Romney has been to all 57 states as well?

[Fletch]

What exactly is your vision for America and does any political party represent your views?

I don't understand the importance of having a political party represent one's views. Consensus does not validate a position, truth does. If a person looks to the dictionary, encyclopedia, or US Constitution for the definitions of "freedom" or "liberty", and points out that what is colloquially referred to as such does not satisfy those definitions, it does not make him wrong just because he can't find a seconder.

 

[hornadylnl]

Is this another in a series of non-responsive responses? Let me rephrase myself so as to make it easier for you to respond.

Since you don't seem to support either Democrats or Republicans or Tea Party-ers, whom do you support? It's easy to point out the flaws in the philosophies and practices of the political parties you don't agree with, but you seem to mainly pontificate about "freedom" and "self-reliance" without any references to the political system which is supposed to support those ideals. Do you, perhaps, have an over-idealized view of the ease with which disparate elements of our society interact with each other through governments at all levels? It should be clear to you that your apparent vision of our freedoms as "my way or the highway" doesn't wash when it comes into confllict with others' view of those freedoms, nor do you seem to take into account the various decisions and the histories behind those decisions that have brought us - as a nation and a society - to the point we now occupy. SOOOOOOOO . . .

What exactly is your vision for America and does any political party represent your views?

Ron Paul best represents my political philosophy and it's quite clear the republicans aren't interested in it. I believe property rights should be the foundation from which we govern.

I understand full well where we are and where we're headed. If you think I'm angry about it, you're sadly mistaken. No use working up an ulcer for something I can't change. What does anger me is the rampant hypocrisy from those espousing liberty yet will trample on yours if it suits them.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Ron Paul best represents my political philosophy and it's quite clear the republicans aren't interested in it. I believe property rights should be the foundation from which we govern.

I understand full well where we are and where we're headed. If you think I'm angry about it, you're sadly mistaken. No use working up an ulcer for something I can't change. What does anger me is the rampant hypocrisy from those espousing liberty yet will trample on yours if it suits them.

We're all willing to trample others' rights, apparently. Look at you. You're willing to abrogate the flag-lady's rights to freedom of speech (as determined by the Supremes) just because you don't approve of her financial circumstance - at least that's the way you phrased your disapproval.

 

[Phil502]

Obama has been to all 57 states...and then some.

Romneys writer too.

Big difference.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

Ron Paul best represents my political philosophy and it's quite clear the republicans aren't interested in it. I believe property rights should be the foundation from which we govern.

I understand full well where we are and where we're headed. If you think I'm angry about it, you're sadly mistaken. No use working up an ulcer for something I can't change. What does anger me is the rampant hypocrisy from those espousing liberty yet will trample on yours if it suits them.

It is kind of funny that thinking that people should be free to do as they please as long as they aren't harming others gets you labeled as a "my way or the highway" guy.

 

[Fletch]

We're all willing to trample others' rights, apparently. Look at you. You're willing to abrogate the flag-lady's rights to freedom of speech (as determined by the Supremes) just because you don't approve of her financial circumstance - at least that's the way you phrased your disapproval.

So people on welfare deserve cell phones? It's the same argument -- if your fundamental needs are met by theft via taxation, are you really entitled to the discretionary income that results from not having to meet those needs yourself?

Or is it just OK for her to live on the dole and use her spending money as she pleases so long as she does it patriotically or in some way that you approve?

 

[Phil502]

So people on welfare deserve cell phones? It's the same argument -- if your fundamental needs are met by theft via taxation, are you really entitled to the discretionary income that results from not having to meet those needs yourself?

Or is it just OK for her to live on the dole and use her spending money as she pleases so long as she does it patriotically or in some way that you approve?

Cell phones don't equal flags, nice try, logical but bs just the same.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't understand the importance of having a political party represent one's views. Consensus does not validate a position, truth does. If a person looks to the dictionary, encyclopedia, or US Constitution for the definitions of "freedom" or "liberty", and points out that what is colloquially referred to as such does not satisfy those definitions, it does not make him wrong just because he can't find a seconder.

