patrick.net

I do apologize, as personal attacks aren't appropriate. My goal isn't to offend, I just got my hackles up and bit back. I'm a better person than that.

justme says

Knewbetter,
>>Most married women with children have an extra child- the one they married.
Whoa there. noob. Now we are talking seriously sexist here. What an awful statement to make. Are you sure the title of the book was not “What you can get away with when you are expecting”, and you just didn’t understand it?
But you do make a point. American women and culture (a.k.a Television) does have a nasty habit of portraying fathers as hapless children. That’s been going on for may years already.

It's considered to be PC to make fun of men, protray them as helpless without a woman and useless in the kitchen. I don't know why - I find myself laughing sometimes when I would be offended if the "victim" were a woman. Maybe I'm too sensitive. But it's not right or fair.

On the Sidelines says

That is because it is human nature to make fun of people different from ourselves.

Yes, I think you're right. Who is included or excluded in our idea of "self" explains a lot.

You are kind to your own kind. You like those who are like you.

But - familiarity breeds contempt too. We want people to be like us, but not too much like us.

elliemae says

But - familiarity breeds contempt too. We want people to be like us, but not too much like us.

Yes, it's disturbing to have someone taking over your identity. I haven't explained that point to myself very well yet, but I think I got some basics on the idea of self down here:

http://patrick.net/?p=19

It's interesting that some people begin to look alike as they age together, and that dogs look like their owners sometimes. That's cool, as long as owners don't start to look like their dogs. But people's speech patterns tend to replicate each other, and their styles merge.

There was a Seinfeld episode about a guy mimicking Jerry, if I recall correctly.

>> I won’t lie to you here, it is MUCH tougher on the conscience than being a liberal.

Is that because you sin much more, or because you think about your sins much more?

I kid you not, sometimes I think the "Religious Right" are (in spirit) the same people as the Pharisees of the New Testament.

PS: good for you that you did not lie to me, that is another sin to be avoided.

ellimae,

Yeah, "unconventional" sexism is rampant in the US and has also spread to large portions of the rest of the world.

>>Liberals do no such thing, because they have no sense of moral absolutes and do not believe they will ever be judged for their actions.

Actually, we do. We have moral absolutes, but we adhere to them willingly, NOT because we think we will be punished otherwise.

That is another big difference between many conservatives and progressives (which you call liberals). Conservatives do it only because they do not want to be punished. Progressives do it willingly.

OTS say:
"In general, conservative Christians (and I’m not talking about politicians here) do worry about the sins they have committed. They strive to stay on good terms with the Creator. Liberals do no such thing, because they have no sense of moral absolutes and do not believe they will ever be judged for their actions. They are a lot like women, who are usually able to justify any sort of horrendous behavior in their own minds."

Funny you should mention that, I was just feeling bad because, in a fit of Diet-Pepsi fueled energy, I tore the tags off my new mattress. I'm certainly afraid that I'm not on good terms with the creator (Serta), but take great satisfaction in knowing that I'll never be judged for my actions. I have no sense of a moral absolute, tags vs. no tags doesn't seem to hurt anyone else and I felt so damn empowered I then tore the tags off the pillows too.

DAMN! It felt so good, I couldn't stop myself. I knew it was wrong, but I ran into the living room and tore the tags off the bottom of the couch cushions. On the seventh tag, I rested and ate lunch which consisted of potato chips & some M&M's that I found under the cushions. And, of course, beer bong'd the rest of the Diet Pepsi. All the while I was listening to Melissa Etheridge tunes.

Did I mention that I take extreme satisfaction in knowing that I'll probably never have to answer to my maker for these transgressions... unless the Serta police are monitoring this forum.

You're busted!!

Can I offer you some M&M's. They're actually more like n's, the rest of the letter wore off with continued use of the couch...

>>Can I offer you some M&M’s.

Sorry! Cannot! Bribery is also a sin, you know that.

>>“Liberal” has a negative connotation precisely because of the goofy things they believe in

What "goofy things" is it now you are attributing to liberals? I'll bet you a couch full of M&M's that your attributions will be all wrong.

"The guy is human and it’s his problem. "

WRONG:

Sanford like most Republicans tried to use their alleged moral superiority for political gain.

