Post of the Year

Message

re: Post of the Year

on 12/31 at 11:56 am to Rex

quote:
The very purpose of our government, as even acknowledged by our own Constitution, is to promote the general welfare. Having said that, your gross generalization about the mind of "progressives" is no different from the minds of everyone else: you think roads and bridges are socially advantageous so you want them built by government, you think armies are socially protective so you want them maintained by government, . . . .
Your own view of government playing a necessary role is no different from mine; the difference is only in the details.

examples of promoting the general welfare as constitutionally provided. The purpose of roads and bridges to the general welfare is self-evident so promotion, maintenance, and inspections of them is naturally beneficial to the public as a whole.

But according to your reasoning relative to gun control for instance, the Amish should be on sound ground to have the government ban them. Not useful for the Amish.

As for maintaining a national defense, that is pretty self-evident as a national interest. But you should argue on behalf of the pacifists, who want noting to do with 'war' or the capacity to engage in in. Not beneficial to them.

quote:
you see abortions as socially destructive so you want them banned by government, you see guns as socially necessary so you want them revered by government, you see religion as beneficial so you want it coddled by government, etc., etc., etc.

Noting in the constitution says it is ok to yank a half born child out of a mother's birth canal by crushing its head, or - if it should survive that ordeal, to purposely set it aside to die by exposure and neglect - just because the mother didn't want to be inconvenienced by its presence. That is the ground you are staking out as your own - to be defended to the death of the last fetus.

Arms are protected specifically by the constitution, unlike abortion=on-demand. There is nothing about 'revering' guns in following constitutional dictates. It is merely an enumerated right.

There is nothing about 'coddling' religion in the constitution - and there is nothing about 'separation of church and state' in the constitution either, although that is a good thing. What is stupid is your belief that our government should be hostile toward religion of the christian variety, while coddling religion of the islamic variety. That is just plain stupid.

Your 'etc. etc. etc.' would be even more lame than what you considered to be your strongest arguments. I'd love to see them in your order of priority.

quote:
constant calls for prohibitions against sexual privacy, free speech, marriage equality, artistic expression, etc., etc.

Ya know - you should publish your own dictionary if you are going to 'speak in tongues.' Every thing you stated here is an abject lie (and I know you eschew lying because you said so) using the normal definitions of the common words you chose.

You certainly would never lie - or misconstrue - or mislead - would you????

Again the etc, etc, must be hum-dingers.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by SlowFlowPro

on 12/31 at 11:58 am to Rex

quote:
The very purpose of our government, as even acknowledged by our own Constitution, is to promote the general welfare

through what was a restrictive process with limited powers to promote any policy, let alone that wide of a policy

quote:
Having said that, your gross generalization about the mind of "progressives" is no different from the minds of everyone else: you think roads and bridges are socially advantageous so you want them built by government, you think armies are socially protective so you want them maintained by government, you see abortions as socially destructive so you want them banned by government, you see guns as socially necessary so you want them revered by government, you see religion as beneficial so you want it coddled by government, etc., etc., etc. Your own view of government playing a necessary role is no different from mine; the difference is only in the details.

protecting our rights and a few limited roles is a lot different than promoting social policy

one thing you're ignoring is the expansion of the policies into areas government has no business going. i mean look at the whole era of the new deal and all the vast expansion in government

sure, any non-anarchist believes government has a role, but progressives see that role as infinite, where any time a perceived crisis emerges the solution is through government (even if there is no solution)

quote:
Again, your motivations are no different, thus the constant calls for prohibitions against sexual privacy, free speech, marriage equality, artistic expression, etc., etc.

where do i advocate any of that?

if you think i'm a republican who believes in using government to regulate social behavior that doesn't affect others, you're wrong.

quote:
That's just a false generalization and a ridiculous insult not worthy of discussion.

i'm looking at history and all the horrible consequences of progressive ideology. are you saying it doesn't exist?

quote:
That's a pretty odd statement for a non-"progressive" to make, considering his easy proclivity to hypocritically rail against the dangers of our own government while insisting on its mandates for his preferred policies, as already described,

who are my boogeymen (outside of government), rex?

quote:
Your own motivations are no different. The non-religious "hate" religion as false for its doctrines and its desired policies, just as the religious hate the opposite. In fact, religious expectations of behavior are far more dogmatic and restrictive than are those of the non-religious.

i don't know. they're pretty similar

i'm not a religious person, but i understand its role. it's the same with other similar societal structures

people pick their own churches, most of the time. whether that's anti-religion, environmentalism, anti-business, anti-rich, etc. they all follow similar patterns. i'm not really a part of any such group, as best i can tell

i don't trust authority

quote:
It's a self-evident proposition to state that to do otherwise than accept your own social desires would be insane bipolarism.

i don't push my own social desires on people who don't wish to participate, so it's a bit different

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Turkey_Creek_Tiger

on 12/31 at 12:00 pm to Rex

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 12/31 at 12:02 pm to Rex

You can't declare your own post to be post of the year.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Rex

on 12/31 at 12:11 pm to Scruffy

quote:
You can't declare your own post to be post of the year.

Just another example of conservative oppression.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Bard

on 12/31 at 12:19 pm to Rex

Egotism, thy name is Rex.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 12/31 at 12:20 pm to Rex

quote:
Just another example of conservative oppression.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Turkey_Creek_Tiger

on 12/31 at 1:07 pm to Rex

quote:
Just another example of conservative oppression

so letting the majority decide who has the post of the year and not being able to vote for yourself is conservative oppression?

This post was edited on 12/31 at 1:08 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by LSURussian

on 12/31 at 1:28 pm to Rex

quote:
Dumbass Post of the Year

quote:
Has to be my own

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Redacted on 12/31 at 2:51 pm to Rex

quote:
Worst Poster of the Year

quote:
Rex

Do we need to vote on this? I'm sure it's unanimous.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by constant cough

on 12/31 at 3:14 pm to Rex

quote:
Has to be my own explanation of how it's both unfair and illogical, except to further enrich the rich, to tax capital gains except on new issues at a lower rate than on ordinary income.

Was that the one where you first put on the Maggie Puppet Head and we all made fun of you?

Yeah, that thread was awesome!

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by RedShirt

on 12/31 at 3:56 pm to Rex

I've been reading this board for years. One thing that I've concluded is this: Rex is the worst individual/person imaginable. What a piece of human garbage!

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Jbird

on 12/31 at 9:35 pm to Rex

quote:
Sorry, but your post is just typical pablum around here: full of false stereotypes, generalizations, red herrings, strawmen, and non sequiturs.

Such a deep well thought out reply I changed my mind it is cool you suck Odrams crank!

Reply • Back to Top • Refresh

Return to Board	Jump to Page
Page 4 of 4