Mon 1 Feb, 2010 05:48 am

From liberals' support of the MF law
and from their anguish against the USSC decision in CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC,
we see that REGARDLESS of the First Amendment 's prohibition n disability
that "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . "
we see that the liberals detest and deny the FIRST Amendment
and thay want Congress to USURP the power to do it ANYWAY.

Liberals allege that this is for the "common good" of society.


From liberals' support of gun control laws
and from their torment against the USSC decision in D.C. v. HELLER,
we see that REGARDLESS of the Second Amendment 's prohibition n disability
that " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
we see that the liberals detest and deny the SECOND Amendment
and thay want Congress to USURP the power to do it ANYWAY.

Liberals allege that this is for the "common good" of society.


How about the 8th Amendment?
It prohibits ". . . cruel and unusual punishments . . . ".

What woud liberals think of legislation by whose terms
armed robbers were DISARMED to prevent them from recidivating?
We all know that when thay get out of prison,
thay get new weapons within a few hours; ez, on the black market,
but what woud liberals think of DISARMING them,
for the good of society, the way that Julius Caesar used to do it
to defeated armies, i.e., sword arm surgically removed with a sword or an ax ?

Did Julie use anesthesia with that surgery? I 'm trying to remember. . . .

The Moslems did that too, for mere theft, a fortiori for ROBBERY.

Woud it be good for society to stop future robberies ??
Shoud THAT be the penalty, witnessed by their friends? Witnessed by their nabors?
WHATAYATHINK? (I expect a lot of personal invective against me.)

Woud that have any deterrent effect ?

If he recidivated with the remaining arm . . . HOW do we address that ?


Do u advocate a LIBERAL, deviant interpretation of the 8th Amendment,
as u do of the FIRST and SECOND Amendments ???

Will the liberals be consistent
in their zeal for the "common good" regardless of Constitutional limits?

I don 't think thay will.
Inconsistency is the innermost essence of liberalism.

(Liberals secretly LOVE violent criminals.)





David
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 2,028 • Replies: 33
Topic Closed

 
Setanta
 
  4  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 07:38 am
The entire drivel of this diatribe is predicated upon a set of straw man assumptions about what liberals do or do not believe, none of the claims for which are established by the ranting author.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  5  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:20 am
@OmSigDAVID,
People have often engaged you on these topics, presenting their arguments in great detail and nuance, but you routinely ignore what they post to maintain these weird caricatures of what a "liberal" is. It sounds as if you mind is already made up. Why do you keep picking at that scab?
djjd62
 
  3  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:31 am
@OmSigDAVID,
david, i couldn't agree more, in the interest of free speech we should all have our tongues cut out, and then in the interest of gun control we should we all be shot

problem solved
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:34 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
presenting their arguments in great detail and nuance

Conservatives can only see things in terms of black and white. Details and nuance just confuse them.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:50 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Why do you keep picking at that scab?


I enjoyed that . . . thanks . . .
engineer
 
  1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:55 am
@Setanta,
You know I worked hard on that particular metaphor. Smile
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:34 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
People have often engaged you on these topics, presenting their arguments in great detail and nuance,
but you routinely ignore what they post to maintain these weird caricatures of what a "liberal" is.
It sounds as if you mind is already made up. Why do you keep picking at that scab?
Engineer, your ultra-vague and super-general assertion is false.
I have enjoyed debunking anti-freedom arguments against the Bill of Rights
(which efforts have been VINDICATED by the highest Court in America,
in clear and rock solid historically based judicial opinions).
If I did not, then I shoud have not brought it up as many times as I have over the years.
If I did not enjoy successfully debunking anti-freedom arguments, then I 'd have silently waited to win in Court.

The only exception to this has been statistics, as to which I have not sufficiently informed myself.

I have not invented anything that is odd about the difference
between a conservative interpretation of something
and a liberal interpretation thereof. I was not original.
I merely referred to well established concepts of rigid inflexible
ORTHODOX, interpretation of something, as distinct from
an interpretation that VARIES therefrom. That shoud be easy for u to understand.





