In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
And to a man who invested so much in a piece of paper that states he is qualified to "act smart", splitting hairs adds to a debate? Please! It certainly adds no depth, though you perceive that it does. And when called on the ignorance and waste of bandwidth, you subconsciously remember that bit of paper that says you must be right. "It's price was far too high for me to be wrong." It actually shallows the conversation. Quit being a twit.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And you join Highball and lt in adding nothing to a discussion but personal abuse.
What has gotten into you ?
Barzillai, I have you pegged. I must admit, though some doubt crept in briefly, my first assessment of you was spot on, unfortunately. Frankly, I'm just fed up with you self styled intellectuals destroying every debate. Your only goal is to out-technique rather than have a meaningful debate about beliefs. Your beliefs are obviously problematic. Although, in your case, I do believe that you do deeply hold them after much introspection.
For example, another self styled intellectual here TC, no introspect involved with this tool. He feels his math/engineering abilities equate to very high intelligence.(Keep in mind I do agree with his opinions on occasion, it is just his appalling presentation) He is simply completely empty, yet full of himself. You are not empty, but you have been running amok it seems lately, in the "I will argue with anybody about anything in anyway that I can provoke an argument" department.
Just the way I see it. Not very appealing. I wonder if it is possible for you to agree with any of the tenets we espouse here, or if you just love to argue.
edit: Anyway, this has nothing to do with the subject of the present discussion. I apologize to everyone for taking this tangent. Please continue without me.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
jpwolf, what tenets do I hold that so annoy you ?
Instead of more personal complaints about me, why not just state what it is that I have said that causes you such a problem?
What is so difficult for you to say ?
Read barzillai, I said the tenets WE espouse.
And as far as what you say that bothers me, well pretty much everything with the exception of a few of your religious posts, so obviously I'm not going to list 1000's of posts.
Most recently, the semantical arguments are just silly.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are a number of definitions of the word, Barzillia.
The most common is:
'A state of society without government or law.'
A government that operates outside its charter is a state of society without law,
You are stating this in a manner that only permits an absolute and unqualified absence of law. Such need not always be the case, and is certainly not the case in this country, today. So either you must modify the definition, or otherwise clarify the actual case.
and thus meets this definition. Not as you have given it, no. This definition is useful when those that promote Constitutional Governance are accused of striving for anarchy.
I do not doubt that sloppy terms assist making any point, but what about the truth ?
Sloppy? The distinction would operating without law as compared to operating without laws. There is obviously no shortage of laws in this country, but it is impossible to reasonably make the argument that our Federal Government is operating within the law; the Constitution.
It is instructive to note that those that promote Constitutional Governance do not even come close to the individual definition you seem to hang your hat upon, as we do promote a common social law.
Apparently not, if you can neither define the terms or agree on the actual meaning of the ideas. Again, imprecise or no definitions do a lot for a lot of things, but do little or nothing for the truth, in most cases.
As stated previously, the fact that you personally do not accept a definition means only that you do not accept a definition. It does not mean that a term has not been defined.
It is beyond reasonable to suggest that we promote any form of anarchy, as we willingly yield to government that control which is expressly given in the Constitution.
You are using a circular argument, here. But you cannot tell me what the terms mean which the constitution uses, deny that the current government is constitutional, and based upon historical precedent hasn't been constitutional since 1803, at least. Not to mention that there is not a soul living among us here who has ever lived under a constitutional republic, in their entire life.
Yes, the standard 'circular argument' statement by Barzillia. You are consistent. If it is true that there is not a soul among us who has ever lived under a constitutional republic, it is then true that there has not been a Federal Government in place during that time that has followed its charter. I think I said that already. I think that is much of my point.
Any or all of those are fine opinions, but they clearly demonstrate that there is no common understanding of the facts and that every man is claiming an individual understanding of a constitution not in effect, evidently, and obviously not living according to the constitutional precepts, because it cannot be done ! According to their own arguments ! That sir, just might be anarchy.
While it may not be possible on an individual level, it is certainly possible on the Federal level. It would require politicians and judges to be content with the powers proscribed for them. It would require a citizenry that holds them to those powers and understands that true freedom requires tolerance of views and lifestyles to which they object. At present we have neither.
It is that extra-Constitutional governance being imposed, a government operating outside of the law, (an anarchal government, as it were) to which we object.
Objection noted.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
To the pseudo-intellectual who uses endless questions and devious rhetoric to attempt fulfillment of his mission....once again to keep it clear and simple......
I take note of your regular opposition to individualism, your roundabout advocacy of acceptance and obedience to predatory government and your often long-winded and always convoluted defense of collectivism.
A clear picture has developed and what I see is as common as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean, regardless of your attempts to repackage it.
Just to pin down the underlying basis of what I see.....Just so you know.
Comments
And you join Highball and lt in adding nothing to a discussion but personal abuse.
