Give me equality , or give me ..... by AURaptor

America loves a winner!

wait... that's not what the man said, is it ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2011 3:25 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Opportunity is crucial to freedom.

Equality for me, means making sure everyone gets an opportunity to succeed and excel. I also believe that's a recipe for a meritocratic society.

However our definitions of freedom may differ. I think freedom to you (and a lot of Americans) means 'not having governemnt involvement in my life'. Freedom for me means being able to do what I want.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:11 AM

As usual, prolly in part to public school "history" which might as well be placed with tales of the tooth fairy, the folks who like quoting that line ain't read the damn speech.

Allow me to correct that error.

Quote:
St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia
March 23, 1775.

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable, and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

At the time he was busting the chops of those nutless, gutless, Tory-Federalist bootlickers who were of the mind that if they cowered and simpered hard enough, maybe threw a few flunkies out as scapegoats, they wouldn't have to put their own ass on the line - and he FIRMLY disabused them of the notion, and might I add for the record he was *reviled* for this, for pretty much the rest of his life, despised by most of the other so-called founding fathers (on at least one occasion he told George Washington to "perform some anatomical improbabilities"), and he put the coda to it when he both refused to participate in the constitutional convention, and with many of his Antifederalist friends, had at it and pointed out every critical flaw and loophole for abuse almost the instant Hamilton, Madison and Jay installed it - only to be for the most part disregarded, and to our peril, for history shows that not only was he in every case correct, but often beyond his worst imaginings!

This is not a guy who would support most of you, in fact for many of you even assuming his support would cause you to be invited for tea and pistols at dawn.

Do you think he despised the neo-feudalism of the american Federalists any less than he despised that of ole King George ?

Do you really think he would support yours, or anybodies - when he was as close in principle and practice to an Anarchist as there was at the time ?

Also, this amuses me.

Quote:
according to the only written first-hand account of the speech, Henry used some graphic name-calling that failed to appear in Wirt's heroic rendition

Yeah, I bet he did, he wasn't exactly know for being especially polite to folks he felt were setting up a new aristocracy.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/phenry00.htm
(Collected Speeches, if you're going to quote a man, then you should know his character, first)

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:19 AM

Also, since it regards the Constitution and the damnfool idea that *I* should be bound to an agreement (and related debts) pre-existing my birth soley due to the unforseeable and unhappy accident of being born here...

Quote:
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
- Lysander Spooner

I did not consent, I do not consent, and the notion that simply happening to pop out of my momma on this patch of land constitutes retroactive agreement to a document penned a hundred plus years before that is ludicrous.

But I *will* use it as a weapon against you, as DT once said, the power of government is like a machinegun sitting on the center of a debate table, and should you ever so much as twitch that muzzle in my direction, which no few here have expressed intention thereof - I've no more qualms about turning that thing on you than I would shooting a mugger with his own gun.

That being said - do you still want that machinegun sitting in the middle of the table, now ?

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

This is not a guy who would support most of you, in fact for many of you even assuming his support would cause you to be invited for tea and pistols at dawn.

At the risk of being called a sock-puppet, head well handed to.

The anti-federalist in general picked no bones about comparing to King George, George Washington and the federalsists, their new govt. and constitution, whose very purpose was to expunge the bill of rights from the founding of America. As a directly legacy of that we still have an unelected unchecked theocracy of a supreme court making decisions about which freedoms they will allow us to have.

Rap, If you wanted the origins of equality, that would be this one:

Quote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such disolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Frem, you're right, no one actually reads this stuff. Sounds as if this document is calling on anyone as their right and responsibility to break ties with and dispose of any Govt. which would consider itself above the law, maintain standing armies to control its people, act without consenting said people, hold secret meetings and form secret commissions, opposes the naturalization of immigrants, seeks to control immigration, obstructs justice, keeps unaccounatable militias, held murderers under its command unaccountable, constructs kangaroo courts, imposes taxes without our consent, indefinitely detains people and without charge, presumes to extend its laws beyond its own borders, alters laws and process to its liking, funds wars with foreign mercinaries against the people and wages war without their consent, targets its own citizens, inflicting death and cruel and unusual punishment such as torture, deceives its people and its enemies, engages in perfidy*, incites savage tribes against us, forces us to fight our own**, and "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people"

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy
This is an interesting one, and certainly going on right now.

** The civil war comes to mind, but all internal police actions from Waco to the anti-terrorism of DHS fits the bill.

I cannot think of one item on this list that the current govt. does not engage in, and many which it has even more so in the past and has made it quite clear that if the people do not obey it in an utterly subservient manner it will act just as rashly and harshly today.

I believe that this document unequivocally calls on its citizens to break ties such a govt, that it is their right and responsibility to do so and to not do so is both cowardly and complicit with:

"death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages"

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 4:05 AM

America loves a winner!

Yes, we are CREATED equal, but we are not bound to maintain and stay 'equal', in every facet of our lives, save for how the law sees us.

LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness.... ( whose happiness ? ) That's for the INDIVIDUAL to determine, not the state.

It's unconscionable how you folks twist and distort the very words and foundations of this country, to suit your own petty desires.

The only head handed to anyone is yours, in your own hand.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Gawd, Rappy. No matter how high "some" may rise, the idea behind equality is that they may NEVER impinge on the political equality of all.

