Obama officially announces

You know exactly what I mean and you know you know it and I know you know it.


So whas really the point here?

I do not assume the right to tax your property to educate my children, regardless of how important I think education is.

I do not assume the right to tax your income to support my health care or old age retirement fund, regardless of what I think of the necessities of both.

I do not assume the right to take, by eminent domain, or wildlife mitigation, your property to suit my ecological goals.


I do support your right to confiscate a portion of my productive time to defend the nation, I/E, an armed forces, I do support your right to confiscate a portion of my productive time to institute and maintain a protective force and court system to guard my rights and my property.

I would gladly contribute as required to support a road system to travel from place to place, although I would expect business and industry to provide a means to reach their establishments....

I would even gladly contribute to a fund that supported mentally deficient children, incapacitated children, homeless people of all ages and those who suffer catastrophic illness or disease or disaster.

But if you force me to do any of those things, I would not offer a single cent, beyond the threat of a gun to my head.


You...on the other hand...and many, if not most here, assume the right to 'force me' and everyone, to do your bidding. I have objected to that mindset all my life, I always will.

You have no 'right' to take anything from me or anyone else, without my, or their consent. Yet you proclaim moral superiority when you do.

Live with that.


amicus...

rgraham666 said:

I like Obama, but I don't see anyway in hell he can be elected. He just sets off too many triggers.

For some reason, which I can't fathom and from my point of view, America has become a deeply divided nation. Big portions of each end of the political spectrum no longer believe those at the other end even are Americans any more.

Click to expand...

I love this. That if someone disagrees with you then they cannot be 'American' like 'American' is a uniform type with a set way that they must think, act, talk and if you move outside these limits at all then you lose your nationality.

I don't think I've seen a rationale like that anywhere else. If someone disagrees with someone in the Uk then thay can say that the other one is wrong, sure, but not that they're 'un-English.' It's all very strange...
x
V

amicus said:

Hello Darkside...curious how we choose and use our screen names, eh?

The betwixt and between of those who advocate human freedom and those who advocate human slavery, can never be resolved...I know that. Thus debating you folks is futile and in vain, I know that also.

But I have been doing it, on various venues, for a long long time and perhaps have become, like Quiote', one who jousts at windmills, with little hope of victory.

Still, should the world devolve and descend into the darkside of human nature, as you suggest it should, I will feel I have fought the good fight.

So sally ye forth, one and all, confronting the forces of good, of reason of right, of logic and human dignity and proclaim the supremacy of the masses...for as long as I live and can speak, I will raise my sword against ye.

amicus...

Click to expand...

Actually, i would say you're more like the little fat guy.

Enabling the delusions of conservatives who want to convince me a windmill is dragon (gay marriage)... and a dragon is a windmill (Iraq).

But forsooth, loyal squire... continue to serve your masters blindly! I'm sure at your death, you will be rewarded with 97 mostly virginal females! I say mostly because you know, the masters have droit de cuissage thing, which they would definitely claim. ('Cause being a master, I certainly would if the virgin was pretty enough.)

amicus said:

I would even gladly contribute to a fund that supported mentally deficient children, incapacitated children, homeless people of all ages and those who suffer catastrophic illness or disease or disaster.

Click to expand...

Yeah - and maybe even women, too, if we get down off our feminist high-horses and back in the bedroom/kitchen [deletes as appropriate] where we belong...

x
V

Vermilion said:

Yeah - and maybe even women, too, if we get down off our feminist high-horses and back in the bedroom/kitchen [deletes as appropriate] where we belong...

x
V

Click to expand...

I think Amicus puts women under the 'mentally deficient children' category... he would much prefer to classify them as 'pets', but dogs only bark and whine so it's kinda tough not to say women are higher on the evolutionary ladder.

It wouldn't be rational.

Belegon....

