Healthcare on way, sorry sociopathic Repubs

[p8ntman442]

sorry having some issues with the quote tags and I really do have to go back to work.

Moderator you can fix the tags if you want.

In order to substantively address the thread and my feelings toward HOA's you should have written:

I feel i adressed it adequatly, you disagree. Thats ok.

Now, you might be saying to yourself, 'Ed makes all kinds of personal attacks.' Sort of, for idiots like Shaun who constantly ring in with nothing, or guys like 86GT who bring in big points, then get shut down and say, 'I don't have time anymore...." I use insult for fun, not to support my point or make it the entirety of my point. IOW's, I don't say, 'look at the anti-union idiots in this forum, no wonder unions have gone downhill.' SO a personal attack for fun and one to address the merit of the issue are FAR DIFFERENT.

of course they are. I havent read 75% of this thread.

The substantive discourse we're having is great, it wasn't always that way, but I would rather do it this way, that's why I waste all kinds of time in posting boards. I make great points so the reader has to make decisions:

- walk away most likely to happen as I get sore when beating my head against a wall I know wont break
- attack with ad hominem I try not to do that, but my responses are interperated differently by different people.
- admit I made a good point you make plenty of good points but that does not beget the next
- perhaps change their beliefs

I think we know which they will do.

text

Other examples:

- I think religion is a farce, I think it creates a lot more harm than good. Now should churches be outlawed? Of course not.

- I think DC vs Heller (says the 2nd gives us the right to own a firearm for personal use) is a flawed decision, but I embrace it.

Now the first example, a conservative would look at that and say that churches are harmful, hence should be abolished, or that churches are positive and participation should be mandatory.

i see religion as a farce as well, but the constitution protects the right of the people to practice religion as they wish, therfore abolishing it is unconstitutional and can church can not be outlawed.

[p8ntman442]

The DC vs Heller example a conservative would look at that and figure it backwards: I like guns, I think the constitution gives us a right to carry them (not even ever having read the 2nd), I agree with DC vs Heller. A liberal reads the 2nd, familiarizes himself with case law around the 2nd, then read Heller and makes a decision on the constitutionality of it by weighing it out. They may then say, "I like the outcome, but think the logic to get there is a bit abstract." That's where I am.

I like the outcome as well. I believe that the 2nd ammendment is a incommodious and therfore you have to err on the side of protection of the law. In otherwords prove it dosent allow citizens personal arms, and then you can take them away. I think that if it said the government must maintain 1 rifle per person so that they may readily equip the masses to form a malitia, you could justify taking them away. But if the government is not charged with the duty of supplying the arms to the malitia, then who can you say is in charge of their possesion?

But thats a whole nother thread.

So to wrap this up, my opinion is that you are using conservative logic

Thats quite a length wrap up and I have to go back to work, so let me summarize.

I'm using my own logic, if may appear as conservative to you, its deffinatly not liberal. thats fine. conservative and liberal are not deragatory terms, nor do you validate your argument by claiming I am using conservative logic any more than I can mine, by saying you use liberal logic.


I said Obama was being pressured, I did not say he was responding or acting on the pressure.

whew! I have carpal tunnel now.

[The Dark Side of Will]

This is why conservatism is outdated, their logic worked back in the 1950's, as life in general wasn't that complicated, now it is far more complicated.

Life isn't any more complicated than it was 50 years ago. Living in society is interacting with people and people don't change... at least not in 50 years.

The DC vs Heller example a conservative would look at that and figure it backwards: I like guns, I think the constitution gives us a right to carry them (not even ever having read the 2nd), I agree with DC vs Heller. A liberal reads the 2nd, familiarizes himself with case law around the 2nd, then read Heller and makes a decision on the constitutionality of it by weighing it out. They may then say, "I like the outcome, but think the logic to get there is a bit abstract." That's where I am.

I can say EXACTLY the same thing from a different point of view.
A "Liberal"--ALL of whom by default believe in gun control, right?--decides that he doesn't want Joe Citizen to have a gun. He then looks through the constitution to see how he can twist what's there to support his cause.
A "Conservative"--ALL of whom by default love weapons, right?--looks at the constitution, and sees that the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" is a parenthetical and that the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" is the clause and understands that everyone is allowed to own a gun.

The reality is that you're doing exactly what you accuse the "other side" of doing, but lumping everything that looks like a duck and talks like a duck (IE, everyone who believes differently than you) into a basket and calling them the same thing.
If you were to take the sarcasm out of the above, just get rid of what's between the dashes and substitute "gun control advocate" for "liberal" and "gun ownership advocate" for "conservative" and you'd get something that's closer to the truth.

Personally, I think that the founding fathers were pretty smart guys. If they had wanted the effect to be "only members of a well-regulated militia may keep and bear arms", then they would have written "The right of members of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged". They did not write this. They wrote it for "the people" as a whole.