I know you want desperately to be an Übermensch and get rid of all of those pesky "parasites" and still feel as if you are some sort of "patriot" for it, but it's just not in the history, yanno?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:12 AM

America loves a winner!

Actually, I'd prefer it if those parasites would stop buying the collectivists crap they're being spoon fed, and realize the extent of their rights, the power of their individuality , and that they can be more than gutless Alliance suck ups who obey their Imperial Federal Govt, like so many lemmings.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rappy, you long for the day when the strong may enslave the weak. But that question was decided 150 years ago, and again in 1945. Give it up, man.

BTW, did you get permission from the parents to expose their children on the internet?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:31 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Mr. Raptor has publicly proclaimed his willingness to violate individuals for expressing their personal liberty in the Westboro thread.

His proclamations of unequivocal devotion to the cause of freedom are as hollow as a bloodless heart.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah, well... This is nothing new from Rappy. He has been calling for torture, warrantless wiretapping, and killing of innocent civilians since he came to the board. I WILL say tho that recently he has crossed some kind of mental line: Post 9-11 it was excusable for people to panic over jihadism. But the target of his latest paranoid frenzy is public employees and the middle class. Public employees and the middle class??? WTF?

Rappy and others like him give themselves political cover by calling themselves "libertarians" altho the model that fits them most closely is "fascist". BTW that includes Paul Ryan and most tea-baggers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, well... Rappy and others like him give themselves political cover by calling themselves "libertarians" altho the model that fits them most closely is "fascist". BTW that includes Paul Ryan and most tea-baggers.

Hello,

Don't fool yourself. The enemies of freedom perch in every color of the political spectrum.

People of every stripe are almost universally prepared to surrender freedom the moment it becomes distasteful or inconvenient.

Frem has a hard enough time finding Anarchists who believe in freedom. It only gets worse from there.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:49 AM

Rap,

Thanks for proving my point: You don't read the whole document.

My point wasn't that the declaration of independence supports the idea of a welfare state, but that it mandates the rejection of the current govt. Everyone says "All men are created equal" all the time, on the other side, people who support the welfare state also use this quote a lot, and like the Patrick Henry quote, they use it out of context. Jefferson's rant is about rejection of rule, not just the specific rule of King George, but against any kind of top down militarily asserted rule. He specifically list the violations by which you will know despotic tyranny, and when you must break from it.

For fun, here are some more comments, some taken out of context along the lines of “Give me liberty or give me death.” - Patrick Henry:

“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” - Archimedes

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference." - St Francis of Assisi

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar." - William Shakespeare

"Give me 26 soldiers of lead and I will conquer the world." - Benjamin Franklin

"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." - Abe Lincoln

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" - Emma Lazarus, Statue of Liberty

"Give me your help… to restore America" - FDR

"Give me a one-handed economist!" - Harry S. Truman

"gimme gimme gimme" - Abba, and anyone from the 70s

"Give me all your loving" - ZZ Top

"Give me one good reason to stay here" - Tracy Chapman

"Give me 300, 400 billion dollars a year, I'll show you a good time" - Bill Clinton

"Give me some time to look at the intelligence" - George W. Bush

"Give me the strength to do right by our country and its people," Barack Obama

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Tony- are you SURE you aren't an anarchist???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony- are you SURE you aren't an anarchist???

Hello,

No. I'm honest enough with myself to say that I'm not.

When someone threatened my wife, I armed myself. Then I called the police.

That second part? It's reliance on and endorsement of a system.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 8:21 AM

Yeah, I do kind of have a rep for bouncing fellow Anarchists off the walls - for the most part they seem to take it well enough since many of those wind up my strongest allies, maybe Nanoha Takamachi has a point after all.
(See Also: Nanoha + Befriended)

As for calling the cops meaning supporting a system....
Maybe in the purest form - but think about it on a more objective level.
You called folks you knew had some level of training, resources and a shitload of firepower.
Folks you paid for, with your tax money.

As I am fond of pointing out, there *ARE* things that even in an Anarchist society would be collectively funded at a local level, infrastructure, firefighting, and the like - one of which damn well *would* be an armed response team or militia cause if you look at the long history thereof, prettymuch the very moment someone even tries to create such a society every government in range (and many who are not) attacks it immediately.

Ergo, by its very nature such a society would have a rather substantial armed response available - and yea verily, you'd have the occasional hoo-rah twit who barely knows which end goes bang, but it's not like we don't have that from the boys in blue, either.

I'm actually rather flattered that most folk in this neighborhood call *US* first, because WE will not subject them to invasive interrogation, search and records check before bothering to get around to their problem, something which the Sheriffs Dept does to an offensive degree.
(And I'm selling SCRAM-phones like hotcakes now thanks to the MI State PD being complete assholes.)
http://the-classic-liberal.com/michigan-state-police-hack-private-cell
-phone/

Oh, and speakin of which - Terry Jones is a complete moron, not to mention pain in the ass, he almost shot himself in the foot fiddling around with his firearm this Thursday in the parking lot of a TV studio, and the cops around here are so fed up with his ass that they didn't yoink his piece and fine him, but handed it right back - prolly in hopes he hits a femoral artery next time...
It's kind of insulting in a way, when the amazingly abusive Wayne County/DPD force chooses NOT to arrest you when they have obvious cause, but I doubt Jones realizes that.