"...I should point out here that I am not: black, hispanic, socialist, a member of a labor union or the teacher's union, gay or a druggie. I may be bohemian or a malcontent, depending on definition. I am a Democrat..."

~~~


Been thinking on your statement I put in bold face.

I am sure I have said this before, somewhere, maybe here, dunno....the movie, "Random Hearts" with Harrison Ford and...ah damn, girls name escapes me...she is a Republican congresswoman, she fears he is a Democrat and suggests he read some books and learn a little.

From other sources and inputs, many young idealistic young people turn to the Democrat Party to try to 'save the world', but when they mature, become adult and responsible, become Republican.

Such is life, I guess. I am not a member of any party or any faith, but rather philosophically more, much more, attuned to the right than the left...


such as it is...


amicus....

[I said:

elsol]Actually, i would say you're more like the little fat guy.

Enabling the delusions of conservatives who want to convince me a windmill is dragon (gay marriage)... and a dragon is a windmill (Iraq).

But forsooth, loyal squire... continue to serve your masters blindly! I'm sure at your death, you will be rewarded with 97 mostly virginal females! I say mostly because you know, the masters have droit de cuissage thing, which they would definitely claim. ('Cause being a master, I certainly would if the virgin was pretty enough.)

Click to expand...

[/I]

~~~


Ah, Elsol, I see you are not above the below the belt, personal affrontation when you lack a rational response.

Not that I expected anything more...but...I am not the 'little fat guy'.


amicus...

Roxanne Appleby said:

And just as substance-free.

Click to expand...

Regardless of political posturing, we really don't have anything but any candidate's word about what s/he'd do as commander-in-chief. (You wanna talk about follow-thru on the current administration's campaign promises?) Obama has a record of: (a) centrist speaking; (b) party-line voting; and (c) an absence of mud-slinging. That's a damned good start for a candidate. (I don't need a screeching, outspoken Howard Dean to inspire me.) The fact that he has groups like the Traditional Values Coalition calling him "an anti-life, anti-traditional marriage candidate" is a HUGE plus for me.

Y'know, inspiring hope is not to be discounted here. It's a very, very powerful force and one that's accomplished much throughout history. Without it, we are a reactionary nation. I have no hope/faith/confidence in our country's current leaders. None. Zero. I live from day to day just praying that they don't make a worse mess of things before another administration can step in and begin the process of cleaning it up.

I'm ashamed of my country as it is viewed by the other nations of the world. Ashamed and embarrassed.

The amount of erosion we've allowed -- condoned, in some instances -- to our civil liberties makes me very afraid. That slope is so, so, so slippery.

I don't want to feel ashamed of my country anymore. I don't want to feel afraid of my government anymore. I don't want to feel embarrassed by our president anymore. I'd much rather feel hope.

impressive said:

Regardless of political posturing, we really don't have anything but any candidate's word about what s/he'd do as commander-in-chief. (You wanna talk about follow-thru on the current administration's campaign promises?) Obama has a record of: (a) centrist speaking; (b) party-line voting; and (c) an absence of mud-slinging. That's a damned good start for a candidate. (I don't need a screeching, outspoken Howard Dean to inspire me.) The fact that he has groups like the Traditional Values Coalition calling him "an anti-life, anti-traditional marriage candidate" is a HUGE plus for me.

Y'know, inspiring hope is not to be discounted here. It's a very, very powerful force and one that's accomplished much throughout history. Without it, we are a reactionary nation. I have no hope/faith/confidence in our country's current leaders. None. Zero. I live from day to day just praying that they don't make a worse mess of things before another administration can step in and begin the process of cleaning it up.

I'm ashamed of my country as it is viewed by the other nations of the world. Ashamed and embarrassed.

The amount of erosion we've allowed -- condoned, in some instances -- to our civil liberties makes me very afraid. That slope is so, so, so slippery.

I don't want to feel ashamed of my country anymore. I don't want to feel afraid of my government anymore. I don't want to feel embarrassed by our president anymore. I'd much rather feel hope.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Belegon said:

Full report please.

Click to expand...

