1 in 5 Say Obama is Muslim

[Dustin]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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]

No, I think your line of questioning is retarded. It’s as simple as that.

I would have to do a small research project, at least on some of the questions to get the background on them, to answer them honestly.

The point was never what I thought of the Founders, only in that your politics aren’t theirs. As much as you wish they could be.

As usual, you try to turn the topic the other way on the other person in an attempt to save face. You have even done this to some of your own conservative buddies.

Now, Mr. Limited Government, explain your support of America’s wars of aggression. Since, you know, you would address it later.

[Dustin]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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]

You did ask what constitutes smaller government, which I answered directly - “what the Constitution outlines”.

So it’s obvious you are more concerned with just trying to look good, as opposed to being honest.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dustin wrote:
No, I think your line of questioning is retarded. It’s as simple as that. [/quote]

No, if you think these guys were “statists”, then why would anyone - least of all me - put any credence into who you thought was a “statist” or not? So, get to it.

[quote]I would have to do a small research project, at least on some of the questions to get the background on them, to answer them honestly.

The point was never what I thought of the Founders, only in that your politics aren’t theirs. As much as you wish they could be.[/quote]

Heh - let me spell it out for you, Einstein: if you would have to do a small research project to “figure out” what these Founders’ politics were, how could you possibly that “my” politics aren’t in line with theirs??

You don’t even know what their politics are (admittedly), but you are convinced my politics aren’t theirs.

Now do you see why I think you are an idiot and think your opinion means zilch?

As usual, you try to turn the topic the other way on the other person in an attempt to save face. You have even done this to some of your own conservative buddies.

Let’s have less whining, and more explanation.

Now, Mr. Limited Government, explain your support of America’s wars of aggression. Since, you know, you would address it later.

Asked and answered - the dangers of asymmetric warfare and intercontinental weaponry force us to engage in “offensive” defense of our country from time to time. Sitting around and waiting for threats to mature and finally shred us on our home soil is not “adherence to limited government principles” - it’s a suicide pact. The Constitution doesn’t require a suicide pact. Realities have changed, largely due to the nature of post-industrial warfare. Iraq and A-stan easily fall into these categories of defense.

Now, on to your answers. Can’t wait to see who else is a “statist”.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

You did ask what constitutes smaller government, which I answered directly - “what the Constitution outlines”.[/quote]

A typical Dustin cop-out - just apply the Constiution: national central bank? Barbary war? Putting down secession?

Your non-answer is a punt - so answer it.

Chushin was dead right - nobody back-peddles faster than you. I think you might be faster in reverse than forward.

[Dustin]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A typical Dustin cop-out - just apply the Constiution: national central bank? Barbary war? Putting down secession?
[/quote]

Bull shit! You asked and I answered. Small government = Constitution.

National Central bank - Statist - Hamilton to hades with him.

Barbary War - Maybe

Putting down secession - yes

[quote]
Chushin was dead right - nobody back-peddles faster than you. I think you might be faster in reverse than forward.[/quote]

You both are full of shit.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

National Central bank - Statist - Hamilton to hades with him.[/quote]

Perfect, let’s review.

So, Hamilton, Madison and Washington were all “statists”.

Barbary War - Maybe

Jefferson may have been a “statist”, probably was by Dustin’s standard, given the University of Virginia and the Louisiana Purchase.

Putting down secession - yes

Jackson was a “statist”.

Awesome, thanks. So, by your standard, some of the most important “limited government” revolutionaries were all phonies who were really “statists”.

Well done. If anyone ever took you seriously (doubtfully), they can put that to rest now.

You both are full of shit.

Sorry, Dustin. It’s all over but the crying now.

[Dustin]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Heh - let me spell it out for you, Einstein: if you would have to do a small research project to “figure out” what these Founders’ politics were, how could you possibly that “my” politics aren’t in line with theirs??
[/quote]

Before you shoot in your pants over your own perceived awesomeness, I’ll s’plain myself. For example: “Washington supported the creation of a national university?” Okay, how did he “support” it? Through taxation? Did he say over dinner, “Hey, I support the creation of a national university”?

You don’t even know what their politics are (admittedly), but you are convinced my politics aren’t theirs.

I do know what they are. They wrote Constitution. That document you claim to be all about? That’s how I know your politics aren’t theirs.

See, that was easy.

Now do you see why I think you are an idiot and think your opinion means zilch?

Well, so long then. If I’m an idiot, then no more need for you to respond to me. Which brings up the next question. Why the eff do you keep responding?

Asked and answered - the dangers of asymmetric warfare and intercontinental weaponry force us to engage in “offensive” defense of our country from time to time. Sitting around and waiting for threats to mature and finally shred us on our home soil is not “adherence to limited government principles” - it’s a suicide pact. The Constitution doesn’t require a suicide pact. Realities have changed, largely due to the nature of post-industrial warfare. Iraq and A-stan easily fall into these categories of defense.

Cool, you answered it. I don’t buy a word of it and it sounds like something off Fox news, but it’s an answer.

Have a nice day. This idiot needs to finish a training schedule.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

I do know what they are. They wrote Constitution. That document you claim to be all about? That’s how I know your politics aren’t theirs.[/quote]

Oh, woe is me.

Unfortunately, I am a “statist” like that Hades-bound Alexander Hamilton. If only I had the views of “those who wrote the Constitution”, I wouldn’t be one of them “statists” like Hamilton.

Heh. Hamilton, of course, was one of the primary quarterbacks of calling for a Constitution in the first place, was one of the primary designers of the construction of it, wrote most of the Federalist Papers explaining what the new Constitution would consist of, and the Federalist Papers are one of the primary sources for constitutional interpretation.

In short, few people can take more credit than Hamilton for “writing the Constitution”, but he, according to you, is a Hades-bound “statist” whose politics couldn’t possibly be “same as them who wrote the Constitution”.

On your way home from training, stop by a public library. Dumbass.

As an aside, our libertarians are actually getting dumber. Oh well - it’s not from a lack of effort on my part.

EDIT: deleted sentence fragment.