art by =saintchase

Theoryland Resources

WoT Interview Search

Search the most comprehensive database of interviews and book signings from Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson and the rest of Team Jordan.

Wheel of Time News

An Hour With Harriet

2012-04-30: I had the great pleasure of speaking with Harriet McDougal Rigney about her life. She's an amazing talent and person and it will take you less than an hour to agree.

The Bell Tolls

2012-04-24: Some thoughts I had during JordanCon4 and the upcoming conclusion of "The Wheel of Time."

Theoryland Community

Members: 7611

Logged In (0):

Newest Members:johnroserking, petermorris, johnadanbvv, AndrewHB, jofwu, Salemcat1, Dhakatimesnews, amazingz, Sasooner, Hasib123,

Theoryland Tweets

Forums

Home | Chat | Old Forums(Yuku)


Go Back   Theoryland of the Wheel of Time Forums > THEORYLAND STEDDINGS > Forum Archives > Archived - Non Wot Discussion Boards > Archived: Non WoT Related Discussion 09/2010 - 03/2012
User Name
Password

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-24-2012, 12:41 PM
SonofElvis SonofElvis is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 122
SonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to all
Default Maryland

I can't just let that go by. Come on, people!

Gay means happy, too.
__________________
My glass is half full of cynicism.
  #2  
Old 02-24-2012, 03:29 PM
Cor Shan Cor Shan is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 309
Cor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud ofCor Shan has much to be proud of
Default

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=_TBd-UCwVAY
  #3  
Old 02-24-2012, 03:32 PM
Sei'taer's Avatar
Sei'taer Sei'taer is offline
Inbred, Ugly, and Drunk on Corn Liquor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 5,505
Sei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I love reading the comments on stuff like that.
__________________
Sei'taer
General of the Southern Border, Landogardner, Bringer of Pain, Theoryland Hillbilly




www.buckeyestation.com look at it, love it, share it with your friends!
  #4  
Old 02-25-2012, 02:09 AM
Frenzy's Avatar
Frenzy Frenzy is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,982
Frenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond reputeFrenzy has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Frenzy Send a message via Yahoo to Frenzy
Default

Anyone see this?

A gay black female Texas judge... there must be hundreds of neo-cons having aneurysms right about now
__________________
"But don't mention the cucumbers or Frenzy will get mad. And mad Frenzy is creative. -- yks

"How the hell do you Godwin a thread with CUCUMBERS!!?" -- Tru

"I love cucumber prawn... " -- Ivhon

"Have to catch me first. Scared shitless always outruns mad as hell." -- Sinistrum

"Some days I'm happy Frenzy doesn't live next door." -- Tamyrlin

"So Frenzy is a scientist then?" -- Davian
"Well duh. An Evil scientist. " -- Khoram
  #5  
Old 02-25-2012, 01:33 PM
SonofElvis SonofElvis is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 122
SonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to allSonofElvis is a name known to all
Default

Cor Shan: THAT was beautiful.
__________________
My glass is half full of cynicism.
  #6  
Old 02-25-2012, 02:48 PM
Res_Ipsa's Avatar
Res_Ipsa Res_Ipsa is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,915
Res_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy View Post
Anyone see this?

A gay black female Texas judge... there must be hundreds of neo-cons having aneurysms right about now

No, she is an idiot. The worst form of judge. She is no better than this asshole: http://www.searchingforchetbaker.com...-to-marry.html

She has permanently destroyed any concept of impartiality she may have possessed. Whatever justification she offers, it is not within the purview of the judiciary and only feeds detractors. Judges have ways of acting within the law and yet changing it gradually. That is the whole concept of how the common law has evolved. At least in the US and Britain by extension. This woman has flouted the basic division of judge and legislator and has become an activist.
__________________
More fools know Jak Fool than Jak Fool knows!

" 'Looks like the game can be won after all,' [Mat] said. 'Tell the foxes I'm mighty pleased with this key they gave me. Also, you can all go rot in a flaming pit of fire and ashes, you unwashed lumps on a pig's backside. Have a grand bloody day.' "

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."
  #7  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:01 PM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,127
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
No, she is an idiot. The worst form of judge. She is no better than this asshole: http://www.searchingforchetbaker.com...-to-marry.html
She's a whole hell of a lot better than him. She refuses to do it personally, but at least she sends them to the judge down the hall....and her reason for refusing to do it is that it's discriminatory against her. That's quite different than discriminating based on race.

Now when are you going to get back to me about your misconceptions concerning the Party of Lincoln? Because I could go on...
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
  #8  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:08 PM
Res_Ipsa's Avatar
Res_Ipsa Res_Ipsa is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,915
Res_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
She's a whole hell of a lot better than him. She refuses to do it personally, but at least she sends them to the judge down the hall....and her reason for refusing to do it is that it's discriminatory against her. That's quite different than discriminating based on race.
Justifications offered, and just as fundamentally wrong. Couples who want to be married can also just go to a different judge than her. There is no difference. Rather, you are perceiving the difference to be race vs. gay marriage. You will notice my comment was directed at the legal dynamic. This is a fundamental mistake that many fail on, they like the result so they forget that it is dangerous. There is a reason why Roe v. Wade was a bad decision regardless of whether you believe it came out right or wrong. It was judges acting beyond their scope of authority. Judges have insured that most of our contentious issues remain so because of unripe issues being ripened to suit their needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Now when are you going to get back to me about your misconceptions concerning the Party of Lincoln? Because I could go on...
Ahh sorry, truth be told I forgot. I have been so busy I have had to only infrequently post and it is easy to forget posts. I am actually working on a trial motion to support summary judgement this weekend and just taking a break.

