The good that Obama is actually doing
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the beauty of our system, until now, is that if you don't like the laws of your state you can pick up and move.
Agreed. That is, after all, how most of the States became populated. However, it is not impossible to imagine a sovereign entity deciding that it would not issue exit visas especially to people it thought wouldn't come back. It is, of course, not impossible because an awful lot of the world lives in that sort of environment. One of the great American traditions, a lack of the majority as dictatorship, seems to be a forgotten dream. Whether we are talking about the way the House of Representatives has been run since the eighties or the pipe dreams of at least some of the posters here, it appears that the proper respect for the minority is to say "please," when they are ordered to turn around and bend over. I have this crazy idea that a society that has so codified its version of political correctness (whether it's Stan's, or Oily's, or anyone else's who has a strong opinion on how people should behave at all times) wouldn't be nearly as much fun to live in as the one I grew up in.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
keep your eye on the 2nd amendment. there's a new move to approve the CIFTA[^] Treaty, when that happens it is time for open revolt because it exposes US citizens to international whimsey.
And I expect that we can assume that Obama so much wants to prove to Europe that he is one of the good guys, that he'll sign any such treaty - apologising, of course, for America having been such a rude bumpkin all these years.
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:
And I expect that we can assume that Obama so much wants to prove to Europe that he is one of the good guys, that he'll sign any such treaty - apologising, of course, for America having been such a rude bumpkin all these years.
I don't doubt it for a moment. however, it takes 2/3s of the senate to ratify and if they do it'll mark the start of the end.
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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well then just go have your own little libertarian revolution somewhere else...
Which is it you object to: personal freedom or personal responsibility?
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:
Which is it you object to
Radical individualism, which, just as with the radical equalitarianism of collectivism, can only be achieved by means of an omnipotent centralized elite political authority of some kind, and is in direct opposition to the principles the nation was founded upon. True personal responsibility includes the recognition of a responsibility to the community itself which sustains the individual, and a willingness to subordinate one's own passions to the agreed upon social structure that arises from the application of Jeffersonian principles. As long as you are free to participate equally you have nothing to complain about.
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.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the beauty of our system, until now, is that if you don't like the laws of your state you can pick up and move.
Agreed. That is, after all, how most of the States became populated. However, it is not impossible to imagine a sovereign entity deciding that it would not issue exit visas especially to people it thought wouldn't come back. It is, of course, not impossible because an awful lot of the world lives in that sort of environment. One of the great American traditions, a lack of the majority as dictatorship, seems to be a forgotten dream. Whether we are talking about the way the House of Representatives has been run since the eighties or the pipe dreams of at least some of the posters here, it appears that the proper respect for the minority is to say "please," when they are ordered to turn around and bend over. I have this crazy idea that a society that has so codified its version of political correctness (whether it's Stan's, or Oily's, or anyone else's who has a strong opinion on how people should behave at all times) wouldn't be nearly as much fun to live in as the one I grew up in.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
keep your eye on the 2nd amendment. there's a new move to approve the CIFTA[^] Treaty, when that happens it is time for open revolt because it exposes US citizens to international whimsey.
And I expect that we can assume that Obama so much wants to prove to Europe that he is one of the good guys, that he'll sign any such treaty - apologising, of course, for America having been such a rude bumpkin all these years.
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:
that a society that has so codified its version of political correctness (whether it's Stan's, or Oily's, or anyone else's who has a strong opinion on how people should behave at all times) wouldn't be nearly as much fun to live in as the one I grew up in.
You are the one with a codified standard of political correctness, not me. You call it 'libertarianism'. I simply maintain that people should be free to work the definitions of political correctness out among themselves or reject them as they see fit as members of a community.
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:
that a society that has so codified its version of political correctness (whether it's Stan's, or Oily's, or anyone else's who has a strong opinion on how people should behave at all times) wouldn't be nearly as much fun to live in as the one I grew up in.
You are the one with a codified standard of political correctness, not me. You call it 'libertarianism'. I simply maintain that people should be free to work the definitions of political correctness out among themselves or reject them as they see fit as members of a community.