Worse, Sanford and the Conservative crowd claimed their moral superiority based on the alleged moral depravity of their opponents.

Let's look at the score card: Ensign cheated on his wife with an aid's wife and tried to cover it up up with job bribes, Vitter cheated on his wife in diapers with a prostitute, married Craig sticking his foot in another guys stall at an airport men's room, G-Newt cheating on his wife, married Mark Foley trying to have sex with underage male pages for money, John Atichson Bush DOJ appointed prosecutor and child rapist, married high morals preacher Teddy "Dope a Rope, Meth King" Haggard paying male prostitutes with church money .. do I need to go on?

"I am a conservative Christian. That makes me morally superior and a more fit leader than you."

Conservatives brought this argument. Live by judging other's sword in their pants, die a political death by the sword in your pants.

If you are going to cheat in marriage, business, investment or life, don't be holier than thou about... Sanford you moron.

I still think the Argentine lady is a cover for a "gaycation" in Brazil with some nice boys...

OTS,

Would you do all the sins on your list if you didn't have the threat of eternal damnation hanging over you?

>>Promotion of sexual deviance

I bet that one would be popular

>>Weakness in foreign relations

Invading Argentina is next.

Ah, you feel attacked, put upon, mocked, restricted, etc, if I understand correctly.

And your feelings are skilfully exploited by certain very rich Republicans to make sure you continue to vote that their taxes on unearned income remain at 15% while you pay 28% for money you actually work for.

I'm a flaming liberal in some ways, and I think your taxes should be far lower. I think tax on work should be zero percent.

But tax on sitting around and reaping rent from ownership of land should be way higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

To the actual topic, Gov. Sanford should resign his position. I do not say this because he had an extramarital affair. We are all sinners before God. He has a much larger problem, at least if one believes the teachings of Jesus. He needs resign to focus his attention on repairing his relationship with his family and his relationship with God who he claims to worship.

As Jesus says in Mathew 7:1-3, "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with that judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." Let's apply. Sanford heavily judged Bill Clinton for extramarital sexual indiscretions and called on him to resign. We know the standard he judges others by for extramarital sexual indiscretions. If Sanford bothers to actually read the Bible, then he would know (as we now know) the standard God will judge him by. So, Stanford has a lot of soul searching to do. He needs to learn that his hypocrisy plus his own measure will lead him directly to hell. He needs to make amends with his family for the affair. He needs to make amends with God by changing his the measure that he judges his brother (i.e. Clinton) by.

I noticed one supposed conservative Christian talking about moral absolutes. I refer him to John 8:1-11. You will note a couple of things. 1) Religious leaders directly cited Moses' law to Jesus. 2) The penalty for the adulteress was stoning. 3) Those who were about to stone her heard Jesus speak and were convicted by their own conscience (not Jesus). 4) Jesus acknowledged the adulteress had sinned, but did not condemn her.

Consider this: The moral absolute of the time would have required the adulteress to be stoned. "Sin therefore punishment." Jesus, bringing the new covenant, stands for something other than "sin therefore punishment."

What Jesus wants is for us to love God and love each other as we would love God (Mathew 22:37-40). While we all fall short of meeting such a high standard, I don't see calling someone a "dirtbag" and making sexist remarks as striving "to stay on good terms with the Creator." But, I am not the one you must ultimately answer to. I do say this though...Good luck and may Jesus forgive your sins.

Higher taxes
--Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's... a good Christian should know the rest.
Bigger, more intrusive government
--My kingdom is not of this world said Jesus to Pilate. If Jesus did not have conflict with Caesar, why should you have a conflict with a government in which you have a small role to play (voting).
Restrictions on what kind of car I can drive
--Jesus, the Son of God, rode in on the back of a donkey. You think you deserve something more than the Son of God?
Restrictions on self-defense
--Turn the other cheek.
Glorification of life’s losers
--In as much as ye have done unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. So says Jesus.
Overregulation and nationalization of private business
--take your pick of rendering unto Caesar or God's kingdom above.
Promotion of sexual deviance
-- Reread Jesus and the adulteress. I would hope that you do not see Jesus as "promot[ing] sexual deviance" by not condemning her.
Weakness in foreign relations
--Jesus' second highest commandment. Love thy neighbor as thyself. I pray you do not see Jesus' teachings as weak.
Opposition to traditional values
--Liberals and Conservatives alike should not oppose traditional values. If they are Christian, then hopefully they live by the traditional values set out by Christ.