Umm, mind reminding me? I recall you asking if I had read his first state of the union, and yes I have. What specific passages are you referencing?
__________________
More fools know Jak Fool than Jak Fool knows!

" 'Looks like the game can be won after all,' [Mat] said. 'Tell the foxes I'm mighty pleased with this key they gave me. Also, you can all go rot in a flaming pit of fire and ashes, you unwashed lumps on a pig's backside. Have a grand bloody day.' "

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."
  #9  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:19 PM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,127
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
Justifications offered, and just as fundamentally wrong. Couples who want to be married can also just go to a different judge than her. There is no difference. Rather, you are perceiving the difference to be race vs. gay marriage.
No, I don't think about things in the same stupid way that you do. This is about equal rights in both cases. One judge is on the wrong side of it, and another judge is on the right side of it. It is the job of judges to uphold the constitution. I know, because Judge Napolitano told me so. He says it's the job of judges to take a stand when the majority is abusing a minority.

Quote:
Ahh sorry, truth be told I forgot. I have been so busy I have had to only infrequently post and it is easy to forget posts. I am actually working on a trial motion to support summary judgement this weekend and just taking a break.

Umm, mind reminding me? I recall you asking if I had read his first state of the union, and yes I have. What specific passages are you referencing?
I'm referencing the passages that, if spoken by Obama, would be called 'socialist'. And I also referenced the Homestead Act, which was far more socialist than Obamacare (calling that one socialism is laughable, to be honest). Because you seem convinced that the Party of Lincoln was somehow the epitome of classical 'liberal' economics (now called fiscal conservatism) when they were actually pretty heavily associated with the socialists, and took the socialist side of most debates against the Democrats.
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
  #10  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:22 PM
Davian93's Avatar
Davian93 Davian93 is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 20,065
Davian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond reputeDavian93 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

So what if Lincoln was a gay socialist...I mean, he founded the GOP and we all know that both Parties are exactly the same ideology-wise as they were 150 years ago when Lincoln was elected.


One wonders what Res feels about Justice Clarence Thomas and impartiality.
__________________
Bonded to Brita

"We caught them in an alley on skid row in downtown Philly and brought them down with Uzi's and dogs. I beat the shit out of one of the guys for resisting arrest. After that, I went home, fried up some tofu with strawberry preserves and melon sticky rice, laid down on the couch with my snuggie and ate rose petals in sweet daisy wine sauce and watched Mamma Mia on DVD and then cried myself to sleep."

Theoryland: Just Some Crazy In A Pot
  #11  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:53 PM
Res_Ipsa's Avatar
Res_Ipsa Res_Ipsa is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,915
Res_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
No, I don't think about things in the same stupid way that you do. This is about equal rights in both cases. One judge is on the wrong side of it, and another judge is on the right side of it. It is the job of judges to uphold the constitution. I know, because Judge Napolitano told me so. He says it's the job of judges to take a stand when the majority is abusing a minority.
There is a reason why I think of you as a good researcher but poor thinker. Again, you deliberately avoid the point. Judges must act within constitutional restraints and one of those is ripeness. You may not understand the term in a legal sense but the basic understanding is that it has been adjudicated fully before the appropriate court can hear it. A judges position is to work within a case in controversy. Last I checked, Texas has a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. SOOOOO, if the judge wants to show it violates the state or federal constitutions they should work within their divsion of power and not be an activist, which this judge is doing. If you do not understand this basic concept, it is because you find the end justifies the means and you are just as equally foolish. It seems you have already vindicated my point. You find the point, that this judge is making, sufficient and therefore acceptable. It is not surprising, you are a Marxist. A political and economic theory that has always acted outside of historical context and thought to advance problems generations ahead of their ripeness. Is it any wonder that every government that is a Marxist derivative has failed? It is become they ran before they learned to walk.

You seem to think I am debating the merits of homosexuality. I am not. Until you recognize this, you will not learn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
I'm referencing the passages that, if spoken by Obama, would be called 'socialist'. And I also referenced the Homestead Act, which was far more socialist than Obamacare (calling that one socialism is laughable, to be honest).
Which passages? Within what context? Provide specific examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Because you seem convinced that the Party of Lincoln was somehow the epitome of classical 'liberal' economics (now called fiscal conservatism) when they were actually pretty heavily associated with the socialists, and took the socialist side of most debates against the Democrats.
So, before there was the common law there was the natural law. Contract and Property Law developed from this natural law. What you are trying to do is interject a convenient political phrase that developed thousands of years after these basic rights and use that as some explanation devoid of any historical context. With that, we come to ...

