the fake obamafainter...

[KacyRay]

Marriage equality (I notice you use the progressive branding) in a few more states - whatever, who really gives a shit?

Again, this is one of the essential differences I find between liberals and conservatives. You've basically summed it up in a nutshell.

"Fuck anyone's interests but my own".

I'm not saying that such an attitude is inherent to conservatism, but it is certainly more prevalent among right-wingers.

The problem with it is that a concern with rights and justice *as such* will necessarily translate into a concern for rights regardless of who the deprivation of those rights affects.

I am concerned with liberties, without consideration to whom those liberties may or may not apply. And this is for an important, selfish reason - I recognize that if a right is taken from one of us, it ultimately affects all of us.

You are concerned with your own interests - all else be damned. And that's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to ever jump on that bandwagon with you.

[KacyRay]

Bring it.

I will... as soon a get done fainting for the cameras.

Speaking of fake bullshit, has anyone seen Paul Ryan? I have some brand new pots and pans I need washed.

[Selene]

Marriage equality (I notice you use the progressive branding) in a few more states - whatever, who really gives a shit?

Again, this is one of the essential differences I find between liberals and conservatives. You've basically summed it up in a nutshell.

"Fuck anyone's interests but my own".

I'm not saying that such an attitude is inherent to conservatism, but it is certainly more prevalent among right-wingers.

The problem with it is that a concern with rights and justice *as such* will necessarily translate into a concern for rights regardless of who the deprivation of those rights affects.

I am concerned with liberties, without consideration to whom those liberties may or may not apply. And this is for an important, selfish reason - I recognize that if a right is taken from one of us, it ultimately affects all of us.

You are concerned with your own interests - all else be damned. And that's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to ever jump on that bandwagon with you.

You would have failed my argumentation couse with what you just posted.

Do you agee that we, legally, ethically and morally are a limited Constitutional Representaive Republic, yes. or, no?

[Selene]

Bring it.

I will... as soon a get done fainting for the cameras.

Speaking of fake bullshit, has anyone seen Paul Ryan? I have some brand new pots and pans I need washed.

Definitely would fail with ad hominem fallacies.

[moralist]

Marriage equality (I notice you use the progressive branding) in a few more states - whatever, who really gives a shit?

Again, this is one of the essential differences I find between liberals and conservatives. You've basically summed it up in a nutshell.

"Fuck anyone's interests but my own".

I'm not saying that such an attitude is inherent to conservatism, but it is certainly more prevalent among right-wingers.

The problem with it is that a concern with rights and justice *as such* will necessarily translate into a concern for rights regardless of who the deprivation of those rights affects.

I am concerned with liberties, without consideration to whom those liberties may or may not apply. And this is for an important, selfish reason - I recognize that if a right is taken from one of us, it ultimately affects all of us.

You are concerned with your own interests - all else be damned. And that's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to ever jump on that bandwagon with you.

You would have failed my argumentation couse with what you just posted.

Do you agee that we, legally, ethically and morally are a limited Constitutional Representaive Republic, yes. or, no?

I'd say that today, the government has degenerated into an illegal unethical immoral unconstitutional European liberal socialist democracy.

[moralist]

Come on guys, are we all going to be subjected to another Kacy against the World rerun?

Is there anything more rehashed than the question of whether liberals are more hamful than conservatives? Or vice-versa?

Everyone here vs. me... not exactly a fair match, is it?

They might want to call in some reinforcements. You know... even up the odds a bit. ;)

It's our differences which make for lively entertaining discussion.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obama is not a statist...

Kacy,

Good Lord!

This is just as precious as saying George Bush is not a statist.

Aren't we precious these days?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Marriage equality (I notice you use the progressive branding) in a few more states - whatever, who really gives a shit?

Again, this is one of the essential differences I find between liberals and conservatives. You've basically summed it up in a nutshell.

"Fuck anyone's interests but my own".

I'm not saying that such an attitude is inherent to conservatism, but it is certainly more prevalent among right-wingers.

The problem with it is that a concern with rights and justice *as such* will necessarily translate into a concern for rights regardless of who the deprivation of those rights affects.

I am concerned with liberties, without consideration to whom those liberties may or may not apply. And this is for an important, selfish reason - I recognize that if a right is taken from one of us, it ultimately affects all of us.

You are concerned with your own interests - all else be damned. And that's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to ever jump on that bandwagon with you.

This is the crude straw-man argument against the Objectivist ethics. It only applies to whom it applies, mostly the liberal elite whose profession of lofty goals is usually camouflage of what they like so dearly to project onto others so they can continue to embrace the controlling power of altruism expressed in collectivism. Rand fell into this trap by publishing a book polemically entitled The Virtue of Selfishness.

