"willfully ignorant"

[Pure]

Hi amicus,

Thanks for coming down from the mountaintop and communing with us of limited, non-Randian vision.


It is at this point, when the advocates of command government begin to deride those who do not see how right they are about the, 'poor' 'unemployed' 'hunger' 'no minimum wage' and a hundred other examples that makes a rational response come forth with clenched teeth.

They seem to think that it is clearly obvious to anyone but stupid me, that is government controls all the resources of the population, government will solve all the problems of mankind. You look down your nose at those of us who advocate freedom and choice from your position of 'knowing' you and your government could manage our lives much better than we can if left alone. Are you really serious?

Government takes your money, your time, your energy and then tells you how to live your life.

It's smoothly written, but pretty much a priori. Verbal formulas and quasi definitions, but no evidence. Government equals 'command government' which equals 'taking your money etc.', i.e., oppression.

You do not seem to look at how alternative entities, like General Motors, or IBM or MacDonalds, or Standard Life Insurance take my money.

The position of the 'others' is caricatured: government will solve all problems. (In fact it's that there evidence good governments in some cases solve some problems.)

I hold it's an empirical question to what degree a government is a tyrrany or is oppressive.

I also hold it's an empirical question when some matters are best handled by the 'government' (which level you never say).

For instance, most countries of US, Canada, W. Europe have moved to state-run unemployment insurance; and state-run old age pensions. There are of course countries without them, but they tend to be poor. (This insurance could be at the federal or provincial/state level.)

You are going to say, "How horrible people are being robbed for the premiums, and enslaved under these 'unemployment' and 'old age' schemes."

Like utopians in the past, you have no evidence, but you say, "If you would only try privatising unemployment insurance and old age pensions, it would be much better. Persons would be free."

Actually some places have tried going in one direction or the other. These are empirical matters.

Why am I tyrannized if I pay the state of Michigan a premium, but not if I pay Standard Life a Premium? Because I can shop around?
You pretend there is no such thing as oligopoly and price fixing.

To take an example that's 'hot'. "State" (=provincial) auto insurance has been proposed. I hold we should look at its workings. There are, in Canada, provinces that have it, and those that don't. Well in my area that does not, premiums are skyrocketing, and there's a lot of dissatisfaction. To address the matter empirically, one must look at 'delivery' of the goods (settlements) and prices.


Yes, amicus, there is a place for men of vision. Sometimes they have fine ideas. Ridding the world of despotic monarchies was a vision; now it's mostly done. Capitalism and communism were visions.

Your capitalism, you will say, is, in Rand's words 'an unknown ideal'. It's never been left alone enough to suit you. For some reason you reject the evidence from periods of very much less regulation, which have existed in US, England, Germany. People on their own, and their employers MIGHT NOT have set up government unemployment insurance and old age pensions, but problems were happening. So the other approach was tried: relatively pure capitalism evolved towards 'mixed approaches.'

And most people who live in countries with old age pensions are relatively satisfied. I know you'd like to run the experiment again. That's what Thatcher was about. Fine. Privatise an area, and see how it works. Let's see if private airlines can actually provide security, for example.

It's fun, but pretty pointless to argue in terms of your abstractions. Talking to you about 'government' is like talking to GWB about 'patriotism' or the Falwell about sodomy. Evidence is never produced, and the historical analogies are bad.

Best,
J.

 

[rgraham666]

Pure, I am rapidly approaching the conclusion that most human behaviour is an extension of higher primates behaviour. We are generally:

A) doing what out alphas tell us to do. And:

B) conspiring to become alphas ourselves.

Even those who regard ourselves as individuals are also parts of a group. Very few humans could live entirely on their own and even fewer would maintain their sanity for long. I have personal knowledge of this as I isolated myself from the world for quite a while, and it certainly didn't help the mental illness I suffer from.

I can't say I know much about Burke. Most of what I know is from The Doubter's Companion by John Ralston Saul.

