Are homophobes born that way?

[_Droopy]

What would the world be like without the Lord's soldier swooping down on unsuspecting internet posters and insulting them?

Heavenly, no doubt.

Just making a factual observation, nothing more.

[_KimberlyAnn]

What would the world be like without this kind of illimitable vacuity?

What would the world be like without illimitable vacuity?

It would be like this board during the times you've taken a break from posting, Coggs.

KA

PS. This board has a little pop-up for me (and everyone else, too, no doubt) notifying of all the posts submitted when I get sidetracked while posting and take forever entering mine. Neat! I see Moniker beat me to the punch with Coggs. :)

[_Moniker]

PS. This board has a little pop-up for me (and everyone else, too, no doubt) notifying of all the posts submitted when I get sidetracked while posting and take forever entering mine. Neat! I see Moniker beat me to the punch with Coggs. :)

Yah, that happened to me the other day and I didn't know what in the hell it was. I just scrolled down and hit submit again. It's happened a few times today. I find it incredibly aggravating for some reason or another.

[_Droopy]

What would the world be like without illimitable vacuity?

It would be like this board during the times you've taken a break from posting, Coggs.

On the contrary, on both sides of the debates here, myself, Nehor, bc, Bob, marg, Halle, Will, Jason, and a few others (including both Dude and Seth when they're not in full Moonbat mode) are among the few people here capable of serious, critical argument or intellectual engagement.

For the rest of those who post MoveOn.org talking points, Exxonsecrets talking points, CNN Headline News factoids, regurgitated pop psych pap from Oprah and The View, and soupy, sappy, sugary liberal platitudes about "freedom', "equality", and "rights", concepts you neither understand or really value, I say

Bah, Humbug!

[_GoodK]

This is both a lie and a half truth.

???

How did I manage that?

they're trying to protect what's left of a morally coherent and ordered society for themselves and their children from cultural Morlocks like yourself.

Tell me again what is immoral about homosexual marriage and what homophobia does to protect an ordered society from bastards like me.

[_Moniker]

What would the world be like without illimitable vacuity?

It would be like this board during the times you've taken a break from posting, Coggs.

On the contrary, on both sides of the debates here, myself, Nehor, bc, Bob, marg, Halle, Will, Jason, and a few others (including both Dude and Seth when they're not in full Moonbat mode) are among the few people here capable of serious, critical argument or intellectual engagement.

For the rest of those who post MoveOn.org talking points, Exxonsecrets talking points, CNN Headline News factoids, regurgitated pop psych pap from Oprah and The View, and soupy, sappy, sugary liberal platitudes about "freedom', "equality", and "rights", concepts you neither understand or really value, I say

Bah, Humbug!

Oh, you're a friggin' trip! Do you not recognize your dismal knowledge with the inability to understand the difference between constitutional rights and rights that are outlined by Hobbes, the amendment process, that the founding fathers were the very elites you froth and fume about and yet, at the same time think the constitution should be read as intended by the founding fathers -- as if Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton actually were in lockstep agreement of issues. You're so confused that you don't even recognize you are!

[_Droopy]

So Moniker, tell me what Hobbs view of the social contract and his general view of man as wards of the state who, in return for subsistence and physical safety, are to willingly give up liberty and what we would term "civil rights", has to do with the classical liberal philosoophy (in all of its interconnected manifestations, including Burkian, Lockian, Jeffersonian, and Madisonian) upon which the Consitution is based?

To the degree and in the manner that Hobbs engaged the concept of "rights", in what way did his understanding of them affect the Constitution?

The Founders were the very elitists I foam and froth at?

What are you talking about?

[Guest]

So Moniker, tell me what Hobbs view of the social contract and his general view of man as wards of the state who, in return for subsistence and physical safety, are to willingly give up liberty and what we would term "civil rights", has to do with the classical liberal philosoophy (in all of its interconnected manifestations, including Burkian, Lockian, Jeffersonian, and Madisonian) upon which the Consitution is based?

