Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 122







Post#3026 at 07-12-2002 12:08 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
07-12-2002, 12:08 PM #3026
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-07-12 08:33, firemind wrote:
On 2002-07-12 08:20, firemind wrote:
Since I came out in favor of drug legalization, against tarrifs, against gun registration, and in every other question that I remember answered in the Libertarian way, I think I am correct to dispute the Authoritarian label.
Oh, yeah, I just remembered, I came out against regulation of gambling, too.

Yet, somehow, Justin and Stonewall says I'm for controlling people's lives.

Go figure. Who's irrationally labeling people? It ain't me, folks.
Then quit favoring governmental consolidation of power which is solely valued for controlling people. Unless you favor decentralizing governmental power so that people cannot be ruled or controlled from above, it does not make a damn bit of difference what you think of drugs or gambling. You are just extending mere privileges to what you deem to be your underlings. How generous of a power-consolidating Authoritarian you are.








Post#3027 at 07-12-2002 12:09 PM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
07-12-2002, 12:09 PM #3027
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

On 2002-07-12 09:54, firemind wrote:
How do you distinguish between believing that "the Republicans are controlled be a secret cabal that has been attempting to establish fascistic control of the U.S.", and what you just said about an evil elite?
I know you have written extensively about the "corporatist" wing of the Republican party, associate it with fascism, and with people like Rockefeller and the Bushes. Furthermore, you find the same sort of people in the Democrats in the guise of FDR and Clinton. You have written about how it all goes back to the power-craving Abraham Lincoln.

I think what I wrote was a pretty good summary. You DO believe that the Republicans are controlled by people who are lying when they say they are for freedom, and are actually for fascism. That's what you've said many times.







Post#3028 at 07-12-2002 12:14 PM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
07-12-2002, 12:14 PM #3028
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

On 2002-07-12 10:08, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Then quit favoring governmental consolidation of power which is solely valued for controlling people.
But Stonewall, I already DON'T favor governmental consolidation of power! I've said as much many times. I believe power should be decentralized as much as possible! Yet, to you, I'm still an Authoritarian.

Don't you see that the inconsistency lies with you, not me?







Post#3029 at 07-12-2002 12:17 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-12-2002, 12:17 PM #3029
Guest




"On the other hand, that flatulent fraud Limbaugh will not even let the critics through on the phone as he deliberately paints a false reality for his audience in the fine tradition of Joseph Goebbels. If one should get past the call screener, then the Flatulent One immediately cuts them off and calls them a "seminar caller" from the Democratic National Committee."

This is a patently false statement. And anyone knows, who actually listens to the man's show, that the very opposite is actually true: Liberals, and those that disagree with the host are moved to the front of the caller line. I repeat, the best way to get on the Rush Limbaugh show is to be a disagreeable liberal caller. While the host does not suffer to insulted by liberals once their on (as is the case many times), Limbaugh proves time and again, that he loves to take these calls, and moves them ahead of others in line.

That Mr. Patton (who has made this charge many times before) seems to get such charge out of making such personal attacks such as this, I would strongly suggest that it is he who resembles the Joseph Goebbels of America, 2002, and not those whom he attacks.

Stonewall Patton is a classic case of the very "human garbage" like Goebbels he so pretends to loath and reject.

You, Mr. Patton, are a manipulative, mealymouthed, little liar.









Post#3030 at 07-12-2002 12:17 PM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
07-12-2002, 12:17 PM #3030
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

Just yesterday, I posted the following, in another folder:

On 2002-07-11 08:52, firemind wrote:
On 2002-07-11 07:37, Eric A Meece wrote:
It seems our corporate culture is even more greedy than we on the Left had said. And responsible for 9/11 in some measure as well. Certainly corporate greed and its control of our politics is going to be a 4T issue, and so is the shibboleth that corporations are the best way to run economies and that all nations should adopt that method.
When is Eric going to realize that government is just like another corporation, equally fallible and susceptible to human greed, and if you are concerned with power being too centralized, it makes no sense to favor giving more power to government to perform any role which can be performed at least as well by the private sector.

The "shibboleth" he refers to is the belief that power should be decentralized via the competition of the private sector rather than centralized in the hands of government.

The art, then, comes with determining what roles (if any) CANNOT be performed by the private sector at any of the constantly changing stages of economic and technological development. The "American Way" is to be inclined to assume that any role can be better performed by the private sector than the government except where otherwise proven.
And yet, somehow I'm an "Authoritarian".