Uh, I got it for you without even seeing it. He made alot if promises. He took full advantage of the fact that he was not in a posistion to vote at all for or against the war in Iraq. They he spewed out some very uplifiting, yet vague and empty phrases about change.

impressive said:

Y'know, inspiring hope is not to be discounted here. It's a very, very powerful force and one that's accomplished much throughout history. Without it, we are a reactionary nation. I have no hope/faith/confidence in our country's current leaders. None. Zero. I live from day to day just praying that they don't make a worse mess of things before another administration can step in and begin the process of cleaning it up..

Click to expand...

Inspiring hope may be enough to get somebody elected. It doesn't mean they know dick about actually doing the job.

impressive said:

I'm ashamed of my country as it is viewed by the other nations of the world. Ashamed and embarrassed.

The amount of erosion we've allowed -- condoned, in some instances -- to our civil liberties makes me very afraid. That slope is so, so, so slippery.

I don't want to feel ashamed of my country anymore. I don't want to feel afraid of my government anymore. I don't want to feel embarrassed by our president anymore. I'd much rather feel hope.

Click to expand...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Don't feel ashamed for the country that is working to protect the proveleges and freedoms that you enjoy now. Feel sorry for the ones that are too chicken shit to help in the fight.

S-Des said:

It's not what he's done, I suspect Roxanne is upset at the way he's approaching the race (kind of like Miss America saying she wants world peace). He's completely unqualified for the office and hasn't taken a stand on anything (other than the war, which at this point is the easiest thing in the world to do). His approach seems rather cynical and has people in his own party questioning just what exactly he can and will do if given the opportunity.

Actually, I find it very interesting that some have an immediate knee jerk reaction of dislike. It seems they must discredit him as soon as possible because he presents a real danger to the present administration.

This doesn't mean I don't like him. On the contrary...I do. He's my Senator and I'm hoping he developes a backbone because he has a number of very desirable qualities, not the least of which is the way he impresses virtually everyone he meets (one could almost call it Clintonian ). If his actual positions are even remotely in the ballpark of what I believe, I'll be voting for him and even take a look at volunteering. Also it will be very important for him to surround himself with really good people to offset his inexperience (he hasn't even served one term as a state Senator). At the moment, no one can actually say what he believes, besides the platitudes. Trust me, it's a subject of daily conversation on the political shows in the Chicago area and no one is denying the things Roxanne is pointing out. If she seems harsh, I would guess it's because she's frustrated that he hasn't been more a man of his convictions to this point. I would like to see the first African American president to be a Martin Luther King or Malcom X, not a used car salesman...just telling people what they want to hear.

Roxanne can probably speak for herself, but honestly - do you believe what you just posted or are you quoting it from a deeply conservative mudslinging talk show? Obama hasn't been a man of his convictions?

In my opinion, it would make him a shoe-in for the Presidency. Juliani is a favorite in the Republican field, despite clashing with the majority on virtually every social issue...but at least he takes a stand. Obama could learn a lot from his example.

Click to expand...

I hope Obama doesn't learn anything from Giuliani.

PAGuy27 said:

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Don't feel ashamed for the country that is working to protect the proveleges and freedoms that you enjoy now. Feel sorry for the ones that are too chicken shit to help in the fight.

Click to expand...

It would be quite easy to turn my back on this country IF I didn't have hope that the upcoming presidential election would bring about the much-needed change. I really don't want to live in GWB's America. It's an ugly bully with bad breath.

The sooner we can wash the stench of his presidency from our skin, the better. I fear, though, that washing the guilt of it from our souls will take much longer.

impressive said:

It would be quite easy to turn my back on this country IF I didn't have hope that the upcoming presidential election would bring about the much-needed change. I really don't want to live in GWB's America. It's an ugly bully with bad breath.

The sooner we can wash the stench of his presidency from our skin, the better. I fear, though, that washing the guilt of it from our souls will take much longer.

Click to expand...

*smiling happily*
I KNEW I didn't have to stand up for you, much as I was tempted. You're more than able to answer your own critics.

impressive said:

It would be quite easy to turn my back on this country IF I didn't have hope that the upcoming presidential election would bring about the much-needed change. I really don't want to live in GWB's America. It's an ugly bully with bad breath.