OT Rant, coming back from the Post Office after sending a package:

Why the dickens can I not print first class postage online(*), and be done? I *hate* going to the post office for these piddly little errands that I should be able to do online.

My guess is that the answer is the following:

Our congress has forced the USPS to enter into a sweetheart contract with one or more private enterprises that get monopoly on printing postage online and by machine (pitney bowes and stamps.com come to mind).

The only problem is that what should be an easy process instead requires subscriptions, equipment and lots of rigamarole that is completely unnecessary.

Don't get me wrong, I loooove USPS. Who else can get a letter anywhere in 3 days for $0.44? Everyone else costs 20x as much, so no complaints from me about USPS delivery service.

But they could need some help with their web site. It is slow and overly complex. Pricing and sending a package should be as easy as typing USA 94101 and Germany 71043. But no, the damned web site requires endless clicking before you even find out that you cannot ship first class international with online postage.

NOTE: There are all kinds of *other* shipment types that USPS will do online. Just not the cheap one that everyone always needs, namely First Class mail.

OTS,

You are just enormously mistaken when you claim that non-conservatives do not believe in the 10 commandments. That renders your next conclusion wrong as well.

You claim is about as valid as claiming that conservatives do not oppose slavery of brown people.

Where do yo get these ideas? How can a person be so severely misguided in their thoughts an beliefs?

Ryan,
That was just beautiful. Conservatives very often have not a clue about what Jesus really was trying to teach people,
and it shows, again and again.

I refuse to turn the other cheeks to OTS, though, no matter how much he wants to get sexually deviant with me.

Ba-lo-ney.

justme says

>>“Liberal” has a negative connotation precisely because of the goofy things they believe in
What “goofy things” is it now you are attributing to liberals? I’ll bet you a couch full of M&M’s that your attributions will be all wrong.

I resent that! I don't have a couch full of M&M's! I have a buttload of 'n's in my couch, and some stuff that's fairly unitentifiable. Or, I did until I stopped my mad tag ripping spree and rested, had lunch.

Ryan:
I agree that Sanford should resign. Not because he had an affair and pissed off God fearing conservatives. He should resign (or be impeached) because he used public monies for his own good, because he walked out on his duties and was incommunicado for four days, and because he put his own needs before the State of South Carolina.

We're all human here, fallable and imperfect. I've experienced my share of fuckups in my life - but I didn't agree to represent the people of an entire state and then lie to them If he can't be trusted to put the people who voted him into office first, he should find another job. Someone will make sure to pay him top dollar for consulting fees as a lobbyist or something.

What if there had been a disaster, and their leader couldn't be found?

I never thought of relating passages that come directly from the Bible, the very words of Christ as written by the apostles as "cherry picking." None of the passages have been taken out of context and none of the paraphrasing of Jesus' words are out of context. Before I move on, I would like to ask:
Is not accusing someone of taking something out of context for a self serving reason, like support for a political position, bearing false witness against your neighbor if it is untrue?
Assuming it is, I forgive you On The Sidelines.

As for the 10 Commandments, On The Sidelines is very similar to the lawyer tempting Jesus with the question of which was the greatest commandment. To which, Jesus replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." (Matt 22:37-38). And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (39-40). Notice the basis of the most important commandments is love.

The basis is not money (whether it be tax money, after tax money, money that is taxed at 12% or money that is taxed at 35%). Nor is it the size and intrusiveness of our earthly government. Nor is it the type of car that you can or cannot drive.

Now some Christians, when they talk of the Old Testament, barely get past Exodus. Other Christians find the whole of the Old Testament enriching. However, even in the Old Covenant, it was foretold that there would be a New Covenant between God and his people. (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

There are still those who live by the Old Testament. They are those of the Jewish religion. Admittedly, being Christian myself, I am not well versed in similarities and differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Torah. However, I do know that Jesus would never force anyone to follow his teachings. May I suggest that if On the Sidelines places more value on the Old Testament rather than the word of Christ in the New Testament, perhaps On the Sidelines should take a serious look at Judaism as a preferred religion.

