Boston Bombing

[stanc]

Reading this string of posts reminds me of arguments I've had with my ex-wife. Her logic also stank. Without going through a couple of hours of research to take this apart point by point, you'll forgive me if I just choose to ignore the cherry picking recitation and address your single salient point.

My forgiveness is unnecessary. You are free to address -- or not address -- any points you wish.

Yes, the American way of life has always been in flux. We happened upon the world at the right time for it-- when the pace of life began changing in increments of years or decades rather than centuries. And I'm sure that everybody fought to maintain their own, no doubt treasured ways of life.

Okay, since you agree with my main points, why are you objecting to my posts?:confused:

Perhaps you might exert yourself to understand why we might also.

I don't need to "exert" myself. I stated in preceding posts that I understand, and even empathize with, your desires. Did you miss that, or do you just suffer from poor English comprehension?

Also, while I'm certainly interested to have you liken the way of life we would like to see continue to the desire for the continuation of slavery, I have to wonder at your alcohol intake prior to making that comparison. A healthy dollop of relativism in the ol' cognac, eh? You'll perhaps forgive me if I call you out on that.

Were the Southerners not Americans? Wasn't slavery a vital part of their way of life? Did they not desire to continue their way of life at least as intensely as you want to continue yours?* Jeez, use some of that "superior" logic you apparently think you have.

*More intensely, actually. They went to war in an attempt to preserve their version of "the American way of life." Today, even the most strident Obama-haters lack the cojones to take up arms against the guvmint.

BHO has a plan. He wrote about it. Much like Hitler, he told us just what he planned to do well before he set out to do it, and we scoffed, thinking he couldn't possibly mean it.

I, for one, don't like BHO's plan. I don't like the way he's going about implementing it. I don't like the way he's trampling everything I hold dear in his dash to accomplish his goals. And I don't like the idea that he and his ilk have managed to so skew the system that we're unlikely to ever peacefully set it right. We need to start facing the fact that he's got the biggest soapbox and he's corrupted the ballot box.

You, like a few others here, are long on vague complaints about what Obama is doing, but woefully lacking in specifics. But, no matter. The main thing I take from the above two paragraphs is that you see little likelihood of preventing the change(s) to which you object, which means we agree on another point.

[stanc]

The 1986 GCA was largely pro-grun manufacturer protection legislation that Democrats tacked-on an "anti new machinegun manufacture for civilians" amendment to, so it was not the most egregious piece of gun legislation. 1934 and 1968 were the most egregious assaults of the 2A...

I strongly disagree. Neither the 1934 NFA nor the 1968 GCA prohibited manufacture of weapons for civilians, nor did they prevent civilian ownership. That's what makes the 1986 law so much more egregious: you can't buy what can't be produced.

...in addition to the racist State Democrat bills that banned ownership or possession of firearms by slaves and freed slaves in the South.

:confused: I thought we were discussing actions of the Federal government. The various States are another matter entirely. Along the line of racist State laws, I remember reading that the reason California penalties for concealed carry of knives was for a long time more severe than for concealed carry of handguns, was because knives were carried mostly by Mexicans, who were generally too poor to buy handguns, while the more affluent Anglos (especially those in power) could afford to purchase a revolver or pistol.

[JASmith]

TheOTHERmaninblack -- well said!

[cory]

Were the Southerners not Americans? Wasn't slavery a vital part of their way of life? Did they not desire to continue their way of life at least as intensely as you want to continue yours?* Jeez, use some of that "superior" logic you apparently think you have.

*More intensely, actually. They went to war in an attempt to preserve their version of "the American way of life." Today, even the most strident Obama-haters lack the cojones to take up arms against the guvmint.

If you're insinuating that the south succeeded to preserve slavery and then fought a bloody war over it, the progressive have claimed another victory of their institutes of indoctrination (public schools) through you're ignorance of US history. The amendment that abolished slavery was only possible because of the succession of the southern states. Otherwise Washington wouldn't of had the votes to do so, for another 30+ years. The civil war was fought to determine which had the higher authority the federal government or the states.