--Brant

extremely good point about "concern for rights"--it broadens out the integrated ethical base for rights

[Selene]

I disagree with equating "liberal" with the current members of the Democratic Power Structure.

A classical liberal was us small government future libertarian, objectivists.

Semantically, the connotation of liberal is not offensive to me.

These follks are statists, socialists and marxists, with an occasioanl spot of chocate in a choclate chip cookie serving as the communist dots in the power structure.

[Selene]

I didn't vote in the last two elections. My candidate, Ron Paul, did not make it to the general election. (Note: I can no longer endorse or support Ron Paul and I'm glad he never became President).

KacyRay:

Since you did not vote for Dr. Paul because he did not make to the general election?

I am certain that you knew that you could write in Dr. Paul.

Did you also not vote down ticket to the local level also?

Finally, why would you not support Dr. Paul today?

A...

[Robert Baratheon]

Again, this is one of the essential differences I find between liberals and conservatives. You've basically summed it up in a nutshell.

"Fuck anyone's interests but my own".

I'm not saying that such an attitude is inherent to conservatism, but it is certainly more prevalent among right-wingers.

The problem with it is that a concern with rights and justice *as such* will necessarily translate into a concern for rights regardless of who the deprivation of those rights affects.

I am concerned with liberties, without consideration to whom those liberties may or may not apply. And this is for an important, selfish reason - I recognize that if a right is taken from one of us, it ultimately affects all of us.

You are concerned with your own interests - all else be damned. And that's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to ever jump on that bandwagon with you.

Kacy,

It is irresponsible to use quotation marks around something I did not say. What I did say regarding gay marriage ("marriage equality" in progressive-speak) was: "whatever - who gives a shit?" In other words, it's a prioritization issue, not a values judgment. I happen to agree with progressives on that solitary issue, but it's of such low practical importance when compared with something as fundamental as THE ECONOMY, that it absolutely falls to the bottom of my list.

Rhode Island has "marriage equality," which progressives spent the last two years lobbying for and cramming through the General Assembly. It sucked up all of the attention and nothing was accomplished regarding the depressed state of affairs. The state is still a progressive shithole with no jobs, so now gay couples can get married and go directly on government assistance. Excuse me for not joining in the celebrations.

Virginia, by contrast, does not have "marriage equality," but despite this tragic fact, many gay couples live in the state free of significant discrimination and enjoy its high standard of living and booming jobs market.

See how that works? Priorities. But you got your sweet government pension, so you can now afford to carry on and posture about these piddling social issues while millions remain out of work or grossly underemployed. How was it that you jput it? "You are concerned with your own interests - all else be damned." That one is a quote.

[KacyRay]

I didn't write Dr. Paul in because what possible benefit could doing so have been to me? Whatever it may have been, it wouldn't have been worth the trouble.

No, I did not vote down to the local level. That's my prerogative and I do not feel compelled to justify my decision.

I would not support him today because the cognitive dissonance that prevented me from accepting that he's just a modern John Birch theocrat has been been lifted, thanks to his selection of unapologetic theocrat Gary North as the Director of Curriculum.

Ron Paul is a theocrat, a pro-lifer, and a creationist. I cannot support him anymore. Believe me, it wasn't easy to come to that decision, especially because he was the only candidate I had been enthusiastic about in a long time. Now I have basically no one.

[KacyRay]

But you got your sweet government pension, so you can now afford to carry on and posture about these piddling social issues while millions remain out of work or grossly underemployed.

You mean that pension that I'm in the process of earning?

You're talking about the compensation package that I agreed to and am currently in the process of keeping my end of the bargain, right?

You mean the one that I'll receive for doing things like spending almost all of 2013 away from my wife and family for? That one?

I like the way you phrase it... as though I'm some parasite living off of a government handout. That's so completely within character for you. Yeah, my "sweet government pension"... right. I'd almost forgotten about the time I went to the Sweet Government Pension Office to apply for my Sweet Government Pension. I was so happy the day they agreed to give it to me just cause I'm so good looking.

How did you enjoy that sweet time with your loved ones this year, which I didn't get? How are you enjoying that sweet freedom that you've done fuck-all to earn? You know.. that security that has been provided to you by other guys, many of which are too dead right now to enjoy their sweet government pension?

This is exactly the sort of disrespect for my profession and my values that costs you social capital. Don't get me wrong.. your coffers with me were emptied a long time ago, so you really don't have much to lose. But I can no longer imagine how anyone in meat space actually tolerates you.

