liberal la la land.

Well Phil you are certainly entitled to your opinions as am I.

I believe the forces of government are far more benign than you might, that is clear.

Mr Jacksons race is only important given the context, the discussion of whether or not he believes in slavery and or theft as a positive, and would advocate for such. I believe that stating a black American in Congress is in favor of slavery and theft to be outlandish, specious and yes Orwellian.

I would argue that receiving an education is a necessity. Not a right one is born with, but certainly one that our country needs us to have and to use. In so far that many "rights" we have are born of necessity (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to name a few) I would say there is a adequate, no, better than adequate argument to be made that education is indeed a right. One that should not be infringed.

There are excellent examples of ignorance and immorality among our politicians of both parties. I totally agree with you.

As to whether or not he is a fool...well...he is young, very idealistic, and is in search of a way to get a sound byte on the evening news. Some politicians are willing to say foolish things in order to get on the air. Apparently he is one of them.

Lastly...really? You wrote papers while drinking? That makes me laugh because I am reminded of the "Family Guy" episode where Peter could play the piano really well, but only while buzzed, or outright drunk.

Well Phil you are certainly entitled to your opinions as am I.

I believe the forces of government are far more benign than you might, that is clear. Originally Posted by Bartman1963

Indeed. When people are asked what sort of group has been responsible for most deaths throughout human history, a common response is religion. My answer is governments (although, sometimes the two can overlap).

Mr Jacksons race is only important given the context, the discussion of whether or not he believes in slavery and or theft as a positive, and would advocate for such. I believe that stating a black American in Congress is in favor of slavery and theft to be outlandish, specious and yes Orwellian. Originally Posted by Bartman1963

"Orwellian" would be more like ignorance is strength, war is peace, doublethink, etc. To claim that a black man advocating labor without compensation is not endorsing a form of slavery, and using his race as evidence against such, does not classify as Orwellian. If anything, it's ironic. His race is completely irrelevant to me, our nation's history notwithstanding.

I would argue that receiving an education is a necessity. Not a right one is born with, but certainly one that our country needs us to have and to use. In so far that many "rights" we have are born of necessity (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to name a few) I would say there is a adequate, no, better than adequate argument to be made that education is indeed a right. One that should not be infringed. Originally Posted by Bartman1963

I wouldn't argue that education is a necessity per se. People will receive both education and training simply by living (Often times, training is more economically rewarding than education). Furthermore, schools are not the only venue to receive education. I do believe people have the right to pursue education. In American history, some slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write; that was wrong. However, if people expect to receive education for "free," then someone along the line must labor without just compensation. A person doesn't have the right to make another person teach them; they don't have the right to make a writer produce a textbook; they don't have the right to make a person labor in order to pay for these things via taxation.

I won't bother arguing over whether or not you think such services should be provided by the government, as that is pointless. I do ask you to acknowledge that people will have to labor without compensation to provide these things, no matter how noble or needed they may seem. This is not opinion, it is fact. The opinion is whether or not the end justifies the means.

There are excellent examples of ignorance and immorality among our politicians of both parties. I totally agree with you. Originally Posted by Bartman1963

Amen. Most people just want to use the government to dictate to others according to their values. My position is that people shouldn't have the right to dictate to others. Lest someone say that is by my values, my position is the absence of force, rather than the initiation of force.

As to whether or not he is a fool...well...he is young, very idealistic, and is in search of a way to get a sound byte on the evening news. Some politicians are willing to say foolish things in order to get on the air. Apparently he is one of them. Originally Posted by Bartman1963

I still say it's foolish, but it's not like he's the only one.

Lastly...really? You wrote papers while drinking? That makes me laugh because I am reminded of the "Family Guy" episode where Peter could play the piano really well, but only while buzzed, or outright drunk. Originally Posted by Bartman1963

State dependency. That's why some people play pool better after having some beers, so long as they don't drink too many. There's a peak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4

Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the Internets. Enjoy!

This is what all the hubbub is about, bub. It's his Second Bill of Rights speech and I'm sure even some Tea Party wingnuts will like one or two of the rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZstx...layer_embedded

Do you have any idea how much power this 79 year old man has over your life? A lot. A lot more than Jesse Jackson Jr. Now ask yourself which guy sounds crazier.

"Orwellian" would be more like ignorance is strength, war is peace, doublethink, etc. To claim that a black man advocating labor without compensation is not endorsing a form of slavery, and using his race as evidence against such, does not classify as Orwellian. If anything, it's ironic. His race is completely irrelevant to me, our nation's history notwithstanding. Originally Posted by Philhelm

Ironic?!? Oh shit my head is going to explode!

Wouldn't it be ironic if irony meant "stating the contrary of what is meant"?

Put another way...you're exactly correct.*














*I didn't really mean that.

Ironic?!? Oh shit my head is going to explode! Originally Posted by Longermonger

Ignorance is strength.

Wouldn't it be ironic if irony meant "stating the contrary of what is meant"? Originally Posted by Longermonger

Not so fast. Orwellian doublespeak has elements of irony within it; however, "Orwellian" and "ironic" are not synonymous. I suspect that you know that though.

Put another way...you're exactly correct.*
*I didn't really mean that. Originally Posted by Longermonger

Not Orwellian. Orwellian needs an element of dystopian government in order to qualify as such.

Not so fast. Orwellian doublespeak has elements of irony within it DUH!; however, "Orwellian" and "ironic" are not synonymous DUH!. I suspect that you know that though DUH! LOL. Originally Posted by Philhelm

The "irony" is that you corrected the guy incorrectly about irony who was closer to the mark than you were.

Not Orwellian. Orwellian needs an element of dystopian government in order to qualify as such. Originally Posted by Philhelm

No, but ironic. I thought I was being obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY

Longer you're becoming as disjointed as Cheaper. Remember during a stroke, time lost is brain lost.

The "irony" is that you corrected the guy incorrectly about irony who was closer to the mark than you were. Originally Posted by Longermonger

No. If p therefore q is not the same as If q therefore p.

Something ironic is not necessarily Orwellian. Something Orwellian can be ironic. Having a paradox isn't enough to be labelled as Orwellian.

No, but ironic. I thought I was being obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY Originally Posted by Longermonger

I know what you were trying to say. Since the underlying assumption that started this was false, there was no irony in what I had said in response to Bartman. Bartman had said that it is Orwellian that people are claiming that a black man is advocating slavery. How are such people being Orwellian, or ironic for that matter? The irony is that a black man is advocating wage slavery. Those pointing it out are neither ironic nor Orwellian, unless we are to assume that blacks, by mere virtue of their race, are incapable of advocating slavery simply because the U.S. used black slaves in its earlier history. Sorry, but that does not hold water.

Longer you're becoming as disjointed as Cheaper. Remember during a stroke, time lost is brain lost. Originally Posted by john_galt

Your homework assignment is to look up the definition of the word 'irony'.

Galt there u go saying my name look your a fucking weirdo with fuck up views your cats are fags & they rep you. I am sorry somebody touch you in wrong place when you were young or maybe a black guy was your stepdad once a week. But don't use my name to make u feel better.

your cats are fags Originally Posted by Cheaper2buyit

End thread. That can't be topped.

Kinda pisses me off dissing cats in any way!

You all are mere mortals.