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 the one with a codified standard of political correctness, not me
I am? Well, please elucidate. What is it that I wish everone to do, other than to take responsibility for themselves?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I simply maintain that people should be free to work the definitions of political correctness out among themselves or reject them as they see fit as members of a community.
And then apply them with the same rigorous hand that Osama bin Laden would, only not as gently.
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
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
if push comes to shove, I will. I have a sister-in-law with half a section around 30 miles out of Liberty Kansas close to the Oklahoma / Kansas border. I suspect I could pick up an acre or two fairly reasonably.
I still have quite a lot of family out in western Oklahoma, and I intend to eventually move back, God willing.
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.
I recently picked up 12.5 acres near Broken Bow from an "investor" who thought he'd get rich and nearly went bankrupt. Property taxes are reasonable compared to Collin County, TX but, OK still has those pesky state income taxes.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Oakman wrote:
Which is it you object to
Radical individualism, which, just as with the radical equalitarianism of collectivism, can only be achieved by means of an omnipotent centralized elite political authority of some kind, and is in direct opposition to the principles the nation was founded upon. True personal responsibility includes the recognition of a responsibility to the community itself which sustains the individual, and a willingness to subordinate one's own passions to the agreed upon social structure that arises from the application of Jeffersonian principles. As long as you are free to participate equally you have nothing to complain about.
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:
Radical individualism, which, just as with the radical equalitarianism of collectivism, can only be achieved by means of an omnipotent centralized elite political authority of some kind
ROFL "and you can only have white if you paint everything black." "Freedom is Oppression." Are you going to start saying "War is Peace," and "Hate is Love," now?
Stan Shannon wrote:
True personal responsibility includes the recognition of a responsibility to the community itself which sustains the individual
The real joy of true personal responsibility is that you cannot hide behind the state and blame it for anything. That pretty much terrifies anyone who needs to claim 'the community' okayed their actions - after all, some day someone might expect them to answer for what they did.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As long as you are free to participate equally you have nothing to complain about.
Are you quoting Animal Farm, now?
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:
You are the one with a codified standard of political correctness, not me
I am? Well, please elucidate. What is it that I wish everone to do, other than to take responsibility for themselves?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I simply maintain that people should be free to work the definitions of political correctness out among themselves or reject them as they see fit as members of a community.
And then apply them with the same rigorous hand that Osama bin Laden would, only not as gently.
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:
What is it that I wish everone to do, other than to take responsibility for themselves?
You want everyone forced to conform to a singular world view - the view that the individual is only morally responsible for and to themselves and must be protected from any possibility of being required to adher to any moral principle which in any way represents a standard of behavior predicated to promote the good of society itself as defined by the people who collectively comprise that society. That individualism represents the sole good any society can aspire to and that government should have as much power and authority as possible to insure that.
Oakman wrote:
And then apply them with the same rigorous hand that Osama bin Laden would, only not as gently.
No, Jon, it is the only way of avoiding turing into that. Just as we managed to avoid it for more than 200 years. What we were was correct, what we are turning into is not.
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:
Radical individualism, which, just as with the radical equalitarianism of collectivism, can only be achieved by means of an omnipotent centralized elite political authority of some kind
ROFL "and you can only have white if you paint everything black." "Freedom is Oppression." Are you going to start saying "War is Peace," and "Hate is Love," now?
Stan Shannon wrote:
True personal responsibility includes the recognition of a responsibility to the community itself which sustains the individual
The real joy of true personal responsibility is that you cannot hide behind the state and blame it for anything. That pretty much terrifies anyone who needs to claim 'the community' okayed their actions - after all, some day someone might expect them to answer for what they did.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As long as you are free to participate equally you have nothing to complain about.
Are you quoting Animal Farm, now?
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:
The real joy of true personal responsibility is that you cannot hide behind the state and blame it for anything. That pretty much terrifies anyone who needs to claim 'the community' okayed their actions - after all, some day someone might expect them to answer for what they did.
As a matter of fact, that is precisely what libertarianism depends upon more than any other philosophy.
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:
What is it that I wish everone to do, other than to take responsibility for themselves?