What has gotten into you ?
Barzillai, I have you pegged. I must admit, though some doubt crept in briefly, my first assessment of you was spot on, unfortunately. Frankly, I'm just fed up with you self styled intellectuals destroying every debate. Your only goal is to out-technique rather than have a meaningful debate about beliefs. Your beliefs are obviously problematic. Although, in your case, I do believe that you do deeply hold them after much introspection.
For example, another self styled intellectual here TC, no introspect involved with this tool. He feels his math/engineering abilities equate to very high intelligence.(Keep in mind I do agree with his opinions on occasion, it is just his appalling presentation) He is simply completely empty, yet full of himself. You are not empty, but you have been running amok it seems lately, in the "I will argue with anybody about anything in anyway that I can provoke an argument" department.
Just the way I see it. Not very appealing. I wonder if it is possible for you to agree with any of the tenets we espouse here, or if you just love to argue.
edit: Anyway, this has nothing to do with the subject of the present discussion. I apologize to everyone for taking this tangent. Please continue without me.
jpwolf, what tenets do I hold that so annoy you ?
Instead of more personal complaints about me, why not just state what it is that I have said that causes you such a problem?
What is so difficult for you to say ?
Read barzillai, I said the tenets WE espouse.
And as far as what you say that bothers me, well pretty much everything with the exception of a few of your religious posts, so obviously I'm not going to list 1000's of posts.
Most recently, the semantical arguments are just silly.
Enough, no more hijacking, carry on.
It generates heat, but no light at all.
Oh contrare.
Your posting serve as a VERY bright light, on just who you are, and what makes you tick.
You certainly don't generate the responses from us, like you are seeking. You and Select-fire have much in common.
I am not seeking a response, Freemind.
What you give, you give from the overflowing of your heart.
I do not create your responses, but they do appear to be just who you are, apparently, and you seem to be happy with them.
Yet again, you fail to take advantage of the opportunity to bring anything of value to the discussion.
But you seem to like coming back.
Odd.
barzillai, if I tell you, "You are special" and validate your own belief, will you go away?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are a number of definitions of the word, Barzillia.
The most common is:
'A state of society without government or law.'
A government that operates outside its charter is a state of society without law,
You are stating this in a manner that only permits an absolute and unqualified absence of law. Such need not always be the case, and is certainly not the case in this country, today. So either you must modify the definition, or otherwise clarify the actual case.
and thus meets this definition. Not as you have given it, no. This definition is useful when those that promote Constitutional Governance are accused of striving for anarchy.
I do not doubt that sloppy terms assist making any point, but what about the truth ?
Sloppy? The distinction would operating without law as compared to operating without laws. There is obviously no shortage of laws in this country, but it is impossible to reasonably make the argument that our Federal Government is operating within the law; the Constitution.
It is instructive to note that those that promote Constitutional Governance do not even come close to the individual definition you seem to hang your hat upon, as we do promote a common social law.
Apparently not, if you can neither define the terms or agree on the actual meaning of the ideas. Again, imprecise or no definitions do a lot for a lot of things, but do little or nothing for the truth, in most cases.
As stated previously, the fact that you personally do not accept a definition means only that you do not accept a definition. It does not mean that a term has not been defined.
It is beyond reasonable to suggest that we promote any form of anarchy, as we willingly yield to government that control which is expressly given in the Constitution.
You are using a circular argument, here. But you cannot tell me what the terms mean which the constitution uses, deny that the current government is constitutional, and based upon historical precedent hasn't been constitutional since 1803, at least. Not to mention that there is not a soul living among us here who has ever lived under a constitutional republic, in their entire life.
Yes, the standard 'circular argument' statement by Barzillia. You are consistent. If it is true that there is not a soul among us who has ever lived under a constitutional republic, it is then true that there has not been a Federal Government in place during that time that has followed its charter. I think I said that already. I think that is much of my point.
Any or all of those are fine opinions, but they clearly demonstrate that there is no common understanding of the facts and that every man is claiming an individual understanding of a constitution not in effect, evidently, and obviously not living according to the constitutional precepts, because it cannot be done ! According to their own arguments ! That sir, just might be anarchy.
While it may not be possible on an individual level, it is certainly possible on the Federal level. It would require politicians and judges to be content with the powers proscribed for them. It would require a citizenry that holds them to those powers and understands that true freedom requires tolerance of views and lifestyles to which they object. At present we have neither.
It is that extra-Constitutional governance being imposed, a government operating outside of the law, (an anarchal government, as it were) to which we object.
Objection noted.
Brad Steele
I take note of your regular opposition to individualism, your roundabout advocacy of acceptance and obedience to predatory government and your often long-winded and always convoluted defense of collectivism.
A clear picture has developed and what I see is as common as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean, regardless of your attempts to repackage it.
Just to pin down the underlying basis of what I see.....Just so you know.