It never takes you very long to make it to my "ignore" list. And it's such a short list.

[Selene]

I didn't write Dr. Paul in because what possible benefit could doing so have been to me? Whatever it may have been, it wouldn't have been worth the trouble.

No, I did not vote down to the local level. That's my prerogative and I do not feel compelled to justify my decision.

I would not support him today because the cognitive dissonance that prevented me from accepting that he's just a modern John Birch theocrat has been been lifted, thanks to his selection of unapologetic theocrat Gary North as the Director of Curriculum.

Ron Paul is a theocrat, a pro-lifer, and a creationist. I cannot support him anymore. Believe me, it wasn't easy to come to that decision, especially because he was the only candidate I had been enthusiastic about in a long time. Now I have basically no one.

KacyRay:

The "difference" is that your actions would have been an honest expression - a vote based on principle. It would have been recorded. An experienced polical professional like myself would phone canvas, or, target mail that Election District and build an organization from there.

Second, I did not ask for a justification. However, apparently you felt the need to justify that behavior.

Would you kindly define a:

modern John Birch theocrat

You seem to throw around words a little too slickly for my humble mind.

I can respect your abandonement of Dr. Paul for your perceptions of positions that you do not support. I do not have a problem of him having personal positions on life since he is an obstetrician.

Not sure about him being a creationist. I also have no problem with folks who believe in creationism.

I will wait for your response to the definition of "theocrat," as my understanding of the term does not fit Dr. Paul. However, I could be wrong.

A...

[Robert Baratheon]

But you got your sweet government pension, so you can now afford to carry on and posture about these piddling social issues while millions remain out of work or grossly underemployed.

You mean that pension that I'm in the process of earning?

You're talking about the compensation package that I agreed to and am currently in the process of keeping my end of the bargain, right?

You mean the one that I'll receive for doing things like spending almost all of 2013 away from my wife and family for? That one?

I like the way you phrase it... as though I'm some parasite living off of a government handout. That's so completely within character for you. Yeah, my "sweet government pension"... right. I'd almost forgotten about the time I went to the Sweet Government Pension Office to apply for my Sweet Government Pension. I was so happy the day they agreed to give it to me just cause I'm so good looking.

How did you enjoy that sweet time with your loved ones this year, which I didn't get? How are you enjoying that sweet freedom that you've done fuck-all to earn? You know.. that security that has been provided to you by other guys, many of which are too dead right now to enjoy their sweet government pension?

This is exactly the sort of disrespect for my profession and my values that costs you social capital. Don't get me wrong.. your coffers with me were emptied a long time ago, so you really don't have much to lose. But I can no longer imagine how anyone in meat space actually tolerates you.

It never takes you very long to make it to my "ignore" list. And it's such a short list.

Kacy,

As a formative exercise for yourself, why don't you address the substance of my 242-word response instead of exclusively focusing on the three words that happened to offend your fragile ego. Then, depending on how that goes, you can address the substance of my previous comment instead of focusing exclusively on the two words "marriage equality," which I even stated in the comment weren't central to my point.

As an interesting sidenote for you to consider, I've been happily commenting on this board for the past several months without having a single blowout with any of the commenters here. You've been back half a day, and you've already managed to insult, troll, and begin arguing with nearly every active member here. Yet you puzzlingly insist that I'm the one who is difficult to tolerate. Funny.

[Selene]

As an interesting sidenote for you to consider, I've been happily commenting on this board for the past several months without having a single blowout with any of the commenters here. You've been back half a day, and you've already managed to insult, troll, and begin arguing with nearly every active member here. Yet you puzzlingly insist that I'm the one who is difficult to tolerate. Funny.

Nah we just have cuter icons than you do.

[Guyau]

. . . marriage equality is extending, . . .

. . .

. . . Marriage equality (I notice you use the progressive branding) in a few more states - whatever, who really gives a shit? . . .

[Guyau]

. . .

. . .

Virginia, by contrast, does not have "marriage equality," but despite this tragic fact, many gay couples live in the state free of significant discrimination . . . .

Incorrect. There is plenty of discrimination in my town due to the plenitude of graduates from Liberty University here. Try visiting your same-sex partner in the recovery area after surgery; plenty of bigoted interference there; glad HHS during the first Obama administration required hospitals have a declared policy of equal visitation rights for same-sex couples; still, the nurse on the beat from Liberty or its ilk will throw up all the lack of recognition of your status and existence of the policy she or he can. It is that same bigotry that has driven the Commonwealth's various declarations against equal legal recognition of life-partner relationships of same-sex couples.

