Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Props to William Jacobson 105
It's an extremely small victory in the struggle against fascism, but obtaining David Gregory's arrest warrant helps underscore the point that too many laws is fertile ground for uneven enforcement, which is a refined form of tyranny.
So your point then... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the question remains, why do you support local jurisdictions passing laws regulating things such as marriage but not passing laws regulating things such as ammunition clips? You oppose the federal government interfering with regulations on marriage but y
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, given laws, why do we tolerate uneven enforcement thereof.
This is a specific example of why I generally assume, as a default, that you are arguing in bad faith, or at least trolling, until proven otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, given laws, why do we tolerate uneven enforcement thereof.
So do you want to see increased enforcement of jaywalking laws then? There are plenty of places where spitting on the sidewalk is against the law as well. I thought you were opposed to a police state overrun with law enforcement personnel.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a state would probably optimize the balance between the individual and the group.
Which invites the question: what's your next obfuscation?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Let's enforce all the laws, to the point that we realize that we've tremendous clutter, then set about streamlining them, so that what's on the books is needful, enforceable, reasonable, and minimal.
So then if "enforceable" is important, how much energy will you put in to the enforcement of laws that oppress individual freedoms? How will you manage doing that both for laws that are against freedoms you support and laws that are against freedoms you oppose? And for that matter how do you define which laws are "needful"? It seems that each time we get a change in the individuals at the power levers we would tweak the notion of which laws are "needful" (mostly just to make adjust them towards their pr
Re: (Score:2)
how much energy will you put in to the enforcement of laws that oppress individual freedoms?
Well, were this wild hypothetical somehow instantiated, I guess we'd have to start with tracking you down in the real world and just screwing with you for sheer recreation.
As far as "needful" goes, one good approach for starters would be to begin with the overcriminalization [heritage.org] problem and just work backward. That is, there is plenty of good thought by sane people in circulation on the topic. It's a going-in position.
What's your next diversion? Do you shoot the messenger? Do you claim that "love is hate, pea
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal law should be used only if a person intentionally flouts the law or engages in conduct that is morally blameworthy
(Emphasis mine)
"Morally blameworthy" sounds like it could easily still include daring to be in love with someone who is of the same sex, or daring to follow a religion that doesn't pray to the right god (amongst other "blameworthy" offenses).
In other words, your bit on "overcriminalization" seems to - by their own quote - be another expression of "we will enforce what we want to enforce".
Re: (Score:2)
It may shock you, but I'm quite content to view the federal Constitution through a purely libertarian lens. But we need to prevent leaky abstractions in the object model. Individual, private citizens should be opaque above the 57 States, and we should offload the non-Enumerated, Progressive aspects of our Federal government.
However, it's highl
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this "straight": are you advocating pure amorality as the only means of escaping a kind of "we will enforce what we want to enforce" moral singularity?
My point, in spite of your creative attempts to obfuscate it, is that you are still encouraging political cherry-picking through the laws of the land. You are claiming the moral high ground - which is not a new position for you to claim to own, of course - and telling us that everyone else is wrong because they subscribe to a different take on "morality" from your favorite.
It may shock you, but I'm quite content to view the federal Constitution through a purely libertarian lens.
What would shock me would be if your "libertarian lens" actually lead to an increase in actual liberty for more than .01% of the popu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Need I remind you that you provided a reference [slashdot.org] that endorsed uneven enforcement of the law based on their own notion of "morality"?
I guess I should probably congratulate you, though; you keep to the topic of the JE far longer than usual this time. We almost had an actual discussion of the topic of your JE. Do I need to try to only post replies to you in the evening, when you are less quick to jump ship?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, this whole time you avoided the marriage issue with regards to 'equal enforcement' of the law. 'Morality', like religion, is personal. Where is your right to impose?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, we have the spectacle of one definition of 'Morality' being supplanted by another, and you sanctimoniously pretending that it's not an equal and opposite imposition. [golf clap]
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal law should be used only if a person intentionally flouts the law or engages in conduct that is morally blameworthy or dangerous.
For example, cannibalism and child molestation are two taboos that remain substantially beyond the pale.
Re: (Score:1)
What marriage issue? Marriage remains marriage, despite the liars.
Legal property transfers are matters of the state, and that is what the marriage business has been about since the invention of the concept. And religion was the ruling power, the 'state'.
Now, as long as enforcement of contracts remains a 'province of the state', we shall obligate the state to enforce those provisions equally and without bias. Couldn't be simpler. I know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal law should be used only if a person intentionally flouts the law or engages in conduct that is morally blameworthy or dangerous.
For example, cannibalism and child molestation are two taboos that remain substantially beyond the pale.
My point is that the whole "morally blameworthy" is excessively squishy. Not only could it incorporate punishment of fully victimless crimes (when it crimes are defined on what people see as "blameworthy") but it does nothing to prevent the problem of unequal enforcement. It appears that your original thesis here is that if the high capacity magazine ban where equally enforced (and existed where the interview you mention took place) then your Mr. Gregory would be expecting to serve jail time. To swing t
Re: (Score:1)
My point is that the whole "morally blameworthy" is excessively squishy.
Only for the rationalizing sack of crap in the crowd, or those who place religious levels of faith in the state.
your original thesis here is that if the high capacity magazine ban where equally enforced (and existed where the interview you mention took place) then your Mr. Gregory would be expecting to serve jail time.
