Ziggy, I said Harvard was racist and the Mr Obama shows NO transparency at all. I can't stop what you decide to call people but I for one am no racist or bigot, I treat all people the same. Talk to me about those campaign contributions? Hillary gave them back, what about him? It seems to me your only way to refute what I say is to call me names instead of rationally discussing issues, I gave you articles, now you come back with some that say I am wrong? Typical Progressive thought to take a question you don't like because you won't get the answer you want and to call the one who questions a racist, just answer the questions Ziggy.

Originally posted by equistar
Ziggy, I said Harvard was racist and the Mr Obama shows NO transparency at all. I can't stop what you decide to call people but I for one am no racist or bigot, I treat all people the same. Talk to me about those campaign contributions? Hillary gave them back, what about him? It seems to me your only way to refute what I say is to call me names instead of rationally discussing issues, I gave you articles, now you come back with some that say I am wrong? Typical Progressive thought to take a question you don't like because you won't get the answer you want and to call the one who questions a racist, just answer the questions Ziggy.

I remember asking you a few questions you don't need an article to answer. instead you said you had not problem with Ron Paul.

I have talked to you for a bit now, we just are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I have no doubt that you feel completely justified in what you believe and say.

I say you are entitled to feel, and believe as you like.

I'll try to answer your questions, as soon as you answer mine.

Fair enough?

Ziggy

What questions have I not answered? I am a mutt as well as married to a mutt, I have all different types of blood running in my veins, all people are the same to me and I treat all with respect. I live among all types of people as well. One of my friends who is very progressive wants to tell me on a daily basis how she has Jewish friends and gay friends and middle eastern friends, I just looked at her and said I don't define my friends that way, they are just friends no matter what gender, sexual preference, race or religion, I could care less as long as they follow the Golden Rule. Because I ask about a person who has paid millions to keep important infomation secret from the people he is trying to control through a massive central government you think I'm racist???? Get real man, I want my freedom.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by equistar]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by equistar]

Originally posted by equistar
What questions have I not answered? I am a mutt as well married to a mutt, I have all diferent types of blood running in my veins, all people are the same to me and I treat all with respect. I live among all types of people as well. One of my friends who is very progressive wants to tell me on a daily basis how she has Jewish friends and gay friends and middle eastern friends, I just looked at her and said I don't define my friends that way, they are just friends no matter what gender, sexual preference, race or religion, I could care less as long as they follow the Golden Rule. Because I ask about a person who has paid millions to keep important infomation secret from the people he is trying to control through a massive central government you think I'm racist???? Get real man, I want my freedom.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by equistar]

What you see as Liberty, I see as oppression.

Did you not say you like happy segregation? Did you not ask if we could not spread this wonderful idea across the entire US?

Did I dream this?

That sure sounds like you define people by categories.

Equistar, I want you to be happy, but not at the expense, and detriment of the people.

This thread if you remember was about what you would do if you got your revolution.

Sounds to me like you would like to see rule by majority down to the street level, this is crazy.

One Italian block, another Black, another German? Don't you understand this is not freedom?

Sorry not in my country while I breathe.

Ziggy

My exact quote on your happy segregation:
Me - Take a look at New York City, I have only been there once so maybe I am wrong but you can walk on one block and find all things Chinese then another block all Italian, Latino, etc.. is there not beauty in the fact of celebrating different beliefs? Is it not yin and yang working segregation and unity combined? Can we take that concept and expand it over the whole US?

You said: You ask me to trust that people are inherently benevolent, as a replacement for laws, I choose to keep the laws that limit my freedom to oppress you.

Ziggy, that is unconstitutional, contractual laws and the judicial system will work out any infringements upon each other.

Quote: E - Ziggy you must be misunderstanding me, not one time did I say people could infringe upon others (your example of someone not liking your Jewish wife breathing) or break constitutional laws. Just as you said that if you go to Harlem there are certain things you may have to be more tolerant of you are free to choose to go or not. What you said is exactly what I was saying about freedom.

Z - Perhaps, but would not your Harlem have special laws, or lack thereof to suit the comfort level of Harlem residents? This is what I understood from your post in this context.

I still don't know of these special laws you are refering to, did I say to change Harlem, Manhattan, or Brooklyn? How did you come to this conclusion? Because I showed an example of people of all walks of life living together peacefully and you needed to say something to oppose it?

Quote:E - When you make mandates for the whole US then how can one have a choice? I'm not sure what you mean about special laws, I used your example and agreed with it and wondered why it couldn't be expanded. Nobody is forcibly segregated but one knows where the specialties can be found.

Z - One doesn't. I agree if it's mandatory, there is no choice for the whole US. By special laws I mean ones crafted to impose unconstitutional mandates by a plurality of complicit component ordinances. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Some are forcibly segregated if we revert to the "old" ways. In the realm of reason, the method is only evidential of the crime, not exculpatory of it. The specialties you mention are not plural, liberty is singular. Unfortunately it is special, but it should be the rule, not the exception.

Ziggy, again never did I mention to put unconstitutional laws in place yet you still say I do. Read the 10th Amendment dear, the States have their own constitutions as well and the Federal Government cannot supercede it. It is unconstitutional for a senator from one state to dictate how people should live in another state. Any convoluted theory you may have of a State going all Black Panther on people would be pure idiocy, the citizens would revolt.

Z-The changes you want to make would freak out most New Yorkers. Most don't have a clue about the ideology we are discussing.

E-I want no changes except to keep the Constitution in tact which means limited federal government involvement. If NYs get freaked out about that let their state government control them, they certainly have that legal choice.

Z- I just disagree with your ideology. But where we really clash is in the way you choose to defend it. You do it by being slippery, and witty, while you twist the facts to fit your story.
That is not cool. But you have the right to do it.
I have the right to call you on it.