>>Let’s go down the list:

Like I said before, I could not make up this stuff if I tried. OTS, you are now officially in limbo (you know what that means, right?) until I decide otherwise.

Elliemae,

I can see your point about the misuse of public money. I am in partial agreement. I do not think that his personal decision to resign should be based on something as inconsequential as $12,000. He should want to focus on rebuilding his relationship with God and family. That is the heart of personal responsibility. However, I do agree that the misuse of public money should result in impeachment. This political process can focus on the wrongs done to the people he was elected to serve. It may be somewhat of a fine line, but the purpose of resignation should not be an end in itself, but rather be the beginning of the means of repair.

As for the leader missing in action, there is a Lieutenant Governor who could step in in a crisis.

On the Sidelines says

What “goofy things” is it now you are attributing to liberals?

Higher taxes

Bigger, more intrusive government

Restrictions on what kind of car I can drive

Restrictions on self-defense

Glorification of life’s losers

Overregulation and nationalization of private business

Promotion of sexual deviance

Weakness in foreign relations

Opposition to traditional values
I should also point out that you guys are going to get your butts handed to you in 2010. Enjoy the fun while it lasts because you’re going to be in the wilderness for a LONG time.

Are you genuinely trying to equate Republicans with "conservatives"? Because that's absolutely absurd. Who are "you guys" here? The only people who are going to win or lose anything in 2010 elections are Democrats and Republicans, neither of which are either "Conservative" or "Progressive" (or "Liberal" if you prefer, though that term doesn't make any sense for any major political group I can think of, save Libertarians).On the Sidelines says

You can cherry pick quotes out of context to try to back up your politics, but in order to be a Christian you need to believe in the Ten Commandments. Consequently, liberalism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

The 10 commandments are strictly old testament stuff, and there's a ton of stuff in the old testament I'm sure you don't believe in -- unless, of course, you murder your children for being disobedient.

That said, which part of "liberalism" is in conflict with Christianity?

- Rich people going to hell? Check
- Caring for the poor? Check
- Forgiveness for sins? Check

Now, you might fairly argue that "liberalism" is in conflict with Judaism, which takes a more hard-line approach to God. Of course, most Jews seem to view their religious texts as allegorical and not literal, so probably not.

Bap33 says

the libs are forced to take the position ellie puts forth in-order to excuse their support of komrad klinton’s non-Hillary-based sexual activities in the oval office, while on duty, and lies told under oath about those very actions - told by komrad klinton. Thats why they hate the way conservos cut the waste without hesitation. Morals — give ‘em a chance.
I am a scum bag sinner. But, I do not want the laws changed to suit my actions. As a conservative I expect that when my behavior is amiss I might get cought and I also accept my penalty. Libs, on the other hand, want to blame whoever cought them for profiling/racisim/bigotry and demand the laws/rules be changed to allow the libs to do the behavior that is against the laws/rules. Want an example? Libs want to remove drug laws. No need to expand, we all know this issue well. And the details of this issue show exactly why libralism is a sad mental disorder.
need another? try the gun laws and the lib view. It’s not only unconstitutional, it’s insane.

Yeah, those crazy "libs" like Ron Paul want to get rid of drug laws. Clearly this is a stupid idea that would never work! After all, back in the 1800s we didn't have drug laws, opium and marijuana were freely available in mail-order catalogs, and everyone was a raving addict!

Of course, all of this is completely beside the point -- there is NO single set of opinions that any significantly sized group of people believe in. There are plenty of people who voted for Obama who hate homosexuals and love guns, and there are plenty of people who voted for McCain who like homosexuals and hate guns. There are some people who love homosexuals and love guns.

There are also a great many of us (probably the majority) who think that you should be allowed to do pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This means you can own guns as long as you don't shoot people with them, and you can bork whomever you want as long as they're consenting to it.

Gun control is particularly funny. so-called conservatives don't seem to understand that the 'liberals' don't want people to have AK-47s for the same reason that conservatives don't want North Korea to have Nukes. What would have happened if James von Brunn had an uzi instead of a 100 year old rifle? Is an assault rifle really defending you from 'criminals' any better than a .45?

