I have seen the light, Republicans ARE EVIL...

[GhostOfJefferson]

That's an old phrase. I doubt most young people have heard it.

You'd have to translate it to misspelled, short attention span pseudo-l337 speak.

rbd f 1s vir2

Or something like that.

[Stanley]

You'd have to translate it to misspelled, short attention span pseudo-l337 speak.

rbd f 1s vir2

Or something like that.

I just choked lol

[carsontech]

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprim...ndtofriend.asp

I've started doing the free courses with Hilllsdale College a week ago. I'm not too far in, but I was skipping around a bit, as well, to get an idea of how the information is presented.

I find the professors of the school to lean much more federalist, as opposed to anti-federalist. Also, they seem to take pride in the fact that most of their students fought for the Union during the Civil War.

From watching, it seems the professors "get off" when talking about the federalist papers, and they seem to only mention, briefly, that the anti-federalist papers even exist. Maybe it's just my inner Jefferson coming out. Maybe I'm just bias because I think the Constitution was hurt by the Federalists. The government can interpret the Constitution/Bill of Rights almost anyway they want, there's a big fail.

I'll keep chugging on these courses when I get more time, they're easy to follow, at least. This courses are interesting, regardless of my views, thanks letting us know about them.

[OC for ME]

Mandates?....don't talk about mandates.....you kidding me?....mandates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwq7BYOnDrM

It's never about the mandates....it is always about the anti-liberty state sanctions for non-compliance.

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snip]

It's never about the mandates....it is always about the anti-liberty state sanctions for non-compliance.

So, if the mandate had no teeth then it would cease to be anti-Liberty? I think we're on-to something here!

[OC for ME]

I desire a mandate that only South Carolina BBQ style sauce be made available. If you do not like SC style BBQ sauce, the sanction is a bland plate of pulled pork....a fate worse than death in my view.

Though, you have a point, mandates without sanctions for non-compliance are not anti-liberty. If the state does nothing due to non-compliance the state can not deny liberty.

[Beretta92FSLady]

I desire a mandate that only South Carolina BBQ style sauce be made available. If you do not like SC style BBQ sauce, the sanction is a bland plate of pulled pork....a fate worse than death in my view.

Though, you have a point, mandates without sanctions for non-compliance are not anti-liberty. If the state does nothing due to non-compliance the state can not deny liberty.

I like Kansas city BBQ. I have never tasted South Carolina BBQ.

[PrayingForWar]

In regards too people who repeat the "two sides, same coin" mantra in whichever way, there is truth to it. However what the republican party is SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT, more closely reflects the principles I find important. Ron Paul is a republican for that reason.

It's up too us to stay on their asses and make sure they're properly representing us. It's hard enough though to keep track of local political hacks, let alone what federal reps are doing, but "freedom isn't free". It's up too us to pay attention and force the party to stay on the right track, instead of slipping into the corrupting influence of the ruling class establishment. Throwing up your hands and giving up, or joining a team that isn't even in the game is what the ruling class want you too do. Don't give those a$$holes the satisfaction.

[ManInBlack]

A mandate is not force. A mandate is a mandate. You can't be forced to comply with a mandate, you can be fined or imprisoned for not complying with the mandate.

^This is why you are widely suspected of huffing aerosols before posting...

[Beretta92FSLady]

^This is why you are widely suspected of huffing aerosols before posting...

And if I do huff aerosol? We all have a vice.

[ManInBlack]

And if I do huff aerosol? We all have a vice.

To each his own.

I am simply trying to use Occam's Razor to figure out why a person who hates the idea of individual liberties posts on a forum dedicated to the same, why you seem to be utterly incapable of realizing the contradictions contained in nearly all of your posts, and why you fail to recognize the actions of your beloved government as force, regardless of how obviously and heinously it utilizes compulsion.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” - George Washington

[marshaul]

LOL! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hahahahahahahahaha! Haaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!!

Oh man. That's a real knee-slapper.

Three phrases for you:

• Protectionism

• Asset forfeiture

• Prohibition

[Beretta92FSLady]

To each his own.