Post#3031 at 07-12-2002 12:24 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
07-12-2002, 12:24 PM #3031
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-07-12 08:45, firemind wrote:
Marc:

I seem to remember (though I could be wrong) that Newt was one of the Republicans Stonewall liked, along with Reagan.
No, I do not like Newt. In fact I do not believe that I have addressed Newt in any way on this forum so there is nothing for you to "remember" as far as I can tell.

Say, through how many posts in a row here have you made me your subject? I had no idea you were so infatuated with me. I guess I should be flattered but I would really rather discuss issues rahter than personalities. And it seems that all you can do is whine, whine, whine, "Stonewall said this," "Stonewall said that." Your whiny, Stonewall-fixated rants conjure up the image of a little boy whose mother won't buy him that candy bar he wants. Who cares what Stonewall said? Can't you take apart arguments and offer ones of your own? Or does everything turn on whether "Stonewall said this" or "Stonewall said that." Thank you for your vote of confidence but I am not the final authority.








Post#3032 at 07-12-2002 12:26 PM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
07-12-2002, 12:26 PM #3032
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

You're right, Stonewall. I'm infatuated with you. I think...

I think I'm falling in love with you.

(Geez!)

The fact is, Stonewall, that we are both on-line and posting at the same time, making this more like a chat room than a discussion board for the moment. That is why so many posts in a row refer to you, because we are chatting.







Post#3033 at 07-12-2002 12:28 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
07-12-2002, 12:28 PM #3033
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-07-12 09:10, firemind wrote:

Geez, Alex, don't take Stonewall's admonitions so seriously....
There you go again. I certainly hope that you do not feel yourself romantically attracted ot Stonewall. It is rather hard to comprehend the depth of your monomania.

Say, how many more of these subject=Stonewall posts are there before I get caught up in this thread?








Post#3034 at 07-12-2002 12:30 PM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
07-12-2002, 12:30 PM #3034
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

On 2002-07-12 10:24, Stonewall Patton wrote:
No, I do not like Newt. In fact I do not believe that I have addressed Newt in any way on this forum so there is nothing for you to "remember" as far as I can tell.
I stand corrected.

Once (or three times), you discussed your evolving attitude regarding the Republicans, from likeing Reagan to hating Bush, etc, and I thought I remembered you mentioning that you briefly had hope for the GOP during the "Contract with America" era of Newt, before Newt was forced out by politics.

However, if you deny it, I'll accept your denial, as I'm not sufficiently infatuated with you to look it up.







Post#3035 at 07-12-2002 12:34 PM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
07-12-2002, 12:34 PM #3035
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

On 2002-07-12 10:28, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I certainly hope that you do not feel yourself romantically attracted ot Stonewall.
Actually, it's Eric I love. It's Marc who has a thing for you, and I won't cut in on his action.

(K I D D I N G ! !)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 10:35 ]</font>







Post#3036 at 07-12-2002 12:37 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
07-12-2002, 12:37 PM #3036
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-07-12 09:15, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
I took the test, but this time I did it two ways. First I answered based on how I *feel* about the issues:

#1 Libertarian
#2 Paleoconservative
#3 Left-libertarian
#4 Radical
#5 Neoconservative
#6 Centrist
#7 Paleo-libertarian
#8 Conservative
#9 Liberal
#10 Third Way

This time I took it based on what I *believe*:

#1 Liberal
#2 Radical
#3 Third Way
#4 Neoconservative
#5 Centrist
#6 Paleoconservative
#7 Left-libertarian
#8 Conservative
#9 Libertarian
#10 Paleo-libertarian

Interesting eh?
Mike, I'm not sure what you mean but thanks for adding a little variety to this thread. I assume you wish to go by what you "believe," but it looks like you are probably pretty pragmatic and moderate because you are all over the map. But my best guess is that you are starting in the Authoritarian Left and it looks like the Libertarian Left is your meld (at least slightly more than the Authoritarian Right). But it is the same old secondary Libertarian Left "Delta."








Post#3037 at 07-12-2002 12:46 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-12-2002, 12:46 PM #3037
Guest


"And it seems that all you [firemind] can do is whine, whine, whine, "Stonewall said this," "Stonewall said that." Your whiny, Stonewall-fixated rants conjure up the image of a little boy whose mother won't buy him that candy bar he wants." --Stonewall Patton

There you go again, Stonewall. Making purely false accusations and hurling childish insults. That poster has made no such "Stonewall-fixated rants" at all. And furthermore, you post no proof that he did in order that he might defend himself. No, you just make the Goebbelesque charge that he did!

