[quote]Dustin wrote:
[text][/quote]
There’s much to correct in your post, as you are no doubt aware - especially the part about how anti-discrimination laws somehow can’t square with the concept of limited government, a claim of pure idiocy, to be sure - but there’s no profitable reason to head down this road again only to arrive at the same place I always do - disappointed in the exchange.
Later.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[text][/quote]
There’s much to correct in your post, as you are no doubt aware - especially the part about how anti-discrimination laws somehow can’t square with the concept of limited government, a claim of pure idiocy, to be sure - but there’s no profitable reason to head down this road again only to arrive at the same place I always do - disappointed in the exchange.
Later.[/quote]
That’s a pretty weak move and I wouldn’t expect you to bow out when someone calls your BS.
I can provide examples of myself supporting smaller government, which of course you totally ignore. I provide examples of you not living up to your limited government claim and you take your ball and run home.
And yes, the anti-discrimination laws were discussed in two recent threads. And I wasn’t even the person who was arguing with you in those threads.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
That’s a pretty weak move and I wouldn’t expect you to bow out when someone calls your BS.[/quote]
Nah, we’ve been down this road before. I’ve seen the cards you play - they aren’t that compelling.
Take any one of your examples of “statism” - support for traditional marriage, for example. Since the birth of the Republic, the question of public recognition of traditional marriage has been an unchallenged article of faith, yet, in your dim brain, that is an example of being “statist”. Of course, there isn’t a Founder who called for abolition of state recognition of this institution on the basis that “it interferes with muh liberty!”, yet it’s one of your most cherished examples of “statism”.
Well, genius, if support for traditional marriage is “statist”, then the very revolutionaries who fought for American liberty were all “statists”, given your idiotic low threshold and their support for all sorts of normal yet “statist!!!” laws, like public morality laws (including laws supporting traditional marriage), state support of churches, central banking at the federal level, and tariffs.
It’s this level of deep ignorance and incoherence that makes your arguments dull after about two posts.
I don’t ignore them, I just put them in the context of your admitted political philosophy. So you’ll vote for lower taxes? Great. That still doesn’t cure your affliction of being an ignorant wretch with respect to your core politics.
Hilarious. Dustin, I’ve scalped you so many times I am thinking of opening a trophy room dedicated solely to you, so we both know I don’t take my ball and go home.
Second, and this is your biggest problem, you don’t provide examples of me not living up to my limited government claim, because…wait for it…according to your view, just about every exercise of government power violates the “limited government” principle as you see it. You’ve defined “limited government” your own way (and defined it out of existence) and then measure everyone by your fabricated standard.
So long as I support just about any exercise of government power, you’ll start your sniveling that I am a “statist” and that I don’t support “limited government”.
To highlight this problem, let’s play pop quiz:
Other than providing national defense, name the powers the federal government should have under the rubric of “limited government” if Dustin is drafting his own Constitution from scratch.
Is a national central bank a legitimate exercise of power based on the beliefs of the Founders?
How many Founding Fathers agree with the scope of government powers you listed in Number 1?
Probably a good thing for you, since arguing isn’t your bag.
Why is everyone trippin’ on this?
With regard to this issue, a line was drawn in the sand, and it had to be. This is one thing he cannot dance around.
He chose his side, it’s a yes or no answer when it comes to building a mosque where Muslim terrorists murdered thousands of innocent people.
How many times will people let Obama let slap them in the face? He has forced you to all of the following…
You MUST now buy health care. You saw the political whoring, panty dropping, and knob slobbering that took place to get that monstrosity passed.
You MUST now pay for TARP, more accurately, you must now watch your kids and grand kids pay for it. Unemployment has not budged AT ALL despite the promise of unemployment not going above 8% if the bailouts passed, the biggest goof I have seen in my life time.
You MUST now watch Obama criticize the securing of our borders. We had to sit there and watch Obama give the biggest FUCK YOU to the people of Arizona, just buy some Kevlar and duck.
You MUST now pay for subsidized education for college, something hidden within the HC Bill.
You MUST now put up with a president and his administration who has called those who disagree with him bigots, racists, and nothing but a bunch of astro-turf rednecks.
You MUST now watch the single-handed dismantling of everything America stands for, what people busted their ass for.
I can only wonder, what will be the straw that breaks everyone’s back? What will it take?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Second, and this is your biggest problem, you don’t provide examples of me not living up to my limited government claim, because…wait for it…according to your view, just about every exercise of government power violates the “limited government” principle as you see it. You’ve defined “limited government” your own way (and defined it out of existence) and then measure everyone by your fabricated standard. [/quote]
[i]
Orly!?! Do I need to find the recent thread where you argued the government should step in and dictate to business owners what the do with their money? Remember that thread? Even Push called you on your bullshit. I think the word you used was “good government”.