Do you know what adverse possession is? You might think of it as socialism because I very much doubt you understand the historical reasons for its development. (In reality, it is neither left or right but a common law principal that developed from the natural law) That is what the Homestead Act was in a nutshell. And last time I checked it was also federal land becoming private land. (This would facially refute your claim) Terez, I could argue with you ad nauseum about these merits but because this is the internet, you have the ability to retreat and i cannot force you to admit your errors as I could if we were face to face.

You are further mistaking the dynamics of Lincoln's party. He united both extremes of his party and in that sense was a moderate. This is very well documented between the abolitionists, the warhawks, the pacifists, the neutral-slavery side, etc.

Also. You are forgetting something very basic. What we understand to be socialism had its roots in the middle 1700s it is true. What you are applying is a post Marx scope of analysis when you forget that Marxism was post Lincoln and therefore irrelevant. Further, you mistake history, socialism and liberalism developed as two different branches of the same history. You had American Liberalism and French Liberalism. I identify with American Liberalism, where as you identify with French Liberalism which is widely acknowledge (that and the french revolution) as the real impetus of socialism. So you are trying to apply the wrong philosophy to the American way of thinking.

I am going to start thinking of you as a Saul Alinksy. Good methodology, piss poor conclusions which makes you wonder how that is even possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davian93 View Post
One wonders what Res feels about Justice Clarence Thomas and impartiality.
You know that answer, you have asked me about it before. And as I recall, you agreed with my position.

My position is neutral: It might have everything to do with it, it might have nothing to do with it. But then you have this idiot judge in Texas who is an embarrassment.

Edited.


Also, free time is up. I may have to get back to this tomorrow.
__________________
More fools know Jak Fool than Jak Fool knows!

" 'Looks like the game can be won after all,' [Mat] said. 'Tell the foxes I'm mighty pleased with this key they gave me. Also, you can all go rot in a flaming pit of fire and ashes, you unwashed lumps on a pig's backside. Have a grand bloody day.' "

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Last edited by Res_Ipsa; 02-25-2012 at 04:00 PM.
  #12  
Old 02-25-2012, 09:01 PM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,127
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
This is a fundamental misconception of where the GOP has moved. If anything their support for progressive reforms has only gotten stronger. No, the GOP operates in a post FDR world. They have not stuck to their traditional values as in the time of the party of 1861 to 1913. Social Security, Welfare, Entitlements, etc, are not part of conservative/individual ideology.

Obama is not a moderate president. He is a president who dealt with the realities of losing a super majority precisely bc of his ideals. He is no different than Clinton after Dick Morris told him to tone it down after Hillarycare failed to pass. He has never been moderate or even close to center, have you even read his books? He is a dyed in the wool Marxist. Just think Terez on these boards. They go along with the joke that is the word "socialism" when it is thrown about but in reality they think it is a pretty good idea. (Not knocking you Terez)
This makes me laugh. Lincoln and the early Republican Party were far more socialist than Obama and the New Democrats. And I have read Obama's books, by the way. Ever heard of the Homestead Act? Ever read Lincoln's first SOTU?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Now when are you going to get back to me about your misconceptions concerning the Party of Lincoln? Because I could go on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
Umm, mind reminding me? I recall you asking if I had read his first state of the union, and yes I have. What specific passages are you referencing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
I'm referencing the passages that, if spoken by Obama, would be called 'socialist'. And I also referenced the Homestead Act, which was far more socialist than Obamacare (calling that one socialism is laughable, to be honest). Because you seem convinced that the Party of Lincoln was somehow the epitome of classical 'liberal' economics (now called fiscal conservatism) when they were actually pretty heavily associated with the socialists, and took the socialist side of most debates against the Democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
Which passages? Within what context? Provide specific examples.
Do you think that labor is prior and therefore superior to capital? Or do you think that "job creators" should have the ultimate power in this country? (That's aside from the ones that don't actually create jobs, and just 'create' more capital.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
No, I don't think about things in the same stupid way that you do. This is about equal rights in both cases. One judge is on the wrong side of it, and another judge is on the right side of it. It is the job of judges to uphold the constitution. I know, because Judge Napolitano told me so. He says it's the job of judges to take a stand when the majority is abusing a minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
There is a reason why I think of you as a good researcher but poor thinker.
There is a reason why everyone thinks of you as someone who 1) just likes to argue, and 2) isn't even good at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
Again, you deliberately avoid the point. Judges must act within constitutional restraints and one of those is ripeness.
LOL! This is like Chris Christie and his referendum on gay marriage right? For one thing, what do you think would have happened if civil rights had been put up for a referendum in the 60s? Part of the function of the unelected judiciary is to check the democratic branch of government when it wants to abuse a minority, though the representatives are supposed to do that as well. The people are supposedly a check against the legislators when they want to abuse the majority. And various minorities. A mucky system, to say the least. As for ripeness, the time is ripe now. That's pretty clear, for many reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
You may not understand the term in a legal sense but the basic understanding is that it has been adjudicated fully before the appropriate court can hear it. A judges position is to work within a case in controversy. Last I checked, Texas has a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. SOOOOO, if the judge wants to show it violates the state or federal constitutions they should work within their divsion of power and not be an activist, which this judge is doing.
Last I checked, the 14th Amendment was passed, at least in part, for this very reason. Neither the federal government nor the states can infringe on human rights, by the United States Constitution—specifically the Bill of Rights—which supersedes all state constitutions, as we are seeing with Montana v SCOTUS at the moment. See, Judge Napolitano is a good teacher. I don't like this book because it panders to the right wing really blatantly. When he gets you to imagine the abuses of the government he always uses examples like Christians and Jews, or abortion, or other hot-button issues. But the cases he cited were generally fairly neutral in terms of essence. He had to use what-if scenarios to make it appeal to the right-wingers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
If you do not understand this basic concept, it is because you find the end justifies the means and you are just as equally foolish.
And you're a law student. God help us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
It seems you have already vindicated my point. You find the point, that this judge is making, sufficient and therefore acceptable. It is not surprising, you are a Marxist. A political and economic theory that has always acted outside of historical context and thought to advance problems generations ahead of their ripeness. Is it any wonder that every government that is a Marxist derivative has failed? It is become they ran before they learned to walk.
There was a concept embraced by most liberals of socialist leanings in the early-to-mid 20th Century as the ills of totalitarian socialism became clear. You may or may not have heard of it, because in the US we had red scares and whatnot that sort of pushed the issue under the radar for most Americans. It's called 'incrementalism'. Most democratic-socialists are incremantalists. Sure, radical change was necessary during the Depression, but after that, the plan was supposed to be pushing for incremental socialist development. You can't do it overnight, and you can't blindly forge ahead without concern for the way your current policies are working, but socialism that works is neither unimaginable nor unheard of. There's a long history of socialism in the US, as you should well know, and there should be a long future of incremental socialist change as well. It won't be the end of the world. Unfortunately, Reagan and the neocons started dismantling what incremental change we'd already accomplished in the 80s, and then Bush threw the baby out with the bathwater. So as you can see, we are in a bit of a tough spot at the moment. We'll recover, as soon as 'fiscal conservatives' learn the art of distinction.