I am simply trying to use Occam's Razor to figure out why a person who hates the idea of individual liberties posts on a forum dedicated to the same, why you seem to be utterly incapable of realizing the contradictions contained in nearly all of your posts, and why you fail to recognize the actions of your beloved government as force, regardless of how obviously and heinously it utilizes compulsion.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” - George Washington

I have acknowledged that sufficient Government, relatively, is an absolute force.

I agree with George Washington.

It is interesting that you bring up Ockham. Basically, Ockham concedes that human perception is limited, therefore hidden from Truth, so what we get is a version of Truth, meaning; a truth. The quote is extremely Practical.

Let's look at the quote: "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones"

So, we must accept the premise that all 'things' are equal. But Ockham merely asserts that the simpler explanation is 'better' than a complex one. You have two conclusions that are equal but the means to the conclusion are not; one is quite lengthy, and the other is much simpler, it is 'better' to accept the simpler explanation. I agree, that is, if the conclusions are at least observably equal.

The quote, which was actually not originated from Ockham is problamatic. We must also consider "generally." Ockham has asserted a number of things and is still forced to concede that it is "generally" the case. How is that for definitive?

You, just as every other person, exists in shades in-between black, and white but never black nor white.

There are a number of explanations why I post on this forum. I could be huffing aerosol, and am merely lost. I could be here to drive you insane. Or, I could be in support of the Second Amendment but also have an opinion about the politics of America, and reality that does not always mesh well with my support for the Second Amendment. Just a few examples.

[ManInBlack]

I have acknowledged that sufficient Government, relatively, is an absolute force.

When it is something that gives you a benefit or service for free, at the expense of others, you seem to prefer to call it a mandate. We have seen this time and time again. Please don't continue your blatant intellectual dishonesty.

I agree with George Washington.

Please don't insult his memory. You have more in common with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin: you seek to use the unfettered power of the Almighty state to take what others have earned and redistribute it to ne'er-do-wells such as yourself.

[ManInBlack]

Or, I could be in support of the Second Amendment but also have an opinion about the politics of America, and reality that does not always mesh well with my support for the Second Amendment.

You are a confused individual, and until and unless you figure out that the right of armed self-defense comes as a package with other individual rights and liberties that need to be respected by a limited government, you cannot be an ally in this fight.

[Beretta92FSLady]

When it is something that gives you a benefit or service for free, at the expense of others, you seem to prefer to call it a mandate. We have seen this time and time again. Please don't continue your blatant intellectual dishonesty.

When Man is no longer alone, meaning, there are other Men, Man has become a collective, Liberty is a matter of degrees. Autonomous Man's Liberty being unfettered is highly subjective.

Please don't insult his memory. You have more in common with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin: you seek to use the unfettered power of the Almighty state to take what others have earned and redistribute it to ne'er-do-wells such as yourself.

I have merely stated that the State has pretty close to unfettered Power; that is the purpose of the State.

I have done well, I have been in a fulfilling fourteen year relationship with my wife, four wonderful children who do well in school, have clothes on their back, and have a sufficient amount of food to eat each day.

[Beretta92FSLady]

You are a confused individual, and until and unless you figure out that the right of armed self-defense comes as a package with other individual rights and liberties that need to be respected by a limited government, you cannot be an ally in this fight.

I may be confused but let's not get bogged down by distractions.

You can conclude that I am not an ally.

Any form and degree of Government takes away from individual Liberty.

[PrayingForWar]

I may be confused but let's not get bogged down by distractions.

You can conclude that I am not an ally.

Any form and degree of Government takes away from individual Liberty.

Even though I think you're clueless on many issues, and jokingly accuse you of having brain damage, I consider you an ally in regards to 2A issues. Though I don't share your views on much else, I appreciate the fact that you not only exersize and support your 2A rights, but that you are willing to argue in favor of them with your fellow obozo zealots.