You want everyone forced to conform to a singular world view - the view that the individual is only morally responsible for and to themselves and must be protected from any possibility of being required to adher to any moral principle which in any way represents a standard of behavior predicated to promote the good of society itself as defined by the people who collectively comprise that society. That individualism represents the sole good any society can aspire to and that government should have as much power and authority as possible to insure that.
Oakman wrote:
And then apply them with the same rigorous hand that Osama bin Laden would, only not as gently.
No, Jon, it is the only way of avoiding turing into that. Just as we managed to avoid it for more than 200 years. What we were was correct, what we are turning into is not.
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 want everyone forced to conform to a singular world view
I've said this before and I repeat, but I'll type really slowly, this time. I don't give two hoots about what you believe or how you live - as long as you don't think you have been appointed by God, Allah, The Community, the Federal Government, or Thomas Jefferson to tell me what I have to believe or what words, or actions are politically correct. I have no interest in interfering with your interaction with the real world at all - until and unless you decide to interfere with mine, and threaten my physical well-being in order to make me do your bidding. In which case, I think that the government should step in and tell you to butt out. And, if they can't, then it'll be up to me to teach you not to. Let me make this as clear as I can: You can run around trying to convince people that you are the second coming of Jefferson and if you can create a bunch of followers that's fine - You can build a gated community and hide from all the blacks and jews and homos and muslims and whoever else it is you and Troy and CSS fear. I really don't care. Until you try to tell me, I have to live in your world. Then I care a lot. And I don't mean just you; I mean Oiley; and Osama, and Obama, and Bush and everyone else who thinks they were appointed world censor.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What we were was correct, what we are turning into is not.
We, we, we. Stop hiding behind "we." You speak only for yourself. As do I. Pretending either of us has been called upon to speak for anyone else is simply to hide from responsibility.
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:
The real joy of true personal responsibility is that you cannot hide behind the state and blame it for anything. That pretty much terrifies anyone who needs to claim 'the community' okayed their actions - after all, some day someone might expect them to answer for what they did.
As a matter of fact, that is precisely what libertarianism depends upon more than any other philosophy.
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 matter of fact, that is precisely what libertarianism depends upon more than any other philosophy.
Get back to me after you're sober enough to understand what I'm saying.
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:
You want everyone forced to conform to a singular world view
I've said this before and I repeat, but I'll type really slowly, this time. I don't give two hoots about what you believe or how you live - as long as you don't think you have been appointed by God, Allah, The Community, the Federal Government, or Thomas Jefferson to tell me what I have to believe or what words, or actions are politically correct. I have no interest in interfering with your interaction with the real world at all - until and unless you decide to interfere with mine, and threaten my physical well-being in order to make me do your bidding. In which case, I think that the government should step in and tell you to butt out. And, if they can't, then it'll be up to me to teach you not to. Let me make this as clear as I can: You can run around trying to convince people that you are the second coming of Jefferson and if you can create a bunch of followers that's fine - You can build a gated community and hide from all the blacks and jews and homos and muslims and whoever else it is you and Troy and CSS fear. I really don't care. Until you try to tell me, I have to live in your world. Then I care a lot. And I don't mean just you; I mean Oiley; and Osama, and Obama, and Bush and everyone else who thinks they were appointed world censor.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What we were was correct, what we are turning into is not.
We, we, we. Stop hiding behind "we." You speak only for yourself. As do I. Pretending either of us has been called upon to speak for anyone else is simply to hide from responsibility.
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:
We, we, we. Stop hiding behind "we." You speak only for yourself. As do I. Pretending either of us has been called upon to speak for anyone else is simply to hide from responsibility.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: But I don't think he'll ever get it. :sigh:
"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:
We, we, we. Stop hiding behind "we." You speak only for yourself. As do I. Pretending either of us has been called upon to speak for anyone else is simply to hide from responsibility.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: But I don't think he'll ever get it. :sigh:
"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:
As a matter of fact, that is precisely what libertarianism depends upon more than any other philosophy.
Get back to me after you're sober enough to understand what I'm saying.