The sooner we can wash the stench of his presidency from our skin, the better. I fear, though, that washing the guilt of it from our souls will take much longer.

Click to expand...

*applauds*

What I want to know is what a candidate has to do prove he has substance. What is required for people to know his views? I'm asking because there's so much of an attack that no one knows where Obama stands and he's just a personality with no substance, etc, and yet within half an hour of doing some research on him yesterday I know his views on several topics (not just the war), at least as much as one can "know" another's views. I guess I just don't understand.

sophia jane said:

What I want to know is what a candidate has to do prove he has substance. What is required for people to know his views? I'm asking because there's so much of an attack that no one knows where Obama stands and he's just a personality with no substance, etc, and yet within half an hour of doing some research on him yesterday I know his views on several topics (not just the war), at least as much as one can "know" another's views. I guess I just don't understand.

Click to expand...

It's the standard partisan attack when one is too lazy to attack on issues, SJ. No more, no less.

minsue said:

It's the standard partisan attack when one is too lazy to attack on issues, SJ. No more, no less.

Click to expand...

It would have to be because I just spent another ten minutes and found a wealth of information on his voting record and his opinions on just about every issue, including all of the ones that are important to me.

matriarch said:

. . . even to my tolerant eyes, the insulting vocabulary of your post, the level of your cyncism, and the offhand dismissal of this guy simply takes my breath away. What's he ever done to you, to engender such barely concealed anger and distaste, so early on in what feels like the never ending circus of presidential elections?

Sheesh.

Click to expand...

impressive said:

Y'know, inspiring hope is not to be discounted here. It's a very, very powerful force and one that's accomplished much throughout history. Without it, we are a reactionary nation. I have no hope/faith/confidence in our country's current leaders.

Click to expand...

Belegon said:

He's written two books.

You want to find out more about the man from his own mouth? Go read.

I just bought the first of them and that's what I'm going to do...

You're doing an awful lot of tearing down for someone who seems to want to present a face of neutrality and rational thought, and without a lot of hard information behind your rant.

At the current time, I fear I have a large distrust of your motives.

Click to expand...

Bel, my motives are completely transparent, or will be in about two seconds: I have a general contempt for all the current major party contenders, and likely any potential ones in the future. They are all about just two things - ambition for power and vanity - and if you think otherwise you are fooling yourself. This thread is about Obama, so that's who I'm deconstructing here. I have no greater animus against him than against any of the others. Less, probably, because I am policy-oriented, and he has not stated any specific policies for me to oppose.

The only thing I'm passionate about here - and I'm not really - it that this candidate is an empty suit. Go ahead and read the book - you'll find it as carefully constructed as the speeches. It will taste great, and be just as less filling in terms of any substance. As S-Des put it, it's the Miss America strategy - "I'm for world peace and feeding all the hungry puppies." Who isn't? He'll try to ride this all the way with rope-a-dope tactics.


Last night I thought about a word that seems to be the theme in the enthusiasm for this candidate: Hope. Perhaps it's unkind of me to take any of that positive feeling away from anyone, but it doesn't matter because you are bound to be disappointed anyway. And not because Obama is insincere or even that he would be ineffective - for all I know he is sincere, and would be effective once he’s decided which policies to be effective about.

No, you'll be disappointed because you're seeking hope in place where it won’t be found: Politics and government. The hallmark of these is dishonesty and disappointment. The reason isn't because the people involved are necessarily bad or dishonest, but the very structure of the thing. Specifically, two characteristics of it, I think: Bureaucracy and the mutually conflicting policies are are the inevitable outcome of a political process.

Government is at root bureaucracy (backed by coercion.) Bureaucracies are capable of performing routine, repetitive functions that can be laid out in a legal code or manual. Max Weber described one of them (the legal system) as "a vending machine into which the pleadings are inserted together with the fee and which then disgorges the judgment together with the reasons mechanically derived from the Code."