The constitution does not say that you have a right to any weapon that you want. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The supreme court has repeatedly interpreted this the way that most rational people would -- it is illegal to ban all weapons, but it is legal to restrict which weapons people may have.

Unless, of course, you believe that ordinary citizens should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons, you clearly agree with this view point.

Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that republican voters (I won't call them conservatives anymore because it is an insult to true conservatives) seem to care about? You either believe in the entirety of the Constitution or you need to stop using it to defend your arguments. Why weren't you constitutional crusaders crying foul over the flagrant violations of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th (wrt privacy) amendments during the Bush administration? Why do you hate the 7th so much when it comes to corporations being sued? Why do you ignore Amendment 14 section 1 when it comes to citizenship (and really, you'd have to have some SERIOUS reading comprehension issues to dispute the first sentence)?

Personally, I don't believe that the constitution is infallible. It uses language that is so vague and arcane in places that it has become grossly twisted, particularly with regard to the separation of powers. At times it has restricted the civil rights of any non-white, non-land owning, non-male. At other times it has done absolutely absurd things like preventing the sale of alcohol. There are clearly flaws in the document, and the founding fathers knews this -- that's why they established a process for modifying it. I'm sure that even OTS and Bap33 would agree that the 16th amendment is deeply flawed.

Ryan say:
I can see your point about the misuse of public money. I am in partial agreement. I do not think that his personal decision to resign should be based on something as inconsequential as $12,000. He should want to focus on rebuilding his relationship with God and family. That is the heart of personal responsibility. However, I do agree that the misuse of public money should result in impeachment. This political process can focus on the wrongs done to the people he was elected to serve. It may be somewhat of a fine line, but the purpose of resignation should not be an end in itself, but rather be the beginning of the means of repair.
-------------------------
Absolutely. He owes his family and his God some major dues. His constituents can be repaid by his resignation and his never entering politics again - but that won't happen.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ryan say:
As for the leader missing in action, there is a Lieutenant Governor who could step in in a crisis.
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes - but he left no instructions as to his whereabouts. We don't know if he alerted his 2nd in command (from all reports, he didn't); valuable time could be lost attempting to locate him during an emergency.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ryan say:
There are still those who live by the Old Testament. They are those of the Jewish religion. Admittedly, being Christian myself, I am not well versed in similarities and differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Torah. However, I do know that Jesus would never force anyone to follow his teachings. May I suggest that if On the Sidelines places more value on the Old Testament rather than the word of Christ in the New Testament, perhaps On the Sidelines should take a serious look at Judaism as a preferred religion.
-----------------------------------------------------
On behalf of all Jews, everywhere... we don't want him either. :)

On the Sidelines says

After a few years of Obama and the radical Left running the joint, the liberals will be out of power for another generation. This is the same thing that happened under Carter.

The only people who might gain anything if Obama's term is viewed unfavorably are Republicans -- not "conservatives". The Republican party is going to be a lot more Bush's and McCains and a lot less Reagan's going forward. They'll probably even have a lot of those non-white, non-male people that you hate so much.

Although I do love how you think the Democrats are the "radical Left". Their policies are nearly identical to those of every administration since FDR. I shudder to think of what a "centrist" must be to you.

On the Sidelines says

The kinds of folks who are in prison for drug crimes today were mostly working on plantations in the 1800s.

If you lived through the 80s you saw how well they handled crack cocaine. This is clearly NOT a population that needs more drug abuse.

Oh right, it's just the black people that can't handle drugs! Nevermind all those white people who were shooting each other in the street when we made alcohol illegal, or all the white meth addicts in the south west today.

And, you know, the fact that the drugs are illegal is SO effective, too! It was such a shame that crack was legal in the 80s, and it's so great that people in prison can't get access to any drugs at all!

On the Sidelines says

You are afraid of AK-47 owners turning Seoul (or Honolulu) into a smoking crater?

No, I'm afraid of them turning college campuses and holocaust museums into scenes of mass murder. This is all about relative levels of damage being done.

Again, I ask -- in what way is an AK-47 helping you to defend yourself better than a hand gun? What kind of horrible hunter needs an assault rifle to shoot a deer?