Anyhow, far I am concerned, you're Anarchist enough for me - at the very least you operate on the least harm possible principle in practice so far as anyone does, and honestly.
There's much to be said for that, politics or no.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 9:48 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, you long for the day when the strong may enslave the weak. But that question was decided 150 years ago, and again in 1945. Give it up, man.

BTW, did you get permission from the parents to expose their children on the internet?

YOU long for the return of the Soviet style order which dominates and crushes the human spirit.

Those days are long gone.

And ask a more coherent question, and I'll answer.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 9:54 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Mr. Raptor has publicly proclaimed his willingness to violate individuals for expressing their personal liberty in the Westboro thread.

His proclamations of unequivocal devotion to the cause of freedom are as hollow as a bloodless heart.

--Anthony

No I didn't, and no it's not. You continue to distort and twist my positions, simply because you have nothing to substance with which to reply.

Same w/ Sig. No coherent , sensible counter to anything I say, so all she gives is standard ( pro torture, wire tap, blah blah blah ) nonsense which does nothing but attempts to demonize my views via complete and whole sale lying and distortion.

Sig kicks puppies, and wants to murder little children.

Sig is an evil person, nothing Sig says is of value or worth even responding to, at all.

See how that works ?

Quote:
But the target of his latest paranoid frenzy is public employees and the middle class. Public employees and the middle class??? WTF?

See, this 100% fabricated, w/ the intent of painting me w/ the views of which are not mine, even in the least. There's less and less reason to even respond or dialog w/ such irrational idiocy.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:04 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"No I didn't, and no it's not."

Hello,

Your own positions and words are there to be read by all. You would not only be willing to stop freedom of expression, but use violence to do so.

Those are your words. You can't accuse me of invention.

You even wished that my own family's funerals might be protested against, so that I would feel sympathy for your position. So that I would more readily understand the willingness to stamp out inconvenient freedoms.

Your words. Not mine.

You condemn yourself until you admit your error.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:31 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"No I didn't, and no it's not."

Hello,

Your own positions and words are there to be read by all. You would not only be willing to stop freedom of expression, but use violence to do so.
Those are your words. You can't accuse me of invention.

I am accusing you of invention. Read my words again.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID they would be allowed to say their piece, did I not ? Yes, I did.

And *I*, not the govt, would do what ever is necessary to keep them from INTERRUPTING a funeral for a friend or family member. I never said the govt would deny them any rights. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I've made no error.

I just find it incomprehensible that you'd defend the likes of these people....

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:09 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"No I didn't, and no it's not."

Hello,

Your own positions and words are there to be read by all. You would not only be willing to stop freedom of expression, but use violence to do so.
Those are your words. You can't accuse me of invention.

I am accusing you of invention. Read my words again.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID they would be allowed to say their piece, did I not ? Yes, I did.

And *I*, not the govt, would do what ever is necessary to keep them from INTERRUPTING a funeral for a friend or family member. I never said the govt would deny them any rights. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I've made no error.

I just find it incomprehensible that you'd defend the likes of these people....

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Hello AuRaptor,

You are the liar.

Your words, in context:

To begin, your self-chosen title - "This is how you deal w/ Westboro Cult trash...."

What follows is a description of abuse of power by individual citizens and a local police force. You can reference it in detail here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=48282

Next, you explain how you advocate violence for the purpose of infringing on people's rights:

"Sorry, but if they showed up at the funeral of one of my friends or family members, violence would be imminent."

Then, you reaffirm your position:

"As for me, I'm saying I'd not stand for it. End of discussion."

So, to recap:

1) You liked what a local government and citizens did to violate liberties. I stress the PD making false arrests here, highlighted in the article, and your acclaim, "This is how you deal with X"

2) You explain that you will personally use violence to violate liberties.

3) In case anyone thought you had misspoken, you verify your earlier stance - you will NOT tolerate their liberties. End of discussion.

Now, despite item 1, which clearly celebrates a police force abusing its power, you claim that you don't advocate government infringing on liberties. This is already a lie, based on item 1, but let's look into it further.

You clearly advocate personally violating liberties you don't agree with. This makes you no lover of freedom, but rather its oppressor. Within the sphere of your control, liberties are unsafe, and people who employ their liberties are subject to violence.

Moreover, when your sphere of control enters a ballot box, we can easily deduce what happens next. For if you are willing to personally hurt someone to silence them, it is a small matter to contract out that behavior to officials.

I stress, however, that there is NO NEED to make the LOGIC LEAP of you voting according to your conscience and CLEARLY STATED IDEALS. You have already given acclaim to the abuse of government authority under item 1.

Now that I have carefully and clearly shown how you are lying, using your own words in context, I expect you will have no logical choice but to:

A) Admit you were wrong about your position on freedom - you do clearly advocate violating it when it doesn't suit you.

or

B) Admit you were wrong to advocate violating freedom, and mend your ways.

Thank you for your time,

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:17 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yes, we are CREATED equal, but we are not bound to maintain and stay 'equal', in every facet of our lives, save for how the law sees us.

Humanity is not created equal??? We are born into inequality. Some of us are born with greater abilities, strength, intelligence than others. Some of us are born with health problems, disabilities, mental impairment. Some of us are born into poverty, have crappy families, no families, great wealth, happy families, developed country, developing country, country in peace, at war.

No we are not created equal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

No we are not created equal.