But we have asked bureaucracies to do much, much more, something they are inherently incapable of because it's impossible to break down into routines: We've asked them to solve social problems and meet complex human needs.

And that points to the second reason you'll be disappointed if you look to government as a source for hope. The laws that give bureaucracies those impossible missions are themselves filled with contradictions that sabotage the effort from the very start. That's because those laws are created in a political process that balances demands and limits from many different directions. The result is called a "compromise," and it means a program that can't work.

An example those here will appreciate: Yes, we provide welfare, but in amounts small enough to guarantee that no recipient will get really ahead. We insert a trap door - if you make more than X amount the welfare stops. Then we try to counter all these perverse incentives by imposing an intrusive bureaucracy and regulations over these people's lives. (BTW, if you’re response is, “Yeah well we should raise the benefits” – fine. Double them. Nothing fundamental changes, and you create a bunch of new problems. The entire system is a Gordian knot.)

The bottom line is, we have learned in the past century that government is incompetent, helpless, at dealing with complex human needs. Only with a naive statist faith - yes faith as in belief in face of contrary evidence - can one still believe that the solution is to tinker with the welfare state in all the ways that candidates on all sides propose.

To end on a brighter note, here's the kind of 'big idea' that can make me hopeful. Not necessarily the details, just the act of thinking so far outside the box. It won't come about through 'normal politics,' as the political scientists describe the usual process of candidates jostling within the current window of politically possible, but only when that window moves because the majority abandons that naive statist faith. When they get tired of trying to kick that football Lucy's holding and ending up flat on their backs.

This began with me responding to Bel's distrust of my motives. Bel, I'm not really engaged in the 'normal politics' at the presidential campaign level. I don't have a candidate, and won't have one. In the end I'll likely end up voting for the evil of two lessers, and my choice of evil probably won't be the same as yours. But I won't have anything invested in any of it - certainly not 'hope.'


(And you can give me a smooch anytime, Belegon. )

Roxanne Appleby said:

Bel, my motives are completely transparent, or will be in about two seconds: I have a general contempt for all the current major party contenders, and likely any potential ones in the future. This thread is about Obama, so that's who I'm deconstructing here. I have no greater animus against him than against any of the others. Less, probably, because I am policy-oriented, and he has not stated any specific policies for me to oppose.

Take note of that last. It's likely that my policy preferences are diametrically opposed to those of most people here, possibly including yourself. So if I am passionately against the policies of a candidate, that's probably who you want. ( ). The only thing I'm passionate about here - and I'm not really - it that this candidate is an empty suit. Go ahead and read the book - you'll find it as carefully constructed as the speeches. It will taste great, and be just as less filling in terms of any substance.


Last night I thought about a word that seems to be the theme in the enthusiasm for this candidate: Hope. Perhaps it's unkind of me to take any of that positive feeling away from anyone, but it doesn't matter because you are bound to be disappointed anyway. And not because Obama is insincere or even that he would be ineffective - for all I know he is sincere, and would be effective once he’s decided which policies to be effective about.

No, you'll be disappointed because you're seeking hope in place where it won’t be found: Politics and government. The hallmark of these is dishonesty and disappointment. The reason isn't because the people involved are necessarily bad or dishonest, but the very structure of the thing. Specifically, two characteristics of it, I think: Bureaucracy and the mutually conflicting policies are are the inevitable outcome of a political process.

Government is at root bureaucracy (backed by coercion.) Bureaucracies are capable of performing routine, repetitive functions that can be laid out in a legal code or manual. Max Weber described one of them (the legal system) as "a vending machine into which the pleadings are inserted together with the fee and which then disgorges the judgment together with the reasons mechanically derived from the Code."

But we have asked bureaucracies to do much, much more; we’ve demanded they do something they are inherently incapable of because it's impossible to break the task down into routines: We've asked them to solve social problems and meet complex human needs.

And that points to the second reason you'll be disappointed if you look to government as a source for hope. The laws that give bureaucracies those impossible missions are themselves filled with contradictions that sabotage the effort from the very start. That's because those laws are created in a political process that balances demands and limits from many different directions. The result is called a "compromise," and it means a program that can't work.