You are attempting to conflate what are actually very small changes with the Socialist and Communist dictator states of the 20th century. This is why I find your thinking to be poor. Nothing Obama has suggested matches even FDR, much less Stalin or Mao. Also, Marx had some good ideas, and some not-so-good ones. He was a socialist philosopher, but hardly the first. Even Benjamin Franklin was a socialist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
During Lincoln's time, especially in his relative youth before politics had begun to hammer him into the type of moderate capable of winning the presidency, ideas like this had a great deal of popularity. You might say Marx just rode the wave of populism that began during the revolution era. The fight against slavery was caught up in that, not only because it was a matter of civil rights, but because slave labor was causing wage slavery in the industrial world, much as wage slavery in the globalized world today has adversely affected working conditions even in the First World. Lincoln addresses this in his SOTU and in the Douglass debates.

The closest thing Marx ever had to a paying job was with the New York Tribune, Lincoln's favorite newspaper. He gave out a number of positions to socialists, including Charles Dana, the managing editor, who became his Assistant Secretary of War. Lincoln wasn't a Marxist, and neither was Dana, but Dana was an outright socialist, and Lincoln had serious tendencies in that direction. Because this is not religion, after all, but economic theory, which interested Lincoln and the early GOP very much. He was a radical. If anyone broke the 'ripeness' rule, he broke it, to the point of civil war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
You seem to think I am debating the merits of homosexuality. I am not. Until you recognize this, you will not learn.
I never said you were debating the merits of homosexuality. We were having a discussion about equal rights, and a comparison between a judge who is trying to advance them and a judge who is trying to reverse them. It would certainly appear at this point that you have no other assertion upon which to base your argument, but I haven't said so until now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
So, before there was the common law there was the natural law.
The Judge lectured me about this, too. This is one of those arguments that seems to rest more strongly with the right-wingers than the usual what-if scenarios, but even that is illusory. Apparently the concept of Natural Law rests entirely on the idea that rights are god-given, since that's what it says ('endowed with certain rights by our Creator' or whatever). And by his argument, the only way to justify such a distinction is to assert that the Creator exists, and that his authority supersedes that of the government. Rights are not given to man by government, but by the Creator.

Of course, it doesn't wash, since typically governments are necessary to protect those rights. But I can understand the sentiment. I don't think it's necessary to worm yourself into a philosophical corner in order to assert that the Bill of Rights trumps any law that might contradict it. It's a very logical thing to do in a government that is supposedly Of the People.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
Contract and Property Law developed from this natural law.
That does not mean that they were perfectly designed or perfectly understood when the various laws were written.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
What you are trying to do is interject a convenient political phrase that developed thousands of years after these basic rights and use that as some explanation devoid of any historical context.
What you are trying to do is pretend that, by virtue of the fact that you are a law student, you have some sort of special insight into this that I couldn't possibly compete with, as a low-information voter, despite the fact that there are lawyers and judges out there with way more experience than you who disagree with you, and those that agree with you explain themselves a good deal more eloquently. If you're going to make assertions like this, you need to back it up with something other than Koolaid Talking Points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
With that, we come to ...