Magon,

Meet America. She is a nation founded on the principal that we are created equal, and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, all detailed above in my last post.

If you make the above statement or argument in American politics, you automatically lose.

Now, different Americans interpret it differently. Like, as a friend of mine put it "we are created with equal rights."

You could say, equal, not identical, but equal. What you can't do, in any discussion of American politics, deny that we are created equal.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:13 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

Sure I can, mainly because we are not Created by a Creator. We are "created" by two (hopefully) loving parents, but sometimes not.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 6:42 PM

Rap,

I think you're missing the point of contention here. It is not that we disagree with you. We all figure that there will always be a number of things that we disagree on. I don't actually disagree with your philosophical positions you're posting on this thread, I can nitpick, but essentially, I agree that this is a nation founded on rights, and that those rights are equal, and it is not that they should be re-allocated, etc. Those who do more work acquire more, etc.

The point is about reading the actual text. For instance, Magon, who is not an American and can be forgiven for a surefire fail of an argument, also did not read. The document of the Declaration of Independence was just posted in its entirety by me, and you both posted responses not having read the text of my post. Now, normally, this is completely understandable, except in this case, and particularly for an American, or anyone discussing America, it's a) part of the topic of the debate and b) a principle founding document of this country, and if you have not read it at some point, there was a golden opportunity as it was on the screen in front of you at the time.

While this does resoundingly prove Frem's point, there are other ways to look at it:

You could admit to an error or oversight and actually read the text.

Pretty clearly, I was not, in my post, making an argument in favor of a welfare state based on a line in the DoI. I was making a point that the concept of "equality" as an American value did not come from Patrick Henry, sure, it came from Thomas Jefferson in the DoI. That's why I bothered to post the document.

Now we can all disagree on the interpretation, but if we don't ever even read the damn thing than we're like faux christians who hold forth on the divinity of christ and use his name to support whatever cause they want who have never even read the bible.

But if you do read the text, then a number of things become clear. Both Henry and Jefferson are pretty adamant on rights, and seem to be clearly anticipating that Britain is not the only threat that the American people will ever face, and that a Federalist US govt. is one such potential threat.

These documents and quotes do get thumped endlessly by self proclaimed patriots who have never read the documents in question, or failed to comprehend their contents, and these pseudo-patriots are really just pushing their own agenda as well, and not really seeing the message being broadcast repeatedly by the founding fathers.

Now, I'm not entirely square with what happened. I think if I were founding a document, I would have put in protections for the environment, the indians, and a ban on slavery.

Damaging the environment is robbing from the next generation, and permanently harming the future of humanity.

Killing and taking from others or enslaving them is permanently damaging those peoples, and is damaging our moral standing, and our economic future.

These precautions are ones I would make with the luxury of hindsight. But in setting up any such a govt. I would not sacrifice one bit of the principles of freedom on which this country was founded.

However, the situation that we find ourselves in today is not just that some radical fringe or outside group is threatening our liberties, but that our own govt. is almost a picture perfect match for what both Jefferson and Henry would have called despotic tyranny, and I just quoted Jefferson saying just that in just so many words on this very thread, and I'm not sure, but if I spend the time to dig through Frem's links I'll find Henry saying something very similar.

I think that the speech of Henry's posted could be summarized as "Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not." But I take Frem's point, he was a very opinionated guy and strongly anti-Federalist.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 2:19 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yes, we are CREATED equal, but we are not bound to maintain and stay 'equal', in every facet of our lives, save for how the law sees us.

Humanity is not created equal??? We are born into inequality. Some of us are born with greater abilities, strength, intelligence than others. Some of us are born with health problems, disabilities, mental impairment. Some of us are born into poverty, have crappy families, no families, great wealth, happy families, developed country, developing country, country in peace, at war.

No we are not created equal.

The concept the Founders were speaking of is that all mankind are equal in the eyes of the creator, in that we all have the same rights. There are no distinctions of class ( or should not be ) among us, that we're all human beings, and that kings are no different than paupers.

All of which you pointed out, all that separates us here on Earth, means nothing to the Creator.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 2:24 AM

America loves a winner!

Tony

I'm not a liar, and this is a classic example of what I've said many times before...

" you don't agree w/ me, you're a liar "

Their rights weren't infringed. They had the right, 3rd or 4th time I've said this, to express their views, how ever offensive and disgusting, but they had no right to interrupt the funerals.

You seem unwilling or unable to make that distinction.

I'm not wrong. There is no need for an apology.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 2:27 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Sure I can, mainly because we are not Created by a Creator. We are "created" by two (hopefully) loving parents, but sometimes not.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

Technically true, but I was speaking in regards to the context of what the Founders ( Thomas Jefferson ) meant when these words were written.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The concept the Founders were speaking of is that all mankind are equal in the eyes of the creator, in that we all have the same rights. There are no distinctions of class ( or should not be ) among us, that we're all human beings, and that kings are no different than paupers.

All of which you pointed out, all that separates us here on Earth, means nothing to the Creator.

I concur.

In practice, I think there are laws in the US that force a class structure. Property tax is one. I was born into a house that we lost because of taxes, because our income level, even with my parents working multiple jobs was not enough. This forces a class structure even beyond sumptuary laws.

It also disturbs me that we're increasing entering into a situation where people can be born into debt, because they are born to a house with a mortgage. That they must pay or rent seems an unfair economic burden.