An example those here will appreciate: Yes, we provide welfare, but in amounts small enough to guarantee that no recipient will get really ahead. We insert a trap door - if you make more than X amount the welfare stops. Then we try to counter all these perverse incentives by imposing an intrusive bureaucracy and regulations over these people's lives. (BTW, if you’re response is, “Yeah well we should raise the benefits” – fine. Double them. Nothing fundamental changes, and you create a bunch of new problems. The entire system is a Gordian knot.)

The bottom line is, we have learned in the past century that government is incompetent, helpless, at dealing with complex human needs. Only with a naive statist faith - yes faith as in belief in face of contrary evidence - can one still believe that the solution is to tinker with the welfare state in all the ways that candidates on all sides propose.

To end on a brighter note, here's the kind of 'big idea' that can make me hopeful. Not necessarily the details, just the act of thinking so far outside the box. It won't come about through 'normal politics,' as the political scientists describe the usual process of candidates jostling within the current window of politically possible, but only when that window moves because the majority abandons that naive statist faith. When they get tired of trying to kick that football Lucy's holding and ending up flat on their backs.

This began with me responding to Bel's distrust of my motives. Bel, I'm not really engaged in the 'normal politics' at the presidential campaign level. I don't have a candidate, and won't have one. In the end I'll likely end up voting for the evil of two lessers, and my choice of evil probably won't be the same as yours. But I won't have anything invested in any of it - certainly not 'hope.'


(And you can give me a smooch anytime, Belegon.)

Click to expand...

Roxanne,

Your suit is emptier than the one you claim is worn by Obama. You've said nothing other than that you're a cynic who no one can please. I don't understand why you bother to engage in political debate at all.

The only way a candidate can have policies for you to support is to be in a position to make policy. If a candidate's words are insufficient, then a voting record should give an idea of policy views. What more do you want?

ALL political speeches are "carefully constructed." Do you expect them NOT to be? To what end? Do you want a leader who does not value the impact of his/her words, who does not consider their repercussions, who does not at least attempt to inspire ... hope? (Do you want a leader at all?)

I completely disagree that hope cannot be found in politics and government. What BETTER place for it? Politics -- like hope -- is the art of the possible.

impressive said:

Roxanne,

Your suit is emptier than the one you claim is worn by Obama. You've said nothing other than that you're a cynic who no one can please. I don't understand why you bother to engage in political debate at all.

The only way a candidate can have policies for you to support is to be in a position to make policy. If a candidate's words are insufficient, then a voting record should give an idea of policy views. What more do you want?

ALL political speeches are "carefully constructed." Do you expect them NOT to be? To what end? Do you want a leader who does not value the impact of his/her words, who does not consider their repercussions, who does not at least attempt to inspire ... hope? (Do you want a leader at all?)

I completely disagree that hope cannot be found in politics and government. What BETTER place for it? Politics -- like hope -- is the art of the possible.

Click to expand...

Well we disagree. I hope we can do so agreeably.

"Politics -- like hope -- is the art of the possible." That which is possible in politics is inherently incapable of dealing with complex human needs. This is why government will always disappoint and frustrate when given that task.

People call me a cynic because I do not share the statist faith that government can deal with complex human needs. Some look down on me because they assume this must mean I don't care if complex needs are not dealt with.

Consider for a moment that I care just as much as you. If that is the case, ask yourself what must be going through my head. If I care just as much as you then I wouldn't be able to just shrug and turn my back at the sight of complex human needs not being dealt with, would I? So I must have some alternative in mind.

I do. It's called civil society. It's a huge philosophical discussion that is not appropriate to this thread. Most of you will say that I am moved by a faith that has no more foundation in reality than your faith in the ability of government to deal with complex human needs. That's fine, and I'll never convince most of you to join my “faith.” But consider one more thing: There is a vast amount of evidence disproving your faith, and still you hold it, because you do care about those unmet needs, and yet can't imagine any other way to meet them on such a massive scale. But there's one thing that can be said for my "faith": It's never been tried in an affluent post-industrial society, so I'm not holding it in spite of evidence that it doesn’t work.