[Nukes]

And the Emacipation Proclamation did nothing about Northern slavery... and New England ship owners continued to ply the slave trade (outside of the US) until the 1890's... and there were/are some very ugly justifications for slavery.

Double standard hypocrisy.

[LRRPF52]

After indoctrination as to the history of the US Civil War in both private and public schools, my own studies point to a dynamic where the Northern Industrialists and the Southern Agriculturalists were instigated into a Civil War by foreign powers in Europe, who sought to divide and conquer their former colonies to regain the most promising real estate discovered in the exploration era, but where the pesky colonists removed the yoke of bondage of their despotic king.

When you study the Northern naval blockades on Southern exports on both the Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions, you start to understand the nature of the war more. The policies of the British, Spanish, French, and Russian governments is also enlightening as to the nature of the US Civil War. Abraham Lincoln's comments about the most formidable enemy he faced during the war sealed his fate on earth when he said:

"I have two great enemies., the southern army in front of me, and the financial institutions, in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy...I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in ther midst of the war."

[JASmith]

LRRPF52 -- glad you found Lincoln's quote!

With respect to the motivations for the Civil War, I suspect there were a number of different reasons. The most often cited are States Rights and Slavery.

A good way to look at this was that the Southern States by and large took the view that the US was more of a confederation than a republic and the more populous Northern states took the opposite view. The outcome of the 1860 election convinced them that the Federal government -- dominated by Northern States - would continue to dominate individual states and accelerate the economical exploitation of the South. Curtailing slavery would be one of the expected moves but not necessarily the biggest issue in matters of money.

There were other issues too but we should remember the overall lesson, the more powerful and technically competent side almost always wins, which is ultimately the deciding factor.

Nonetheless, both the Revolutionary War and the Civil set an important precedents about how far protests can go, hence the importance to the citizen to have the ability to resist injustice and the fear on the government's part.

Yes, many could label both the Civil War and the gun rights debate as a struggle for power between the people and the 'elite' governing officials. Whether we are right or not, or even successful, is for history to decide.

[stanc]

If you're insinuating that the south succeeded to preserve slavery and then fought a bloody war over it, the progressive have claimed another victory of their institutes of indoctrination (public schools) through you're ignorance of US history. The amendment that abolished slavery was only possible because of the succession of the southern states. Otherwise Washington wouldn't of had the votes to do so, for another 30+ years. The civil war was fought to determine which had the higher authority the federal government or the states.

I think that somebody who exhibits such poor spelling is in no position to chide others on their education.

[stanc]

Well said, Joe.

[stanc]

If you're insinuating that the south succeeded to preserve slavery and then fought a bloody war over it, the progressive have claimed another victory of their institutes of indoctrination (public schools) through you're ignorance of US history. The amendment that abolished slavery was only possible because of the succession of the southern states. Otherwise Washington wouldn't of had the votes to do so, for another 30+ years. The civil war was fought to determine which had the higher authority the federal government or the states.

I think that somebody who exhibits such poor spelling is in no position to chide others on their education.

[Nukes]

It seems that red letters and argumentum ad hominem are all that pass for tools in your debate toolkit.


Here are some reflections prompted by the Boston Marathon Bombing that are interesting even if they do come from a retired sociology professor:
http://lewrockwell.com/douglas/douglas76.1.html
http://lewrockwell.com/douglas/douglas75.1.html

And, just to head off the thought police and inquisitors before they get revved up, I do not agree with everything he posits. Can you see the "not"? It's shorter, so it's even harder to see than "...and others'...."

[cory]

I think that somebody who exhibits such poor spelling is in no position to chide others on their education.

I'm an engineer. Poor spelling is a genetic trait. haha

[cory]

LRRPF52 -- glad you found Lincoln's quote!

With respect to the motivations for the Civil War, I suspect there were a number of different reasons. The most often cited are States Rights and Slavery.

