DC Sniper

[McPatrickClan]

have a cigar

"have a cigar, you're gonna go farrrr"
-Pink Floyd

 

[Barak]

Of course I'll talk to you, just not about OUR government. I gave the best years of my life in service to my country and would fight to the death your right to denigrate it using the very freedoms it guarantees you.

Sure, that's fine too.

I'm a little concerned about misunderstanding again, though. Since I became a libertarian, I began to understand the differences between our country (a parcel of land), America (an idea), its people (as I have said before, a group so incredibly diverse that little of use can truthfully be said about all of them), its government (an out-of-control ravenous gang of thieves and murderers), its military forces (a mostly well-trained group of good-hearted ideologues who are constantly being sent to do the frequently corrupt bidding of the aforementioned gang of thieves and murderers), and so on.

I ran into this problem earlier with PuroBrat. I was running down the government, and he thought I was running down the American people. Just because I have harsh words for the government doesn't necessarily mean I have harsh words for the military as well. (As a matter of fact, if you served back when they still taught men to shoot and provided them with battle rifles capable of being used as such (1903, M1, M14), then I'd probably be hard put to find a harsh word for you.) Technically the military is part of the government, but it's a part that isn't supposed to have anything to do with the American people.

I disagree, however, that the government guarantees me any freedoms. The Constitution guarantees me certain freedoms, and the government does its level best to take those freedoms away anyway. (Case in point: the Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms; the government in DC and VA and MD imprisons its people for exercising that right.)

(Just by way of full disclosure, I'm no longer one of those folks who considers the Constitution second only to inspired Scripture. I have a harsh word or two for it as well; but those will definitely keep. Anyway, it's the Constitution that our politicians have sworn to uphold, so I feel justified in kicking up a fuss when they wipe their backsides with it, whether I completely agree with it or not.)

That doesn't mean I like hearing mealymouthed garbage being said about it.

Mealymouthed? Mealymouthed? I'll have you know that my garbage is all very clearly stated and well-defined. (Or at least I mean it to be.) I try not to waffle or weasel; if it looks like I'm being mealymouthed, it's probably an accident.

So, if you wanna be friendly, ease up.

Do I want to be friendly? In a general sense, sure. In a more specific sense, it depends. Friendly to whom? If you're a grocery-store manager or a gunsmith or a company trainer, then you're probably a perfectly decent fellow (if you weren't, you'd undoubtedly have been fired) and of course I'd like to be friendly with you. If you're an elected or appointed official, on the other hand, then chances are good (not certain, but better than even) that you're either a scum-sucking lowlife or on your way to becoming a scum-sucking lowlife, and any time spent trying to be friendly with you would be a waste. If you're an employee of a government organization, then I don't know. Most likely you're part of the problem, but the chances are good that you don't realize it. I'll certainly have more influence with you if I'm friendly than if I'm not.

And lose the quote boxes, I'm quite capable of following your train of thought as it pertains to what I have said.

I'm sorry; I didn't intend to be obnoxious. The quote boxes aren't for you; they're for me. It's tough for me to keep my own head straight if I'm trying to respond to more than one thing at a time. I tend to write long posts anyway; I think they're easier to read (they're certainly easier to write!) if they're organized.

But if you'd like me to avoid the quote boxes with you in the future, I'll try. You can make it easier on me by posting about only one thing at a time, rather than making a series of points in a single post.

 

[Barak]

A damn headache, eh? You too? "If a man calleth thee a donkey, pay him no mind. If two men call thee a donkey, get thee a saddle." Okay, okay, I'll try to do it without the quote boxes. Argh.

You probably won't catch me in Las Vegas in this lifetime, but I'm sure that treatment would do me a world of good--you're right.

As a matter of fact, I've never been to a herf anywhere, even an informal one. For me, smoking cigars has always been a lonely pursuit. (Not by choice; I just don't really know any other cigar smokers in person.)

Did I get personal? I really didn't intend to. I said something specific about SamClemmons being in the sniper area, but he mentioned it first so I figured it was okay.

Is there somebody here who is elected or appointed to government? If that's the case, it's probably best that neither of us gets the idea that the other harbors warm feelings toward us, since each of us is trying to put the other out of business.

Otherwise, I have nothing personal against anyone. We disagree, sure. I think I'm right and you're wrong, sure. (If I thought you were right and I was wrong, I would have come over to your side already, right?) But I'm open to argument and correction (it's what I'm looking for!), and I'm perfectly capable of being civil to folks with whom I disagree.

Abusive? What--"scum-sucking lowlife" abusive? How?

Okay, I'm sorry: I probably should have said "ethically-challenged individual" or something. I'll try to keep that in mind for next time.