Or how about all the gay marriage threads were you defend the government preventing consenting adults from forming civil unions/marriages? How it will “hurt” society.
How about your constant circle jerk sessions here defending Abe Lincoln wiping his ass with the Constitution?
And perhaps the best of all, you supporting blatant war mongering and imperialism with the Iraq and A-Stan wars? [/i]
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[i]Orly!?! Do I need to find the recent thread where you argued the government should step in and dictate to business owners what the do with their money? Remember that thread? Even Push called you on your bullshit. I think the word you used was “good government”.
Or how about all the gay marriage threads were you defend the government preventing consenting adults from forming civil unions/marriages? How it will “hurt” society.
How about your constant circle jerk sessions here defending Abe Lincoln wiping his ass with the Constitution?
And perhaps the best of all, you supporting blatant war mongering and imperialism with the Iraq and A-Stan wars? [/i][/quote]
Notice how you ignore the rest of my post highlighting exactly why when you start throwing a tantrum that I am departing from “limited government”?
I even expressly called out public recognition of marriage. Where is your explanation?
Re: Lincoln: don’t waste my time. We have about a hundred of these threads and in every single thread, we learn one, crystal clear fact - the Neo-Confederate “lib-uhh-turr-ee-ans” haven’t even cracked open a history book and couldn’t put together an argument worthy of a 3rd grader.
Especially you.
So, chop chop, Dustin - letr’s hear answers to my pop quiz. You weren’t content to let sleeping dogs lie, so game on.
And let’s have some more fun with Dustin. Let’s play “statist or not?”
Washington supported the creation of a national university; he also presided over putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. Wahsington - statist or not?
Hamilton supported creation of the first national bank? Hamilton - statist or not?
Jefferson annexed the Louisiana Purchase; he also waged war against the Barbary war(s without Congressional backing; he also instiutred the University of Virginia, a state university. Jefferson - statist ot not?
James Madison supported the establishment of the Second National Bank. Madison - statist or not?
John Adams presided over the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Act. Adams - statist or not?
Andrew Jackson declared that secession was treason and asked for a Force Bill to use military force against secessionists in South Carolina. Jackson - statist or not?
No “maybes” - you have it all figured out. Shouldn’t be too hard. Let’s see which of these early American luminaries were “statists”.
Looking forward to it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
[i]Orly!?! Do I need to find the recent thread where you argued the government should step in and dictate to business owners what the do with their money? Remember that thread? Even Push called you on your bullshit. I think the word you used was “good government”.
Or how about all the gay marriage threads were you defend the government preventing consenting adults from forming civil unions/marriages? How it will “hurt” society.
How about your constant circle jerk sessions here defending Abe Lincoln wiping his ass with the Constitution?
And perhaps the best of all, you supporting blatant war mongering and imperialism with the Iraq and A-Stan wars? [/i][/quote]
I figure if you are going to cherry pick so can I. Can you explain your support for Iraq and Afghanistan wars and general meddling in ME affairs?
Even if I was to concede that point, which is a stretch considering “traditional marriage” at the time of the Founders would not have included the union between black slaves and whites (so it is almost irrelevant comparison for your to make), I still have plenty of fodder to disprove your limited government claim.
Yes, Lincoln can do anything he wants under the guise of war.
Because otherwise, throwing people into jail for no reason, holding them indefinitely, shutting down newspaper, etc, is indeed wiping the constitution with his ass.
And you don’t have to be neo-confederate to believe that is wrong.
You seem to support all sorts of government power. You’re post history details this. I feel it’s a bit ridiculous to sift through it all, so is it really necessary?
What do these questions have to do with you not living up to your professed ideology? And I’ll be sure to come back to this statement because I know you won’t answer it.
I know what game you are playing here, which is really lame because you know you will disagree with whatever answers I provide.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And let’s have some more fun with Dustin. Let’s play “statist or not?”
Washington supported the creation of a national university; he also presided over putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. Wahsington - statist or not?
Hamilton supported creation of the first national bank? Hamilton - statist or not?
Jefferson annexed the Louisiana Purchase; he also waged war against the Barbary war(s without Congressional backing; he also instiutred the University of Virginia, a state university. Jefferson - statist ot not?
James Madison supported the establishment of the Second National Bank. Madison - statist or not?
John Adams presided over the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Act. Adams - statist or not?
Andrew Jackson declared that secession was treason and asked for a Force Bill to use military force against secessionists in South Carolina. Jackson - statist or not?
No “maybes” - you have it all figured out. Shouldn’t be too hard. Let’s see which of these early American luminaries were “statists”.
Looking forward to it.[/quote]
Yes
Now, please explain how this involves your inability to live up to your claim of limited government?
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Even if I was to concede that point, which is a stretch considering “traditional marriage” at the time of the Founders would not have included the union between black slaves and whites (so it is almost irrelevant comparison for your to make), I still have plenty of fodder to disprove your limited government claim.[/quote]
I’ll address the rest later, but here is proof you won’t answer the question, so I will post it again.
