Well, a number of us had some pretty good discussions on the subject, dispite nitpicking loonies like you butting in with obsessive inanities about imaginary left wingers.
-tpaine-
Nothing imaginary about left-wingers, sonny. I assume you are a left-winger since you use their wacky ideology to justify your revisionist history on the 1st Amendment. Further, sonny, if you can't handle criticism of your posts, don't post.
-Phil Freneau-
Phil, you've been following me for a couple of days now, unhappy about our exchange on another thread, where I called ~you~ the socialist. I said:
All of our rights are encompassed by life, liberty & property. You are becoming overwought in your zeal.
What is hard to understand is why you WANT state governments to have the power to censor, and to dictate religious doctrine into laws. This can only be a form of political madness.
I believe certain types of censorship are necessary to prevent the perverts of society from influencing our children. The same for general religious doctrines.
Case closed. You believe in a form of socialist statism. As I said, it's; outrageous hype, from a constitution hating 'states rights' zealot.
Typical leftist babble. You cannot win this argument so you resort to name calling and labeling.
You labeled yourself as a statist zealot with:
"I believe certain types of censorship are necessary" ---
Its all over but the shouting. Rave on.
137 posted on 08/25/2003 12:48 PM PDT by tpaine
>> You labeled yourself as a statist zealot with: "I believe certain types of censorship are necessary" ---
You left out my reply, sonny, so here it is again:
"Pure nonsense. You obviously do not know the definition of the word "statist". "Statist" implies support of the concept of a strong centralized government, with limited or no control at subordinate levels. You are the statist since you scorn any sort of control at the state and local levels.
On the second part, nearly all societies (probably from the beginning of time) had some form of censorship. Only the most perverse societies do/did not. Our nation had censorship from the beginning at the federal, state and local levels. And it still does in some respects, though the perverts are working hard to change that. Is that part of your mission?
BTW, some of your statements are pretty stupid. May I suggest that if you are going to use big words like "statist", you should at least look up the definition.
And, BTW, regarding this statement by you:
>> Well, a number of us had some pretty good discussions on the subject, dispite nitpicking loonies like you butting in with obsessive inanities about imaginary left wingers.
I believe our "discussion" began when you "butted in" on my conversation with "risk". And you complain about me "butting in"? (Note I never whined about you butting in on that conversation). Earlier you said I did not support the Constitution, but you are the one attempting to re-write it. And you call me a statist when you support a strong centralized government. You are the ultimate hypocrit, sonny.