Coyote Busted?
- Thread starter VIAGRAADDICT
- Start date
Originally posted by wartboy
There are significant similarities between Hillary and Hitler. Hitler was a socialist -- as is Hillary. And both believe(d) that the "state" should have supreme power over the individual in both private and public matters.
There are significant similarities between Hillary and Hitler. Hitler was a socialist -- as is Hillary. And both believe(d) that the "state" should have supreme power over the individual in both private and public matters.
But I do not believe that if asked she would profess to beliefs about the relationship between the state and individuals nearly as extreme as you represent.
Most people would agree, however, that it really does not make much difference what a politician says - any politician. What matters is what they do.
Frankly, it is difficult for me to imagine that she would constitute a government that would do more that would cause the state to have more control over individuals, in both private and public matters, than Mr. Busch, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Rumsfield and Mr. Snow.
This administration has done more to curtail civil liberties and constitutionally guaranteed rights, has confiscated more private wealth, and endangered the national security interests of the US more in the time they have been in office than all of the previous administrations since the adoption of our constitution.
That they do all this while claiming to do otherwise just speaks to their venality.
Last edited:
Re: WARTBOY
What "point in time" are you talking about? The "point in time" that JL declared that prostitution is illegal? What about all the posts previous to JL's "prostitution is illegal" statement? And what about the posts after JL's "prostitution is illegal" remark? Or did "time" on this subject "begin" with JL's post?
If you bother to read the post from the beginning, you should realize there was, initially, no debate about the legality of prostitution.
Originally posted by Spaz Medicine
The bottom line that was trying to be made was that at this point in time, PROSTITUTION IS ILEGAL!!!
The bottom line that was trying to be made was that at this point in time, PROSTITUTION IS ILEGAL!!!
If you bother to read the post from the beginning, you should realize there was, initially, no debate about the legality of prostitution.
Originally posted by buddyyy
Frankly, it is difficult for me to imagine that she would constitute a government that would do more that would cause the state to have more control over individuals, in both private and public matters, than Mr. Busch, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Rumsfield and Mr. Snow.
This administration has done more to curtail civil liberties and constitutionally guaranteed rights, has confiscated more private wealth, and endangered the national security interests of the US more in the time they have been in office than all of the previous administrations since the adoption of our constitution.
That they do all this while claiming to do otherwise just speaks to their venality.
Frankly, it is difficult for me to imagine that she would constitute a government that would do more that would cause the state to have more control over individuals, in both private and public matters, than Mr. Busch, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Rumsfield and Mr. Snow.
This administration has done more to curtail civil liberties and constitutionally guaranteed rights, has confiscated more private wealth, and endangered the national security interests of the US more in the time they have been in office than all of the previous administrations since the adoption of our constitution.
That they do all this while claiming to do otherwise just speaks to their venality.
Buddyyy, I certainly concur with your above sentiments. The current crew of "neo-conservatives" in the White House may have done as much damage to the Constitution as been done since the days of that "uber-socialist," FDR. I suspect, however, that Hillary Clinton would even surpass the current Bush and Company's destruction of freedom and liberty in America. But I could be wrong......I never thought that Bush, Jr. would make Bill Clinton look like a defender of liberty and honesty.
Originally posted by Spaz Medicine
I, for one, am not outraged that a person can be arrested for breaking the law.
I, for one, am not outraged that a person can be arrested for breaking the law.
If a bad law causes anyone to forfeit their liberty or property, or challenge their dignity, those who understand that it is a bad law should be outraged.
It was just such outrage that fueled the birth of this country, and the lack thereof, which is now responsible for its decline.
Originally posted by wartboy
Buddyyy, I certainly concur with your above sentiments. The current crew of "neo-conservatives" in the White House may have done as much damage to the Constitution as been done since the days of that "uber-socialist," FDR. I suspect, however, that Hillary Clinton would even surpass the current Bush and Company's destruction of freedom and liberty in America. But I could be wrong......I never thought that Bush, Jr. would make Bill Clinton look like a defender of liberty and honesty.
Buddyyy, I certainly concur with your above sentiments. The current crew of "neo-conservatives" in the White House may have done as much damage to the Constitution as been done since the days of that "uber-socialist," FDR. I suspect, however, that Hillary Clinton would even surpass the current Bush and Company's destruction of freedom and liberty in America. But I could be wrong......I never thought that Bush, Jr. would make Bill Clinton look like a defender of liberty and honesty.
Buddyyy, have I told you lately that I think you're great?
Originally posted by buddyyy
I can understand you not being surprised. But why not outraged?
If a bad law causes anyone to forfeit their liberty or property, or challenge their dignity, those who understand that it is a bad law should be outraged.
It was just such outrage that fueled the birth of this country, and the lack thereof, which is now responsible for its decline.
I can understand you not being surprised. But why not outraged?