I probably will go and have a cigar eventually, but not for awhile. I just smoked a Tamayo y Pareto Toro in an Oscuro wrapper Monday on the way to work (I know, it's probably nothing for you guys, but I think it's a really dark, sweet smoke, when I can get the wrapper to hang together), and my wife hates the smell of "finish" on my breath. Tonight I'd rather have her than a cigar.

Hope you appreciate the absence of quote boxes: it's making me nuts.

 

[SamClemmons]

Now yer talkin'. Prost.
NA

 

[PuroBrat]

I ran into this problem earlier with PuroBrat. I was running down the government, and he thought I was running down the American people.

Woaho bucko!!!!! Please don't misunderstand me, I would like to be able to speak for myself. You above all others should be able to understand that.

I know who you are running down. My point is, while you sit in our country (a parcel of land),
in the great America,
(an idea),
enjoying the Freedoms afforded its people,
(as you have said before, a group so incredibly diverse that little of use can truthfully be said about all of them),
and the protection of the freedoms that most of us believe come from its government
(which you treasonously refer to as an out-of-control ravenous gang of thieves and murderers),
as well as the protection of its military forces
(who you believe are a mostly well-trained group of good-hearted ideologues who are constantly being sent to do the frequently corrupt bidding of the aforementioned gang of thieves and murderers),
then you should have the common curtousy to not Run it Down. Personally I see you as no better than the thugs in Palistine who were Burning Flags on International TV.

Please don't get me wrong, I have been trying not to be personal about this, but there you have it. Since we are talking about ideaologies, that is mine. Please let me and only me state what PuroBrat is "Thinking".

 

[Barak]

How do you know who I'm talking to if I don't use quote boxes? Just by context? Sheesh, you guys are good. I'm a software developer; I need more structure and order than this.

This one is in response to McPatrickClan (did I spell that right?) where he said all the nice things about me and told me to be nice.

Thank you for saying nice things about me. It doesn't happen often, and I appreciate it.

As you quoted me (hey--how come you get to use quote boxes? Waah!), I'm trying not to be nasty or mean, but I am looking for an argument. (Your clients, presumably, are not.) Do you think I can be the sort of nice you speak of and still get an argument? And carry it forward from its point of inception to where all parties understand the terms being used and the premises being built on, and real learning can take place? In the words of the kid in the Crispix commercial, I'm still skeptible, but I'm willing to give it a shot if you think so.

(I have visions of Chip & Dale running through my head right now.)

Sometimes I can see other people's positions, sometimes I can't. I used to be a conservative, for example; I understand that point of view fairly well, even though I disagree with it now. On the other hand, I have met people before who make statements similar to that of SamClemmons that the concept of an armed citizenry is "just ludicrous," or words to that effect, and I have never even begun to understand that. It's a point of view that just doesn't make sense to me, and given all the unfruitful effort that has over the years been bent to the task, probably never will. But I don't have to be mean to SamClemmons just because I don't understand him, and I don't think I have been.

Actually, I very rarely find a new message board; Cigar Pass was my first in probably a year. (Argh! This is in response to the part where you speculate that I should find a new tack if I'm burning through message boards that quick. And how is that previous sentence semantically different from a quote box??) Once I get established somewhere, and people have a handle for the sort of drivel I spout, things generally calm down until somebody somewhere comes up with a scenario that finally demonstrates the utter bankruptcy of libertarian thought, and then we (usually) have a wonderful, thought-provoking, and informative argument about it. So far I'm still a libertarian, but I'm a wiser and further-honed one than I used to be; and even if I do eventually find that doomsday scenario, all my previous experience will keep me from making the same mistakes over again.

Okay, right now I get the vague feeling that my post ought to generally be drawing toward a close, but I haven't any idea what I've answered and what I haven't, or whether there's supposed to be a point here that I'm missing. I hope you all are happy.

 

[Barak]

This one's for PuroBrat, in response to where he was indignant that I misquoted him.

(This whole getting-quotes-straight thing, you know, would be much easier with quote boxes. I just thought I'd point that out. )

I'm sorry to have misrepresented you, brother, and you're right, I do know what that feels like. As I remember, the discussion didn't have a well-defined termination (or perhaps I just didn't read it), so I thought I understood what you meant. I'll be sure to let you clarify in the future.

Doing this without quote boxes is confusing me, PuroBrat, but you're confusing me further.

Because I run down the US government while I live in this country, you're putting me on a moral level with Palestinians who burn the US flag (one must assume that they're running down the US government when they do that, since the US government is the part that does most of the...ah...interaction with them, I guess we'll say) while living outside this country.

Is that right? (I'm not misrepresenting you again, am I?)

