Posted on 12/15/2001 1:52:25 PM PST by beavus
Am I the only one here who has noticed an explosion of ignorant posts? I'm not talking about disagreements. I'm not talking about laypeople not understanding specialized fields. I'm talking about people attempting to debate issues without even knowing the definitions of commonly used English words like "theory" or "murder". Attempts to argue with these people are futile since they insist on making up their own secret definitions.
I ain't no English teacher, but at least I know enough to make use of any of the many available on-line dictionaries if need be.
Can it be that FreeRepublic is dumbing down? Or am I just being a bunghole?
Oh. Must be my mistake then. Sorry.
FALSE ALARM FOLKS! NOTHING TO SEE HERE! EVERYONE GO HOME NOW! NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
Or you could be a gal, and not know there's a hockey team in Canada called "The Maroons". (most hockey players are laughingly called dumb, right?
Or.....did you know Civil War era slaves who escaped from the Carolinas and Georgia were called "Maroons".
And the word "maroon" itself probably comes from the Spainish word for chestnut?
This is one pet peeve you can eliminate from your life. Anyone who jokingly uses "maroon" as an insult, instead of "moron", is probably more clever and less meanspirited than you or me.
It was never so smart in the first place. Still, there is an upward curve of honesty that's continuing. It is to each person's benefit to identify and correct their own errors. Conversely, to argue in support of an error only digs a deeper hole/problem to extricate oneself from.
Let me get this straight; politicians on both sides of the isle compromise honest principle. We've all heard the phrase, "voting for the lesser of two evils". Politicians encourage people to vote for them. They're encouraging the voter to compromise his or her honest principles. The voter's candidate is bad but not as bad as the other guy.
Then there are voters that encourage other people to compromise their honest principles to vote for their favored candidate -- the guy that they think is not as bad as the other guy. Even worse, some voters encourage non-voters to compromise their honest principles who, for lack of voting don't compromise their principles.
But most people don't want to hear that so they ignore it and stay in their comfort zone. Sleeping through life pretending that their political activism makes a difference. The only lasting difference it makes is that it allows them to fool themselves into thinking they're doing something useful. When in fact they are perpetuating the problem and encouraging others to do the same.
Many also like to blame the non-voters. They curse non-voters for not compromising honest principles. As if the non-voters are worthy of some sort of guilt for not acting/voting. Should a patriot vote for a candidate that will harm his country even if the candidate he or she were to vote for is not as harmful as the other candidate?
When confronted with the above reality most people will concoct all sorts of tail-chasing rationalization to remain in their comfort zones. Believe me I learned the hard way. But the point is that I learned and corrected my error.
Compromising honest principles is how and why the government barely, if at all, resembles what the founders created and intended. Unless the real problem -- compromising honest principles -- is brought to the front and becomes the main issue the politicians and bureaucrats will continue dragging people into compromising their principles right along with them. And for some, ending what would and should be valuable friendships.
It has been that way for the last 150 years, it is that way today and will continue on that course until the real problem is made the central issue.
Pogo was right on target when he said: "I have seen the enemy and he is us."
Value producers versus value destroyers. If civilization had to chose between business and government, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?
The first thing civilization must have is business. Business can survive, even thrive without government. Government cannot survive without business. In general, business is the host and government is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
Now a person seemingly has no ground to stand on. Mainly because we have all lived in a world where compromising principles is way too often an acceptable, politically correct, status quo way to live. It has been that way for not just 150 years in this country, but for over 2,000 years.
Fortunately, there is firm grounding in this: Do not abide by the notion of do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Leave people alone to create their life as they see fit so long as they do not initiate force, fraud or coercion.
When a person initiates force the victim and his or her agent (police or good Samaritan) may exercise their highest mortal right -- the right of self-defense and physical survival. And that ought to be all that a person sticks their nose into another person's business unless invited to associate with another person.
It is long overdue that the people stop being their own enemy. Let me stress that point with the following dialog:
Is there any nation or religion in history that hasn't captured, raped, and enslaved their victims from time to time to acquire power?
This is human nature. I am not ashamed of this.
Authoritarian power did those things. Individuals going about their lives basically leave people alone. Then comes along an authoritarian power (church/religion, politician/government) that uses a self-proclaimed boogieman to whip up a frenzy of fear (or moral indignation such as discrimination) in the people. The authoritarian power points to the "enemy" and with the fear instilled in otherwise meek people, sends them off to capture, rape and enslave the "enemy". So who is the real enemy? The authoritarian power mongers. Throughout history the concepts, strategies and tactics have been refined for their times.
Don't believe me? At this modern advanced technology stage of man, most of the world's population lives in third world poverty ruled by tyranny, socialism and oppression. The direction America is speeding towards.
Continued below...
Why are you here at FreeRepublic? Are you a patriot?
Do you want lasting change wherein you, your family ands society benefit most? Clean your slate of compromised principles that negatively effect other people (do as you please so long as you don't harm anyone else) and then go out and rile up the non-voters (ask to associate with them) and inform them that they are right; the voters are part of the problem. Join together and demand honest principled candidates. Also demand that there be an option on every ballot to "vote for none of the above".
It's long overdue for people to stop spinning their wheels on a slew of circular symptoms that in the end -- no matter what the temporary gain from relieving a symptom --always leads to lost values. Go to the heart of the matter -- corrupt government, politicians and bureaucrats that initiate force, fraud and coercion. Use your highest moral right of self-defense and survival. Encourage others to do the same. Replicate the psychological mindset by using thought, discipline and control to honor and remain true to your honest principles.
If you don't you will continue being used and used up. ...Allowing politicians and bureaucrats to feed on you and leaving that legacy for your children and grandchildren to be the host for parasitical elites.
Value producers versus value destroyers.
Three principles that will always benefit you and never fail you...
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions be allowed for Principle One and Two.
initiation: 1 Starting something for the first time 2 An act that sets in motion some course of events
Initiation of force: when is it permissible to punch you in the nose, steal your property or kill you?
Initiation of fraud: when is it permissible to deceive or lie to you in order to have you hand over your money or put your life in harms way?
Initiation of coercion: when is it permissible to coerce/threaten you in order to have you hand over your money or put your life in harms way?
Self-defense: When is it permissible for you to defend your life and property?
All a person need be concerned with is whether they have been a victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury.
Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claimed to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All juries would be informed that they have the option of nullification. That is based on the premise of Objective Law also known as The Point Law.
Comments? Questions?
Beavus, see? Actually, I think Beavus is also an ACME sales rep. You might get a deal on magnetic birdseed.
I am provincially unimpressed; natter all you may, nabob; the effete will not inherit this depleted planet.
And the correct contraction would be 'amn't'
First . . . we need to determine what the meaning of "is" is, eh???
Oak Hay . . . butt oui Shirley halve Anne ish shew four Billow Rye Lee two deeb ate !!!
Following my own advice, I will first work with you at your level:
Sir, you have a misconception about the validity of the word "aint.".
Continuing to follow my own advice, I will now correct your misconception about the word "aint." The word "aint" has been in the dictionary for decades. If you look at www.dictionary.com you will see "aint" defined as:
ain't (nt)
Nonstandard
1.Contraction of am not.
2.Used also as a contraction for are not, is not, has not, and have not.
Continuing to follow my own advice:
Please be assured that if you choose to "am not" rather than "aint" I will understand what you are saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.