If a bad law causes anyone to forfeit their liberty or property, or challenge their dignity, those who understand that it is a bad law should be outraged.
It was just such outrage that fueled the birth of this country, and the lack thereof, which is now responsible for its decline.
PS I have a feeling that JL, Spaz (and others) won't jump all over your ass like they jumped all over mine.
Originally posted by wartboy
Perfect, buddyy!
PS I have a feeling that JL, Spaz (and others) won't jump all over your ass like they jumped all over mine.
Perfect, buddyy!
PS I have a feeling that JL, Spaz (and others) won't jump all over your ass like they jumped all over mine.
Surprise, surprise -- I'm a big fan of FDR, as well, and especially his wife, LOL...
Originally posted by buddyyy
I don't understand the term "neo-conservative". The only context it makes sense at all is Orwellian.
I don't understand the term "neo-conservative". The only context it makes sense at all is Orwellian.
It is used to differentiate between the so-called "conservatives" in the current White House (who believe in things like world domination and a new world order - as long as it's an American new world order) and "real" Conservatives (i.e. those who believe that the Constitution is a literal document).
Originally posted by buddyyy
and the lack thereof, which is now responsible for its decline.
and the lack thereof, which is now responsible for its decline.
Or that there is a general lack of outrage.
I just may not agree with all of it.
People on all sides of the political spectrum are 'outraged'. The success of the Dean campaign is (I think) a sign of outrage with the right. I think it's a good thing. The recall election in California is a sign of outrage at the left. I think it's a stupid process, but I agree with alot of the sentiment behind it. And smaller outrages against overly intrusive government (the 'nanny state' as wartboy might say) are occuring all over the place. Great. I think that the 'nanny state' IS too obtrusive in many ways.
I just wish people would put their outrage in a bit of perspective. Not because I disagree with alot of the sentiment, but because I think it's more effective when it's honest and realistic, than when it's shrill and over-the-top.
æ
Originally posted by Cat_Ballou
WB, if that's the case, it might be because Buddyyy actually explains his reasoning and adds no hint of personal attack or condemnation to it. You've offered some volatile and provocative statements/opinions, but without substantiating the reasoning behind them. And in a couple of instances, at least, it seems as though you are more interested in the fight (and in declaring yourself "right" and smacking other people down) than in actually discussing the subject. If people are jumping all over your ass, maybe it's because your delivery invites it.
WB, if that's the case, it might be because Buddyyy actually explains his reasoning and adds no hint of personal attack or condemnation to it. You've offered some volatile and provocative statements/opinions, but without substantiating the reasoning behind them. And in a couple of instances, at least, it seems as though you are more interested in the fight (and in declaring yourself "right" and smacking other people down) than in actually discussing the subject. If people are jumping all over your ass, maybe it's because your delivery invites it.
And my reasoning is supect? Examples, if you please.
WB, just saw your query -- yes, I was referring to your post. But anyway, I am not trying to ramp things up. Still, if anyone is going lump FDR, the Clintons and Hitler into one category, I've got not no choice but to speak up, because to me, that's just plain wrong and untrue. And frankly, I'm not interested enough in this argument to spend the necessary time to prove anything to you. As to the issue of you being attacked first as a justification for adding fuel to the fire? It doesn't matter how ridiculous or provcative someone else is being, you're still accountable for your own role in it. "He/She started it" is the defense of children...
On a slightly different note: law evolves slowly, and no system exists for the review of law to determine whether it still is applicable, relevant, serves a useful function, or needs revamping. Once enacted, laws stay on the books, as written, until events cause someone to question them and then bring them up for review.
An interesting point brought up by one of the fellows at Extreme (now being prosecuted by Ashcroft [FBHW]) is that "community standards," the supposed basis for obscenity prosecution, doesn't mean the same thing as it did back in -- when was the last statute created? Late '70s? It's no longer a question of what plays at the local Bijou and how people feel about having that in their midst -- home video and the internet have, in some sense, taken it all indoors and also created communities unto themselves -- aren't we members of a community, in some sense?
The law is always a few steps behind (in more ways than one...)
On a slightly different note: law evolves slowly, and no system exists for the review of law to determine whether it still is applicable, relevant, serves a useful function, or needs revamping. Once enacted, laws stay on the books, as written, until events cause someone to question them and then bring them up for review.
An interesting point brought up by one of the fellows at Extreme (now being prosecuted by Ashcroft [FBHW]) is that "community standards," the supposed basis for obscenity prosecution, doesn't mean the same thing as it did back in -- when was the last statute created? Late '70s? It's no longer a question of what plays at the local Bijou and how people feel about having that in their midst -- home video and the internet have, in some sense, taken it all indoors and also created communities unto themselves -- aren't we members of a community, in some sense?
The law is always a few steps behind (in more ways than one...)
Originally posted by buddyyy
Whose your Daddy?
Whose your Daddy?
Another surprise from Mother Nature -- hobbyists from other species, LOL...