Inheritance is the other major inequality that comes to mind. I know people who don't need to work because of inheritance, and it does seem that this creates an imbalance which strongly affects our culture.

Our artists, writers and musicians tend to come from these classes because these disciplines take a lot of time, and they do not pay well enough to support oneself. This creates an environment in which a pro-elitist attitude dominates our fiction, as does a pro-govt. attitude, as our govt. was also born rich, inheriting from previous administrations, etc. which is part of why shows like Firefly are so rare.

When was the last time you saw an American soap opera of the lives of the poor and obscure? Or a buddy crook show about two hard working thieves that work together to save the day?

The most obscene might be the doctor dramas. I think that the class distinction created there is one of homage to a noble priesthood. Speaking as someone who got into medical school but could not afford to go, I feel sure that, even more than with lawyers, it is a class society.

Sure, somewhere within the machinations of our aristocracy there is an element of merit, albeit a small one, and hardly a determinant of our social standing.

Also, to take Frem's "kids are also people" angle, the child of a poor person is ill equipped to compete in media arts and entertainment as not having a concert training from the age of three and not growing up in a family with access to hollywood directors and acting coaches, etc.

I think a society that actually grants equality that the founding fathers intend would need to be more well thought out. I feel pretty strongly that attempts to remedy the inherent inequalities through institutions like the public education system have been a disaster. Hopefully the internet will provide a better alternative.

Thoughts?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 4:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
All of which you pointed out, all that separates us here on Earth, means nothing to the Creator.

Are you quoting generic FF or expressing your own opinion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, I have been thinking a lot about one of your previous posts having to do with "How are the rich different?" You said that the rich learn how to be entertaining, while the poor HAVE to work hard. You described how you would try to interest a poor friend of yours in an opportunity and they would say "That's great but I have to get to work".

I am "rich". By dint of education and hard work, hubby and I have made it into the top 1%. But I don't FEEL rich. I know "rich" people and they do think differently. To them, life is a selection of opportunity. To the "responsible poor" life is a selection of hard work and risk avoidance.

Anyway, I just wanted you to know that what you say sometimes really sticks and changes my thinking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:56 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
All of which you pointed out, all that separates us here on Earth, means nothing to the Creator.
Are you quoting generic FF or expressing your own opinion?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Clearly, the FF weren't talking in manners physiological, economic or such...

I'm speaking in reference to both what TJ wrote, and my own views. In the context with which he was addressing, I agree.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 6:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I though you weren't "religious". That would tend to negate the idea of being "created" equal, since there is no "creator.

Quote:
Clearly, the FF weren't talking in manners physiological, economic or such...

Actually I think they were- the "pursuit of happiness" refers to economic equality. I think the FF felt that your pursuit of happiness should not impinge on mine. While the FF did not have the modern corporation to contend with, they DID have the East India Company. I think there was a nascent thought among some of the FF that government should also equalize economic power. This is what Thomas Jefferson said:

Quote:
“I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

If you're going to quote the FF, go the distance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 6:23 AM

America loves a winner!

Wow... we're really talking past each other here.

We all have the equal rights to pursue our happiness, as free men. Doesn't mean we're all starting off at the same exact level, that's not the issue here. Nor should it be. In a free society, it can't possibly be.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 6:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Wow... we're really talking past each other here. We all have the equal rights to pursue our happiness, as free men. Doesn't mean we're all starting off at the same exact level, that's not the issue here. Nor should it be. In a free society, it can't possibly be.

It doesn't mean we start out the same, but what the government WAS trying to do was balance the rights of some against others. Like- the right to swing your fist ends at my nose, or the right to free speech does not extend to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater (unless there IS a fire, of course.)

The FF did actually talk explicitly about economic rights when they talked about slavery, and implicitly when they failed to talk about womens' rights. Certainly economic rights were being discussed. Some FF hated the idea of corporations. Some FF realized that the idea of political equality rested on the idea of approximate economic parity; in side discussions they realized that political equality would last only so long as there was a frontier. In other words, they kicked the can of slavery, women's rights and economic parity down the road. But some - like Thomas Jefferson -recognized that economic rights were fundamental to political equality.

OH, and BTW- Are you ever going to answer Tony's post? Or are you going to assume that we will all "forget" his point (HINT: Not gonna happen. We will all chalk it up to you weaseling out of the losing end of discussions.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 7:00 AM

America loves a winner!

Already did answer Tony's A / B question,and I'd already forgotten it.

Thus, no weaseling on my part, nor any loss.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 7:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

To Raptor I would say

Quote:
It's unconscionable how you folks twist and distort the very words and foundations of this country, to suit your own petty desires.

That kids praising Obama is an old one, and has already been proven what it’s intended to be: propaganda. We’ve done this one to death, but just to remind:

Quote:
Alas, such "propaganda" has not been limited to despots, dictators and the Obama White House. As a savvy source points out, back in 2006 children from Gulf Coast states serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the President, Congress, and Federal Emergency Management Agency for their response to -- of all things -- Hurricane Katrina. The lyrics were as follow:
Quote:
Our country's stood beside us People have sent us aid. Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade. Congress, Bush and FEMA People across our land Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!
The event took place at that year's White House Easter Egg Roll and included roughly 100 children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. President Bush, it seems, wasn't in attendance during the song itself. But he was there earlier, when the First Lady read the book, Will You Be My Friend: A Bunny and Bird Story by Nancy Tafuri, to the children.

