my thesis.
I think I smell an new signature line...Proud antithesis to Stan. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Oakman wrote:
there were no homosexuals - active, practicing homosexuals in the armed services during WWII.
They were all English.
Bob Emmett
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
They were all English.
That was WWI.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That was WWI.
Not at all. Officially homosexuals were banned from the services, but there was a war on: Richard Buckle, ballet critic[^] On and off duty, he found plenty of opportunity for being outrageous. "I've just slept with a cardinal's nephew," he announced on returning one day to the mess. ... A brother officer alleged that he 'walked on to the German lines in daylight, rummaged at will, and usually returned with old curious books, abstruse and pornographic. One day he came back with a bridal dress which he wore for dinner.' ... Buckle was leading his platoon along a road when they were strafed by a German fighter. He ordered his men into a ditch alongside, but disdained to seek such security himself lest his uniform should be muddied. Instead, he walked on down the road, heedless of the bullets kicking up dust around him. And conscripts were not questioned on their sexual orientation, so there were plenty in the 'other ranks' too.
Bob Emmett
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not a theocrat, I'm barely even a christian
Yet, every chance you get you extol the virtues of christianity here and proclaim that civilization would never have existed without it, our civilization will fail unless everyone embraces it, and it's the duty of the locals to set up their little Bubba theocracies forcing it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And the obvious fact that Craig and so many others support you on this is merely evidence to support my thesis.
I think I smell an new signature line...Proud antithesis to Stan. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
Yet, every chance you get you extol the virtues of christianity here
Yeah? So? I belong to a christian society. Why is that such a problem for you?
Tim Craig wrote:
and proclaim that civilization would never have existed without it
You can't find one that didn't.
Tim Craig wrote:
our civilization will fail unless everyone embraces it
Yes, thats my hypothesis based upon readily available evidence.
Tim Craig wrote:
and it's the duty of the locals to set up their little Bubba theocracies forcing it.
Never even hinted at that. Unless you are claiming that American society was a collection of theocracies from the moment it was first founded. I am arguing for nothing more than what has already successfully been implemented and practiced for most of our history.
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 entire history of this country supports my opinion.
Unfortunately, you just can't find a lot of citations, except for the rise of the Know-Nothing Party, the American NAZI party, and the Ku Klux Klan. Inflamatory, for no good reason except low blood sugar when I wrote it. My apologies.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are the one who wants the entire nation required to observe a narrowly defined morality and have that morality enforced from the most exclusive and anti-democratic institutions of our society.
Stan, I am beginning to worry about your reading skills. Even when I type real slow and try not to use big words, you just don't get it. I want the government - Federal, State, and Local to have one moral law: It will protect its citizens from forcible coercion. Any other laws it passes should be to provide redress when contracts are broken. The closer we could get to that (it's unlikely that we'll see a do-over in my lifetime) the better I would like it. Hopefully that's simple enough for you, plain enough for you and clear enough for you to begin the grasp where I am coming from and why I see so little difference between your version of paradise and Osama's.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I, as with Jefferson, Madison, et al, am the one who wants the vast diversity of public opinion on matters of political importance to be controlled by the common man acting through state and local governments.
I on the other hand want as little control from the common sheeple as possible. I have no more faith in the good citizens of South Carolina to determine the good, the true and the proper than I do the Congress - which is, as I must remind you, elected by these same "common" men you put such stock in.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the men who waded ashore at Omaha Beach and Iwo did not do that so that people cold be free to burn flags or butt f*** each other.
You force me to wonder if you are dumb enough to think that there were no homosexuals - active, practicing homosexuals in the armed services during WWII.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Nothing in our entire national history has been about establishing or justifying a libertarian society.
A. You've never indicated that you understand what a libertarian
First, the KKK reference was not invalid. It was a product of Jeffersonian democracy. A Jeffersonian society is just as vulnerable to the negative aspects of human nature as is any society governerned in any other way. The only difference is in how the problems manifest themselves, united from the top down or fragmented from the bottom up. The founders knew this, and favored the latter problem to the former.
Oakman wrote:
Stan, I am beginning to worry about your reading skills.
My reading skills are fine. You demonstrate the inherent unworkablilty of libertarian thought. Civilization is a matter of formulating and enforcing rules and standards. If you don't have that you don't have civilization. When the courts over rule local laws against sodomy, for example, you applude that as a form of liberation of a minority over the dictates of a majority. The fact that the courts have no valid constitutional authority to do that is utterly unimportant to you. They reduced the power and authority of local control which might have been predicated upon some kind of religious perspective of some kind and you support that due to your libertarian views. But all you have really achieved is taking power to define the parameters of our civilization from one group and giving it to another. There is simply a new group of moralists in charge now, and unlike the christians, they have the full power and authority of the state serving at their behest.
Oakman wrote:
You force me to wonder if you are dumb enough to think that there were no homosexuals - active, practicing homosexuals in the armed services during WWII.
Not a valid point. Any homosexuals serving in WWII were defending a nation that could legally and constitutionally descriminiate against them. That is what they were sacrificing their lives for.