If so, your "love it or leave it" remark from earlier seems inconsistent. The Palestinians are complying with it (dissenting with the US government from without) while I'm not (dissenting with the US government from within). Shouldn't you put me on a moral level below them?

(Agh, I hate this no-quote-box thing. You know, I think you folks might have hit on another way to get rid of me--other than ignoring me, I mean.)

Your point, then, restated (it helps me understand to restate), goes like this?

Since the government grants us the right to dissent, it follows that it is therefore the height of discourtesy to do so.

Please correct or clarify as applicable.

 

[PuroBrat]

That about covers it. It is the same as insulting your host while you sup at his table. Very bad manners. And as far as the Palestinians, to burn the flag within the US would actually be worse than to burn it Outside the US. I dare say that I doubt you have been a flag burner (please god tell me I read that one correctly). So technically, verbally asaulting our government from within would be about as bad as burning the flag from without in my limited mind. Thus, I regret to inform you that I would not rate your worthiness Below that of the flag burning thugs in Palestine, (tho I feel you would be proud of such a rating) but rather only equally dispickable.

You see, I love my country and would fight to death for her, or for any one of her citizens, including you. And I resent being referred to as a member of a "well-trained group of good-hearted ideologues who are constantly being sent to do the frequently corrupt bidding of the aforementioned gang of thieves and murderers" I am no longer a member of this group in body, but I am in spirit. That spirit is what built this country. And I pitty you for not feeling it too.

 

[hbooker]

So we have come almost to a full circle.
I am thinking that we may be able to agree that there are specific elliments at work within our gubment (GW word!) That have been there so long they have lost thier focus.
They lost sight of the reason they got involved in the first place.

They may have lost this visison in a simple thought pattern.
"We know whats best"

And it is about that time that this American gets the little short hairs on my neck standing up. But that is neither here nor there - the real question is how are we going to get past this thread that started about a low life sniper who is striking fear into many many law abiding americans lifes that morphed into a soap box for "WHy I cant stand the Gubment" then into a
thing about No - nope you didn't read that right

I said...



Now we are back to ?

The rocky and Bulwinkle show..

In a noon press conference, Police Chief Charles Moose went to great lengths to stress that the cops need the public's help, and said that if any witnesses are illegal immigrants, they should not be afraid to come forward. He said the police are not interested in their immigration status, and that his office does not enforce immigration law.


You know I would have figgured that out on my own I mean everyone they have come in contact with who was illegal got released into the arms of Immigration.
Talk about double speak.

Yeah we want to hear from you, ignore the fact that our actions are saying one thing and we are speaking another.


The one thing that amazes me is that the people who they have "arrested" have all been kept for one reason or another.

They must be asking some really touchy questions to want to keep each person away from other humans.....

 

[Barak]

Okay, so on your scale burning a US flag is worse than talking bad about the government? Why? (I know, it's a peripheral question, but I'm curious.)

No, I've never burned a US flag on purpose, unless you count stuff like burning a load of trash that includes the box in which a toy GI Joe came home from the store. I'm not that reverent of the flag, but for me the flag (especially with its fifty stars) stands for the vision of federalism the Framers had for America. As such, it's not exactly the vision I would have chosen, but it's a durn sight nobler than the rampant socialist statism we see now. As such, I don't think the flag is particularly applicable to our nation today, but I have considerable respect for the idea it represents. It turned out to be largely ineffective, but it was a good try, and one can hardly blame the schemes of man for being imperfect. I'm not one to ascribe mystical attributes to inanimate objects, which means it probably wouldn't occur to me to burn a flag even if I did hate what it stood for (I'd be thinking, Spend twenty bucks on a flag and then burn it? That's a lot more work than just burning this $20 bill right here; I can do that without bothering to go to the store!). But I don't hate what it stood for, so that probably pushes me a little bit to the plus side of your accounting book, I'm guessing.

Your willingness to fight to the death is commendable; but fight for a principle, not a person or a group of people or a thing. If you fight for a person, you're just hired muscle. If you fight for a thing, you're an armed robber. But if you fight for a principle, you fight for yourself and for something bigger than yourself.

There are very few principles, if any, inside the DC Beltway, or near any other seat of government. If you want to fight for the ideal that is America, then I say that's great, and I'll join you even if we don't agree on exactly what the ideal means. But to fight for a power-hungry bunch of money-grubbing ingr--sorry, "ethically-challenged individuals?" We'll be on opposite sides of that one, I think, and may the man with the best cause win.

Two more things.

First, if you were in the military, then you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. In order to take that oath and have it mean anything, you must have had some concept of the Constitution. Tell me: What's the purpose and function of the Constitution, as you see it?