So it would be nice if we could let that one lie. Or not.

Along those lines,

Quote:
Same w/ Sig. No coherent , sensible counter to anything I say, so all she gives is standard ( pro torture, wire tap, blah blah blah ) nonsense which does nothing but attempts to demonize my views via complete and whole sale lying and distortion.

Nobody here demonizes others views via unproven statements as much as you do, and I finally figured out Sig. When responding to rational people, she responds rationally. When responding to your idiocy, she generally just snarks. I’m getting that way myself, because of the above, so I understand better why she doesn’t even try, for the most part.

I also agree with Sig:

Quote:
Rappy, you long for the day when the strong may enslave the weak. But that question was decided 150 years ago, and again in 1945. Give it up, man.

Except I wouldn’t’ bother to say “Give it up, man” because I know he never will. His is a mindset which I believe will NEVER change, so why bother?

Anthony is right, in my opinion

Quote:
Your own positions and words are there to be read by all. You would not only be willing to stop freedom of expression, but use violence to do so.

Those are your words. You can't accuse me of invention.

If one cared to take the time, one could easily go back and quote you numerous times being in favor of torture, wire tapping, and willingness to curb others’ freedoms when they go against what you believe. I see he did back up his statements by referring us to where you made them. If anyone ever took the time, they could do so with everything you have stated in one place, then called others liars for attributing those statements to you later. But who would bother to take the time?

Further in that thread is also this exchange: Mike: “So you're going on record as being more than willing - eager, it sounds like - to use violence against those whose free speech you disagree with.”

Raptor: “Yes, Kwickie, in this case, I would. Absolutely.” Your words, nobody else’s, and the claim that you would willing use violence to impinge on others’ freedom of speech is very clear. So it’s not “invention”, and your claim that you’re being demonized falls flat.

While you did say they have the right to freedom of speech, you nonetheless contradicted yourself by stating you you would use violence against those you disagree with. I BELIEVE the Westboro crowd demonstrated on public lands, not within the funeral itself (upon which land I don’t think is public). Ergo, they would hav e been using their freedom of speech where it is lawful, yet you were willing to utilize violence to stop them from doing so. THAT is the argument, and you made it very clearly.
Back to the topic at hand. I would agree with “we are all created with equal rights”, and I understand the concept that we are all “created” equal, as in born, but I agree with Magon’s definition that we are born INTO inequality, which is more pertinent to the quote, in the way it was used here. The continued statement that “anyone can make it” is so fallacious it shouldn’t need to be debated, but again, it is a mentality Raptor will never abandon. We’ve shown clearly how people he claims “made it on their own merits” were born with an obvious advantage, which gave them a leg up compared to the majority of people, but he ignores that and will always ignore such things. Dmann makes a good point where that’s concerned. For those of us who do not believe in a “creator”, it’s true we are all still “created”, i.e., born, from the same process, but the concept that e are “created” in the same way is erroneous, in that some (many, actually) are created with no intention of “creation” at all.

As far as “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, no, that’s false. That’s a judgment, an opinion, but not factual at all. Whether one believes in a Creator or not, to be factual, the “creator(s)” are human beings, and none of them “endowed” new human beings with any rights. Some parents don’t even “endow” their children with liberty, as Frem has so clearly shown over and over, and “pursuit of happiness” RARELY comes into it. So if you want to nitpick, the statement is 100% incorrect any way you look at it.

DT elucidates it beautifully, that we are not born into circumstances which give everyone “equal rights”, as far as what we are born INTO, tho’ I don’t think that is the point he is making.

As to “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed “, the operant phrase there is “consent of the governed”. Given that, it seems to fly in the face of all arguments against government, as they reflect the consent of the governed (insofar as our country is able to determine such).

Sig brought up a REALLY salient point...it’s always fallible to guess what the intent of the FF was, but I think in this case, the addition of what Jefferson stated pretty clearly explains the intent of the original quote.

I disagree with the statement “We all have the equal rights to pursue our happiness, as free men”. We DON’T all have equal rights, insofar as DT pointed out (as have numerous others) that most don’t have “equal rights” to pursue our happiness, given some are born into situations where mere survival is all they can pursue while others are born into situations where they can start right out deciding how to pursue their happiness.

Sig’s most recent post again makes the same point, one some of us here keep making when Raptor claims anyone can “make it” if they “choose”, an argument which will, I repeat, NEVER get through to Raptor. He is locked into a mentality which cannot conceive of inequality, probably because he was born into a situation where he had choices and can’t imagine anyone couldn’t raise their standards if they weren’t “too lazy” to do so. It simply does not computer, so attempting to get him to even acknowledge otherwise is an effort of futility.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 8:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Their rights weren't infringed. They had the right, 3rd or 4th time I've said this, to express their views, how ever offensive and disgusting, but they had no right to interrupt the funerals.

You seem unwilling or unable to make that distinction."

Hello,

You are creating a distinction that does not exist.

You are also making competing claims.

1) You praised an entire town including the police for violating their rights. I still have heard no explanation for how this squares with your (now) statement claiming to honor the rights of anyone.

2) You have not explained your willingness to personally violate rights in the form of using violence to silence people.

3) You have retroactively created an imaginary criteria called 'interrupting funerals' which is something these people have never done. They protest outside the site of funerals. It was THIS PROTEST to which you promised to respond with violence.