Here's another favourite from Burke quoted in this book.

It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union…with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him…their business unremitted attention. It is his duty…to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you…or to any set of men living.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices to your opinion.

It seems to me that Mr. Burke realises the impossibility of perfect solutions. That sometimes you must follow and sometimes must lead, and hope to hell you pick the right times to do the proper thing.

There is a book on Burke I have been looking for: The Great Melody - A Thematic Biography and Commented Anthology of Edmund Burke by Conor Cruise O'Brien that sounds like it would give you an excellent overview of Burke's life.

Amicus, perhaps a change of perspective would help. Rather than 'oppressive', 'restraining' may be a better word. All societies restrain the actions of the people who live within them. Some have used religious restrictions, most legal restrictions and there are a few, rarely used, philosophical restrictions.

Myself, I prefer my restrictions come from within. And it would be a wonderful world if all people restrict their actions out of personal, well thought out belief.

But that ain't gonna happen, Hell, you can't even get get everybody to sing The Star Spangled Banner in the same key at the same time.

So governments have restrictive power to prevent actions that they believe should be prevented. In a democracy, theoretically, we tell the government what we want restricted.

It might also be useful if you thought of government as setting the rules of the game. Any game has rules. It sets the goals, the places to cross and not cross, what actions are allowed and not allowed, what equipment can be used and how long to play. A game with no rules would not be a lot of fun, especially for an individual with no one to back him up. It would also be hard to win as no one would have the slightest idea what they were doing. And being humans, we would immediately start to form teams to define the rules and force them on others.

I'm afraid I find egoistic as perjorative a word as selfish. A system based purely on looking out for number one is not one I would want to live in. I am as snarly an individual as you would want to meet, but I realise I hold a duty and responsibility for the happiness and betterment of others. In certain situations, I would give up everything to fulfill that duty.

If, to use an extreme and rather improbable example, I encountered a gang of men about to rape and murder a woman, I would lay down my life to save her or buy her enough time to get away. As a line from Heinlein goes, by my standards it would be "ultimate cost for perfect value."

A system such as you propose amicus, would let the woman die. Gotta look out for number one after all.

 

[Guest]

And you didn't need to state that you don't know Colly well. That much is obvious by the ignorant remark you made in the same sentence. In the future, you might want to refrain from questioning a person's intelligence until you have any sort of basis for that assertion. It would save you from saying utterly idiotic things like your belief that Colly isn't intelligent. (and, yes, we've already established that I call people names. At this point, I'm a tad too pissed to tell you yours.)

- Mindy

I never said that she wasn't intelligent. I simply stated that I've not seen the intelligence from her that I was told about. So Mindy if you could please stop putting words in my mouth it would be much appreciated.

 

[Guest]

For instance, most countries of US, Canada, W. Europe have moved to state-run unemployment insurance; and state-run old age pensions. There are of course countries without them, but they tend to be poor. (This insurance could be at the federal or provincial/state level.)

Fort Worth, TX switch to privatized pension, (Social Security), and the retirees there get a lot more money per month when compared to the rest of the country.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I never said that she wasn't intelligent. I simply stated that I've not seen the intelligence from her that I was told about. So Mindy if you could please stop putting words in my mouth it would be much appreciated.

To borrow your own words:

I hate to change the topic, but I saw no where in the patriot act, the real one that's available from the Library of Congress, or the one you posted, where if remove Judicial oversight from the USC.

So I ask you. Where in the PATRIOT act does it do this. No more rambling. I want to see a specific reference to a section in the PATRIOT act where it does this. If it doesn't remove it specifically remove it, that means it's still there.

I provided you with detailed, subsection by sub section information directly from USA Patriot where our civil rights ARE being abridged. No more rambling, as you said. Show me where they aren't.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

SeaK said,

"Fort Worth, TX switch to privatized pension, (Social Security), and the retirees there get a lot more money per month when compared to the rest of the country."