You're a phony, Stonewall, a lying and conniving phony cut out of the same mold as old Mach, himself. This is so obvious it's not even funny.

Go find a mirror, pal. You'll find out what old Mach actually looks like.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-12 10:51 ]</font>







Post#3038 at 07-12-2002 12:48 PM by Max [at Left Coast joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,038]
---
07-12-2002, 12:48 PM #3038
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Left Coast
Posts
1,038

On 2002-07-12 07:35, Justin '77 wrote:
mom,

What you said was "I have the right to be protected from harm when reasonable protection is in place."



My point, in response to this statement is twofold: first, a fundamental element of a just society is a guarantee that everyone's rights are accorded. .... When you feel the urge to state a right, think, at whose expense will I obtain this? Will another person have to surrender (not trade) their labor or property that I might enjoy this? Rights do not contradict.


Exactly, right on the first point.
But, I stand by the laws of the land as they are now. It is my stance that "freeing up" people to snort, smoke, inject, Whatever,whenever, how much ever they want, at affordable prices to boot WILL infringe on everyones rights.
If the taxes, cost to state, etc..... is so exhorbitant with tabacco, I can't begin to
imagine the cost to state with all the junkies laying around with an addiction, a 'disease' if you will. The poor people, they can't help it, it's beyond their controll, we need to subsidise them.
We do it for alcoholics. Alcoholics, get so debilitated they can't work, they get classified as " disabled" and collect checks from the state. Would you do less for the poor junkie who smoked his brain out to the point of being dillusional and insane. I mean after all, the guy was just excercising his right to mess himself up. No one else was affected right? So how much more of your pay check are you willing to hand over to the federal govt. in order to make sure, the junkie on the corner is given the humane
conditions of medical care, food and shelter?

Look, Justin, I know you as a Libertarian or whatever. Would say to hell with subsidies to the junkie who by his own choosing screwed up his life. But, not everyone looks at issues the way you do. You have to deal with all the people and all of their views. And too many people believe it's inhumane to let someone starve and die in the gutter. And the simple truth of the matter is, drugs may become decriminalized. But, if and when they do, the looser junkie will be subsidized, whether or not you agree with that part of the package.

Gotta go, maybe I'll address the rest later.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-12 11:00 ]</font>







Post#3039 at 07-12-2002 01:01 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
07-12-2002, 01:01 PM #3039
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-07-12 10:17, Marc Lamb wrote:

"On the other hand, that flatulent fraud Limbaugh will not even let the critics through on the phone as he deliberately paints a false reality for his audience in the fine tradition of Joseph Goebbels. If one should get past the call screener, then the Flatulent One immediately cuts them off and calls them a "seminar caller" from the Democratic National Committee."

This is a patently false statement. And anyone knows, who actually listens to the man's show, that the very opposite is actually true: Liberals, and those that disagree with the host are moved to the front of the caller line. I repeat, the best way to get on the Rush Limbaugh show is to be a disagreeable liberal caller.
And I was not even talking about "disagreeable liberal callers." I was talking about conservatives who criticize the Bush administration. He immediately cuts them off and labels them "seminar callers from the DNC." In other words, he deliberately fosters the false impression that all conservatives are tickled pink with George W. Bush, the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior. In fact I made all this clear in the post which suggests that you once again are deliberately shifting the argument in true Goebbelesque, Limbaughhesque, Machiavellian human garbage fashion.

This is why there is no point in discussing anything with you, Mr. Lamb, because, in those rare time when you get off personality and discuss issues, you take what someone else has written and deliberately reinterpret it so as to give it an entirely different meaning such that it is impossible to make any progress in the discussion because the other person has to keep repeating what he/she made clear initially before you began your manipulations. It is just wheels spinning in the mud. If you wish to spin wheels and fling mud, that is your business. But don't get upset if others choose to ignore you. Just understand why and accept it.








Post#3040 at 07-12-2002 01:05 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
07-12-2002, 01:05 PM #3040
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-07-12 10:26, firemind wrote:
You're right, Stonewall. I'm infatuated with you. I think...

I think I'm falling in love with you.

(Geez!)

The fact is, Stonewall, that we are both on-line and posting at the same time, making this more like a chat room than a discussion board for the moment. That is why so many posts in a row refer to you, because we are chatting.
No, nice try but that is not it and this is in fact the first of your posts that was written after I got online. All your previous "love letters" were written before I even came here this morning. This is the first "chat" post, by your definition.