You're clearly accepting that there are some limits to which weapons individuals should be allowed to possess. The only thing that you disagree with 'libs' about is what those limits are going to be. So I can't have a nuke, but can I have a MOAB? How about an AA-12? What about one of those contraptions from Metal Storm? A bazooka?

Your reasoning is completely arbitrary, whereas the 'libs' generally define a 'cut off' level based on the theoretical maximum kill-rate of a given weapon in deciding whether or not it's suitable for individuals to possess it.

And, yes, if the guns are illegal only criminals will posess them. That's a given. The whole idea is not to prevent criminals from committing crimes -- obviously murder is already illegal, and that doesn't prevent it from happening. The purpose of banning the high kill-rate weapons is to reduce the level of collateral damage when some whack-job decides that he's going to start shooting random people at the mall.

On the Sidelines says

I am no fan of President Bush, but I can’t think of anybody who was actually impacted by whatever alleged “violations” you are talking about.

You mean you can't think of anyone who you actually think 'deserves' rights that was impacted -- virtually identical arguments to the japanese internment camp apologists. There were American citizens held in gitmo who were never tried, never charged, and, for the most part, eventually freed without being accused of anything. You don't think that these people were 'impacted'? Of course they were. You just think it's "OK" because they might have been bad guys (and some of them actually were).

But that isn't even the POINT of those amendments. The point is to ensure that criminal proceedings are not just arbitrary, to prevent the government from exerting power over citizens who disagree with them. If we don't hold them up, there is NOTHING to prevent the US from becoming just like Iran. Most of these people were imprisoned for little more than being associated with some known bad people. We didn't imprison Timmy McVeigh's friends and family after that whacko decided he didn't like the WTC. Hell, we didn't imprison bin laden's family after 9/11.

How would you feel if Obama decided to start locking up anyone who made racist, anti-government comments on random web sites and holding them without trial? The media would just say that they were trying to prevent another von Brunn or McVeigh.

Again, I say -- if you do not believe in the constitution, STOP USING IT TO DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. It's an absurd defense that only a complete moron would make, and I'm sure you don't want to be seen as a moron.

On the Sidelines says

By contrast, the infringements of my 2nd Amendment rights are made painfully obvious every time I need to travel through a sketchy area, or any time I visit a gun store.

In what way is your 2nd amendment right being 'infringed' when you travel through a 'sketchy' area? Surely a tough guy like you can make do with a magnum in the glove compartment.

And as for the gun store -- where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about gun stores? Which specific part of the amendment is being infringed by any law that applies to gun stores?

On the Sidelines says

You can’t possibly deny that our system of government worked much better when voting was restricted to white male land owners.

Oh, sure, it worked better for the white, male land owners, and worse for everyone else. For every non-white, female, or renter (i.e. 70+% of the population), the US is a far better place today.

Fortunately, we no longer live in a world where white, male land owners make all the decisions, and we're no longer ignoring the brilliant contributions of non-white, non-male, non-landowning members of society, and as a result, the US, and the world at large, are much better for everyone.

The 2nd Amendment is about being able to destroy tyrants, not protect your home. We're less than the white men who founded this country. That's right, pasty white slave-owning adulterers who threw off the chains of monarchy and gave a light to the world.

I'm really disappointed there hasn't been more destruction/mayhem back here at home, but this is coming. When all the MBAs get milked out of the last of their tuition they'll be on the street, and maybe we'll have a little tension out there.

The banks are going to do it again people.

Kevin says

On the Sidelines says

After a few years of Obama and the radical Left running the joint, the liberals will be out of power for another generation. This is the same thing that happened under Carter.

The only people who might gain anything if Obama’s term is viewed unfavorably are Republicans — not “conservatives”. The Republican party is going to be a lot more Bush’s and McCains and a lot less Reagan’s going forward. They’ll probably even have a lot of those non-white, non-male people that you hate so much.
Although I do love how you think the Democrats are the “radical Left”. Their policies are nearly identical to those of every administration since FDR. I shudder to think of what a “centrist” must be to you.
On the Sidelines says

The kinds of folks who are in prison for drug crimes today were mostly working on plantations in the 1800s.
If you lived through the 80s you saw how well they handled crack cocaine. This is clearly NOT a population that needs more drug abuse.