Please cite your source. Also what do you mean "Fort Worth"--do you mean employees of the City of Fort Worth? or all workers in companies in Fort Worth, or what?

I'm sure there are good private pension plans. I've never stated the contrary. Many unions, and professional groups-- of whom amicus would not approve, incidentally-- have gotten them.

The present US and Canada system has a (federal) government- run one as a safety net. This is a 'mixed' solution (private and state) for the society as a whole. Unless you're doctrinaire like amicus, there is not necessarily anything wrong with this.

What I highly doubt is that everyone is Fort Worth is in a private plan. I'm virtually certain that the working poor in Ft Wort., use a Texas or US run pension plan when they retire. Amicus will say their pockets are being picked (during their working years), but most are probably glad it's there.

Of course the ultimate retort of the abstract person, is that the people *shouldn't like the US pension plan. They've been corrupted. IF it were not there, they'd be in a more bracing environment and they would all become hardy individualists like amicus, or die off. This is a Thatcherite or quasi Darwinian doctrinaire approach and of course it cannot be refuted, just voted down (by those who don't want things quite so 'bracing').

The point I want to underscore is that excepting in the US, conservatives in most developed countries have no problem with gov-run old age pensions as a safety net (which doesn't forbid the existence of other pension schemes). There's inter party agreement. That's because they are more in the pragmatic 'Burkean' position, rather than the 'least government possible', Ayn Randian position.

I maintain that 'least government possible' or absolutely unrestrained capitalism, with taxes only for police, courts and army is NOT in fact, a 'conservative' position. 'Radical right' would be a better label (or perhaps 'libertarian', if that term is carefuly defined). Of course that label doesn't settle the argument. The argument has been made in this and the previous posting.

J.

 

[rgraham666]

Pure? I'm not sure that the people touting a "neo-Darwinist" approach actually understand evolution.

Competition within a species is rarely to the death. Almost all species of which I am aware limit their internal competition to non-lethal methods.

There will be display competition such as you often see in birds, or if physical, it is things like head butting such as you see in sheep, deer and the like.

The only species I know of where internal competion is fatal are humans and chimpanzees.

Humans I don't need to elucidate on. But I have heard of a case where two beta (for lack of a better term) chimps snuck up on an alpha and killed him in his sleep.

And I saw a film where the males of one troop patrolled the fringes of their territory, caught a female and child from another troop, and killed them both. They then ate pieces of them in a ritualistic fashion.

The point I'm trying to make is that species keep internal competition to a point that it doesn't subtract genes from the pool. Maybe an individual not successful this year will be next year.

I believe that if we followed the approach of the "Darwinists" our species would more likely be destroyed than strengthened.

 

[amicus]

Emperical Empiricism

A discarded philosophy...Empiricism...although it added to man's knowledge...Einstein predicted, without any empirical experience that light would be bent as it passed by a large gravitational mass. Indeed, transistors and micro-chips would not exist, if indeed we depended only upon "Empirical" knowledge there would be no science at all.

An of course, it is a contradiction in terms...the first men (and women) who discovered anything for the first time, did so sans, emperical knowledge.

I have always found it somewhat amusing, that defenders of the faith, of command government, never refer back to the empirical evidence that exists in abundance to just how miserably each and every one has failed. Instead, the normal attack on the 'independent mind' and how impossible an experiment freedom and liberty really is. Not withstanding that the one nation that enumerated that 'individual liberty and justice', is and has been the most successful nation in all of recorded history.

Racism, abolished, by law, under the constitution.
Women's rights, instituted by law.
Freedom of expression, by law.
Freedom from religion, by law.

A tremendous leap in every field of human endeavor, under freedom and still you doubt its' veracity?

I think my conclusion that some people are born left wing and will always remain so. And by the way, Fascists, such as the National Socialists of Germany and Italy, are left wing, not right wing.

Capitalism...a free market place, has flooded the world with production..deny that.