Post#3041 at 07-12-2002 01:10 PM by Max [at Left Coast joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,038]
---
07-12-2002, 01:10 PM #3041
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Left Coast
Posts
1,038

On 2002-07-12 10:17, Marc Lamb wrote:



"On the other hand, that flatulent fraud Limbaugh will not even let the critics through on the phone as he deliberately paints a false reality for his audience in the fine tradition of Joseph Goebbels. If one should get past the call screener, then the Flatulent One immediately cuts them off and calls them a "seminar caller" from the Democratic National Committee."

This is a patently false statement. And anyone knows, who actually listens to the man's show, that the very opposite is actually true: Liberals, and those that disagree with the host are moved to the front of the caller line. I repeat, the best way to get on the Rush Limbaugh show is to be a disagreeable liberal caller. While the host does not suffer to insulted by liberals once their on (as is the case many times), Limbaugh proves time and again, that he loves to take these calls, and moves them ahead of others in line.

That Mr. Patton (who has made this charge many times before) seems to get such charge out of making such personal attacks such as this, I would strongly suggest that it is he who resembles the Joseph Goebbels of America, 2002, and not those whom he attacks.

Stonewall Patton is a classic case of the very "human garbage" like Goebbels he so pretends to loath and reject.

You, Mr. Patton, are a manipulative, mealymouthed, little liar.


I'll back you up on the defense of Limbaugh. I listen to his show. And it is fun when the liberal callers get through. They are always the most intresting calls by far.

In fact, there's a Farakkahan follower, Rita X who is welcomed back many times over. She is a hoot a minute.

Marc is right, the callers are immediately cut off as soon as they resort to name calling.
hummmm , Much like Eric last night, who so rudely blindsided me by calling me a caracature and incapable of resonable thought. All without even first introducing himself. how rude.

I am ok with it though, even if I don't consult the stars to see which way I should wipe my ass.







Post#3042 at 07-12-2002 01:14 PM by Neisha '67 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 2,227]
---
07-12-2002, 01:14 PM #3042
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
2,227

On 2002-07-12 10:48, justmom wrote:
On 2002-07-12 07:35, Justin '77 wrote:
mom,

What you said was "I have the right to be protected from harm when reasonable protection is in place."



My point, in response to this statement is twofold: first, a fundamental element of a just society is a guarantee that everyone's rights are accorded. .... When you feel the urge to state a right, think, at whose expense will I obtain this? Will another person have to surrender (not trade) their labor or property that I might enjoy this? Rights do not contradict.


Exactly, right on the first point.
But, I stand by the laws of the land as they are now. It is my stance that "freeing up" people to snort, smoke, inject, Whatever,whenever, how much ever they want, at affordable prices to boot WILL infringe on everyones rights.
If the taxes, cost to state, etc..... is so exhorbitant with tabacco, I can't begin to
imagine the cost to state with all the junkies laying around with an addiction, a 'disease' if you will. The poor people, they can't help it, it's beyond their controll, we need to subsidise them.
We do it for alcoholics. Alcoholics, get so debilitated they can't work, they get classified as " disabled" and collect checks from the state. Would you do less for the poor junkie who smoked his brain out to the point of being dillusional and insane. I mean after all, the guy was just excercising his right to mess himself up. No one else was affected right? So how much more of your pay check are you willing to hand over to the federal govt. in order to make sure, the junkie on the corner is given the humane
conditions of medical care, food and shelter?

Look, Justin, I know you as a Libertarian or whatever. Would say to hell with subsidies to the junkie who by his own choosing screwed up his life. But, not everyone looks at issues the way you do. You have to deal with all the people and all of their views. And too many people believe it's inhumane to let someone starve and die in the gutter. And the simple truth of the matter is, drugs may become decriminalized. But, if and when they do, the looser junkie will be subsidized, whether or not you agree with that part of the package.

Gotta go, maybe I'll address the rest later.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-12 11:00 ]</font>
Actually, justmom, social security regs specifically exclude disabilities caused by drugs or alcohol. In order for an addict to get SSI or SSD, s/he has to get a doctor to state that the disability was present *before* the claimant started using. This is a pretty tough standard. Occassionally, if a person has been clean for an extended period, like six months or more, and a neurologist can state that they still have a disability that has nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, a judge will buy that.