And here we come to the clash of idealism vs reality. I don't disagree with your statement that consensus doesn't validate a position, but in this nation, the absolute truth of your position doesn't give you any superiority of position when it comes to getting along with your neighbors in your society. Politics is the art of getting people to go a particular direction through persuasion; whether it be in the workplace, the neighborhood, the local, state, or national jurisdiction. Even when there is near-consensus over an issue, the constitutions of the various polities are there to set limits on what the "consensus" can do.

My point here is that politics and political parties are the means which we have evolved to influence the direction of the society and nation. Those who wish to change the laws of the nation must do so within the framework of the rules - or they must take up arms to impose their will outside that framework of laws.

Where the framework of societal mores and law has been distorted, the preferred method of instituting changes is to persuade through societal pressure and politics - as opposed to armed conflict. The Communist/Socialist/Progressives have been busily engaged in doing such since the 30s, while the rest of us carried on with our own concerns. Now, in order to swing back toward the original freedoms we need to persuade our society that such freedoms are desirable once again and we need to change the framework of law back to that which supports those freedoms. The only way we get that done is through politics. So we either need to take over one of the major parties through selecting party representation that aligns with our own beliefs, or failing that, we need to start a new political party and use persuasion and education to bring a sizable fraction of the citizenry around to our beliefs. The Libertarians and their fellow-travelers have largely failed at this so far; the current trend seems to be toward electing more "limited government" representatives into the Republican Party.

Another thing you might note: There's a certain amount of inertia in a large populace. It takes a fair amount of time to get a trend going, but if one is persistent, the trend accelerates. That's what we're seeing from the Progressives now, but it's not going all their way. Younger generations seem to naturally rebel against their elders' to a certain extent, and we're seeing at least a small trend toward younger folks looking for more personal freedom and depending less upon the "State". Maybe it's time for the trend to head back toward more personal freedom and the acknowledgment of personal responsibility for one's life. It won't happen if we don't push it, though, and that takes a multi-faceted approach involving personal persuasion, societal change, and political change at all levels of government.

 

[KG1]

And we have a winner.

If this had been an Obama app, there'd be at least 20 posts here saying its further proof Obama is an America hating communist bastard. But when you post a Romney gaffe, the claws come out.

Oh I think we might work a little bit harder at taking a jab at Obama, such as this little gem of a gaffe where he managed to insult Poland.

Barack Obama has insulted 38 million Poles with his crass and ignorant 'Polish death camp' remark – Telegraph Blogs

 

[Fletch]

Cell phones don't equal flags, nice try, logical but bs just the same.

So in other words, as long as it's a purchase you approve of, it's OK.

 

[Fletch]

And here we come to the clash of idealism vs reality...

{snip}

...It won't happen if we don't push it, though, and that takes a multi-faceted approach involving personal persuasion, societal change, and political change at all levels of government.

And what is the purpose of the idealist, the purist, the political gadfly? To stand at the end of the rope and pull with all his might in the direction things ought to go. I, and I suspect hornadylnl, have no hope whatsoever of seeing the sea change. But I hammer the truth, relentlessly, because my one major goal is to disturb people with their own hypocrisies and logical inconsistencies.

My desire is not to elect some boob, my advocacy for Dr. Paul notwithstanding. My primary desire is to create cognitive dissonance. I want people consciously aware of the true meanings of the words "liberty" and "freedom", and all that they entail, so that when they claim to support such things one moment and endorse military adventurism or totalitarianism in the name of "security" the next moment, their brains rebel against it. I want people who claim to support "freedom" to understand that they cannot have it for themselves unless they are willing to allow it for others, even if that means someone does not bow to their orthodoxy, observe their observances, or cut the grass to their satisfaction.

The human mind cannot stand a contradiction. It must either rationalize it, ignore it, or resolve it. I aim at goading people into just enough introspection that they cannot ignore their contradictions and their own rationalizations no longer make sense. To my knowledge, it has actually worked a time or two.