Are you now saying that you would only crush the protesters if they stormed the ceremony itself and physically barred people from attendance?

I think perhaps after you praised a violation of liberties and promised violent retribution against free speech, you belatedly realized how awful that sounded. So you invented a non-existent criteria: The Interruption of a funeral. It's never happened, and had nothing to do with anything. All your statements were based on actual Westboro practice.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 8:05 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Nobody here demonizes others views via unproven statements as much as you do

A complete and total lie.

Quote:
If one cared to take the time, one could easily go back and quote you numerous times being in favor of torture, wire tapping, and willingness to curb others’ freedoms when they go against what you believe.

And yet, despite all the bold claims , it never happens. Wonder why.

Quote:
Further in that thread is also this exchange: Mike: “So you're going on record as being more than willing - eager, it sounds like - to use violence against those whose free speech you disagree with.”

Raptor: “Yes, Kwickie, in this case, I would. Absolutely.” Your words, nobody else’s, and the claim that you would willing use violence to impinge on others’ freedom of speech is very clear. So it’s not “invention”, and your claim that you’re being demonized falls flat.

And I stand by those words. In such a particular case, I'D take it upon myself do act, and not use the force of govt to do my work for me. Of course, you're ignoring ( conveniently ) that I'd not at all saying I'd keep them from their right to mere free speech, but from imposing their hate onto the private lives and event of others. Their right to free speech ends when it interrupts a funeral. If you're " down " with them doing that, then have fun when they come to visit any funerals of YOUR friends or family.

And as for the rest, YOU seem locked into a a mentality that folks ARE unequal, are incapable of achieving on their own, with out the use of govt intervention.

It's a mental cage which your mind won't allow you to escape. I can't help you, Niki. The key is yours to use, if you ever want to use it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 8:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And yet, despite all the bold claims , it never happens. Wonder why.

Rappy, I have bird-dogged your statements explicitly on a whole number of topics, including

Your wonderful assessment about the economy being on fire! (about two months before the collapse),

Your assertion UN R 441 implicitly approved the US invasion of Iraq by referencing previous resolutions. (It didn't. UN Resolutions supersede each other),

Your statement that reducing taxes increased Federal revenues (I even charted Federal revenues going back to 1950 for you),

Your assertion that Saddam had a robust WMD program which posed an imminent threat (No, and since I was working on a civilian WMD-detection project at the time, I brought all kinds of technical details to the discussion),

Your belief that Fannie and Freddie caused the Great Recession (Fannie and Freddie held only about 15% of the bad loans, which BTW doesn't explain what happened in the EU)

Whether wealth redistribution is better for development or not.

---------------

When cornered, you change topics, move goalposts, ad hominem, sneak out, or lie (like you just did). There is absolutely no point to trying to have a rational discussion with you; believe me, I've tried. And now you're doing the same with Tony.

Keep it up, man. Don't change now!

ETA: Oh wait, my bad. You're mentally and emotionally challenged. Sorry. You're forgiven, and I apologize for being snarky. I hope you feel better soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 9:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Nobody here demonizes others views via unproven statements as much as you do

A complete and total lie.

As you are so quick to retort: “Prove it”.

Quote:
And yet, despite all the bold claims , it never happens. Wonder why

First, it doesn't "never happen". It did within this very thread, and has before, as Sig mentioned. Second: WHY BOTHER? We know your tactics, we know your retroactive denials, we know you will attack and call liars anyone who quotes what you said, so why waste the time going back to prove it?

She also explained quite clearly the tactics to which I’m referring, and she’s accurate.

Quote:
In such a particular case, I'D take it upon myself do act, and not use the force of govt to do my work for me. Of course, you're ignoring ( conveniently ) that I'd not at all saying I'd keep them from their right to mere free speech, but from imposing their hate onto the private lives and event of others. Their right to free speech ends when it interrupts a funeral. If you're " down " with them doing that, then have fun when they come to visit any funerals of YOUR friends or family.

I do find it amusing that we’re all defending Westboro’s tactics, given we all hate them just as much as you. But it’s the principle; in that thread I don’t believe a single person suggesting using violence to stop their freedom of speech, except you.

As to taking it upon yourself to act, all that says is that YOU would deny people you disagree with freedom of speech rather than letting the authorities do so. Ergo, you apparently believe it’s not okay for the government to impinge on it, but it’s perfectly okay for YOU to, violently even.

Quote:
And as for the rest, YOU seem locked into a a (sic) mentality that folks ARE unequal, are incapable of achieving on their own, with out the use of govt intervention.

A complete and total lie. I never said anything close to that. I said we start out in different situations which makes achieving “happiness” easier or harder for different people, such as being born into the middle class or upper class as opposed to being born into poverty or the ghetto...none of that has to do with “government” intervention. It’s not a mentality, it’s a fact of reality.

The fact that you cannot show ANYWHERE where I said government intervention was needed to achieve equality proves conclusively that your above statement is a flat-out lie.

Good gawd, I'm responding to Raptor. (Shake of head)...onward to VALID posts by at least halfway-intelligent people...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:49 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Their right to free speech ends when it interrupts a funeral."

Hello,

You keep saying this. Do you feel that the Westboro people are 'interrupting' funerals with their protests? Signs and slogans and words spoken on public property?

