Scalia wrong, Thomas right on violent video games

Washington Examiner ^ | June 30, 2011 | Ken Klukowski

[ansel12]

I am going to assume by now that you do support the libertarian party platform, do you want me to post it?

Where do you think that the great Libertarian Earl Warren would be on this court decision?

Here is your federal majority— Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama’s two appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

[ansel12]

Conservatives have been fighting against the homosexual agenda for 45 years, not for it.

[TheBigIf]

Good for you. It shows that you have some heart. Possibly someday you may even find it in that heart of yours to allow other a right to have representation on issues of protecting their children in their own states and communities instead of advocating dictatorship from the Courts in order to satisfy your libertarian hippie lust for violence in video games.

[allmendream]

What is with your homofixation?

Would you support a law calling for homosexual acts to be punishable by death? Would anyone opposed to such a law be against Conservatives by your standard?

I don't care one bit for that 2% or so of the population that is gay.

I don't base my judicial philosophy on “anything that opposes homosexuality” - there are much bigger fish to fry - like the nannyState saying a business cannot offer a toy with a child's meal - or that parents cannot circumcise - or any number of other regulations and laws that do not recognize that we have a government of limited and enumerated powers and individual liberty.

But I guess that - just as the Japanese during WWII were imprisoned without trial - to you homosexuals are a target of opportunity to curtail freedom. You are driven by emotion not logic - and seek to take the “unless you support nannyState regulations you support homosexuals”.

As Lenny Bruce pointed out “Take away the right to say F*ck and you take away the right to say “F*ck the Government!”.

The nannyStaters are usually on the left - but as you amply illustrate - we have our share on the right as well. The basis is as I have said - and you have ignored .....

You support any and all nannyState legislation so long as you agree with its aim - and disagree with nannyState legislation if you oppose its aim.

This is not a Conservative, consistent, or Constitutional position. It is the position of a not very bright reactionary imbecile.

[Lazamataz]

Stop Banning My Video Games!

[ansel12]

Forty five years of homosexual history in a libertarian America is much broader and realistic a topic than the city ordinances that you were trying to use, if they even passed.

The homosexual agenda and it’s gains, and effects, versus traditional, conservative, America is where the rubber meets the road, people can understand it, and measure it.

You don’t like it because you are on a conservative web site, and you know that such clap trap of defending their agenda is not even allowed on such a conservative site.

You just admitted in your post that you join the left on the homosexual agenda, yet you want to try and convince us that actually, it is the homosexual movement that is conservative, and freerepublic is nannyStaters on it, and that freerepublic’s stance on the homosexual agenda is “not a Conservative, consistent, or Constitutional position. It is the position of a not very bright reactionary imbecile.”

I don’t see that you differ from the libertarian platform at all.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Ansel, we've already established the fact that you're not very bright, can't make a cogent argument, etc., etc. No need in beating a dead horse.

Good day to you, sir.

[allmendream]

I don't even know what the libertarian platform is - like homosexuals they are a vanishingly small % of the population and they simply don't matter in the grand scale of things - “things” being our Constitutional system of governance.

Your fixation upon homosexuals is charming, really! But not all who oppose nannyState regulations support homosexuality. That is a strawman argument - quite indicative that such an emotional reactionary stance is your ONLY argument.

Don't try to tell me what I like and don't like. You are not a mind reader.

Your stance is typical of reactionary idiots without any respect for a Government of limited and enumerated powers or knowledge of our Constitution - you support any and all such legislation so long as you agree with its aims - and do not support any and all such legislation if you disagree with its aims.

This is not a Conservative, consistent, or Constitutional position - it is a reactionary one based upon “us” and “them” - thus your only argument is that if I oppose such nannyState regulations CONSISTENTLY based upon the Constitution - I must be ‘one of them’.

Rather pitiful - but when that is all you have - I guess you have no choice but to go with it.

I hope you come to grips with your homofixation soon. It has clouded your reasoning. You would apparently be fine with curtailing every notion of individual liberty so long as it stamped out individual licentiousness.

The only difference between you and your typical nannyState liberal is what you think is right and wrong - your philosophy of governance is identical - that the government needs to enforce morality.

Law only enforces compliance with the law. Morality is enforced by the self upon the self.

[ansel12]

What we established is that you took the Earl Warren libertarian side on this thread.

Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.

Libertarian Party Platform:

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.

Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science, and pushers can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.

Military Strength; minimal capabilities.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Your words, not mine.

Your dopiness seems to know no natural boundaries.

I'll try again: good day to you, sir.

[ansel12]

I guess seeing what libertarians actually support bothered you.

[Monorprise]

“”
Even if the first 20th century injustices invented the Incorporation doctrine out of good intentions, any power grab into the limitless domain is ultimately evil.
“

Good intent? How is that? Power, operating as a confounding ever-demon of human mores, speaks so. This new power is needed it tells a man! Which man? The man who then takes that power from the others to whom in rightfully belongs.

The Bill of Rights was meant to protect citizens in the newly reformed nations from ALL levels of government.”

Ok your not making any sense.

Yes liberals frequently have, at least in their own minds, “good intentions” for all the power grabs they advocate. The end results are dark & distinctive.

No the Federal constitution’s “bill of rights” were written, ratified, and applied only to the Federal Government until the well into the 20th century. The doctrine of incorporation is a new and dangerous invention of the power crazed federal employees in black robes.

This is an undeniable historic fact. Even if you just watch Hollywood movies you should know this simply from the fact that that in the old westerns cowboys were frequently required to surrender their arms upon entering town.

[bvw]

"Ok your [sic] not making any sense."

I'm making sense, and right on the history too. But if I'm in a discussion with someone that can only handle so much, intellectually, what then? If you want to continue the discussion I would ask that you do me a favor. Answer a few questions, that is.

Have you read Blackstone? Do you know who James Otis was? What was George Mason's position on slavery? James Madison's?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Your words, not mine.

What's next in your arsenal of ignorance? Are you going to claim Thomas Jefferson was really a potted plant? How about Marx . . . was he a royalist?

Go away, dopey. Whenever you think you weaken the nation.

[ansel12]

Aren’t you promoting libertarians? Aren’t you saying that one of the greatest libertarian jurists was too liberal to have been that?

Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.

Libertarian Party Platform:

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.

Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science, and pushers can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.

Military Strength; minimal capabilities.

[exDemMom]

A law is unnecessary where people have moral standards - where moral standards are absent - the law will be insufficient.

I really like the way you said that.

[exDemMom]

Are you a liberal plant who posts on FR to try and make all conservatives look like dopes?

I'm suspecting as much myself. He's acting more like the negative stereotype of a conservative that liberals love to bandy about, but hasn't shown much real understanding of conservatism. Supporting Big Brother's deeming that quelling of free speech is perfectedly acceptable if it's in the name of protecting children is hardly a conservative position.

[exDemMom]

I was at a tech expo back when VR goggles were just being developed, and a vendor had a demo set up with Descent running. I watched a guy actually fall out of the chair playing the game.

That's not surprising. Some of those VR set ups can seem very realistic.

[ansel12]

Yes, let’s remove all of the laws protecting our teen daughters, and trust the morality of 150 million males to keep them safe and unharmed, and not become predator on them or exploit them.