Libertarians do not dominate the tea-party mob and its priorities, delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Brant Gaede]

. . . marriage equality is extending, . . .

. . .

. . . Marriage equality (I notice you use the progressive branding) in a few more states - whatever, who really gives a shit? . . .

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe . . .

--Brant

I just don't know

[Robert Baratheon]

Incorrect. There is plenty of discrimination in my town due to the plenitude of graduates from Liberty University here. Try visiting your same-sex partner in the recovery area after surgery; plenty of bigoted interference there; glad HHS during the first Obama administration required hospitals have a declared policy of equal visitation rights for same-sex couples; still, the nurse on the beat from Liberty or its ilk will throw up all the lack of recognition of your status and existence of the policy she or he can. It is that same bigotry that has driven the Commonwealth's various declarations against equal legal recognition of life-partner relationships of same-sex couples.

Libertarians do not dominate the tea-party mob and its priorities, delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

That is your specific town, and it is your choice to live there. It is the exception rather than the rule in Virginia and is certainly not the case where I live. Many gay couples live together in my area, do well for themselves, and nobody gives it so much as a second thought. It's unfortunate you can't get married to a same-sex partner in this particular state, but ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, you are pretty free to live your life and enter into legal arrangements of your choosing. Obviously you have compelling reasons for living in Virginia, rather than say Rhode Island, despite this specific limitation - reasons such as the economy and quality of life. This was my point - prioritization.

Also, I never asserted that the tea party was dominated by libertarians. I did assert that the movement itself, i.e. the shared values, are libertarian values. So if you have a problem with other unrelated values held by the individuals - such as their positions on gay marriage - then your problem is with those individuals, not with the movement.

[caroljane]

Stephen, that is a simply wonderful photograph of two beautiful people in harmony with nature.

[Guyau]

Incorrect. There is plenty of discrimination in my town due to the plenitude of graduates from Liberty University here. Try visiting your same-sex partner in the recovery area after surgery; plenty of bigoted interference there; glad HHS during the first Obama administration required hospitals have a declared policy of equal visitation rights for same-sex couples; still, the nurse on the beat from Liberty or its ilk will throw up all the lack of recognition of your status and existence of the policy she or he can. It is that same bigotry that has driven the Commonwealth's various declarations against equal legal recognition of life-partner relationships of same-sex couples.

Libertarians do not dominate the tea-party mob and its priorities, delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

That is your specific town, and it is your choice to live there. It is the exception rather than the rule in Virginia and is certainly not the case where I live. Many gay couples live together in my area, do well for themselves, and nobody gives it so much as a second thought. It's unfortunate you can't get married to a same-sex partner in this particular state, but ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, you are pretty free to live your life and enter into legal arrangements of your choosing. Obviously you have compelling reasons for living in Virginia, rather than say Rhode Island, despite this specific limitation - reasons such as the economy and quality of life. This was my point - prioritization.

Also, I never asserted that the tea party was dominated by libertarians. I did assert that the movement itself, i.e. the shared values, are libertarian values. So if you have a problem with other unrelated values held by the individuals - such as their positions on gay marriage - then your problem is with those individuals, not with the movement.

It is not only our choice to live here, but the choice of the bigots to live here. On that we do have equal protection under the law, due to the Union victory.

"Obviously, you do have compelling reasons for living in Virginia, rather than say Rhode Island, despite this specific limitation---reasons such as the economy and quality of life." We decided to move here from Chicago, upon retirement, because of the milder climate and lower cost of real estate (ditto in comparison to RI) and because of the allure of the house and the natural beauty of our grounds and the Blue Ridge. None of those attractions are the result of tea-party or conservative influence in the government, indeed they are not the result of politics at all beyond the protection of individual rights so far as that has been instituted, which is no thanks to the tea party.

(PS - Thanks, Carol and Brant.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

Beautiful picture.

Good for you. Good for you both.

Michael

[KacyRay]

I'll be back on in about a week. Trying to converse here has been an exercise in futility and frustration, due to my lack of bandwidth. The pages load halfway, and I never get to the bottom, particularly on the pages with more than 2-3 comments.

The only reason I can even post this is because it's 5 in the morning and most of the ship is asleep.

But like I say... in a week or so, I'll be back in high-speed-lan-land. Talk to you guys then.

[Brant Gaede]

Stephen,

Beautiful picture.

Good for you. Good for you both.

Michael

I have to say those Virginia tans are suspect.

--Brant

but look a lot better than Florida ones