Before mankind can move to the next level, a greater amount of freedom, a greater amount of self responsibility must occur.

Even in the United States, more free than any other nation, we still are treated as adolescents by our government, by our laws.

Until we are free to choose, among ALL the choices, we shall never, as a people, mature psychologically.

It is the mature human adult, choosing...those things that will benefit him that provides the motive force for progress.

You want government to do it all...I say leave it to the people. Look up the definition of the word bureaucrat, those who work for government. In 40 years of dealing, as a reporter, with government agents and agencies, I don't want them to even run a dog pound, let alone a national health program or an educational system...how's that for some 'empirical knowledge?'

They called the framers or our Constitution, Utopian Idealists, and now you call me that because I advocate freedom; I take that as a compliment, thank you.

regards...amicus

 

[minsue]

I never said that she wasn't intelligent. I simply stated that I've not seen the intelligence from her that I was told about. So Mindy if you could please stop putting words in my mouth it would be much appreciated.

You really must go into politics, SK. You've got quite a way with spin.

 

[Somme]

Re: Emperical Empiricism

(edited for brevity)


And by the way, Fascists, such as the National Socialists of Germany and Italy, are left wing, not right wing.



regards...amicus

They are? A preposterpus claim, I'd have thought....

 

[minsue]

Re: Emperical Empiricism

I think my conclusion that some people are born left wing and will always remain so. And by the way, Fascists, such as the National Socialists of Germany and Italy, are left wing, not right wing.

Anecdotally, a large number of people start off liberal and grow more conservative as they age. You may be right, though, as I am as liberal now as I was as a teenager. I'll check back in a decade or two.

I am confused by your classification of Fascists, especially the Socialist parties you mentioned. I have little knowledge of those particular parties and it has been quite some time since my high school government class, but I seem to recall being taught that Fascists were right wing and Socialists were left wing. I'm tired at the moment so I just did a quick search to be sure I wasn't completely losing my marbles. From Wikipedia, which bills itself as an internet encyclopedia (I've no knowledge of it's veracity, but I've at least heard of it), I did find this in the entry on the Political Spectrum:

In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with Conservatism, theocracy, or Fascism ("the right") on one end, and Socialism or Communism ("the left") on the other. In North America and Europe, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of center-left political viewpoints. The term left and right was also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues often were very different from the ones in Western nations.

Of course, they also list this:

Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured.

Nonetheless, the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted. Many people even have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it. However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.

Perhaps the simplest alternative to the left-right spectrum was devised as a rhetorical tool during the Cold War. This was a circle which brought together the far right and left ends of the traditional spectrum, equating "extreme socialism" (i.e. the Communist Party) with "extreme conservatism" (i.e. Fascism). This nexus was particularly useful to those opposed to rapprochement with the Soviet Union.

Another alternative spectrum offered at American Federalist Journal emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places communism and fascism [totalitarianism] at one extreme and anarchism [no government at all] at the other extreme.

Another alternative currently popular among certain environmentalists uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the earth.

So I suppose it all depends on your own personal definition of Left wing and Right wing.

 

[KarenAM]

Amicus, perhaps you can translate some of your last post for me, since I'm not an Ayn Rand understander. I'll skip past the first 2 1/2 paragraphs because I'm sorry to say they made no sense whatsoever to me.

Not withstanding that the one nation that enumerated that 'individual liberty and justice', is and has been the most successful nation in all of recorded history.

One of the most, anyway. I suppose it depends on your criteria, and we're still fairly young. I do believe that the USA is the best, but that's just my opinion.

Racism, abolished, by law, under the constitution.

Not true. Racism is a belief, and the Constitution does not regulate the beliefs of citizens; that's one of the things that makes it such an extraordinary document. It can regulate certain practices that are racist, which it does to some extent.

Women's rights, instituted by law.
Freedom of expression, by law.
Freedom from religion, by law.

Largely true, though enforcement varies, and all three of these are under attack by our current administration, yes?

