The Gadiantons Triumph Again... and Satan Laugheth.

[_Droopy]

Be sure to tell your lawyer about all the misogynist things you said to Moniker and Beastie, and be sure to tell them about your homophobic rants, so they can have a solid defense in place when these things get brought up.

Gee, I don't seem to remember anything like that, not since I've been here. In the case of Moniker, I did throw some personal put-downs at her that had a sexual context, in a very heated discussion of social issues that had a sexual context, but...uh...mysogynist? Actually, they were relative to her extremely libertine social philosophy, a philosophy I find to be obnoxious. I apologized to her, but it wasn't accepted. Oh well...

I've never discussed anything of a sexual nature with Beastie at all, save probably for debate over abortion and sixties sexual mores, and the like.

Homophobic (whatever that means)? I'll need some references to refresh my memory, as I have no recollection that either.

Actually, I don't think my lawyer is going to be interested in my politics or personal philosophy regarding social, moral, and cultural issues, but in the substance of the case. As I do not hate any homosexual because of his sexual ideations, or any particular homosexual at all, but only oppose the behavior and sub-culture of the homosexual lifestyle, I fail to see any relevance here.

Oh, you forgot my racism, white supremacy, classism, phallocentrism, heterocentrism, running dog capitalist imperialism, and bad breath.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Droopy:

As I recall, the person told me that you'd "never really worked." That, If I recall correctly, was his/her exact phrase. Is it wrong? Based upon what you yourself have revealed, I would say, "No." You've mentioned stretches of being on welfare, being unemployed, being a student, walking off of jobs, "working in lawncare" (whatever that means), investing in misguided paintball ventures, not working to look after your ill wife, and living off an inheritance. I don't know what my "informant" meant when s/he said you've "never really worked," but if this has been your actual history, then I don't think s/he was really all that far off the mark.

And heck, from a certain way of looking at things, there's really no shame in having "never really worked": it means that you've figured out how to circumvent the system, so kudos to you Droopy. But I guess you're right that this does somewhat undermine your whack-job political views.

Additionally, if he received the large inheritance from his Father like he claims, then that makes one wonder how much honest work he's done in his life when, from what I read, it isn't really necessary. Silver spoon, indeed...

- VRDRC

[_Droopy]

I wonder how Droopy can ethically justify participating in such a system.

Most of the "bottom feeders" are in product liability, medical malpractice, and special interest litigation (environmental, racial shakedown, sexual harassment, ideological criminal prosecution of politically incorrect defendents etc), not legitimate literary liable.

See the Duke rape case for a refresher on what I'm talking about in the bolded portion.

That's bottom feeding.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy, what do leftists think about people who take advantage of the welfare safety net?

[_Droopy]

Anyway, Scratch, I'm weary of rolling in the poop with you. That's really not my gig.

Its interesting how I came back here for one reason, which was to provide some counterpoint and rebuttal to the anti-DCP dogpile and insert some considered opinion about the new darling of the Morlock Lollipop Guild, St. John the Delicate.

Somehow, I got sucked into the vortex and ended up discussing the Left and Obamacare. My original intention was just to drop by, engage a bit about Dehlin, and move on.

I now see that that would have been the best course of action. Indeed, I now see that I never should have broken my fast and come back here at all.

Please excuse me if I bow out again, and if I don't show up for a long time, don't leave the light on for me.

But, that would be a rather clever if inadvertent pun on the fundamental nature of this place, wouldn't it? I mean, as there isn't any light in here, one would have to bring one's own to make one's way through this spiritual, moral, and philosophical graveyard.

Its always the dead of night here, and its hard to see one's way through such a moral, ethical, and intellectual charnal house. Scary too.

Yes, its not that you won't leave the light on, its that you can't. Sorry I mentioned it.



Try to enjoy the daylight

[_Equality]

This guy makes droopy seem a placid lake by comparison:
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17151

[_sansfoy]

Please excuse me if I bow out again, and if I don't show up for a long time, don't leave the light on for me.

I've been here about three days and already heard you swear off the board for good a half dozen times. Why do you do that?

[_Dr. Shades]

Please excuse me if I bow out again, and if I don't show up for a long time, don't leave the light on for me.

"A long time" = 12 hours, right?

[_MeDotOrg]

The underlying assumption here appears to be that anything valuing the collective is bad and anything valuing the individual is good.

Let's examine the underlying assumptions. If individualism is the ultimate value, why tithe or have a Relief Society? How would the United States function if all 'collectivism' was banned? Should we not have a Food and Drug Administration, or child labor laws? Should people be free to poison our air and water because to regulate their actions would place limits on their individual liberty?

Am I an individual or a member of a group? The answer is, of course, both. All social structures struggle with the balance between individual rights and individual responsibilities to the group. There is no magic, absolute answer.

Barry Goldwater said "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice." I would disagree. We need to balance the rights of the individual against a person's responsibilities to the group of which he is a member.

I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion on whether or not the Affordable Health Care Act is a good idea, but arguing that any restriction individual rights is wrong is just not realistic.

[_ajax18]

We need to balance the rights of the individual against a person's responsibilities to the group of which he is a member.

I think you'll find that the group is no better off than they were before. Socialized medicine is a method used by the high ranking "individuals," in the left to gain power over the group.

That being said, Justice Robert did the right thing. The people voted for this mess. Now they're going to be brought into bondage to pay for it. It serves the American people right.