E-I feel like I could have written the same exact thing about you.
It seems to me that you would rule the whole US under one small oligarchy because the masses are just too stupid to know what the right thing to do is, as I said before one rule for all fifty states is unconstitutional and if you had any pride in the papers that our founder's put forth you would realize it.

If our Founding Fathers want a central government they would have stayed in England. Talk to me about the Amish, Ziggy. Would you call them separatists? Why are they treated differently by the Federal Government. They are treated they way everyone in these United States should be treated. They stood up for their rights and did not back down, more people need to stand up to the bullying of the Federal Government, the States need to stand up for their rights or this whole country will be ruled by the UN.

Originally posted by equistar
If our Founding Fathers want a central government they would have stayed in England. Talk to me about the Amish, Ziggy. Would you call them separatists? Why are they treated differently by the Federal Government. They are treated they way everyone in these United States should be treated. They stood up for their rights and did not back down, more people need to stand up to the bullying of the Federal Government, the States need to stand up for their rights or this whole country will be ruled by the UN.

Why do I have to talk about the Amish, I don't know the Amish. Whatever they did, you should do.

But you insist on everyone changing the existing "covenant" because you don't like it. Earlier you stated if you don't like it, move.

I say, no problem, go ahead and move.

If the Amish have special treatment, they shouldn't period. You want to roll back time.

Tell me what is your ideal period of American History? When would the covenant have suited you in the way it was applied?

1 question, jus answer that.

Ziggy

Why did you say this?
But you insist on everyone changing the existing "covenant" because you don't like it. Earlier you stated if you don't like it, move.

I don't want to change the Constitution, Progressives do. Progressives want a federal government that override state laws. Take for example marijuana laws in CA, the federal government wants to criminalize someone for doing something that is legal in their own state. The citizens of that state voted for personal possession, for medicinal marijuana, Federal government has no jurisdiction on that ruling, it is unconstitutional for them to arrest people. for that reason. If people of a state decide they do not want a federal healthcare system applied to their state they have that right and if the federal government says screw you you have to do as we say because we know what's best for all the stupid people then that is unconstitutional. Bring me back to a time where there was no Federal Reserve, no fractional banking, where everyone knew the President was there to secure borders and defend the nation not become it's nanny. The smaller the government the easier the people can control the corruption. Make your statist type of government work in just one state and then maybe I'll think about it in mine. I'm not the one trying to change the Consttution, you are, especially when you boast about limited freedom to oppress me, how the hell is that liberty for all?

[edit on 29-1-2010 by equistar]

Originally posted by equistar

[edit on 29-1-2010 by equistar]

E - Why did you say this?
Z - But you insist on everyone changing the existing "covenant" because you don't like it. Earlier you stated if you don't like it, move.

Z - I said because that is what you want. You want to interpret the Constitution to fit your prejudices, and intolerance.

E - I don't want to change the Constitution, Progressives do. Progressives want a federal government that override state laws. Take for example marijuana laws in CA, the federal government wants to criminalize someone for doing something that is legal in their own state. The citizens of that state voted for personal possession, for medicinal marijuana, Federal government has no jurisdiction on that ruling, it is unconstitutional for them to arrest people. for that reason.

Z - Glad you picked that particular example. Has any President beside Obama ordered the DEA, not to interfere with California Marijuana Legislation?

Z - Progressive = good
Z - Recessive = bad

E - If people of a state decide they do not want a federal healthcare system applied to their state they have that right and if the federal government says screw you you have to do as we say because we know what's best for all the stupid people then that is unconstitutional.

Z - Right, and when your less than progressives get sick, who pays? Why me of course. I saw on TV today some States asking for help from the FED due to a snow storm. Who pays? Me. My State has no Snow problems, we have infrastructure to deal with it. But I don't mind paying because all the Conservatives in those States are Americans, and no matter how misguided they are, the FED will come to their aid, like it's supposed to.

E - Bring me back to a time where there was no Federal Reserve, no fractional banking, where everyone knew the President was there to secure borders and defend the nation not become it's nanny. The smaller the government the easier the people can control the corruption.

Z - "I wish I was in Dixie!"

E - Make your statist type of government work in just one state and then maybe I'll think about it in mine.

Z - Name one culture that has survived based on your ideology. I asked you this before, why are you not answering? My version works pretty well in NY.

E - I'm not the one trying to change the Consttution, you are, especially when you boast about limited freedom to oppress me, how the hell is that liberty for all?

Z - You don't understand freedom. I'm not free to oppress you. I like that because you would oppress me if you could. You want to change the meaning not the text. But of course, to get you back to the good ole days, we'd have to eliminate a few amendments don't you think?

Good luck!

Ziggy Strange

I would never try to oppress you and no where in any of my posts can you find such a thing. You sir are the one who wants to change the most important piece of paper in the US, you want to kill the sovereignty of states you are the one who wants to oppress. I say live as you want, if a snow storm comes people can ask for help but no one is obligated. If I am hurt I do not ask anyone to help pay my bills only progressives want everyone to chip in so they don't have to be responsible for their own life. I give to charity and it should be my choice who I give to, when people are forced to do something by way of threatening fines and imprisonment that is not charity and that is not liberty. Progressives can't stand for classic liberalism to take place because then they could not control people, redistribute their resources and basically play God. Your way has never worked in any state and you won't let free market run freely to allow liberty to work. Stop trying to make all people believe in your dogma and let people live as they wish, if you have a group of people who voluntarily want to redistribute their resources go ahead , I promise I will not try to stop you, if you try to force people to do that then I will try to stop you. Let's all live in peace and not try to be so egotistical that we believe we know what is best for someone other than ourselves.