A tremendous leap in every field of human endeavor, under freedom and still you doubt its' veracity?

A bold statement. I certainly agree that freedom has allowed Americans to accomplish great things. But "veracity" means "truth", according to my dictionary. How is America "true"? Do you mean to say America exists? I cannot determine whether I can doubt or not with the current wording. Sorry.

I think my conclusion that some people are born left wing and will always remain so.

Communism is genetic? Can you explain how this works?

And by the way, Fascists, such as the National Socialists of Germany and Italy, are left wing, not right wing.

They were authoritarian. Authoritarians tend to come from people with rigid and absolute beliefs and philosophies. The left-wing/right-wing argument seems to me to be just an insult-trading game people play.

Capitalism...a free market place, has flooded the world with production..deny that.

No denial here. But are high levels of production always good? Is the acquisition of material wealth the purpose of human life? This is an assumption that Ayn Rand made that I have never seen effectively sustained. And it is also true that our current focus on production has caused widespread ecological damage. The only fully free market that I am aware of is the trade in illegal drugs, which is accompanied by high levels of violence and social disruption. I can only conclude that unhindered capitalism isn't always a good thing. I'm more a fan of capitalism with as little regulation as you can get away with, myself.

Before mankind can move to the next level, a greater amount of freedom, a greater amount of self responsibility must occur.

Well, I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, but what does this passage mean? Are we waiting for the mother ship? Can you explain this level system you have described?

Even in the United States, more free than any other nation, we still are treated as adolescents by our government, by our laws.

Perhaps this is because so many of us behave like adolescents. What would you suggest we do to get everyone to behave like responsible adults?

Until we are free to choose, among ALL the choices, we shall never, as a people, mature psychologically.

It is the mature human adult, choosing...those things that will benefit him that provides the motive force for progress.

This looks to me like a chicken-and-egg statement. One must be free to choose, but your statement implies that we are not yet "mature psychologically". And yet progress can only occur through the actions of mature adults making choices. It sounds like you both want people to be able to choose but at the same time are arguing that they cannot. Can you clarify this?

You want government to do it all...I say leave it to the people. Look up the definition of the word bureaucrat, those who work for government. In 40 years of dealing, as a reporter, with government agents and agencies, I don't want them to even run a dog pound, let alone a national health program or an educational system...how's that for some 'empirical knowledge?'

Who are these "people" to whom you refer? I'm not clear on this, any more than when my communist friends talk about "the people". Can you clarify?

As to government, personally I want it to be as small and unintrusive as possible, but there are still things I want government to do. I'm not sure where that puts me in your scheme of things, but I do hope you have not fallen into the trap of believing that there are only two types of people, those who agree with you and those who don't. It's a big, complicated world out there, in my experience, and I have yet to meet or hear of anyone, messiah or philosopher or whoever, who had it all figured out.

Anyhow, those were some of the points I was unclear about. I don't know if others shared my confusion; perhaps I'm the only dummy here. Thanks!

 

[Pure]

Amicus said,
//Even in the United States, more free than any other nation, we still are treated as adolescents by our government, by our laws.

Until we are free to choose, among ALL the choices, we shall never, as a people, mature psychologically.//

What's odd is that you praise the American way, but in fact think that what the American people have done for the last 150 years is unwise or mistaken.

You do not distinguish governments, so I presume that local, state, and federal are all evils to you if they go beyond policing, prosecuting, and defending. Is that so?

The people have through these governments done, in a democratic mode, the following things of which you do not approve (please correct me on any items that are wrong):

"state" refers to individual states.

Set up public schools.
Set up public roads.
Set up state and national parks.
Set up federal supervision of banks.
Set up a federal reserve bank.
Set up state unemployment insurance
Set up federal 'social security' (old age pension).
Set up federal regulation of meat packing.
Set up federal regulation of the stock market
Set up federal regulation of airlines.