The rest is just fluff -- the party means nothing to me, because political parties do not edify people. No government has ever produced moral people, regardless of the party in control. Sure, I participate in the process, but my participation does not indicate in any way that I think the process will produce anything worthwhile. I mostly do it to shut people up, so I don't have to listen to the "if you don't vote, you can't complain" fallacy.

 

[hornadylnl]

And what is the purpose of the idealist, the purist, the political gadfly? To stand at the end of the rope and pull with all his might in the direction things ought to go. I, and I suspect hornadylnl, have no hope whatsoever of seeing the sea change. But I hammer the truth, relentlessly, because my one major goal is to disturb people with their own hypocrisies and logical inconsistencies.

My desire is not to elect some boob, my advocacy for Dr. Paul notwithstanding. My primary desire is to create cognitive dissonance. I want people consciously aware of the true meanings of the words "liberty" and "freedom", and all that they entail, so that when they claim to support such things one moment and endorse military adventurism or totalitarianism in the name of "security" the next moment, their brains rebel against it. I want people who claim to support "freedom" to understand that they cannot have it for themselves unless they are willing to allow it for others, even if that means someone does not bow to their orthodoxy, observe their observances, or cut the grass to their satisfaction.

The human mind cannot stand a contradiction. It must either rationalize it, ignore it, or resolve it. I aim at goading people into just enough introspection that they cannot ignore their contradictions and their own rationalizations no longer make sense. To my knowledge, it has actually worked a time or two.

The rest is just fluff -- the party means nothing to me, because political parties do not edify people. No government has ever produced moral people, regardless of the party in control. Sure, I participate in the process, but my participation does not indicate in any way that I think the process will produce anything worthwhile. I mostly do it to shut people up, so I don't have to listen to the "if you don't vote, you can't complain" fallacy.

You sir, are much better with words than I.


_____________________


And back to the flag issue. Does the flag represent American Idealism or our current reality?

 

[Phil502]

So in other words, as long as it's a purchase you approve of, it's OK.

Not at all, how do you know who bought the flags, maybe a friend gave them to her, maybe she won them at bingo, maybe she paid for them from a birthday gift. If the cell phones you are referring to are the ones given by the government then I say it's not the same.

Is the woman allowed to wear a girdle or do you think thats the same as a cell phone welfare handout?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And what is the purpose of the idealist, the purist, the political gadfly? To stand at the end of the rope and pull with all his might in the direction things ought to go. I, and I suspect hornadylnl, have no hope whatsoever of seeing the sea change. But I hammer the truth, relentlessly, because my one major goal is to disturb people with their own hypocrisies and logical inconsistencies.

(snipped)

While my original remark wasn't aimed at you, I take your point. However, when you "hammer the truth, relentlessly", it helps if you (the generic "you") do so articulately and not necessarily in a way that disparages others. If you aren't trying to persuade others over to your point of view, why bother to screech at them at all? "Hammering" oft-times makes us feel better, but doesn't do one thing to advance our views to others.

This gets back to my original take on hornadylnl's comments; one may choose to disparage others' views of what freedom means or how we can regain those freedoms, but unless one is willing to engage in discourse rather than sling insults, one will not be likely to be persuasive to others. And shouting down the opposition is what those we mostly disapprove of do.

 

[Fletch]

Not at all, how do you know who bought the flags, maybe a friend gave them to her, maybe she won them at bingo, maybe she paid for them from a birthday gift. If the cell phones you are referring to are the ones given by the government then I say it's not the same.

I'm making no statements with regard to gifts here.

Is the woman allowed to wear a girdle or do you think thats the same as a cell phone welfare handout?

A person who is self-supporting can morally do whatever they want (within the obvious limits of property rights blah blah blah). A person who is not cannot. The only point I am making is that a person on the dole has no moral claim to their discretionary income up to the limit of the value of the welfare they receive.

If your taxpayer subsidy amounts to $1000/month, and you wind up with $1000 of discretionary income on top of that, you don't have any discretionary income. Your priorities are to get off the dole, not buy flags or cell phones or big screen TV's.