Consider, then, the possibility that I'm the very opposite of a cynic. I'm someone who refuses to hold onto a broken faith, and so picks up a hopeful new one.

Roxanne Appleby said:

But there's one thing that can be said for my "faith": It's never been tried in an affluent post-industrial society, so I'm not holding it in spite of evidence that it doesn’t work.

Click to expand...

Sounds a whole helluva lot like an empty suit selling hope to me.

More power to ya, friend.

And by the way: If you insist that I really “don’t care” about complex human needs – that I am indifferent to human suffering, and am a cold, heartless, inhumane and essentially inhuman - then all you are doing is substituting insult for thought. Given what I believe about government being incapable dealing with complex human needs, I could just as easily conclude that you don’t care – which would be the same insult.

So, are we going to insult each other, or accord each other a presumption of good will? I presume that those who disagree with me here are motivated by good will toward all humans. I ask the same consideration. If you are not willing to give it then please inform me so I can avoid wasting both or our time.

edited to add:

This was not directed at Imp, but was just a general statement preempting what often happens when the debate reaches this point.


PS. When the struggle is over power, as in congress, or jousting between candidates, insults may not be inappropriate. But in an environment where "power" is not at issue, like a intellectual or even political discussion here, insults really aren't appropriate. There's no "power" at stake here because there won't be any winners or losers. We're not going to vote to expell a "loser" from Lit, for example.

Roxanne Appleby said:

And by the way: If you insist that I really “don’t care” about complex human needs – that I am indifferent to human suffering, and am a cold, heartless, inhumane and essentially inhuman - then all you are doing is substituting insult for thought. Given what I believe about government being incapable dealing with complex human needs, I could just as easily conclude that you don’t care – which would be the same insult.

So, are we going to insult each other, or accord each other a presumption of good will? I presume that those who disagree with me here are motivated by good will toward all humans. I ask the same consideration. If you are not willing to give it then please inform me so I can avoid wasting both or our time.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I've done so, but if you believe I've insulted you, I apologize.

To each, y'know?

amicus said:

You know exactly what I mean and you know you know it and I know you know it.


So whas really the point here?

I do not assume the right to tax your property to educate my children, regardless of how important I think education is.

I do not assume the right to tax your income to support my health care or old age retirement fund, regardless of what I think of the necessities of both.

I do not assume the right to take, by eminent domain, or wildlife mitigation, your property to suit my ecological goals.


I do support your right to confiscate a portion of my productive time to defend the nation, I/E, an armed forces, I do support your right to confiscate a portion of my productive time to institute and maintain a protective force and court system to guard my rights and my property.

I would gladly contribute as required to support a road system to travel from place to place, although I would expect business and industry to provide a means to reach their establishments....

I would even gladly contribute to a fund that supported mentally deficient children, incapacitated children, homeless people of all ages and those who suffer catastrophic illness or disease or disaster.

But if you force me to do any of those things, I would not offer a single cent, beyond the threat of a gun to my head.


You...on the other hand...and many, if not most here, assume the right to 'force me' and everyone, to do your bidding. I have objected to that mindset all my life, I always will.

You have no 'right' to take anything from me or anyone else, without my, or their consent. Yet you proclaim moral superiority when you do.

Live with that.


amicus...

Click to expand...

Sounds like North Korea is the kind of place you would love to be. All you do is spout the party line and bray the praises of the Dear Leader.

I will gladly give a portion of my income for education, healthcare etc. People who came before me did it, and now is my time to step up to the plate.

I, and people like me are morally superior to you, and we will always be. We do things out of compassion. We care about our fellow man/woman/child. We care about the world we live in, and want to see a better future for those who are yet to come.

Go bow down to your altar of Bechtel and Haliburton. Exalt the gods of War, and Finance. On the day, and in the hour of your death you will leave this world with what you brought into it, nothing.