I strongly suspect you believe the North should not have invaded the South in the civil war, and that you don't support the 14th and 15th amendments, which extended federal powers. True?

You would not support the amendment establishing income tax. True?

In terms of the freedom of speech you praise, you seem unaware of its advance under Supreme Court decisions based on the 14th amendment (incorporation). I.e., Not only congress, but the states may make no laws abridging freedom of speech. Either you're unaware, or you disapprove of 'incorporation.' True?

In short your critique is vastly more extended than that of the most rabid marxist.

IF you despise an empirical approach to what people want and find satisfactory, we're left with your dogmatic approach as to what you think people *should want, else be labeled 'adolescent' in your terms. Instead of the present 'oppression' and 'command government' you propose the 'amicus way of doing what's good for people.' Instead of the above list of 'mistakes' supported by vast majorities, you have the 'true way', the amicus way.

To focus the discussion, I presume you think there is too much federal regulation of domestic airlines. Is that so? How exactly, in the present circumstances, would your alternative go, to more regulations, federal standards, federal 'air marshalls' etc? What areas of DE-regulation do you propose, and how would they make flights safer, and prevent 9-11 type events?

J.

 

[sweetnpetite]

If there was no government or no government controls, individuals with more power, money, ect would be able to hold power over weaker or less powerful individuals. In otherwords- too little government would lead to less freadom (more fredom from some, but much less for others) ANarchey would certainly not take over, but a new hierarchy would most likely form, and those at the bottom would be entirely at the mercy of those at the top. the idea that everybody would be equal without government controls and would therefor all have equal freedoms is flawed. The idea that everybody with a gun would be equal is also false. Anyone who is able to gain control of the food and the water and other resourses will have the power. Rights may be inherint, but they also need to be protected- for they can easily be taken away.

 

[minsue]

SnP, you are absolutely correct. I would love to envision a place where we didn't have to pool our money to pay people to regulate and police us. Human nature is what it is, though, and government will always be necessary.

 

[Pure]

and public schools, too, where affordable?

 

[Pure]

SnP "If there was no government or no government controls, individuals with more power, money, ect would be able to hold power over weaker or less powerful individuals. "

For example, a guy like Bill Gates, with the stroke of his pen could eliminate the jobs of 10,000 people.

 

[minsue]

and public schools, too, where affordable?

Yes, I feel it is the responsibility of a civilized society to educate its youth.

- Mindy, rofl over Bill Gates

 

[sweetnpetite]

SnP, you are absolutely correct. I would love to envision a place where we didn't have to pool our money to pay people to regulate and police us. Human nature is what it is, though, and government will always be necessary.

For a good example of something close to 'freedom from government' look at the old west. it was a dangerous place. Any outlaw could claim a road and accost anybody on it (supposing somebody wanted to build a road, I suppose they would own it and only let who they wanted on it, charge whatever they wanted for it's use and garentee saftey of travelers on it only if they wanted to) Then of course were the 'snake oil' salesman, promising cures for what-ails ya. One could go on and on...

 

[sweetnpetite]

SnP "If there was no government or no government controls, individuals with more power, money, ect would be able to hold power over weaker or less powerful individuals. "

For example, a guy like Bill Gates, with the stroke of his pen could eliminate the jobs of 10,000 people.

I'm guessing that's sarcasm, because he already can.

But then without govenment he wouldn't have to eliminate there jobs- he could force them to work for him for little or no pay. Just lockem in a room and give em enough food to keep em alive. Beath them when they fall asleep- expose them to hazardous chemicals and absolutly no ventilation, and put there kids to work when they turn 3 or 4 too.

Oh yeah, and if he layed them off, there would be no unemployment ensurance either. I guess they'd have to search for another tyrant to exploit them.

 

[rgraham666]

As I noted in an earlier post, we humans are a gregarious animal and automatically form hierarchies of power.

One of the main reasons I like democracy is that it can change with a minimum of blood and pain.