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
I actually understand what you are saying better than you 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:
You want everyone forced to conform to a singular world view
I've said this before and I repeat, but I'll type really slowly, this time. I don't give two hoots about what you believe or how you live - as long as you don't think you have been appointed by God, Allah, The Community, the Federal Government, or Thomas Jefferson to tell me what I have to believe or what words, or actions are politically correct. I have no interest in interfering with your interaction with the real world at all - until and unless you decide to interfere with mine, and threaten my physical well-being in order to make me do your bidding. In which case, I think that the government should step in and tell you to butt out. And, if they can't, then it'll be up to me to teach you not to. Let me make this as clear as I can: You can run around trying to convince people that you are the second coming of Jefferson and if you can create a bunch of followers that's fine - You can build a gated community and hide from all the blacks and jews and homos and muslims and whoever else it is you and Troy and CSS fear. I really don't care. Until you try to tell me, I have to live in your world. Then I care a lot. And I don't mean just you; I mean Oiley; and Osama, and Obama, and Bush and everyone else who thinks they were appointed world censor.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What we were was correct, what we are turning into is not.
We, we, we. Stop hiding behind "we." You speak only for yourself. As do I. Pretending either of us has been called upon to speak for anyone else is simply to hide from responsibility.
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:
to tell me what I have to believe or what words, or actions are politically correct
We aren't doing that. You are. You are defining a political system that you want to be imposed upon all of our society. If you are talking about your own community, than fine I apologize. But you don't seem to be. You are saying that you should be able to move freely to any community you like, and behave in any way you please and that if any one in that community says "hey, why do we have to accept this asshole's behavior?", and that some centralized federal authority should be empowered to beat that community into submitting to your principles. That is exactly what you are saying. Just let me ask you this, should my community have the right to make a law that says that you cannot have sex with our children?
Oakman wrote:
We, we, we. Stop hiding behind "we."
No.
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:
to tell me what I have to believe or what words, or actions are politically correct
We aren't doing that. You are. You are defining a political system that you want to be imposed upon all of our society. If you are talking about your own community, than fine I apologize. But you don't seem to be. You are saying that you should be able to move freely to any community you like, and behave in any way you please and that if any one in that community says "hey, why do we have to accept this asshole's behavior?", and that some centralized federal authority should be empowered to beat that community into submitting to your principles. That is exactly what you are saying. Just let me ask you this, should my community have the right to make a law that says that you cannot have sex with our children?
Oakman wrote:
We, we, we. Stop hiding behind "we."
No.
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 saying that you should be able to move freely to any community you like, and behave in any way you please and that if any one in that community says "hey, why do we have to accept this a**hole's behavior?"
Stan, I have said more than once (and quite recently) that you could establish whatever form of gated community you wished. In case the gated community concept hasn't reached your neck of the boonies yet, I'll be specific. Inside it, you can have your very own Gestapo enforcing all the racial, sexual, religious purity rules that make your heart go pitty-pat. You can have weekly book burnings and sit around and talk about the good old days when only half of all kids lived to see their 12th birthday. Not only would you have the right to keep me out, you'd have the right to ask the government to keep me from using force, or threatening to, in order to make you let me come in. What you wouldn't have any right to do would be to act as if you owned your wife and kids and force them to live in that warm and fuzzy community one minute longer than they chose, because that would be using violence and intimidation. What you couldn't do is enslave blacks and call it property reclamation because that would be using force. What you wouldn't be able to do would be to come out into the real world and try to force any of us to follow your rules. And where someone like Oily chose to set up a totally managed economy/ no guns/ no Republicans-style gated community and put up a big sign: "Shannon, keep out!" you wouldn't be able to force your way in. Not that the last would be a big deal, I would guess. You would no more want to live in Oily's house by Oily's rules than he would yours. (Or I would in any place run by either of you.) Your community is your private property and no-one should tell you how to live in it. You wouldn't even have to stop whining because not everyone else wanted to live by your rules - as long as you didn't try to force anyone to stay on your property.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Just let me ask you this, should my community have the right to make a law that says that you cannot have sex with our children?