Do you know what adverse possession is?
We just had a referendum on it in MS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
You might think of it as socialism because I very much doubt you understand the historical reasons for its development. (In reality, it is neither left or right but a common law principal that developed from the natural law)
Perhaps you will enlighten me one day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
That is what the Homestead Act was in a nutshell. And last time I checked it was also federal land becoming private land.
Sure, it was federal land becoming private land. But it was given freely to anyone who could farm it, rather than sold off for peanuts to some schmuck who wanted to make a profit off of it and then subsidized by the government. (Even better is when you can get another country to sell you something for peanuts and subsidize you using loans taken out from your buddies on Wall Street.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
(This would facially refute your claim) Terez, I could argue with you ad nauseum about these merits but because this is the internet, you have the ability to retreat and i cannot force you to admit your errors as I could if we were face to face.
You're accusing me of retreating when you disappeared for a week after I brought it up? Now, I know you're busy. But it was a convenient place to take a break, wasn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
You are further mistaking the dynamics of Lincoln's party. He united both extremes of his party and in that sense was a moderate. This is very well documented between the abolitionists, the warhawks, the pacifists, the neutral-slavery side, etc.
Sure, but all presidents have to do that. I'm talking about the leanings of Lincoln personally and the leanings of the GOP in general, not presidential politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
Also. You are forgetting something very basic. What we understand to be socialism had its roots in the middle 1700s it is true. What you are applying is a post Marx scope of analysis when you forget that Marxism was post Lincoln and therefore irrelevant.
Sorry buddy, but you're the one obsessed with Marx, not me. I don't really give a shit about him. And I didn't forget anything about Marx. He was Lincoln's contemporary. Lenin was post-Lincoln, not Marx.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
Further, you mistake history, socialism and liberalism developed as two different branches of the same history. You had American Liberalism and French Liberalism. I identify with American Liberalism, where as you identify with French Liberalism which is widely acknowledge (that and the french revolution) as the real impetus of socialism. So you are trying to apply the wrong philosophy to the American way of thinking.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions here, aren't you? Perhaps you can explain. I think of myself as a pretty thoroughly American socialist. When we have done it, we have generally done it well, except in cases of corporate socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res_Ipsa View Post
I am going to start thinking of you as a Saul Alinksy. Good methodology, piss poor conclusions which makes you wonder how that is even possible.
Easy. Reality has a liberal bias. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner you will understand.
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
  #13  
Old 02-26-2012, 10:48 PM
Res_Ipsa's Avatar
Res_Ipsa Res_Ipsa is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,915
Res_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Do you think that labor is prior and therefore superior to capital? Or do you think that "job creators" should have the ultimate power in this country? (That's aside from the ones that don't actually create jobs, and just 'create' more capital.)
Ever read Friedman, and his point on how government and business do not exist. Extrapolate that, put it to sociology instead of economics and you have my position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
There is a reason why everyone thinks of you as someone who 1) just likes to argue, and 2) isn't even good at it.
1) True, 2) Everyone being everyone that would be everyone. More to the point, if I am enough to get you and all your numerous detractors to stop calling you a bitch, and unite against me then that is a good thing. I express opinions that a large number on this board have adverse ideologies. Many on this board claim to have an open view of things and then prove that wrong. I have never even pretended to be like that. Rather, I argue a point and expect others to do the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
LOL! This is like Chris Christie and his referendum on gay marriage right?
No idea, I am not very hip on the news or even the election these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
For one thing, what do you think would have happened if civil rights had been put up for a referendum in the 60s? Part of the function of the unelected judiciary is to check the democratic branch of government when it wants to abuse a minority, though the representatives are supposed to do that as well. The people are supposedly a check against the legislators when they want to abuse the majority. And various minorities. A mucky system, to say the least. As for ripeness, the time is ripe now. That's pretty clear, for many reasons.
And what do you think the impetus of Civil Rights legislation was? Judicial cases. The dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson became the majority in Brown v. Board of Eduation more than half a century later.

So let me translate that to the current argument. I am not saying that is not the job of the judiciary to act in those cases but I am saying that is their only venue of acting. Instead the judge here is acting like a legislator. Until you understand this, you will never be right on that point.