The race issue is irrelevant - the question is: were the people that supported public recognition in law of traditional marriage (at the expense of other forms of relationships) “statists” or not on the basis that they put one kind of relationship into law and not others, or because they had state recognition of relationships at all?
Don’t cower, answer.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Yes
Now, please explain how this involves your inability to live up to your claim of limited government?[/quote]
But, Dustin - all these early American luminaries were advocates and proponents of “limited government”, they even led a revolution to secure it.
But they were all “statists” by way of your magic decoder ring.
So, Dustin - how can all of these early Americans you have declared “statists” also be the the champions of “limited government”?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The race issue is irrelevant - the question is: were the people that supported public recognition in law of traditional marriage (at the expense of other forms of relationships) “statists” or not on the basis that they put one kind of relationship into law and not others, or because they had state recognition of relationships at all?
Don’t cower, answer.[/quote]
Are you asking then or now? If you are asking from the perspective of 18th century America I would say no, they were not, simply because there weren’t any other types of relationships. Homosexual behavior was certainly practiced in private. Gay people were not trying to get married. Different time period.
I think it is totally different question today. If you (or anyone else) support only traditional marriage (whatever the government says is “traditional”), thus denying consenting adults from forming a civil union/marriage, then yes.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Yes
Now, please explain how this involves your inability to live up to your claim of limited government?[/quote]
But, Dustin - all these early American luminaries were advocates and proponents of “limited government”, they even led a revolution to secure it.
But they were all “statists” by way of your magic decoder ring.
So, Dustin - how can all of these early Americans you have declared “statists” also be the the champions of “limited government”?
[/quote]
No, that would just require me to actually read your whole post and take the time to honestly answer it, which I didn’t.
The questions had no bearing on your limited government claims.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Are you asking then or now? If you are asking from the perspective of 18th century America I would say no, they were not, simply because there weren’t any other types of relationships. Homosexual behavior was certainly practiced in private. Gay people were not trying to get married. Different time period.[/quote]
Hogwash. Bigamy and polygamy were both around. Not a different time period for the principle at issue. Early states (and even the feds) outlawed polygamy. Statists or not for doing so?
[quote]Dustin wrote:
No, that would just require me to actually read your whole post and take the time to honestly answer it, which I didn’t.
The questions had no bearing on your limited government claims. [/quote]
Yes, they do. Because I am trying to determine what constitutes the threshold for “limited government” in your frivolous mind, and so we are starting with the Founders’ era.
Let’s hear the answers.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hogwash. Bigamy and polygamy were both around. Not a different time period for the principle at issue. Early states (and even the feds) outlawed polygamy. Statists or not for doing so?[/quote]
Hogwash yourself.
The discussion, at least the vast majority in this forum, were involving gay marriage.
As for the prohibition of bigamy and polygamy, it is statist, unless you can point to it violating the rights (property or of the person) of those involved.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
what constitutes the threshold for “limited government” [/quote]
Essentially, what the Constitution outlines.
Which is the problem, in your case, because you don’t follow it like you proudly claim to.
That was the point of this pissing contest all along.
Now, you can fuck yourself (I mean that in the nicest way possible) if you think I’m going to spend time trying to answer questions that really can’t be answered in with a yes or no.
Satisfied?
p.s. except for the questions regarding Hamilton. To hades with him.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Hogwash yourself. [/quote]
Aw, him getting flustered.
[quote]The discussion, at least the vast majority in this forum, were involving gay marriage.[/quote[
Irrelevant to the point. Principle is whether or not it is “statist” to recognize in law a certain kind of relationship and not others.
Good, you answered as I expected. So, without exception, nearly everyone at the birth of the Republic was, to a certain degree, a “statist” for supporting this kind of law.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Essentially, what the Constitution outlines.
Which is the problem, in your case, because you don’t follow it like you proudly claim to.
That was the point of this pissing contest all along.
Now, you can fuck yourself (I mean that in the nicest way possible) if you think I’m going to spend time trying to answer questions that really can’t be answered in with a yes or no.
Satisfied?
p.s. except for the questions regarding Hamilton. To hades with him.[/quote]
Translation: either I have no idea (most likely answer) or my idiotic category of “statists” applies to all the American luminaries Thunderbolt mentioned, and I’ll look like an idiot for declaring the Founding Fathers (and Jackson) “statists” even though all the things Thunderbolt mentioned they did were “statist” by my standard, and then I’ll have to explain why our “limited government” heroes are also “statists”, even though that can’t be, and further look like a moron.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Good, you answered as I expected. So, without exception, nearly everyone at the birth of the Republic was, to a certain degree, a “statist” for supporting this kind of law.[/quote]
Yep, without exception. The mangy bastards!