Posted on 11/06/2001 5:22:36 PM PST by AndyJackson
You don't need to defend yourself, truth will out. Remember what I taught you - what others accuse you of, they are usually guilty of themselves. Also, remember Micah's admonition - seek justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. He will see you through.
And to master andyjackson - at least sheltonmac has the intestinal fortitude to put his neck on the line each week via the internet with his postings - what's your latest accomplishment? He states who he is and what he believes on his website. You sir do no such thing. You hide behind annonimity and throw stones at those who are actively involved in trying to make this nation a better place to live and prosper. Calling my son a 'liberal' and 'propagandist' shows your complete inability to recognize either one. Sit at the feet of a true logician and learn some humility. Constructive criticism is always welcome because none of us are perfect. But throwing stones and lashing out with epitats that are sure to rile are not ways to criticize constructively.
I hope I haven't 'circumnavigated the globe' to make my point.
What is really weird, is that comments as obvious as mine even have to be pointed out to you fellas. Odd.
"Often I read what I have written and find I don't understand a word of it. Sometimes diagramming it is the only way to get myself out of my own muddle." - and hoists himself.
I think by general agreement, it is the Constitution that lays out the purposes and powers of the U.S. government. My copy reads:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nowhere do I see that the common defense is the primary purpose. This is important because the author wants me to believe that the government is doing something it is not supposed to be doing at the expense of defense. But this simply is not true.
I addressed this in post #36 at some length, at least what I think the point was, namely the difference between us and terrorists. This answer is so obvious that no one should have to answer it, except the author. If the point is moral relativism, I also addressed that.
What I did not address is what the author himself said the subject was, above, namely, that we are morally bankrupt. However, he did not write about that.
Since we are talking about addressing and missing points, you missed my point and didn't address it. My article demonstrated the logical twists and turns of an anti-abortionist transforming himself into a moral relativist. This is normally hard to do, but he "apparently" did it and I wanted to figure out how. If his logic were convincing I would have to make the same transformation myself. Fortunately, I am safe.
If blowing smoke is not an appropriate rhetorical device in constructing a sound argument I seriously doubt that throwing a stink bomb is either. Nevertheless you have learned nothing, and sadly felt no constraint from posting despite your protests.
I would love to. Please give me his name so that I may be so enlightened.
This can be true. For instance, you have to read all of de Toqueville to understand completely the meaning of "Democracy" as he means it. The problem is when from sentence to sentence the meaning keeps changing, so that you never know what the word means, such as in Demidog's post above where he has to change the meaning of defense to something it doesn't mean to most of us in order to attempt to carry his point. It didn't matter because the Constitution says something entirely different anyway.
I called your son a neo-conservative, inaccurately since he describes himself as a paleo-conservative and I apologized for that. His opinion is that we are the same as the terrorists. This is nihilism, which I did also call him. MinuteGal called him a propagandist, not me. She seems to have some expertise in the area and so I will defer to her judgment.
Where flaws in logic arise, feel free to point them out. But it might behoove you to live and let live as well. Unless you are capable of concocting a discourse on pure reason.
The author did not put a human face on the question but rather the audacity of the act of asking and only a self-absorbed regressive introvert would deliberately cloud the issue.
I would go on, but suffice it to say that your critique, kaff, kaff is the most ridiculous piece of analysis I have seen here since navigator used to smell up the place with his pompous ponderings on the libertarian ideal...of which he was woefully ignorant.
Only if you are a prepubescent middle schooler will I forgive your insult to our intelligence.
However, and for this liberal there is always a however, I think you are more likely to be a graduate student with far too much time on your hands and you should visit a priest post haste for he alone can grant you absolution.
In case I have not made myself perfectly clear in anthropomorphic terms...you stink so badly I can smell you through the screen and I feel the need to retch...
If in doing this you feel inclined to tell me what I look like, think like or smell like, I would encourage you to do so. Please put these comments in a separate paragraph from the rest so that we can keep separate subjects separate.
Granted. But some retorts made, in the process of said tearing-apart, will have more validity than others. On the whole, the poster's tearing-apart comments make valid and germane points which illustrate fundamental flaws in the article's logic. This won't necessarily be true of all such tearing-aparts you refer to.
Perhaps, you disagree with that. That's ok with me.
What is really weird, is that comments as obvious as mine even have to be pointed out to you fellas. Odd.
After all, we're all (besides you) just a bunch of mindless drone idiots. Got it. ;)
You argue that the primary job of the government really is national defense, but cannot even get through this part without hedging what you mean by defense.
I saw no 'hedging'. Straw man/tarbaby.
I think by general agreement, it is the Constitution that lays out the purposes and powers of the U.S. government. My copy reads:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nowhere do I see that the common defense is the primary purpose.
-- Nowhere do I see where it isn't. Order is not specified. Straw man.
This is important because the author wants me to believe that the government is doing something it is not supposed to be doing at the expense of defense. But this simply is not true. -#64-
-- Your unsupported opinion does not make the authors opinion 'not true'.
Try again, with some logic.
This is a fudge and mixes meanings. One of these is performed by the Navy and standing army. The other defense is provided by patriots armed with a copy of the Constitution and a stout heart and sound mind. In fact, our founding fathers were so concerned about the threat a standing army posed to our liberties that they were not certain such thing should be allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.