Of course. Until and unless they choose to leave your little slice of heaven and move to Pedofilia, PA. At which point they're fair game as long as no force is involved.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Bot
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are saying that you should be able to move freely to any community you like, and behave in any way you please and that if any one in that community says "hey, why do we have to accept this a**hole's behavior?"
Stan, I have said more than once (and quite recently) that you could establish whatever form of gated community you wished. In case the gated community concept hasn't reached your neck of the boonies yet, I'll be specific. Inside it, you can have your very own Gestapo enforcing all the racial, sexual, religious purity rules that make your heart go pitty-pat. You can have weekly book burnings and sit around and talk about the good old days when only half of all kids lived to see their 12th birthday. Not only would you have the right to keep me out, you'd have the right to ask the government to keep me from using force, or threatening to, in order to make you let me come in. What you wouldn't have any right to do would be to act as if you owned your wife and kids and force them to live in that warm and fuzzy community one minute longer than they chose, because that would be using violence and intimidation. What you couldn't do is enslave blacks and call it property reclamation because that would be using force. What you wouldn't be able to do would be to come out into the real world and try to force any of us to follow your rules. And where someone like Oily chose to set up a totally managed economy/ no guns/ no Republicans-style gated community and put up a big sign: "Shannon, keep out!" you wouldn't be able to force your way in. Not that the last would be a big deal, I would guess. You would no more want to live in Oily's house by Oily's rules than he would yours. (Or I would in any place run by either of you.) Your community is your private property and no-one should tell you how to live in it. You wouldn't even have to stop whining because not everyone else wanted to live by your rules - as long as you didn't try to force anyone to stay on your property.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Just let me ask you this, should my community have the right to make a law that says that you cannot have sex with our children?
Of course. Until and unless they choose to leave your little slice of heaven and move to Pedofilia, PA. At which point they're fair game as long as no force is involved.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Bot
Oakman wrote:
Stan, I have said more than once (and quite recently) that you could establish whatever form of gated community you wished.
Well there it is then. Every one you don't like gets forced into gated communities. That is exactly the point I was making. You want your particular absolutist political world view to be the law of the land. Thats tyranny.
Oakman wrote:
What you wouldn't have any right to do
What I would not have the right to do would be to violate the rights expressly and specifically guaranteed by the constitution. Thats it. Everything else is up to us to decide for ourselves, that is precisely what the 10th amendment means. That is always how it was interpreted and how Jefferson said it should be interpreted.
Oakman wrote:
Of course.
Well than, is my little community free to define for ourselves when childhood ends? If my 16 year old daughter really digs you, are we free to create a law that says sorry you have to wait until you are 18...21...30? When do you get to dictate terms to us and force us into a gated community to protect our children?
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:
Stan, I have said more than once (and quite recently) that you could establish whatever form of gated community you wished.
Well there it is then. Every one you don't like gets forced into gated communities. That is exactly the point I was making. You want your particular absolutist political world view to be the law of the land. Thats tyranny.
Oakman wrote:
What you wouldn't have any right to do
What I would not have the right to do would be to violate the rights expressly and specifically guaranteed by the constitution. Thats it. Everything else is up to us to decide for ourselves, that is precisely what the 10th amendment means. That is always how it was interpreted and how Jefferson said it should be interpreted.
Oakman wrote:
Of course.
Well than, is my little community free to define for ourselves when childhood ends? If my 16 year old daughter really digs you, are we free to create a law that says sorry you have to wait until you are 18...21...30? When do you get to dictate terms to us and force us into a gated community to protect our children?
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:
Every one you don't like gets forced into gated communities
Okay, now I understand. You're trolling. I suspected you might be for quite some time, but hoped for better from you.
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:
Every one you don't like gets forced into gated communities
Okay, now I understand. You're trolling. I suspected you might be for quite some time, but hoped for better from you.
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
What? You just said that its either your way or a gated community.
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
But I don't think he'll ever get it
Perhaps Stan thinks he's Queen Victoria?
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:
Perhaps Stan thinks he's Queen Victoria?
Didn't he "do" the queen on his infamous shore leave in San Francisco? :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!!!