[Beretta92FSLady]

Even though I think you're clueless on many issues, and jokingly accuse you of having brain damage, I consider you an ally in regards to 2A issues. Though I don't share your views on much else, I appreciate the fact that you not only exersize and support your 2A rights, but that you are willing to argue in favor of them with your fellow obozo zealots.

I argue in favor of it until they kick me out of the room. As the years pass I seem to be less sociable, well, I seem to be kicked out of more and more rooms, Democrat and Republican.

[marshaul]

Any form and degree of Government takes away from individual Liberty.

I am so sick of hearing this crap. While it may appear largely truthful in practice, you preach it as though it were axiomatic.

It is necessarily, inherently true so long as you misdefine "liberty" as "the ability to do whatever one wants any of the time with no limitations".

In reality, a coherent and internally-consistent definition of "liberty" limits one to acts which do not limit others' ability to do the same.

Nothing about government requires a reduction of liberty, properly defined.

You depend on this premise so as to justify further reductions of liberty, so long as they, in your mind, represent a worthwhile tradeoff "for the common good", a tradeoff you've intentionally conflated with the core concept of government -- any government. In addition to being a commission of the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, the implication here is that, to disagree, I must argue from anarchism, or I must make the argument on utilitarian grounds.

Well, I refuse to argue on utilitarian grounds unless is darn well suits me -- which is almost never.

The means are the ends.

[Beretta92FSLady]

I am so sick of hearing this crap. While it may appear largely truthful in practice, you preach it as though it were axiomatic.

It is necessarily, inherently true so long as you misdefine "liberty" as "the ability to do whatever one wants any of the time with no limitations".

In reality, a coherent and internally-consistent definition of "liberty" limits one to acts which do not limit others' ability to do the same.

Nothing about government requires a reduction of liberty, properly defined.

You depend on this premise so as to justify further reductions of liberty, so long as they, in your mind, represent a worthwhile tradeoff "for the common good", a tradeoff you've intentionally conflated with the core concept of government -- any government. In addition to being a commission of the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, the implication here is that, to disagree, I must argue from anarchism, or I must make the argument on utilitarian grounds.

Well, I refuse to argue on utilitarian grounds unless is darn well suits me -- which is almost never.

The means are the ends.

Then properly define Liberty for me, and we can discuss it. I will tell you whether or not I agree.

[PrayingForWar]

Then properly define Liberty for me, and we can discuss it. I will tell you whether or not I agree.

This oughta be good....

[Stanley]

.

It is necessarily, inherently true so long as you misdefine "liberty" as "the ability to do whatever one wants any of the time with no limitations".

In reality, a coherent and internally-consistent definition of "liberty" limits one to acts which do not limit others' ability to do the same.

Not arguing, just a question.

Isn't that exactly the definition of liberty? Aren't you confusing our social contract to not impede liberty with actual liberty?

I mean isn't liberty exactly the ability to do whatever we want and isnt it just our social contract to agree to limit our liberty so as to not infringe on others and possibly be infringed on?

That's always been my take on it. That i am free to do whatever but freely agree to the social contract for our mutual benefit.

I could be wrong of course...

[ManInBlack]

Aren't you confusing our social contract to not impede liberty with actual liberty?

I mean isn't liberty exactly the ability to do whatever we want and isnt it just our social contract an agreement to limit our liberty so as to not infringe on others and possibly be infringed on?

Can you please show me this mythical document called the "social contract" that you and others claim I am party to?

I can't recall ever signing such a document, but every time I've heard it invoked, it is followed by an attempt to steal either my liberty or my property.

[Stanley]

Can you please show me this mythical document called the "social contract" that you and others claim I am party to?

I can't recall ever signing such a document, but every time I've heard it invoked, it is followed by an attempt to steal either my liberty or my property.

By social contract I mean our agreeing to respect each other and whatnot. I can't articulate it but you know what I mean.

Otherwise there is no contract and then you expecting me to respect your liberty by limiting myself is an infringement on my liberty.

Maybe someone can articulate it better?

And I'm not claiming anything. I had a thought and asked a question.

If there is no social contract then why worry about others' liberty and not just our own?