You lambast my cognitive ability while displaying a gaping error in logic. The sad thing is, you still have not recognized what I was fundamentally arguing with the judge. In order to act within her grant of power, she must do so within cases in controversy. In point of fact, she is an activist because cases are already making their way through the various state and federal courts like they are supposed to. Your use of the term "ripe" is again mistaken as I explained to you the term has a legal significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Last I checked, the 14th Amendment was passed, at least in part, for this very reason.
The 14th Amendment was passed to in order to bind the slavery amendments on the states a long with the federal constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Neither the federal government nor the states can infringe on human rights, by the United States Constitution—specifically the Bill of Rights—which supersedes all state constitutions, as we are seeing with Montana v SCOTUS at the moment.
Conflating marriage with a basic human right is a deceptive argument technique. What you are really looking for is basic government recognition. And again, I am not debating the merits . You seem to mistake that fundamental understanding because you are talking about rights and a need for change. I am talking about how they can enact that change but did not do so in the correct way. Thus, the end justifies the means for you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
See, Judge Napolitano is a good teacher. I don't like this book because it panders to the right wing really blatantly. When he gets you to imagine the abuses of the government he always uses examples like Christians and Jews, or abortion, or other hot-button issues. But the cases he cited were generally fairly neutral in terms of essence. He had to use what-if scenarios to make it appeal to the right-wingers.
Do I know this judge? Should I? You have mentioned him a few times rather totemically. I do not even know what book you are referencing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
And you're a law student. God help us.
Do you even believe in God? Apparently these days, even Richard Dawkins cannot 100% rule out His existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
It's called 'incrementalism'. Most democratic-socialists are incremantalists.
You have just told me the world is round and expect me to applaud. Even a novice of politics and with no philosophical background could tell you that most change is gradual and it is usually suicide to attack an issue head on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Sure, radical change was necessary during the Depression, but after that, the plan was supposed to be pushing for incremental socialist development. You can't do it overnight, and you can't blindly forge ahead without concern for the way your current policies are working, but socialism that works is neither unimaginable nor unheard of.
Socialism is but a stepping stone to communism as I am sure you are aware of. But your contention here is fundamentally flawed because it is pure idealism. Assuming ad arguendo that what you are saying is true that a working socialism is possible we would have seen traces of it already. From about 15 mins after humans first walked on this earth I imagine every possible range of human behavior was experienced. You, and your thinkers fundamentally mistake human nature and do not seem to realize that to effectuate your plans you need extreme levels of control. Well, you probably realize it and think the end justifies the means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
There's a long history of socialism in the US, as you should well know, and there should be a long future of incremental socialist change as well. It won't be the end of the world.
No, but it will be the death of individualism and freedom. What is even more laughable is that in the non collectivist states you have had ones that broke away from the mold and flourished. However, within the collectivist ideology they all exhibit the same traits. And yet they all had the same basic starting point, and failed. That should tell you something. If nothing else, history is usually determinative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Unfortunately, Reagan and the neocons started dismantling what incremental change we'd already accomplished in the 80s, and then Bush threw the baby out with the bathwater. So as you can see, we are in a bit of a tough spot at the moment. We'll recover, as soon as 'fiscal conservatives' learn the art of distinction.
You sound like Cobra Commander here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
You are attempting to conflate what are actually very small changes with the Socialist and Communist dictator states of the 20th century. This is why I find your thinking to be poor.
Well, as you so boldly pointed out with incrementalism the object is gradual change. What I am arguing is the recognition of the end result. I was never arguing that Obama had made us into a collectivist state in "no time flat." Rather, and as my writings on the subject vindicate, I have always argued that the eventual goal to fundamentally change the American landscape. Your kind fundamentally hate individual freedom while deceptively claiming you are working for everyone. You seem to mistake this subtle difference that you could drive a fleet of SUVs through.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Nothing Obama has suggested matches even FDR, much less Stalin or Mao. Also, Marx had some good ideas, and some not-so-good ones. He was a socialist philosopher, but hardly the first.
Hmm the first point is one of scale and recognizing the potential effects although I would agree that FDR had a much more radicial shift. But all of that does not matter by your admission of increments. If the end result is the same and our life spans will never encompass any large part of it, then you understand why fighting for the little things is just as important as the big things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Even Benjamin Franklin was a socialist.
You are using a convenient term in order to control the conversation. As I pointed out individualist and collectivist ideologies have the same genesis but quickly branched out. And as I already mentioned you are most definitely using a post-Marx scope. More to the point, your point is laughable for a man who wrote EXTENSIVELY on the virtues of the individual. What you sound like is a revisionist. And you can count on many being too busy or do not care to check their facts and will eagerly lap up that stupidity. Franklin was an Enlightenment thinker as well as Free Mason which is individualist. His vocal support for a Republican form of government. Weber said that it was Franklin's writings on ethics which were so linked to protestant virtue which created the necessary social change to bring about capitalism.

