The good that Obama is actually doing
-
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!!!