The SmithsoniansFollow

F'uck you. You might as well say you thought I lived in an elf's *******. That would be less insulting.


You could, and you're welcome to your opinion. It's a wonderful thing, this freedom we share. It's almost like the people who founded the country knew what they were doing when they set up a limited government and acknowledged our rights. Wouldn't it be great if we could still follow their lead today?


"Culture" is not my word. It was tossed out there by some insipid *** boil earlier in the thread. As the thread is related more to the broader category of "the arts" narrowed to non-performance exhibition, we should likely just try and choke down the ADD medication and focus.


And I've never worked for a company which was not by some means subsidized by some kind of government spending. For that matter I've never seen a child, had a meal or taken a shower which was not by some means subsidized by some kind of federal spending. In fact, every action I take and everything I encounter on a daily basis is in some way or by some means subsidized by some kind of government spending. Your statement is inferior to mine as it is meaningless and makes no point.

Somehow, though, I'm the odd one for thinking maybe the government has its fingers in a few too many pots.

I got mine:

Where's yours?

So your argument against adherence to states' rights is the lack of adherence to states' rights?

So your argument against adherence to states' right is the lack of adherence to states' rights?

You know what else had a couple hundred years of precedent, and was both practiced and endorsed by the guys who were involved with writing that fabulous document? Slavery.

Precedent, *****.

I'd do you.

Yeah, consistency doesn't matter. Precedent for something you don't like? They're archaic monsters who need to change with the times. For something you do like? They were such forward thinkers it's good we had them to head us down the right patch.

really?



I'm not asking you to choose anything. You hold contradictory positions and you've expressed them both on this page. I'm just bringing it in to relief.

No. You told me to try harder and I wondered why since you obviously hadn't been.


Jefferson also banged slaves and debauched himself in Europe. Great ideas come from flawed men. I'm sure you've had a decent idea or two in your time and Bob knows you're about as flawed as they come short of doing lines of coke off hookers' tits. The problem with evaluating an idea, or the intent of a missive, based on the actions of the man or men who penned it is that we are flawed creatures and as a father you know "do as I say, not as I do" is a process you have to employ from time to time. Unless you really are perfect or a big fat liar.

As long as we find agreement.

I think the point is that past violations of principles should not by itself be used as argumentative support for even more or continued violations of those principles. Once again, you are arguing the tail end of the Slippery Slope.

Yes. I got that. And in both cases, you two were making the argument that since the principles at hand were not always applied rigidly back then, that there's no reason not to continue violating them in new and creative ways today. You even quoted my statement to this effect so it's strange that you are choosing to just ignore it entirely.



No. I pretty much saw exactly the point being made. Did you see mine?

Uh. Yeah. Your point is childishly simplistic Joph. You're saying "It's ok for me to do this because Johny did it and no one busted him". Do I need to draw this in crayon for you to see why it's an infantile point?



The day your entire political philosophy doesn't essentially hinge upon "we did this yesterday, so it's ok to do this+1 today", I'll stop pointing this out.