Post#3043 at 07-12-2002 01:15 PM by Max [at Left Coast joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,038]
---
07-12-2002, 01:15 PM #3043
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Left Coast
Posts
1,038

On 2002-07-12 11:01, Stonewall Patton wrote:
On 2002-07-12 10:17, Marc Lamb wrote:

"On the other hand, that flatulent fraud Limbaugh will not even let the critics through on the phone as he deliberately paints a false reality for his audience in the fine tradition of Joseph Goebbels. If one should get past the call screener, then the Flatulent One immediately cuts them off and calls them a "seminar caller" from the Democratic National Committee."

This is a patently false statement. And anyone knows, who actually listens to the man's show, that the very opposite is actually true: Liberals, and those that disagree with the host are moved to the front of the caller line. I repeat, the best way to get on the Rush Limbaugh show is to be a disagreeable liberal caller.
And I was not even talking about "disagreeable liberal callers." I was talking about conservatives who criticize the Bush administration. He immediately cuts them off and labels them "seminar callers from the DNC." In other words, he deliberately fosters the false impression that all conservatives are tickled pink with George W. Bush, the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior. In fact I made all this clear in the post which suggests that you once again are deliberately shifting the argument in true Goebbelesque, Limbaughhesque, Machiavellian human garbage fashion.

This is why there is no point in discussing anything with you, Mr. Lamb, because, in those rare time when you get off personality and discuss issues, you take what someone else has written and deliberately reinterpret it so as to give it an entirely different meaning such that it is impossible to make any progress in the discussion because the other person has to keep repeating what he/she made clear initially before you began your manipulations. It is just wheels spinning in the mud. If you wish to spin wheels and fling mud, that is your business. But don't get upset if others choose to ignore you. Just understand why and accept it.

Pehaps we are listening on opposite days? No?
I hear a lot of callers disagree with Bush, and Rush lets them state their case. True, they aren't on that long before Rush launches into his next monologe. But that is how his show goes mostly, for everyone. Even the ones he agrees with.







Post#3044 at 07-12-2002 01:18 PM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
07-12-2002, 01:18 PM #3044
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 11:25 ]</font>







Post#3045 at 07-12-2002 01:33 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-12-2002, 01:33 PM #3045
Guest



"And I was not even talking about "disagreeable liberal callers." I was talking about conservatives who criticize the Bush administration. He immediately cuts them off and labels them 'seminar callers from the DNC.'" --Stonewall Patton

I am a "conservative" who has resoundingly criticized Bush and certain members of his Administration: namely Colin Powell. And I can attest flatout, this is, again, patently false. Limbaugh, himself, has been excoriated recently for his criticism of Bush.

You, sir, are lying out your teeth with these ridiculous charges. Meanwhile, you throw out such pretentious guttertripe as "Goebbelesque, Limbaughhesque, Machiavellian human garbage fashion."

You have become a stupid old, worn out comic strip, Stonewall. All yellowed around the edges from such extreme bitterness and decay. Not Funny is the name of it. And a cheap caricature of the very supposed "garbage" you rail against.











Post#3046 at 07-12-2002 02:20 PM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
07-12-2002, 02:20 PM #3046
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

Excuse me, but could someone explain what the "Third Way" political label is? When I click for more information I get a page of the New Republic, and a subscription form.

I need to know, because according to the test, I are one.







Post#3047 at 07-12-2002 02:31 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-12-2002, 02:31 PM #3047
Guest



Why, cbailey, I believe You Are An American! :smile:

Otherwise, you're just a little left of center. Ok?









Post#3048 at 07-12-2002 02:37 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
07-12-2002, 02:37 PM #3048
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-07-12 11:33, Marc Lamb wrote:

You have become a stupid old, worn out comic strip, Stonewall. All yellowed around the edges from such extreme bitterness and decay. Not Funny is the name of it. And a cheap caricature of the very supposed "garbage" you rail against.
Look at that post. Now look again. Anybody who looks at that post of yours has to laugh at the absurdity in that the pot is obviously calling the kettle black (and it is not even clear that the kettle is black at all). Note that when I attach an epithet to someone, I clearly demonstrate how they exhibit that trait. In other words, it is not ad hominem. I detail efforts of people who willfully deceive others and make the case for why they qualify for such unattractive epithets. You just hurl the epithets without making any sort of case. That is ad hominem. As far as the reader can tell, the object of your attack (whoever it may be at any given time) might be the most saintly character imaginable but you just happen to feel threatened by him for some reason. Because you do not demonstrate how the object has shown himself to be what you say he/she is, your attack says more about you in that you simply feel threatened by the object and no more. The object may in truth be as pure as the driven snow.

