OK, EVIL WON. NOW HOW FAR DOWN IS BOTTOM ?

One thing you guys are really missing in the gay marriage issue is that it would become government mandated for our public schools to teach the lifestyle as normal. Thus, Dick & Dick, and Jane & Muffy, and Jack & Will.

Sorry, but I will never support gay "marriage".

The answer is "Stupidity" since it is everywhere.




Oh.. this isn't the riddle thread.

I am a very opinionated person, as a general rule.
However, as to this, I am ambivalent.
It is not an issue of much concern to me.

On one side: it is so radically different than what I have
been accustomed to seeing in my environment, that it is shocking.

On the other side: my libertarian elements kick in saying:
" how can we let something as low as a damned government
define our social relations, how we relate among ourselves ?
Its a personal matter. "

I am not a member of any legislative body to which it shall fall
to define marriage; I am too old, fat n ugly to run for office.
I 'm just a retired old man. I don t have to come up with an opinion,
at least not until it is presented for choice in a referendum.
Until then, I just don 't care what homosexuals do among themselves.
Its none of my business.


This is not to imply any ill will against homosexuals.
I wish them happiness, along with everyone else,
but as to how government shoud get involved: that 's another matter.

WHAT ??

Is there something that suggests that I have the power
to bargain ?? With whom ? In exchange for what ?

It is more the occasion of sadness,
as when a beloved friend, parent or child is lost in death.


Did I offer to exchange something ?

That is a minority point of vu (if u r referring to the theocrats again).
For the most part, conservatism just seeks to curtail, limit,
contract and strangle the domestic jurisdiction of government
(which was the purpose of the Bill of Rights),
so that every citizen is free to live his life according to his individual choice.
For the most part, we advocate the "sparrow fart" theory of government,
to wit:
that government shoud amount to little more than the flatulence
of a sparrow, such that few citizens will come into contact
with the damned thing. This point of vu is intensely anti-collectivist, anti-Borg.


I take exception to the presumptuousness
of use of the word "progressives" or progress,
in that it presumes that there is a known way to proceed
to a better condition, and that this way is undisputed.
Deviation from the paradigm (i.e., liberalism) can be in many different directions,
each of which calls itself "progress".

In Germany, as time PROGRESSED, thay moved from
the Weimar Republic into the later 1000 Year Reich.
Presumably, Herr Hitler considered himself to be "progressive".
Do u deny that, Farmer ?








This is a very minority point of vu among conservatives.
Most of us just believe that government shoud keep its nose
out of anyone 's opinions about anything.





I m sorry that u feel bad about that, Farmer,
but if I say that Al Hamilton was the USA 's first Secretary of the Treasury,
or if I say that 5 + 5 = 10, there is not much room for negotiation.
Not everything is open to negotiation.

om sig David--I read this post very carefully--from the beginning to the end--Despite the attempts of some like Kuvasz to denigrate you, you used your well trained mind to refute all of thier pretentious twaddle and show exactly where you stood and why you had those principles--congratulations!!

then go home.

kuvasz = void surrounded by a sphincter muscle.

Teutonic twat!

+1

kuvasz has special needs...

genoves wrote:

Thank u.
I have had Kuvasz on Ignore for quite a while,
for his descent below acceptable standards of civility;
therefore I have been immune to any annoyances from him.





David

FM, you talk of a disconnect. This posting of David's is a clear illustration of a major disconnect from reality. This is a man who brags about willfully taking part in those silly schemes of a drunken Joe McCarthy to deprive people of their liberty.

Thank God this idiot put me on "ignore" some time ago. Disconnect? OhMyGodDavid belongs in four-point restraints in a padded room. And, certainly, the fact that he owns firearms is an overwhelmingly frightening thought.

principles and OmSigDavid do not belong in the same sentence. well trained mind, now that's twaddle.

David I do not understand your Borg reference. Please fill me in.

Seaglass

In Star Trek The Next Generation there were some
cybernetic organisms a/k/a: "cyborgs" who were part man
and part machine integrated together. Thay were telepathicly
connected and acted in unison, commanded from a central queen,
of unchallenged and unlimited authority. The hive and its queen
had complete surveillance of all of its members and knew what
each of them was thinking at all times and controlled those thoughts.
There was not the slightest individual freedom.

[The communists tried to accomplish this already,
to the extent that it was possible for them to do it:
during the Korean War, we captured many Red Chinese
and North Korean prisoners of war all of whom were carrying
pocket diaries that their political officers required them
to fill in monitoring what thay were thinking all day long.
The POWs informed us that the communists ordered them all
never to think of sex; instead thay must think of the Communist Party.
If their political officers suspected that thay were less than fully candid,
thay were in grave jeopardy.]

My concern was that our species has good and comforting reasons
to emulate the 100% surveillance of the Borg;
e.g.: subcutaneous medical transponders
woud tell government and its emergency services if u r having
any medical emergency, so that thay can rush to your aid
if u have a heart attack, get hit by a car, drown in water
or anything and everything without limitation.
This requires continual reporting one 's exact whereabouts
to government every second 24/7/365, computer monitored.
Government has new facial recognition software to attach to its cameras.

This is infinitely more invasive of privacy than Geoge Orwell
ever thought of in 1984. It is very Borg-like.

We might also note that technology has advanced so that people
who are paralyzed can operate computers thru electrodes
monitoring the patterns of electricity in their brains.
Thay are still working on that.

The English have 100s or maybe 1000s of TV cameras thru out their cities,
endeavoring to permit progressively less and less privacy,
while expanding jurisdiction of government and weakening
the individual citizen (or "subject" -- held in subjection) in his personal rights e.g. self defense.

There is a school of thought (collectivism combined with authoritarianism)
which inclines to the belief that the answer to every human problem
is to reduce individual freedom, one way or another.
Figuratively speaking, it believes that the answer to each problem
is to add another iron chain to the body politic,
until it can do no rong because everyone is lying immobile.
Will it become politically correct to have such surveillance ?

That is a Borg-like thought.

I know that this sounds paranoid.
I hope that it is only nonsense.
I am an Individualist libertarian hedonist.





`

Sorry David

Resistance is Futile....

I was afraid of that . . .

You're missing something Phoenix

Conservatives do not advocate absolute personal license or the absence of government.

Your representation of the pro-life position as an "attempt to control a woman," suggests that your emotional investment in this issue is undermining your usual rational thinking.

While denying a woman the right to abort her fetus clearly exerts control over her, you're not giving the majority of pro-lifers much credit if you think that it is the primary motivation for their position.

If, as pro-lifers believe, a fetus is a human being entitled to a protected right to life, preventing the mother from killing the fetus is more about defending an individual's right than restricting it.