Hobbes viewed men in a state of constant warfare and when man compacted to form together to create government they gave up natural rights in exchange for this social order. He viewed the Leviathan as having ultimate sovereignty and rebellion was not usually acceptable when power was abused -- this is why our founding fathers preferred LOCKE AND PAINE. :)

To the degree and in the manner that Hobbs engaged the concept of "rights", in what way did his understanding of them affect the Constitution?

Well, actually Locke had more influence and subsequently Paine had more influence (actually Paine had DIRECT influence) on the writing of the constitution! :)

The Founders were the very elitists I foam and froth at?

You think those Justices are the elites creating legislation from the bench... waa waa

What are you talking about?

I remember your prior statements about "rights" and your prior statements about the elites... hint: has something to do with your support of tyranny of the majority in the case of California and homosexual legislation, apparently.

Oh, by the way, you're still missing the mark -- constitutional rights go beyond the scope of natural rights.

Now, I answered some of your questions, so, maybe you can answer mine. Do you think the elites are legislating from the bench? Who feared the tyranny of the majority? What is the difference between natural rights and legal/constitutional rights? Which founding father should we look to when interpreting the Constitution? Can you explain how Hamilton and Jefferson differed in how they wished the nation to progress? If you get that far then can you then choose which founding father is the one that all interpretations should follow from?

[_Moniker]

This may help you understand what I'm getting at when you talk about "rights" and seem to keep referring back to inalienable and natural rights and not recognizing the difference between them and LEGAL rights.

You've said before there is no such thing as a "right" to a free and appropriate education -- bzzzt - wrong! There is because the Justices have ruled there is! You've said there's no right to penumbras -- bzzt --- wrong! There is because the Justices have ruled there is. Etc...

[_Droopy]

Hobbes viewed men in a state of constant warfare and when man compacted to form together to create government they gave up natural rights in exchange for this social order. He viewed the Leviathan as having ultimate sovereignty and rebellion was not usually acceptable when power was abused -- this is why our founding fathers preferred LOCKE AND PAINE. :)
Quote:

Duuuuuh....Which way did he go George???

Yes Moniker, I know...

Well, actually Locke had more influence and subsequently Paine had more influence (actually Paine had DIRECT influence) on the writing of the constitution! :)

Quote:

Kirk says that Burke was more of an influence than Locke, but that's for another discussion. Suffice it to say that the idea of Natural Rights has significant bearing, but perhaps more in the Declaration than in the Constitution.

The Founders were the very elitists I foam and froth at?

You think those Justices are the elites creating legislation from the bench... waa waa

Yes, that's what they are doing, and the Judiciary was created with no such powers (and was, among the Founders, particularly Jefferson, the most feared of the branches of government were it to become corrupt).

I remember your prior statements about "rights" and your prior statements about the elites... hint: has something to do with your support of tyranny of the majority in the case of California and homosexual legislation, apparently.

You clearly do not understand the concept of "tyranny of the majority" or how the constitution deals with both the tyranny of the majority and the equally problematic tyranny of the minority. Care for a political science 101 lesson Moniker?

Oh, by the way, you're still missing the mark -- constitutional rights go beyond the scope of natural rights.

Do they? Constitutional rights are legal instruments, but instruments based in the concept of natural rights, and natural rights were understood to preexist both the state and organized political society; they are inherent in the individual human being. All the actual "rights" in the Constitution are unalienable; we cannot be alienated from them as they come to us from "nature and nature's God" and are intrinsic. Any other "rights" that could conceivable be created by human beings - such as judges or legislators - are by definition contingent -upon the good graces of those who have created them or, even more importantly, the winds of cultural change.

These, such as homosexual marriage and abortion, are not "rights" at all, in the constitutional sense, but simply judicial perquisites; a cultural gratuity extended to politically influential or culturally de rigeur groups at a specific cultural moment.

Now, I answered some of your questions, so, maybe you can answer mine. Do you think the elites are legislating from the bench?

Many federal judges are have usurped the legislative function, yes.

Who feared the tyranny of the majority?

When, where?

What is the difference between natural rights and legal/constitutional rights?

You're asking me here what the difference is between the natural right of freedom of speech and the legal/constitutional right of freedom of speech (or religion, or assembly, or association)?

Or the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the legal/constitution version of the same?