In the end, the reader must conclude that you are precisely what you accuse me of being because only an individual who fits that description would bother to launch into such an incredibly nasty personal attack, dripping with hatred, without bothering to demonstrate in any way, shape, or form how the object of the attack demonstrates the traits you describe. When I first came here, you would manage to stir me up form time to time, but now I just feel sorry for you. I truly do. Whatever, Marc, whatever. Only you can change your outlook and make yourself a better person. But you have to want to do so first.


Oh, and lest I need to repeat myself as one always does when attempting to engage in conversation with Marc, I am free of this "bitterness" and "decay" referenced in the attack. My soul is free and I make an effort to do good and to ensure that others are not taken advantage of by devious Machiavels because deception, so hypocritical as it is, is just plain evil by any standard. I render myself subservient to my God and act such that I can face Him with a clear conscience.

Whereas in the past when I was purely secular and material in my thinking, I genuinely hated some of these more devious types, but today I do not. I feel sorry for them. I really do. Some I suspect have made a conscious determination to further Evil and will do so until the day they die, but others I suspect might eventually change and reform themselves such that they might be forgiven. But forgiveness first requires a total confession of how they actively worked to deceive others so that others might be used to achieve their ends. With total confession and a demonstrated effort to reform, forgiveness is automatic.

So "bitterness" and "decay" and whatever else simply does not apply to me. I am simply doing my duty, with a clear conscience, free of hate, in order to prevent people from being taken advantage of by baser types who willingly further evil by deceiving them. If you are going to get all bent out of shape, bitter, and angry about it, Marc, fine...whatever. The choice is solely yours to be what you are. I will just continue to tune it out and hope that someday you will decide to make an effort to improve yourself beginning with full confession, at which point forgiveness is automatic of course.








Post#3049 at 07-12-2002 02:50 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
07-12-2002, 02:50 PM #3049
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

mom,



It sounds like you are advocating throwing more laws at a situation created by laws in the first place. That's no way to put out a fire.


Talking about the cost to the state of tobacco, alcohol, etc. presumes the propriety of the state being involved in the health choices of its subject. I'd argue that, since the citizens of the country are, rightly, auonomous, self-owned individuals, their health decisions are no one's business but their own. If you want to reduce the amount of tax revenue spent on curing the ill and caring for the infirm, the most straightforward, certain (, moral) way to do that is to stop having the state pay. Attempting to fix, via greater application of the state, a problem caused by state involvement is what Einstein called insanity, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".


That said, I am willing to hand over none of my life to the federal, or state, or city, or other government for the ostensible purpose of caring for 'the junkie in the corner'. If the junkie in the corner is someone I care about, I can help them just fine myself, and my money would be more efficiently used if not filtered through the hands of a half-dozen bureaucrats. Conversely, if I was the junkie in the corner, I would have no right to demand another person surrender any portion of his life to help me. Either you own your own life and so does everyone around you own theirs, or no one does.



I appreciate your understanding of the issue from an outside point of view. Again, when we keep adding layer after layer of state to our environment, things will get worse at an ever-increasing rate. The solution to the problem as you define it is: "stop fighting with people who want to use drugs," coupled with "stop forcing people to surrender their lives for others."



As a note, I am not advocating (and I can't believe this even needs to be explicitly stated) letting all the indigent people in the world starve and die. In fact, I've personally taken in would-be homeless individuals, fed them, and provided them with a place to stay while their situation improved; I've personally helped build homes to be given to people who can't afford them. I've personally bought and fed food to kids who otherwise would have gone hungry. I'll continue doing this, one way or another, and I do and did it because all the people in question were ones I cared about. Kindness and goodness work in spite of force, but they can do so much more, so much better without it.



Anyway, with regard to drugs, we're still left with my contention that the things a person does to themself are their own business and the consequences are theirs (and theris alone) to bear. Are we or are we not adults?

"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#3050 at 07-12-2002 02:53 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-12-2002, 02:53 PM #3050
Guest



"My soul is free and I make an effort to do good and to ensure that others are not taken advantage of by devious Machiavels because deception, so hypocritical as it is, is just plain evil by any standard. I render myself subservient to my God and act such that I can face Him with a clear conscience." --Stonewall Patton

You a liar, sir. All reprobate liars maintain a "clear conscience."


-----------------------------------------