David
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 11:42 am
What's a 'liberal'?
Francis
 
  1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 11:55 am
@Merry Andrew,
One who librates, that has a libration? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 11:59 am
And not one single response addressing the laws in question. Just about what I expected from the board liberals.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 12:03 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

And not one single response addressing the laws in question. Just about what I expected from the board liberals.


The post was clearly a joke by a poster who doesn't know what he's discussing in any real depth; why does it deserve any response other than the one it's gotten?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 12:03 pm
@Brandon9000,
You misspelled bored . . .

We've had this tripe from David and his ilk ad naseum--do you really expect people to eternally rise to the bait? Especially bait that is as old and stinky as this . . .
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 12:18 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

And not one single response addressing the laws in question. Just about what I expected from the board liberals.

Each of these topics were discussed in separate threads. Search on David's name and you will find them all if you are interested.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 12:40 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:
What's a 'liberal'?
A liberal is someone who is NOT orthodox, NOT conservative,
NOT rigidly inflexible in the interpretation of some law or any body of rules,
rather deviant from some body of rules. That is a liberal.

For example, if a poker player rakes in the pot
alleging that he has a flush, when he has 4 spades and a club,
he is taking a liberal vu of the rules of poker.
If he rakes in the pot alleging a flush, when he has 3 spades and 2 clubs,
he is taking a MORE liberal vu of the rules of poker.

If liberalism had a motto, it woud be: "that 's close enuf."





David
engineer
 
  2  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 12:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
My first XO in the Navy had very strict poker rules. You always raise a small amount in the early rounds. If you don't have anything, you fold early. If you didn't follow the XO's unofficial rules, his disdain would fall heavy upon your shoulders and the other officers would follow suit. Once I tried to raise early and everyone at the table folded to "teach me a lesson". His rules were meant to keep the game inside his comfort zone, to limit his losses and maximize his possibilty to win.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 01:15 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

My first XO in the Navy had very strict poker rules. You always raise a small amount in the early rounds. If you don't have anything, you fold early. If you didn't follow the XO's unofficial rules, his disdain would fall heavy upon your shoulders and the other officers would follow suit. Once I tried to raise early and everyone at the table folded to "teach me a lesson". His rules were meant to keep the game inside his comfort zone, to limit his losses and maximize his possibilty to win.
The lesson was that u coud take whatever was in the pot
because everyone folded.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 01:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

engineer wrote:

My first XO in the Navy had very strict poker rules. You always raise a small amount in the early rounds. If you don't have anything, you fold early. If you didn't follow the XO's unofficial rules, his disdain would fall heavy upon your shoulders and the other officers would follow suit. Once I tried to raise early and everyone at the table folded to "teach me a lesson". His rules were meant to keep the game inside his comfort zone, to limit his losses and maximize his possibilty to win.
The lesson was that u coud take whatever was in the pot
because everyone folded.


The lesson is that rules are created in order to benefit specific groups in specific ways, and that following the rules without question is a poor way to go through life.

Cycloptichorn
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 01:18 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
If liberalism had a motto, it woud be: "that 's close enuf."


Nah, I don't think so. Most of the so-called 'liberals' that I know at least know how to spell.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Feb, 2010 01:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

engineer wrote:

My first XO in the Navy had very strict poker rules. You always raise a small amount in the early rounds. If you don't have anything, you fold early. If you didn't follow the XO's unofficial rules, his disdain would fall heavy upon your shoulders and the other officers would follow suit. Once I tried to raise early and everyone at the table folded to "teach me a lesson". His rules were meant to keep the game inside his comfort zone, to limit his losses and maximize his possibilty to win.
The lesson was that u coud take whatever was in the pot
because everyone folded.


The lesson is that rules are created in order to benefit specific groups in specific ways, and that following the rules without question is a poor way to go through life.

Cycloptichorn
OK, but don 't cheat people out of what thay r rightfully entitled to by lying about the rules.
The XO (presumably) did not MAKE anyone play poker.





David
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » OK, LIBERALS: WHERE DO U STAND?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 06:55:11