Eric Holder gets burned by Texas senator.

Post Reply New Topic

"You" was meant figuratively. Sorry, thought that was obvious.

In a news conference for and by Aspies, nothing is "obvious".

ruveyn

Yeah, I know I struggle with the same issues. Hence, the apology. I'm at work right now, so most of my posts are being made hastily.

visagrunt wrote:

And the left has done nothing to control what we do in our homes? As far as the bedroom goes I have yet to hear of any law requiring surveillance cameras in bedrooms.


Money managed by the government is being misused one way or another. If it’s not being used to fund things you don’t believe in it’s being misused in the process of funding things you do believe in. Even if the government ran a lemonade stand the lemonade would taste like piss and they’d spend five times their profits making more lemonade that tastes like piss that won’t sell.
Government exists only to serve and perpetuate itself.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington

You're just as bad.

Longshanks

Just as bad with what? When have I forced my views?

Speakers of modern English are cursed with the imprecise meaning of "you."

Southern Whites felt that Civil Rights was "being forced down their throats." It was indeed a bitter pill to swallow.

Howling?!?!?!?


Really? Or are you just glorifying yourself again?

You have to admit that your posts are quite mockable, to say the least.

Glory, glory Halleluyah.


How about Genghis Khan? Or, as he is a Moslem, maybe Suleiman the Magnificent? Or Saddam Hussein?

I think this is worth a listen:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVMUc9swTiQ[/youtube]

How many jurisdictions continue to criminalize homosexual behaviour? How many social conservatives call for restoration of laws criminalizing it in those jurisdictions that have decriminalized it?

Limiting access to marriage is far more invasive than anything that you can complain of. Social conservatives seek to use the coercive power of government to control adult, consensual sexual behaviour. Until you can demonstrate liberals doing something comparable I will continue to reject your argument.



But government is not in the business of doing business. That is not its purpose, and it should not be measured as if that was the case.

Business is easy. There is one, and only one, metric for success: making money. Every investment can be measured against its net present value and a decision taken on a very simple basis. Now that's not to say that the analysis isn't complex, and it's not to say that business doesn't get it wrong from time to time. But businesses can come and go without the whole house of cards falling.

Government, on the other hand, has dozens of measures for success. Suppose a decision has to be made about where to put health care money--does that go into providing more emergency care, cancer treatment or health prevention? When spending new education money should that go into more classrooms for arts and music, physical education or expanding sciences?

Public policy making is a daily litany of these decisions where there is no right answer, and rarely even a best answer. There are always more priorities than there is money to spend on them.

So don't try and tell me that government couldn't run a lemonade stand, because any moron can run a lemonade stand, but it takes the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of a saint to put up with the host of pressures that exist in the public policy world, and no easy path to decision making.

You're as selective as Kirchgauer - and as easy to impeach. 1. You failed to mention that Eisenhower, a republican, got that ball rolling. He also desegregated the armed forces, something that Roosevelt and Truman, who were democrats, refused to do. 2. Are you not also forgetting that the "southern whites" that you are refering to, such as George Wallace, were democrats? 3. Are you also not forgetting that it was a republican dominated congress and a republican president who passed the constitutional amendments banning slavery, allowing blacks to vote, and the fourteenth amendment as well? 4. Are you not forgetting that those who attempted to seccede from the union were led by prominent democrats (Davis, Breckinridge, Cobb, Yancey, Benjamin, Floyd, Wise, Pickens, Thompson, and many others) and did so because of slavery? 5. Are you not forgetting that the writers of the constitution had the law banning slavery in the original document, but it was taken out to ensure that the southern states would sign it? Your statement is not only inflamatory but entirely disingenuous. All Eisenhower did was enforce the laws he was sworn to uphold. They were already in place since the end of a war that cost America more lives than any other. Your attempt to re-write history is failing.

And lest we not forget, the courts have ruled that atheism is also a religion. And now the atheists are attempting to force theirreligious views on we Chrisitians. And the judges of the liberal left are letting them - even encouraging them to do it. Seems to me that is an infringement of the first amendment because liberal judges are not empowered to create a state religion, which is what they are attempting to do with atheism. It is the same with gay-marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. How dare they attempt to force Christians to change their religion by forcing them to recognize something repugnant to their religious beliefs - thus forcing them to ignore their conscience - again violating the first amendment. And now Obama care seeks to do the same thing with birth control and abortion.

You proudly preach - as if on the pulpit - like any "good liberal" - that you have no intent of forcing your views on others. That rather, you are only making things equitable. That you are doing things in the name of "civil rights". Yet it has been the conservative republicans who ended slavery, who legislated civil rights, and who carried through with them - while liberal democrats have actively resisted - even fought against them. History will bear me out on this. What an entertaining flow of illogic your discourse truly is!

Longhshanks

Last edited by Longshanks on 19 Jun 2012, 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

It seems to me that American government is dysfunctional because American politics is dysfunctional. The general public is not interested in detailed policy and the efficacy of government programs. They're only interested in broad ideological mantra's.

If you have not the foresight to see what you advocate in your own posts, what good would it do me to explain it? If you can't see your own condescending remarks and mockery, why waste my time? You have a seething hate about you, sir, and it blinds you. Get past the hate, and you may see for yourself one day.

Longshanks

That startled me. The last time I felt really angry was a few months ago, and I realized it was inconsequential later on. I have not gotten angry with you or other posters on here. Frankly I do not understand why I would have a seething hate all because I disagree with you on a debate. I thought it would be good for you to explain it so I would see your reasoning of how I have forced my views on you or others. Perhaps I have and it would be good to see where I have done so. Or you are misinterpreting what I wrote, or slightly different, we are reading different meaning out of what I wrote.
I do not think that I have been condescending, now I will agree that I have used mockery. But that cuts both ways. There are countless times that I have seen your posts littered with condescending remarks. I didn't think that pertained to this topic, but since you brought it up I thought I would point that out.

Okay, I see what's going on here. pretty clever.

Mr. Longshanks, is, in fact, a LIBERAL, who is doing a witty parody of Conservatives.

Well done, Sir. You had most of us convinced for a while.