Posted on 07/20/2007 8:27:02 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
PERHAPS YOU can help me by showing me some FICTION I have posted already?
Of course you can't.
“In the entire history of humanity man has never been offered a choice in government of absolute good.”
The entire history of humanity? Perhaps the City of Enoch would fit that description. It is possible for people to be good and to expect their leaders to be good. It all depends on their desire and the kind of society they want to live in.
Which explains why he is such a loser who can't get elected dog-catcher.
“No one else “gets it” like Keyes.”
He certainly understands causes and effects. Brillant man.
I think we should treat Islam exactly the same way we treated the other two destructive political ideologies of the last century, nazism and communism.
I didn't "invent" anything.
Sure you did. You claimed that I wanted to outlaw some forms of religion. That is called a "straw man." Not surprising that you would need a fictional straw man to knock down, since you can't possibly argue successfully with the real arguments for historic American governance that are being discussed on this thread.
You should try reading the posts I'm responding to and THEN get back to me!
I not only read the specific post you were responding to, I wrote it, actually. How did you miss that?
| Name | Party | Votes | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barack Obama | Democratic | 3,524,702 | 70 |
| Alan Keyes | Republican | 1,371,882 | 27 |
| Albert J. Franzen | Independent | 79,481 | 2 |
| Jerry Kohn | Libertarian | 67,914 | 1 |
Sure you did. You claimed that I wanted to outlaw some forms of religion.
Wrong. I was refering to posts prior to your butting into this exchange.
My only issue with you was over your defending them.
Well, actually I can.
Your post number 34 on this thread:
"Right. So we're going to outlaw every religion but that of the majority." - Jorge
I made no such assertion. As I said, you're inventing straw men to knock down, since you have no ability to counter the actual arguments that are being made for how American self-govenment actually works, and has always worked.
Do you only give credence to the arguments of those who win elections?
If so, I guess that makes you quite a fan of the two-term POTUS Bill Clinton.
I guess that depends on your definition of “good.”
The Bible says that no man is good, we are all sinful, just in varying degrees and of various types.
I am unclear what the City of Enoch refers to, but it appears to be a religious reference. If we’re going to be talking about God in person taking direct control of the government then my point doesn’t apply. Those claiming to speak for God are no more likely to be “good” than anybody else.
God is good. Men are not. We each have trouble controlling our own lives, but think that qualifies us somehow to control others. Ecclesiastes 8: 9 “All this I observed while applying my heart to all that is done under the sun, when man had power over man to his hurt.”
That government is best which governs least simply because humans are not qualified to control other humans.
I not only read the specific post you were responding to, I wrote it, actually. How did you miss that?
You are SirJohnBarleyCorn..... who is the original poster in this exchange?
You posted what you posted to me, not anyone else.
We can be good, if we want to.
Neither ideology was ever outlawed in the US, though each became wildly unpopular at different times. For the most part, those Nazis or Commies who were prosecuted were charged with perjury, espionage, sabotage or some other overt criminal act, not with belief in an unpopular ideology.
By all means let's prosecute Muslims who commit overt criminal acts. But by definition, embedded in our Constitution, the US cannot criminalize a religion. Which is a very good thing, IMHO.
That could change. It requires an amendment. Get busy on it if you think that's the way we should go.
Well, actually I can.
Actually you CAN'T.
And the link you posted to my post 34 is pretty stupid.
All you had to do is post that you disagreed.
The idea that this is therefore "Fiction" is absolutely silly.
By all means let's prosecute Muslims who commit overt criminal acts. But by definition, embedded in our Constitution, the US cannot criminalize a religion. Which is a very good thing, IMHO.
Exactly.
That could change. It requires an amendment. Get busy on it if you think that's the way we should go.
What are you talking about? Why would we want that to change?
Any poster can read your post #34, in which you made a false claim.
And you were talking about an exchange that began with somebody else.
Certainly we can, although darn few of us can maintain it permanently. I certainly know I cannot.
But even those who are good are not thereby qualified to rule over others and enforce their will on them.
LOL...you can’t weasel out of what you posted, no matter how hard you try. You created a straw man, a fiction, and just can’t stand the fact that it was so easily pointed out, laughed at, and dispensed with.
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.