We both know you read this crap in a book devoid of any historical context or meaning as well as sincere scholarly survey. You can peddle your misinformation on the less informed but it does not stand up to any level real level of scrutiny. In short, you have an agenda and proceed to argue based on that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
During Lincoln's time, especially in his relative youth before politics had begun to hammer him into the type of moderate capable of winning the presidency, ideas like this had a great deal of popularity.
Populism is not necessarily one sided. It just appeals more to the "unwashed masses" with its emphasis on feeling more than thinking and its promises of instant reward for the abuses of past.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
You might say Marx just rode the wave of populism that began during the revolution era.
I might say he rode them from the relative comfort of his benefactors largess. Another telling part of collectivist failings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
The fight against slavery was caught up in that, not only because it was a matter of civil rights, but because slave labor was causing wage slavery in the industrial world, much as wage slavery in the globalized world today has adversely affected working conditions even in the First World.
Which is why you need extreme levels of control to artificially inflate and deflate wages. Also, what do you think will happen to China in 50+ years? They will experience what we are, a rise in quality of life that necessitates cheap labor and supplies. That is what happens when you have inflationary currency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Lincoln addresses this in his SOTU and in the Douglass debates.
Yeah, Lincoln's major point in all of those debates was the inconsistency of slavery with Republican ideals. So what is your point? You seem to be making an economic mountain where it was but a molehill in the grand consideration of state's rights and federalism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
The closest thing Marx ever had to a paying job was with the New York Tribune, Lincoln's favorite newspaper.
Sufficient vs. Necessary Terez. Did you know that Marx called it a "dirty rag"? And more to the point, the Tribune was Lincoln's favorite because of Horace Greeley, the famed abolitionist. Now, you may have a tiny point between Greeley and Marx but it is completely unrelated to Lincoln bc Greeley could only be incorporated with Marx with Greeley being a Christian Socialist. And again, this is a post-Marx Scope because even within that narrow area of agreement they quickly diverge because of the modern trend of anti-religion collectivism. But that is a very nuanced discussion that does not support yours.

What you are talking about is different branches of the same tree and seem to think that makes them the same thing. The reason that is not true is because in the West everything developed post-feudalism and therefore has the same base.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
He gave out a number of positions to socialists, including Charles Dana, the managing editor, who became his Assistant Secretary of War. Lincoln wasn't a Marxist, and neither was Dana, but Dana was an outright socialist, and Lincoln had serious tendencies in that direction. Because this is not religion, after all, but economic theory, which interested Lincoln and the early GOP very much. He was a radical.
Again, sufficient vs. necessary. I have a good friend who is gay and a libertarian. Must I too be gay and libertarian? I have several atheist friends, must I too forswear my religion? You have not shown that Lincoln had "serious tendencies" towards collectivism. The Dana reference is because of Fourier and that is true but then again, modern collectivism is so radically different than the 1800 thinkers that it is almost apples to oranges these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
If anyone broke the 'ripeness' rule, he broke it, to the point of civil war.
That term has nothing to do with nothing in this sense. I told you it was a judicial term and even more I never suggested that there were not other actors capable of forcing an issue. That is precisely Congresses job. What is laughable here is that you think my arguments deficient and yet you have since the beginning of this argument still pressed on with utterly incorrect points while ignoring my pointing you in the correct direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
I never said you were debating the merits of homosexuality. We were having a discussion about equal rights, and a comparison between a judge who is trying to advance them and a judge who is trying to reverse them.
Yeah, you are still displaying ignorance of my point. As I have explained, the judge has a constitutional framework within which to work. She is not, and is therefore an activist. Your statements on this matter continue to show that the end justifies the means for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
It would certainly appear at this point that you have no other assertion upon which to base your argument, but I haven't said so until now.
Just because you can say it, does not mean it is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
The Judge lectured me about this, too. This is one of those arguments that seems to rest more strongly with the right-wingers than the usual what-if scenarios, but even that is illusory.
Illusory is a contract term. I assume you were making a legal argument based on your mentioning "the judge" again. In which case, it makes no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Apparently the concept of Natural Law rests entirely on the idea that rights are god-given, since that's what it says ('endowed with certain rights by our Creator' or whatever). And by his argument, the only way to justify such a distinction is to assert that the Creator exists, and that his authority supersedes that of the government. Rights are not given to man by government, but by the Creator.
Swing and a miss. While it is true that the belief in the divine is a common theme of our Founding Fathers and Enlightenment thinkers it was often a pretext for giving that certain rights are inalienable which is only safeguarded by a vigilant public. As Franklin famously said after being asked what type of government had been formed, "A republic, if you can keep it.” Of course there is no such thing as absolute rights. You could step up to me, put a gun to my head and pull the trigger thus violating every right I have ever felt was absolute. You show no understanding on this point. Inalienable rights are very alienable but only if attitudes change and people forget why basic rights are so important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
Of course, it doesn't wash, since typically governments are necessary to protect those rights.
Or violate them as that may be. It tells you nothing of the individual though; hence, my insistence that governments do not exist, only the individual.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
But I can understand the sentiment. I don't think it's necessary to worm yourself into a philosophical corner in order to assert that the Bill of Rights trumps any law that might contradict it. It's a very logical thing to do in a government that is supposedly Of the People.
The Bill of Rights is a belief in a set of principles which I hold to be inalienable that can be just as violated as anything else. Clearly, with this realization we should all just give up and stop fighting for what we believe in. It is almost like your position is that my position is not valid. That shows a very fundamentally flawed way of thinking within an adversarial system. Rather, your views are just as valid as mine with the only thing that matters is who is successful. It is always funny to listen to those who claim to be the most open-minded (and lambast those who are not "open-minded) prove that to be a lie with their very words.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
What you are trying to do is pretend that, by virtue of the fact that you are a law student, you have some sort of special insight into this that I couldn't possibly compete with
No . . . that is the interpretation you wish to give to it. I instead rely on my basic understanding of the law but what is more astounding is that you wade in to it with incorrect assumptions and then claim umbrage. On a forum, lots of people claim expertise in lots of things. Reading some posts I just want to shake my head at the doctors, mathematicians, theorists, historians, etc. that no doubt come from the benefit of a wikipedia page being handy. I have never presented my expertise as anything other than what it is; law and history. So it is extra funny when you claim I am pretending to hold some great knowledge as exclusively mine. No, if you want to wade in to the conversation then have an intelligent opinion or do not bitch when I correct your basic mistake. I expect to be corrected when I say things that are wrong based on a lack of knowledge on the subject. So what is the problem? Ever watch a Gordon Ramsey cooking show? He gets into arguments with people who first start off by saying he is incorrect, but when he shows that they are incorrect they then hold up their hands and say "I do not like the way you said it." I have no stomach for these types of games or idiots and it seems to me that is at the heart of your argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
stuff. . .