Oh right, it’s just the black people that can’t handle drugs! Nevermind all those white people who were shooting each other in the street when we made alcohol illegal, or all the white meth addicts in the south west today.
And, you know, the fact that the drugs are illegal is SO effective, too! It was such a shame that crack was legal in the 80s, and it’s so great that people in prison can’t get access to any drugs at all!
On the Sidelines says

You are afraid of AK-47 owners turning Seoul (or Honolulu) into a smoking crater?

No, I’m afraid of them turning college campuses and holocaust museums into scenes of mass murder. This is all about relative levels of damage being done.
Again, I ask — in what way is an AK-47 helping you to defend yourself better than a hand gun? What kind of horrible hunter needs an assault rifle to shoot a deer?
You’re clearly accepting that there are some limits to which weapons individuals should be allowed to possess. The only thing that you disagree with ‘libs’ about is what those limits are going to be. So I can’t have a nuke, but can I have a MOAB? How about an AA-12? What about one of those contraptions from Metal Storm? A bazooka?
Your reasoning is completely arbitrary, whereas the ‘libs’ generally define a ‘cut off’ level based on the theoretical maximum kill-rate of a given weapon in deciding whether or not it’s suitable for individuals to possess it.
And, yes, if the guns are illegal only criminals will posess them. That’s a given. The whole idea is not to prevent criminals from committing crimes — obviously murder is already illegal, and that doesn’t prevent it from happening. The purpose of banning the high kill-rate weapons is to reduce the level of collateral damage when some whack-job decides that he’s going to start shooting random people at the mall.
On the Sidelines says

I am no fan of President Bush, but I can’t think of anybody who was actually impacted by whatever alleged “violations” you are talking about.

You mean you can’t think of anyone who you actually think ‘deserves’ rights that was impacted — virtually identical arguments to the japanese internment camp apologists. There were American citizens held in gitmo who were never tried, never charged, and, for the most part, eventually freed without being accused of anything. You don’t think that these people were ‘impacted’? Of course they were. You just think it’s “OK” because they might have been bad guys (and some of them actually were).
But that isn’t even the POINT of those amendments. The point is to ensure that criminal proceedings are not just arbitrary, to prevent the government from exerting power over citizens who disagree with them. If we don’t hold them up, there is NOTHING to prevent the US from becoming just like Iran. Most of these people were imprisoned for little more than being associated with some known bad people. We didn’t imprison Timmy McVeigh’s friends and family after that whacko decided he didn’t like the WTC. Hell, we didn’t imprison bin laden’s family after 9/11.
How would you feel if Obama decided to start locking up anyone who made racist, anti-government comments on random web sites and holding them without trial? The media would just say that they were trying to prevent another von Brunn or McVeigh.
Again, I say — if you do not believe in the constitution, STOP USING IT TO DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. It’s an absurd defense that only a complete moron would make, and I’m sure you don’t want to be seen as a moron.
On the Sidelines says

By contrast, the infringements of my 2nd Amendment rights are made painfully obvious every time I need to travel through a sketchy area, or any time I visit a gun store.

In what way is your 2nd amendment right being ‘infringed’ when you travel through a ’sketchy’ area? Surely a tough guy like you can make do with a magnum in the glove compartment.
And as for the gun store — where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about gun stores? Which specific part of the amendment is being infringed by any law that applies to gun stores?
On the Sidelines says

You can’t possibly deny that our system of government worked much better when voting was restricted to white male land owners.

Oh, sure, it worked better for the white, male land owners, and worse for everyone else. For every non-white, female, or renter (i.e. 70+% of the population), the US is a far better place today.
Fortunately, we no longer live in a world where white, male land owners make all the decisions, and we’re no longer ignoring the brilliant contributions of non-white, non-male, non-landowning members of society, and as a result, the US, and the world at large, are much better for everyone.

Kevin:
You're attempting to have a spirited discussion with a dispirited poster. Please don't feed him - you are giving his sexist, racist agenda a forum. Unfortunately, some people actually eat up the crap that spews from his keyboard. God Fearing Productions, Blacklisted News... I'm sure they miss him.

Kevin,

I think Elliemae is right. There is no point in trying to educate OTS. He is just beyond redemption, even perhaps literally. He thinks all imagined and real social problems are due to "liberals" and non-believers. There is nothing that can be done.

