@SYNRON,
Quote:
OmSigDavid-- How do you avoid being put on Ignore?
I don 't avoid it, but I don 't care about it, either.
As a libertarian, I don 't choose to extort attention.
I have no wish to coerce anyone to listen to pro-freedom ideas.
Quote:
Almost all of your posts shows the LIBERALS how stupid they are.
Well, I polish their posts a little and then it shines out, by itself,
but the innermost essence of liberalism is
DISHONESTY.
Sometimes thay can be
clever in their deceptions.
The soul of liberalism is
DEVIATION from an extant standard,
without overt repudiation thereof; ( that woud be radicalism).
For instance,
if someone dresses in a tuxedo to attend a wedding,
but wears red sneakers with the tux,
he is
DEVIATING from the extant social paradime qua dressing,
taking a liberal interpretation thereof,
without being radical (he did not go there naked).
If a poker player rakes in the pot,
claiming to have a flush, when he has 4 spades n a club,
and when caught, he defends himself by saying:
" hay,
don 't be too technical: THAT 's CLOSE ENOUGH.
I had tuff luck this week: my boss is mad at me
for leaving work early when he was gone,
I had a fight with my cousin, when he caught me picking his pocket,
and my left foot stinks, so lemme alone, and get your hands off the cash.
Its
MINE because I had bad luck.
Have a heart. Don t be a bunch of ballbusters."
In other words,
the liberal endeavors to
DEVIATE from the known rules of poker, for his benefit
or for the benefit of the people who he favors (like the
poor)
hence, the liberal claims
ex post facto that the rules of poker
are amended
to include compulsory n mandatory compassion,
altho the other poker players did not know that, nor agree to it.
In contrast,
a conservative rigidly adheres to the established rules, inflexibly and regardless.
If he changes his mind, or acts differently,
then by so doing: he abandons conservatism.
or maybe try it
this way:
Dad tells little Jonny that he 'd like him to come home by 11 pm,
and he 'll give him ice cream for doing so; Jonny consents and eats the ice cream.
He returns home before 11. Because there was no deviation
from the terms of the agreement,
no one took a liberal interpretation thereof and it was executed conservatively.
If, after eating the ice cream, Jonny returns home at 11:10,
claiming to have been "close enuf" to the agreement,
then he has applied a
LIBERAL interpretation thereto.
If, after eating the ice cream, Jonny returns home at 11:30,
claiming to have been "close enuf" to the agreement,
then he has applied a
MORE LIBERAL interpretation thereto.
If, after eating the ice cream, Jonny returns home at 6 a.m.,
claiming to have been "close enuf" to the agreement,
then he has applied an
EVEN MORE LIBERAL interpretation thereto.
If, after eating the ice cream, Jonny returns home 7 weeks later,
claiming to have been "close enuf" to the agreement,
then he has applied a
STILL MORE LIBERAL interpretation to the agreement.
If he leaves and
NEVER returns,
or if he repudiates the agreement, he thereby takes a
RADICAL vu thereof.
Quote:
Do you have a secret?
No. I 'm open about it: its
indifference.
Quote:
But never fear, Om Sig,
as long as you are posting and several other conservatives are posting
that are not so afraid of ideas that they soil themselves in fear
when they encounter them,
I will seek you out and the others out.
I will consider it an honor, SYNRON.
Countercheers, SYNRON.