The rest of this I unfortunately do not have time for. My apologies. Oh, I am not conceding any points either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
You're accusing me of retreating when you disappeared for a week after I brought it up? Now, I know you're busy. But it was a convenient place to take a break, wasn't it?

The funny thing is, I type this exact thing that "It is ironic that I am telling you that you can retreat and then doing that myself" and then deleted it in an edit. Kudos for recognizing it.

BTW, I do not think of you as stupid or ignorant. So the my "researcher not thinker" argument is deficient. The Saul Alinsky one though sums it up, I wonder how someone with such an obvious talent for research and organization can draw the conclusions you do.

Edit: No guarantees on when I get back to this, it could be a week or so. If you want to PM me, please do.

BTW, is this: http://www.amazon.com/Horace-Greeley...0315179&sr=1-1
the book you were drawing from? I might pick it up when it gets cheaper, I had seen it before.
__________________
More fools know Jak Fool than Jak Fool knows!

" 'Looks like the game can be won after all,' [Mat] said. 'Tell the foxes I'm mighty pleased with this key they gave me. Also, you can all go rot in a flaming pit of fire and ashes, you unwashed lumps on a pig's backside. Have a grand bloody day.' "

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Last edited by Res_Ipsa; 02-26-2012 at 11:00 PM.
  #14  
Old 02-27-2012, 09:39 AM
DaiShan1981's Avatar
DaiShan1981 DaiShan1981 is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 289
DaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant future
Default

All other arguments aside, calling even the most left-wing American Democrat a "Marxist" shows you have either no respect for your debate partner at all or no understanding of Marxism. I'm sure it's popular to do so amongst your buddies, but to do it here is an obvious attempt to ridicule your debate partner, akin to calling him/her a nazi.
__________________
Bonded to Zaela Sedai
Married (17-08-2013) to Yks õnnetu hing!
  #15  
Old 02-27-2012, 11:56 AM
Res_Ipsa's Avatar
Res_Ipsa Res_Ipsa is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,915
Res_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaiShan1981 View Post
All other arguments aside, calling even the most left-wing American Democrat a "Marxist" shows you have either no respect for your debate partner at all or no understanding of Marxism. I'm sure it's popular to do so amongst your buddies, but to do it here is an obvious attempt to ridicule your debate partner, akin to calling him/her a nazi.
Ahh, paper is turned in. I feel better. Thank you for ruining that euphoria.

No it is not akin to calling them a Nazi. Marxism is a popular philosophy that is on the collectivist side,; so, if she called me an individualist that does not mean she is calling me David Koresh. This frustrates me. If you want to type whatever pops into your head, feel free, but do not imply something that has no relevant basis in fact. The fact remains that we are having a philosophical argument on the merits of "who was what" that is tied into marxist/social democracy thinking. You can impute whatever connotation you will but that does not mean it is correct. I am trying to be nice since you are YKS's friend and I really do not want to get in another row with her. I much prefer when she and I are civil to one another. I also do not even think Marxist's are evil, just wrong. I reserve my thoughts of who is evil to murderers, rapists, and dentists.
__________________
More fools know Jak Fool than Jak Fool knows!

" 'Looks like the game can be won after all,' [Mat] said. 'Tell the foxes I'm mighty pleased with this key they gave me. Also, you can all go rot in a flaming pit of fire and ashes, you unwashed lumps on a pig's backside. Have a grand bloody day.' "

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Last edited by Res_Ipsa; 02-27-2012 at 12:10 PM.
  #16  
Old 02-27-2012, 03:18 PM
DaiShan1981's Avatar
DaiShan1981 DaiShan1981 is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 289
DaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant futureDaiShan1981 has a brilliant future
Default

I don't need to be on your "protected" list just because I'm Yks' "friend", but whatever lets you sleep at night I guess.

I'm not sure which branches of Marxism you are referring to, because even if you wouldn't call them evil, "ruthlessly and disastrously misguided" is about the best you could say of them. But honestly I don't think we disagree much on that. Which is why I object to you naming your debate partner one. What I have trouble figuring out though is if you're actually so myopic to think that Terez really is one, or if you're just throwing the word in there to try and lower her credibility as an opponent.
__________________
Bonded to Zaela Sedai
Married (17-08-2013) to Yks õnnetu hing!
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.