Just ignore him.

I think the SC governor's WIFE, Jenny Sanford, should be the next governor.

Misstrial says

I think the SC governor’s WIFE, Jenny Sanford, should be the next governor.

I don't know enough about her, but she is gracious and hasn't hit the tabloid circuit. She deserves extra points for that.

On the Sidelines: come on over to New Mexico and establish residency!
Here you can buy a machine gun, if you want. If you go to the gunshows, there are assault rifles, semi-automatics - everything.

The State capitol, Santa Fe is home to a lot of very liberal voters, however, NM has a loooooong history of firearms possession by everyone - Native Americans, the Spanish, Mexicans - who would war with the Mescalero Apache in NM, the U.S. Army, the Mexican Army, and American pioneers. Everybody.

So, the liberals just leave everyone alone. Generally, folks here are very responsible with their firepower. In fact, the 5 people shot dead in ABQ at Denny's recently were killed by illegals from Central America who were robbing the restaurant.

NM, TX, CO, and AZ gundealers all recognize each other's State for gun purchases. In other words, if you're from NM and go to a gunshow in AZ, you can use your NM ID for purchasing a gun(s) and its no big deal. If you're from CA, you are out of luck - no one will sell to you. Your driver's license will not be recognized for purposes of a sale.

My fav is a SA XD9mm because its light enough for me. heavier but still nice is the SA XD40. But my all-time fav is a pink-camo limited edition Walther P22 - cute and just right for target practice.

I was in Dave's Guns in Alamogordo recently where a husband bought his wife (she was there and chose it) a Glock semi-automatic handgun. They live on a ranch where they are quite a ways from law enforcement being able to provide assistance in a timely fashion. So, they self-protect.

Best to you :)

~Misstrial

RE: Jenny Sanford - can read about her here on NoQuarter

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/06/27/the-first-lady-of-sc-speaks-out

NoQuarter is Larry Johnson's provision for Clinton Dems. Great site with interesting info.

~Misstrial

Elliemae,

LOL...last comment, very funny.

To the group,

Something I have never been able to understand fully is how the libertarian idea of owning any type of firearms can co-exist with the teachings of Christ for all faithful Christians. We know from the teachings of Jesus that violence against your fellow brothers and sisters is without a doubt abhorrent to God. That is so, even if violence is used against you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Sermon on the Mount). And, as far as I can tell, Jesus himself did not carry weapons to defend himself.

I can understand the keeping of certain firearms for purposes of providing sustenance to yourself, family, and others. However, when one gets into firearms whose sole purpose is to kill people, would not Jesus consider that abhorrent?

For example, there is little doubt that table knives were used during Jesus' time. In all likelihood, Jesus used a knife as we would all use knives at the table today. A two 3-5 foot knife, is no longer a tool for cooking, but a tool for slaying commonly known as a sword. I have yet to find a passage where Jesus says it using a sword, or for that matter a table knife, against a fellow human being is ok (even for self defense).

I do understand that our earthly government allows, with varying degree, the possession of firearms. Even firearms that in all probability would only be used to kill other people. Should not all devout followers of Christ forebear that which offends God, but is allowed by earthly governments?

justme says

Kevin,
I think Elliemae is right. There is no point in trying to educate OTS. He is just beyond redemption, even perhaps literally. He thinks all imagined and real social problems are due to “liberals” and non-believers. There is nothing that can be done.
Just ignore him.

Can we still "ignore" with the new forums?

On the Sidelines says

I should also point out that you guys are going to get your butts handed to you in 2010. Enjoy the fun while it lasts because you’re going to be in the wilderness for a LONG time.

Thanks for reminding me, but, yes, I am not forgetting. It is a liberal administration and it is fun, bwa ha ha ha. The gays will be included in the census. An environment bill has been passed. The US contributed again to the global sexual and reproductive health and rights agenda. The faith initiatives at the White House dried up. The Evangelical pastors lost their hotline to DC. The Republican leaders are resigning from their posts due to stubborn pen.ises. What fun! At the rate this is going, Sarah Palin might even launch a come back to become the Republican nomineed in the next presidential election. She can take that fake plumber as a vice presidential nominee. What a dream team, bwa ha ha ha!