The idiocy of Tom Sherman

Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
Tim McNamara writes:

I call myself a liberal and yet I find myself, in many ways, being more
conservative that the current crop of "conservatives" in Washington and
most state capitols around the US. Fiscal responsibility and a balanced
budget, accountability for program outcomes, government having less
intrusion into people's private lives... the only freedom the
"conservatives" are concerned about these days is making sure favored
industries, corporations and cronies get free money from the taxpayers'
coffers, and don't have to put up with those pesky regulations.

I rather enjoyed George Carlin's remark about the American Revolution
being fostered by wealthy, white slave owners fighting to be "free."

I guess politics boils down to whomever deserves the Public Money
the most.

It is I. Without me around, the whole world would suck.
So support me, and you'll get to feel good about it.

Politics is just a condoned form of piracy.
We're /all/ pirates (especially the Greens.)

We are not real pirates however, or global warming would not be an issue.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

In article
,
Andy Evans wrote:

I call myself a liberal and yet I find myself, in many ways, being
more conservative that the current crop of "conservatives" ....
?Fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, accountability for
program outcomes, government having less intrusion into people's
private lives...

That's just good government isn't it? Maybe liberals "intrude" more,
but people are pretty daft in the first place.

People should be free to be daft, at least to a degree. As a former
governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against stupidity.

In article ,
Tom Keats) wrote:

Politics is just a condoned form of piracy. We're /all/ pirates
(especially the Greens.)

Capitalists even more so, not merely condoned but even sanctified in the
country.

People should be free to be daft, at least to a degree. As a former
governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against stupidity.

But I think you can - you can make guns illegal, smoking in public
spaces illegal, drugs illegal etc etc. We already have a legal system
that imposes penalties for all sorts of stupid and destructive
behaviour, and I believe that it is widely accepted.

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around in
public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd choose.

Andy

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around in
public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd choose.

The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional controls
on the population they prefer?

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around in
public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd choose.

The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional
controls on the population they prefer?

The US is not far from that point - one more terrorist moment (real or
false flag) should do it.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Of course the US is a democracy and as such a better type of
government than others mentioned, but foreign policy is an entity in
itself, democracy or not, and it doesn't help to confuse the two or
create non-sequitors like "all democracies have better foreign
policies".

Amen. But it's so much fun to criticize

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around in
public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd choose.

The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional controls
on the population they prefer?

I'm in the UK - I guess one benefit of not having a constitution is
that it doesn't get out of date. We had a lot of daft laws in the
nineteenth century but they all got repealed as they became archaic. I
mean, the death penalty for stealing a sheep, defacing London Bridge
or impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner. I think not, but the US
Constitution predates the repeal of all these. Not quite so easy to
change a constitution.

Andy

In article
,
Andy Evans wrote:

People should be free to be daft, at least to a degree. As a
former governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against
stupidity.

But I think you can - you can make guns illegal, smoking in public
spaces illegal, drugs illegal etc etc. We already have a legal system
that imposes penalties for all sorts of stupid and destructive
behaviour, and I believe that it is widely accepted.

Guns aren't illegal here, of course. Smoking in public spaces is banned
only because of the secondhand smoke problem, otherwise it would not be
the subject of legislation. Indeed, it is very important that Americans
keep smoking heavily because this is a major source of tax revenue. Our
rather schizophrenic anti-drug laws come from our Puritan heritage and
are, in the main, counterproductive and costly. And of course we still
have anti-homosexuality laws on the books in many places around the
country, and we'll even arrest alleged homosexuals in airport toilets
even when they haven't broken the law.

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around
in public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd
choose.

Well, pardner, 'round hereabouts a man's gun is second only to his penis
in importance to his masculine identity. We gots us a shiny new conceal
and carry law, so anyone you meet might be packin'. Mind yer manners.
You ain't got a gun, then yer just some sort of damned sissy liberal.
And just to show that gun rights are more important to Minnesotans than
property rights, under our law you can carry your concealed weapon onto
any private property (stores, churches, hospitals, someone's home, etc.)
you want without asking permission unless the property owner has posted
a sign saying you can't. This is America, dammit. God, guns and guts
made us great.

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message

...

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around
in public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd
choose.

The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional
controls on the population they prefer?

Well, it's an interesting discussion. The Second Amendment, as (badly
and almost incomprehensibly) written, could be construed as preventing
the government from regulating arms ownership in any way whatsoever.
You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
too. C4? Can't stop you. Your own private nukes arsenal? If you can
afford it, go ahead. The recent Supreme Court decision opened the way
for these scenarios and the current makeup of SCOTUS makes such
decisions possible.

Sure, those examples are absurd. The question is where the line can and
should be reasonably drawn. Reasonable people will disagree on where
than line is, unreasonable people will disagree even more vehemently and
in some cases violently.