A good way to look at this was that the Southern States by and large took the view that the US was more of a confederation than a republic and the more populous Northern states took the opposite view. The outcome of the 1860 election convinced them that the Federal government -- dominated by Northern States - would continue to dominate individual states and accelerate the economical exploitation of the South. Curtailing slavery would be one of the expected moves but not necessarily the biggest issue in matters of money.

There were other issues too but we should remember the overall lesson, the more powerful and technically competent side almost always wins, which is ultimately the deciding factor.

Nonetheless, both the Revolutionary War and the Civil set an important precedents about how far protests can go, hence the importance to the citizen to have the ability to resist injustice and the fear on the government's part.

Yes, many could label both the Civil War and the gun rights debate as a struggle for power between the people and the 'elite' governing officials. Whether we are right or not, or even successful, is for history to decide.

Very well said Joe!

[BjornF16]

And the Emacipation Proclamation did nothing about Northern slavery... and New England ship owners continued to ply the slave trade (outside of the US) until the 1890's... and there were/are some very ugly justifications for slavery.

Double standard hypocrisy.

…and the Emancipation Proclamation would have done nothing to slavery in southern states (or border states) that were not in rebellion (or ceased to be in rebellion) on 1 January 1863...

[JASmith]

I'm an engineer. Poor spelling is a genetic trait. haha

Tel me abut iit!!! but, wi cin spel F=MA...

[BjornF16]

It seems that red letters and argumentum ad hominem are all that pass for tools in your debate toolkit.


Here are some reflections prompted by the Boston Marathon Bombing that are interesting even if they do come from a retired sociology professor:
http://lewrockwell.com/douglas/douglas76.1.html
http://lewrockwell.com/douglas/douglas75.1.html

And, just to head off the thought police and inquisitors before they get revved up, I do not agree with everything he posits. Can you see the "not"? It's shorter, so it's even harder to see than "...and others'...."

LOL...Since you bring it up again, your previous post was obviously directed at me. I was just clarifying what I had posted (since you lumped what "others" had posted in with my comments), and it wasn't just in regards to the "hydration" post you made, it was a general condemnation of various posts you've made in various threads (as you are clearly intelligent enough to already know). "Moron" was over the top, and in the spirit of brotherly love I already apologized for that remark in a previous post.

It doesn't matter that you are a self proclaimed Catholic, and that certainly doesn't mean you should be given a pass on some pretty incendiary comments in the various threads. (Actually, it should mean that you should hold yourself to a higher standard.)

You had a laundry list of things that are "evil"…what about ethnic hatred, political hatred, and anti-semitism? Aren't those equally evil? Isn't any hatred intrinsically evil?

Maybe explain how "Love thy neighbor" and remarks about "The Kenyan" and "kosher" are reconciled...

In regards to the professors' post on Boston (keeping in line with this thread), it seems to me that the people of Boston (and surrounds) weren't too bothered by the house to house searches (obviously a breach of 4th Amendment)…is the professor suggesting all of Boston is not "sane"?

All sane Americans want all of these vast killings and woundings and other atrocities that happen routinely in America to stop. But no sane American wants to go berserk over one such event in Boston, shut down the city and transport and schools and send in vast armies of overt and secret police and armored military forces and murder more of the Constitution to stop a few psychotic murderers. Only the psychotics ruling our society and the ignorant citizens they terrify with their Media insanity want those ghastly things.

[Nukes]

As a Catholic I neither ask nor expect a "pass." Quite the contrary, I expect painful punishment for my every transgression.

I do not believe that anyone should hate what no man may control (skin color, ethnicity), but one should hate evils that are a matter of free choice (wicked behaviors and wicked beliefs—this includes genocide and believing that only persons of one's own religion are human and all others are animals or devils who should be killed or enslaved). I believe there is a set of objective standards for behavior called The Ten Commandments and that, while there are refinements to the Commandments (e.g., just war doctrine), the refinements may not nullify the Commandments (e.g., efforts to justify abortion and preemptive war and the holocaust of innocent civilians, women, and children).

I do not hate Kenyans or Semites or Europeans. I love Kenyans and Semites and Europeans and so I exhort them, as I exhort myself, to good behavior. If I refer to you as "the Texan," is that hateful? Or a bland fact?