Oakman wrote:
That's not a belief; that's a demonstrable fact. But here's the big shock for the day: I think that you are superior to most people, too. Otherwise, I wouldn't enjoy debating with you.
That is because you are from an elitist social background. I'm not. I know that the average joe out here in the hinterland is perfectly suited to governing himself and taking responsibility for participating in governing his community.
Oakman wrote:
The government that gover
-
First, the KKK reference was not invalid. It was a product of Jeffersonian democracy. A Jeffersonian society is just as vulnerable to the negative aspects of human nature as is any society governerned in any other way. The only difference is in how the problems manifest themselves, united from the top down or fragmented from the bottom up. The founders knew this, and favored the latter problem to the former.
Oakman wrote:
Stan, I am beginning to worry about your reading skills.
My reading skills are fine. You demonstrate the inherent unworkablilty of libertarian thought. Civilization is a matter of formulating and enforcing rules and standards. If you don't have that you don't have civilization. When the courts over rule local laws against sodomy, for example, you applude that as a form of liberation of a minority over the dictates of a majority. The fact that the courts have no valid constitutional authority to do that is utterly unimportant to you. They reduced the power and authority of local control which might have been predicated upon some kind of religious perspective of some kind and you support that due to your libertarian views. But all you have really achieved is taking power to define the parameters of our civilization from one group and giving it to another. There is simply a new group of moralists in charge now, and unlike the christians, they have the full power and authority of the state serving at their behest.
Oakman wrote:
You force me to wonder if you are dumb enough to think that there were no homosexuals - active, practicing homosexuals in the armed services during WWII.
Not a valid point. Any homosexuals serving in WWII were defending a nation that could legally and constitutionally descriminiate against them. That is what they were sacrificing their lives for.
Oakman wrote:
That's not a belief; that's a demonstrable fact. But here's the big shock for the day: I think that you are superior to most people, too. Otherwise, I wouldn't enjoy debating with you.
That is because you are from an elitist social background. I'm not. I know that the average joe out here in the hinterland is perfectly suited to governing himself and taking responsibility for participating in governing his community.
Oakman wrote:
The government that gover
Stan Shannon wrote:
My reading skills are fine. You demonstrate the inherent unworkablilty of libertarian thought.
Perhaps I do, but I am not so scatterbrained as to think that my libertarian ideas have anything to do with your inability to understand the relatively simply words I use to say, over and over again, that I am opposed to any form of statism or dictatorship, even if it's done on the state level, even if it's imposed by the pope or the prez, by a great general or my closest friend. Even if this person agrees with me in every particular - hard though I suspect that will be for you to comprehend.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When the courts over rule local laws against sodomy, for example, you applude that as a form of liberation of a minority over the dictates of a majority. The fact that the courts have no valid constitutional authority to do that is utterly unimportant to you
You prove my point immediately. You either can't, or won't, read what I write. I went out of my way to make it clear that I did not support Roe v Wade even though I think that there are circumstances where abortion might be a viable option. Do you think I'd have one set of rules for one thing you disapprove of and a different one for something else that gets you in a tizzy? I suppose you might, but that says more about you than it does about me.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They reduced the power and authority of local control which might have been predicated upon some kind of religious perspective of some kind and you support that due to your libertarian views.
Substituting one level of control for another is not something I applaud, ever. It doesn't matter if it's your little theocratic state or Obama's secular monolith. As long as it empowers people to determine the private behavior of others, it is anathema to me.
Stan Shannon wrote:
but that is not what you are promoting.
Once again, I doubt your reading skills. That is exactly what I am promoting. You want a group of people using police powers to tell other people what contracts they can sign and what price they can charge for their goods, and what they do in bed, and what they can read, and who they can associate with, and who they marry. So does Obama. So does Osama. So did the Fascists and the Communists. I, on the other hand
-
'"The natural train of logic that follows from that is that then anybody that's admitted around age 65 or older that's showing any signs of sickness should be denied treatment," Pechacek said. "That's the cheapest thing to do."' The simplest, and in many ways, most humane, thing to do is to perform triage on folks of any age who contract serious illnesses, but especially on folks over 50. Our medical costs are so high because we have adopted an attitude of "Who cares how much it costs? Give the patient another month to live!" This attitude holds true if the patient is vegetative, in extreme pain, or is simply disappearing into the fog of Alzheimer's. I have seen statistics that say that 90% of the money spent on a person's healthcare is spent in the last six months of his life. As a result medicare is expensive, private insurance is expensive, hospitals are expensive. And our taxes go up for no good reason. We would never put a beloved pet through the suffering and agony and loss of quality of life that we do our family. Where is the religion or ethical philosophy that teaches that death is a consummation, not failure?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
"The simplest, and in many ways, most humane, thing to do is to perform triage on folks of any age who contract serious illnesses, but especially on folks over 50." Time to start killing and cooking the young, then, so that my cheaper food supply will allow me the resources to buy the weapons necessary to properly treat with anyone who attempts to perform triage on ME. Not MY young ones, of course :cool:
"Seize the day" - Horace "It's not what he doesn't know that scares me; it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!" - Will Rogers, said by him about Herbert Hoover