If so, you're just squashing free speech. What difference whether you want the government to do it (a scenario to which you specifically granted acclaim) or whether you do it yourself?

It's a violation of liberties either way. I don't give you extra credit for being willing to do it personally.

You need to be honest with yourself, and admit that you are willing to infringe on liberties whenever they offend your sensibilities. It is not your mere stance that bothers me. Many people share your shallow view of freedom.

What bothers me is that you hold such a narrow perception of freedom, but also proclaim yourself an absolute lover of personal liberty.

It's time to be honest with yourself, and stop accusing others of squashing liberties. You yourself have proudly proclaimed your willingness to do so.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 2:36 PM

Just to inject some humor here, when I hear "created equal", I myself ponder the fact that we're all born bald, toothless and incontinent...

And yanno, barring misfortune, we tend to go out the same way, there's a bizarre kind of symmetry to that, innit ?

Anyhow, in regard to WHY, and how you feel about it, Signym, there's a short story I refer you to called Stone Lives.
It's by an author called Paul di filippo, and the only place I know to find it is an anthology (which of itself is good reading) by Bruce Sterling.
http://www.amazon.com/Mirrorshades-Cyberpunk-Anthology-Greg-Bear/dp/04
41533825/

Err, wow - sticker stock there, I guess it's cult classic or something, yeesh.

Anyhow, the difference between having clawed something from the very teeth of the machine, and having it handed to you at birth is tremendous and has a substantive impact on ones mentality about it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:01 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

The interpretation of that has changed before. Pretty much all of the signatories were slave-owners and then later abolitionists used it to argue against slavery. And then suffragettes used it to argue that woMEN should get the same rights as "free MEN".

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:24 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:,

Your assertion that Saddam had a robust WMD program which posed an imminent threat (No, and since I was working on a civilian WMD-detection project at the time, I brought all kinds of technical details to the discussion),

The other points you try to bring up are beyond comical, but this one, in particular, is classic diversion and manipulation, at the highest level.

Never did I claim Iraq had a "robust " WMD program, what ever the hell that's suppose to mean, nor did I or anyone say Iraq was an " imminent " threat. W said the word, but said we should act BEFORE they become 'imminent.'

Iraq ? Seriously? You're still trying to phony up that issue , after nearly 10 years ? Really?

Crassic.

Oh, and it doesn't matter that Fannie / Freddie only had 15% of the bad loans... the largest avalanches start w/ the smallest stones.... This too has been shown and explained, time and time again..

This is pointless and futile.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 6:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Westboro: I think as I've said that the government has no right to stop those trashy folk from protesting funerals. But I have to admit that I sided with the townspeople from the article, they banded together to protect them and theirs and I can't fault them for that. So I will say openly that I believe it would be wrong for the "government" to stop them, but I feel that townspeople can go ahead and go for it. Call me whatever you want, I'm not here to prove anything or try and be anything in particular. If this opinion controdicts itself then so be it. If people don't like it then so be it. I try and say how I feel and not be beholden to one school of thought or another, at least for the most part. Do I consider the police government? Well I think that's sort of unclear, I guess they might be since they enforce government laws, but as long as this whole thing doesn't come back to them then I secretly don't mind. Is that a wrong attitude to have? Probably. Would I say that officially they need to not do that anymore? Probably. I think the answer is to have plenty of citizens, like Frem's militia, who can do these things instead of the cops, because the cops are held to a certain standard, or should be. Yes, that's my solution, the police shouldn't have taken part in the detaining of Westboro cult trash, the town should have some militia people to do it. Problem solved, now I won't sound inconsistant. That's feels better.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 7:22 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Westboro: I think as I've said that the government has no right to stop those trashy folk from protesting funerals. But I have to admit that I sided with the townspeople from the article, they banded together to protect them and theirs and I can't fault them for that. So I will say openly that I believe it would be wrong for the "government" to stop them, but I feel that townspeople can go ahead and go for it. Call me whatever you want, I'm not here to prove anything or try and be anything in particular. If this opinion controdicts itself then so be it. If people don't like it then so be it. I try and say how I feel and not be beholden to one school of thought or another, at least for the most part. Do I consider the police government? Well I think that's sort of unclear, I guess they might be since they enforce government laws, but as long as this whole thing doesn't come back to them then I secretly don't mind. Is that a wrong attitude to have? Probably. Would I say that officially they need to not do that anymore? Probably. I think the answer is to have plenty of citizens, like Frem's militia, who can do these things instead of the cops, because the cops are held to a certain standard, or should be. Yes, that's my solution, the police shouldn't have taken part in the detaining of Westboro cult trash, the town should have some militia people to do it. Problem solved, now I won't sound inconsistant. That's feels better.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Hello,

Needless to say I disagree with you. However, I have no ill words for you, as you have never claimed to be an avatar of freedom, nor accused others here of terrorizing liberties.

I think you are wrong, but we are all wrong sometimes.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 8:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, you never claimed that Saddam had a robust WMD program that was an imminent threat? Is that a little like the "interruption of funeral" clause? Rappy, I would love to get into a rational discussion with you about so many things, but - sadly- it's just not possible at your end. Until that time when you can stay on topic, respond to facts and make logical connections I'll just feel sorry for you.

In the meantime, why don't you at least try to respond to Tony? Tony is a really nice guy- much nicer than I am- and he has brought up a point of irreducible logic which you have not yet addressed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2011 5:34 AM