As for the ritual epithet of which you seem so fond, it is not only a misnomer, but is also used to insist on a free pass for wicked behavior, disallowing even-handed inquiry and criticism to which all others are justly subjected. That ritual epithet is usually emblematic of double-standard hypocrisy, subjective, relativistic exceptionalism used to ignore, conceal, or excuse behaviors that would be condemned for other perpetrators.

I think that you, like many Americans, are completely unused to one objective standard and have become quite comfortable with shifting relativistic opinions that are no standard at all. In large degree this nation and this nation's controlling creditors have adopted Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." The people of Boston, a supposed bastion of Catholicism, "weren't too bothered" by their late and supposedly Catholic Senator's blind eye to the murder of a million babies per year. Why would they be "too bothered" by sturmtruppen trampling on a scrap of faded parchment?

It is at the same time both sad and amusing that you are so perplexed and peeved by one man with one consistent standard. In a rational world, it would be the Gordian knot complexities of double-minded contradictions and subjective exceptionalism that would be perplexing and bothersome.

Have I passed your inquisition?

[TheOTHERmaninblack]

Okay, since you agree with my main points, why are you objecting to my posts?:confused:

I don't need to "exert" myself. I stated in preceding posts that I understand, and even empathize with, your desires. Did you miss that, or do you just suffer from poor English comprehension?

So, polite sarcasm is also beyond your ken. Additionally, if you believe that I’m agreeing with your main points, the evidence seems to indicate that it is not I who suffers from poor comprehension.

Were the Southerners not Americans? Wasn't slavery a vital part of their way of life? Did they not desire to continue their way of life at least as intensely as you want to continue yours?* Jeez, use some of that "superior" logic you apparently think you have.

*More intensely, actually. They went to war in an attempt to preserve their version of "the American way of life." Today, even the most strident Obama-haters lack the cojones to take up arms against the guvmint.

Weren’t the NAZIs homo sapien sapiens? Are we then to claim that their way of life was no less sacred than ours, or any of those who fought against them? Relativism is a disease, bud, and you gots it.

You seem to think that we have no particular right to fight for the values we treasure because values change and ours are no better than anybody elses. That is, as least, the way you portrey yourself. That’ll get you bit. I’m sure that the NAZIs and the Khmer Rouge thought their way of life was just grand. Does that make it as valuable as a society based on civil liberty and economic freedom? Should such a society as the latter simply move aside when the Kmer roll into town and start lopping heads? Where do you draw the line?

You, like a few others here, are long on vague complaints about what Obama is doing, but woefully lacking in specifics. But, no matter.

Ah, the old statement in a vacuum argument. Cognitive disconnect at its finest. Here’s a tip. At some point, you’ve got to admit that each thread in each forum does not exist in a separate universe, devoid of any connection with the rest of the threads/posts made by those people involved. I’m pretty sure, in fact, that you already know that, and your nonsense here is just sophistry. At least I hope so. You don’t really expect each of us to regurgitate the whole long litany that’s been posted in thread after thread simply because you demand it, do you?

The reason I didn’t go down the long list of particulars earlier was that it’s all been posted and established elsewhere, and in venues where I seem to remember you were present. Have you forgotten? Or are you just being a dick? I suppose I could compose a list and just cut and paste it whenever somebody thinks it’s an argument winner to demand a line by line account, but I’m pretty sure three hundred page lists exceed the max character per post limit, and chain posting to prove an already beaten into the ground point is Probably a CoC violation.

The main thing I take from the above two paragraphs is that you see little likelihood of preventing the change(s) to which you object, which means we agree on another point.

You should probably read my post again, and not skip so many words. Speed reading is not your friend.

[stanc]

Your lack of logic and rationale thought makes it a waste of my time to bother replying to any of your comments and questions.

[TheOTHERmaninblack]

Your lack of logic and rationale thought makes it a waste of my time to bother replying to any of your comments and questions.

Not an unexpected response. Kind of typical, really.