I have personally put a roof over the head of a friend who had nowhere else to go -- he was in debt to his eyeballs, had just suffered a job-threatening injury, and would not be able to afford rent. I was happy to help him get his debt paid down and get back on his feet. My patience with the arrangement ended some months later when he started showing up with new guns and other toys.

My attitude toward public assistance (and other private charity) is the same. I will bust my ass to help you out, but if your attitude is that this allows you to coast and buy things that are not related in some way to alleviating the burden you've placed on others, I've got no more use for the arrangement.

 

[88GT]

A developer's typo versus a virtual murder campaign to force a tightening of gun laws getting the same amount of press attention is all the same to you?

In the world of only two possible choices--right and wrong--yes, it probably is all the same.

Oh I think we might work a little bit harder at taking a jab at Obama, such as this little gem of a gaffe where he managed to insult Poland.

Barack Obama has insulted 38 million Poles with his crass and ignorant 'Polish death camp' remark – Telegraph Blogs

That's just stupid. It's not technically incorrect, and I have a feeling people just want to complain about something. I jump at any opportunity to point out his inconsistencies and reflections of character manifested in his idiotic words, but this is just silliness.

While my original remark wasn't aimed at you, I take your point. However, when you "hammer the truth, relentlessly", it helps if you (the generic "you") do so articulately and not necessarily in a way that disparages others. If you aren't trying to persuade others over to your point of view, why bother to screech at them at all? "Hammering" oft-times makes us feel better, but doesn't do one thing to advance our views to others.

This gets back to my original take on hornadylnl's comments; one may choose to disparage others' views of what freedom means or how we can regain those freedoms, but unless one is willing to engage in discourse rather than sling insults, one will not be likely to be persuasive to others. And shouting down the opposition is what those we mostly disapprove of do.

Drat the limit on repping the same person multiple times.

 

[KG1]

Oh I think we might work a little bit harder at taking a jab at Obama, such as this little gem of a gaffe where he managed to insult Poland.

Barack Obama has insulted 38 million Poles with his crass and ignorant 'Polish death camp' remark – Telegraph Blogs

That's just stupid. It's not technically incorrect, and I have a feeling people just want to complain about something. I jump at any opportunity to point out his inconsistencies and reflections of character manifested in his idiotic words, but this is just silliness.

I agree. My point was that if one were so inclined to bash Obama over some kind of gaffe it might be something more substantial rather than posting something about a silly little typo using a misleading thread title.

 

[Phil502]

I'm making no statements with regard to gifts here.



A person who is self-supporting can morally do whatever they want (within the obvious limits of property rights blah blah blah). A person who is not cannot. The only point I am making is that a person on the dole has no moral claim to their discretionary income up to the limit of the value of the welfare they receive.

If your taxpayer subsidy amounts to $1000/month, and you wind up with $1000 of discretionary income on top of that, you don't have any discretionary income. Your priorities are to get off the dole, not buy flags or cell phones or big screen TV's.

I have personally put a roof over the head of a friend who had nowhere else to go -- he was in debt to his eyeballs, had just suffered a job-threatening injury, and would not be able to afford rent. I was happy to help him get his debt paid down and get back on his feet. My patience with the arrangement ended some months later when he started showing up with new guns and other toys.

My attitude toward public assistance (and other private charity) is the same. I will bust my ass to help you out, but if your attitude is that this allows you to coast and buy things that are not related in some way to alleviating the burden you've placed on others, I've got no more use for the arrangement.

Yea tea yea, she bought a 2 dollar flag and you got a problem with it, big deal. She probably bought a tube of Polident too, what a rotten old woman. Get off the dole, sure she's 70, maybe she can get a job as a computer programmer.

 

[Fletch]

Yea tea yea, she bought a 2 dollar flag and you got a problem with it, big deal. She probably bought a tube of Polident too, what a rotten old woman. Get off the dole, sure she's 70, maybe she can get a job as a computer programmer.

Namaste.