Finally, as close as I can tell, you're saying that the spirit of the military (whose primary function, as immortalized by Rush Limbaugh, is to kill people and break things) is what built America. I have to say that I disagree. It's the people of America, both good and bad, who built it into what it is today--people free to do as they chose, to make their own decisions between wise and foolish and live with the consequences. The vision of America is a vision of freedom. The function of the military is as a tool of great coercive force. Coercive force can be used in the service of freedom (I am freer if I can defend myself, my family, and my property against invasion or theft with coercive force than I am if I cannot), but it is certainly not the same as freedom.

As long as the military is used in a defensive role, defending the American people from invasion or theft, it is a tool for freedom. But when it is used preemptively, to initiate force (as it has been many times in the recent and not-so-recent past), it is a tool of oppression, not freedom. The military is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically evil, but can be used for either purpose--just like a hammer, or a knife, or a pen.

And if it is the people of America who made it the greatest nation on earth by seizing and exercising freedom, to an extent never before seen in the history of the world, it is also the people of America who are supervising its downfall by voluntarily feeding that same freedom into the ravenous jaws of an ever-expanding government, apparently in pursuit of a safety and security that it ought to be perfectly obvious the government cannot provide.

(Hence this thread.)

 

[Barak]

I am thinking that we may be able to agree that there are specific elliments at work within our gubment (GW word!) That have been there so long they have lost thier focus.
They lost sight of the reason they got involved in the first place.

I can't stand it, I have to use a quote box. I'll do what I gotta do, and you folks do what you gotta do.

Have your secretary type that up and I'll sign it.

I think there are some people in government who are just plain evil, and have always been that way, and always will. I can name names, if you'd like.

But there's a particular Republican senator in Washington who didn't start out that way, because I knew him slightly. He was a solid, decent, God-fearing family man with visions of cleaning up Washington, and I believe he was sincere, not just a politician. So I voted for him, and he won.

Now, several terms later, he's a conspicuously sleazy and corrupt bootlicker. Nobody knows another man's heart for sure, but I'm as positive as I can be that when he went to Washington his heart was in the right place; but Washington changed him.

It's funny--when he first went to Washington, he looked wholesome--a fine, upstanding Christian man with a beautiful young family. Now we call him The Weasel because of his corruption, but the weird thing is that he even looks like a weasel now.

I'm a firm believer in the adage that power corrupts. I've seen it--and in my own small way, I've felt it, too.

 

[PuroBrat]

Now we agree!! Absolute Power corrupts absolutely!!!

Unfortunately there is that point alone in which we can agree.

 

[McPatrickClan]

BACK TO THE TOPIC

Mark this: The sniper is a Middle Eastern terrorist who will most likely strike in a place of fun or supermarket. His pattern is one where he paralyzes American life. He has struck many places so people will not do those things anymore.

I will personally flip the switch on this sick-o.

 

[Barak]

Now we agree!! Absolute Power corrupts absolutely!!!

Unfortunately there is that point alone in which we can agree.

Be cautious with your agreement: it carries with it consequences that may at first be unseen.

If absolute power corrupts absolutely, and our military, being the most powerful the world has ever seen, gives our government the closest thing to absolute power in foreign policy that is likely to be encountered on this earth, then how can our government not be as close to absolutely corrupt as can be achieved by man?

 

[PuroBrat]

I am with you McP!!

 

[emodx]

BACK TO THE TOPIC

Mark this: The sniper is a Middle Eastern terrorist who will most likely strike in a place of fun or supermarket. His pattern is one where he paralyzes American life. He has struck many places so people will not do those things anymore.

I will personally flip the switch on this sick-o.

I wouldn't make such blanket remarks like that...Not only does it make a ethnic group look bad, it makes you look bad.

Emo

 

[McPatrickClan]

I wouldn't make such blanket remarks like that...Not only does it make a ethnic group look bad, it makes you look bad.

Emo

BARAK: Watch this debate between me and Emo. This is how you discuss comments or perspectives without bordering on a flame war.

EMO: How so? The vast majority of our recent problems seem to have come from Middle Eastern men and frankly, they make up a lot of the terrorist network that attempts to befuddle us and terrify us into not living our American lives. I am not a bigot. Hey, others even agreed with me! ???

 

[Lee]

 

[nick]

OMG!!!!!!!!LMBFHAO@Leebo!!!!!!!!!! :sign: :sign: :thumbs:

 

[Barak]

Mark this: The sniper is a Middle Eastern terrorist...

You think? I've considered this, and I keep coming back to the "I am God" remark. Does that sound like a Muslim to you? Somehow it just doesn't to me. The ransom demand also seems more like an angry white male than an Islamic terrorist.