All the others tend to get set in stone and can only be changed by being destroyed, which tends to take a lot of people, mostly inoocent bystanders with it.

Pure, I abruptly remembered that to put Burke in the category of 'conservative' is too completely mislabel him. He was actually a major reformer in the British Parliament of the time. He was (mostly) on the side of the Americans during the Revolution. He fought bitterly against slavery. He fought to have Warren Hastings punished for the way he acted in India.

At the same time he opposed one of the American's main wants, the repeal of the Quebec Act which gave citizen's rights to French-Canadian Catholics. He also opposed having Americans sit in Westminster because it would have meant seating elected slave owners.

So he wasn't really a 'conservative' at all.

 

[Guest]

You really must go into politics, SK. You've got quite a way with spin.

Ya know what, I'm a straight foward guy. I don't put spin on things. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I think that you're the one who puts spin on things. You seem to take everybody's words out of context, and turn them into a personnal attack against yourself or somebody no matter whether the speaker intended it or not. You seem to be a perpetual victim, and want to be that way. I've met some pretty big self martyring people in my life but you take the cake.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ya know what, I'm a straight foward guy. I don't put spin on things. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I think that you're the one who puts spin on things. You seem to take everybody's words out of context, and turn them into a personnal attack against yourself or somebody no matter whether the speaker intended it or not. You seem to be a perpetual victim, and want to be that way. I've met some pretty big self martyring people in my life but you take the cake.

While you are attacking minsue, care to refute my posts on the partiot act? Since you say what you mean and mean what you say and you said it dosen't weaken jucicial oversight?

Being a straight forward guy you should be able to explain in a straight forward way how it dosen't.

I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but your lack of words here seems glaring.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Ya know what, I'm a straight foward guy. I don't put spin on things. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I think that you're the one who puts spin on things. You seem to take everybody's words out of context, and turn them into a personnal attack against yourself or somebody no matter whether the speaker intended it or not. You seem to be a perpetual victim, and want to be that way. I've met some pretty big self martyring people in my life but you take the cake.

Seaknight, if you can honestly say to yourself that the post below held no sarcasm, no malice, and was in no way meant to imply that Colleen lacked intelligence

Another one for Colleen

I've read a lot of SnP's posts and I've never seen her call anyone names. However I notice you do it a lot.

I've also notice that you are the one who seems to not be open minded to other's points of view. When ever you're asked a question that is hard you seem to just start calling names, and ignoring the asker.

SnP has told me numerous times that she thinks you're an intelligent person, I havn't seen it myself, but I haven't known you that long.

I read the abortion thread, and I come to the conclusion that SnP called anyone but the doctors murderers. It look like your trying to make others look mean spirited just to make yourself look better, and have others agree with you. To me your actions are the ones that don't belong in a friendly debate not Sweetnpetite's

and you truly feel that the next post I quote contained complete confusion as to how I could have thought you were impugning Colleen's intelligence in the previous statement

I never said that she wasn't intelligent. I simply stated that I've not seen the intelligence from her that I was told about. So Mindy if you could please stop putting words in my mouth it would be much appreciated.

than I do apologize for calling it spin. If I misinterpreted you both times and your posts were sincere and contained no sarcasm or doctoring of intentions, I am sorry. They don't read that way to me, but I could be wrong. I don't need you to respond to me on this. I only ask that you take a look at your intentions in those posts and think about it. If you find that you are playing the martyr game yourself a bit here, seaknight, and pretending at confusion and sincerity, you may want to think about that as well.

- Mindy

 

[shereads]

Min, I'm glad you replied to that comment because I'd have missed it if I hadn't seen your name here and dropped in to read you.

As one of Colleen's frequent opponents here and someone who's learned to respect her enormously, I can't let this slide without noting that Colleen may be the only person in the forum who's ever had the courage and humility to say she's changed her mind on an issue that was argued here. I can't think of anybody else who's expressed a long-held point of view, argued its validity, and in the end was able to say, "I listened and I changed my mind."