The other direction the reaction could go is that people say "Ah, all of these DC abridgements of the Second Amendment are a pile of crap, and we should strike them." .
Whacky thing is, the state never seems to just relinquish power, and let liberty flower. .
Re: (Score:2)
or those who place religious levels of faith in the state.
You have at least as much faith in your conservative heroes as I have in any democrat currently holding office in DC - and for that matter you have vastly more faith in them than I have in President Lawnchair.
The other direction the reaction could go is that people say "Ah, all of these DC abridgements of the Second Amendment are a pile of crap, and we should strike them."
Where does the Second Amendment dictate that people should be able to fire off more than 10 rounds per minute? I've brought up the full text of the second amendment here before [slashdot.org] and it makes no mention of that - amongst many other things. If the Second Amendment protects the "right" to fire off arbi
Re: (Score:1)
Man, I'm serious. You have to run for office. It is your calling.
Re: (Score:1)
No (Score:1)
The Constitution is an expression of a lack of faith in people, irrespective of their labels du jour.
Your bogus rate of fire argument is a (perhaps not deliberate) attempt to distract from the 2A's absolute right of self defense.
The NRA is so strong, and the blowback against gungrabbers so strident, because nobody is buying the 'boil the frog' argument. The Left is understood to argue in bad faith, because the L
Re: (Score:1)
You must obey your god and run. I hope your first born is not named Isaac.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Good call
Re: (Score:2)
the 2A's absolute right of self defense.
Except the second amendment says nothing about self defense. It mentions
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But it never says that these arms are for self defense. In fact, if we look at the full text
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We see mentions of a Militia and a free State. We never see anything about self defense. The self defense notion is a product manufactured by the gun lobby.
Re: (Score:1)
Then I'll make it simple for you, with somebody else's words, because he thought of them first:
Now, as for polygamy (or bestiality or whatever other kink someone wants to throw in), the law is cle
Re: (Score:1)
The Bill of Rights undergirds the notion that the unit of analysis in the document beginning "We the People. .
Why you can't understand tha
Re: (Score:1)
God have mercy on the constellation of liars busily attempting to make these fish pedal a bicycle.
Re: (Score:1)
If you demand equal enforcement of the law you cannot discriminate. You still refuse to address that issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why you can't understand that "the security of a free State" is about the absolute right of self defense,
I can't understand it because there is no connection there. You and many others pretend that there is, but that won't make it so.
and instead want to call it "a product manufactured by the gun lobby"
Because the gun lobby is the primary profiteer of this paranoia. There is no mention of self defense in the Second Amendment, period. You can twist it all you want and harp BS about the intent of people who died over a hundred years before you were born, but the fact of the matter is that there is no mention of self defense in the text that they wrote.
common sense
Common sense tells us t
Re: (Score:1)
You're trying that 'humor' thing again, aren't you? Always trying to reverse things... It is discrimination that triggered the laws that we are trying to repeal. Please, by all means: continue your little two step there.
Re: (Score:1)
You and many others pretend that there is, but that won't make it so.
Roughly to the extent that you willfully deny any idea not promulgated by Media Matters.
. . .but the fact of the matter is that there is no mention of self defense in the text that they wrote.
Sure, it's a literal fact of the text at hand that "self defense" was such a given in the 1787 context that it need only be implied by "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
One can hardly blame the Founders for failing to foresee the invertebrate Left, and its craving for bondage to the kind of Statism that they were so thoroughly refuting in pretty much everything they did.
There is an Orwellian hilarity running
We're getting somewhere useful here (Score:1)
It does not seem to follow that the only cure for bad laws is more laws.
Maybe, just maybe, the case is that there is some "optimal legislation" line, past which, like a rose bush gone wild, the only remedy is to prune.
I don't grasp exactly what you mean by "two step". There are false ideas that I cannot support, irrespective of the propaganda in circulation today. You seem to be trying to pin a flavor of hypocrisy on me.
Re: (Score:2)
You and many others pretend that there is, but that won't make it so.
Roughly to the extent that you willfully deny any idea not promulgated by Media Matters.
For starters that accusation is 100% removed from reality or facts. Second, that is completely non sequitur. But keep on working to move those goal posts, you have made quite a hobby of it and I'd hate to force you to give it up.
. . .but the fact of the matter is that there is no mention of self defense in the text that they wrote.
Sure, it's a literal fact of the text at hand that "self defense" was such a given in the 1787 context that it need only be implied by "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
In what way? Was our young country truly so lawless that people routinely had to take the law into their own hands because the people who lived here were so atrociously uncivilized that there was violence on the streets as an everyday occurrence in every town?
the vast uptick in weapons sales should have long since triggered a bloodbath and depopulated this country
Can you tell me o
Re: (Score:1)
It does not seem to follow that the only cure for bad laws is more laws.
Again, you have it backwards. The law is discriminatory and needs to be repealed. And you, you are simply following your religious dogma.There's nothing to argue there. Equality means equality, but you only accept it within your 'context'. The hypocrisy is more than obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
The hypocrisy is more than obvious.
Wow, going the Full Damn_Registrars? Look, I'm willing to agree that the law has over-reached here, and the government needs to pull back from regulating individual lives in this matter. But that's not enough for you. You need more. What is it, precisely that you need from me here? You accuse common sense of being religious dogma (when have I ever made an assertion of a Diety saying something in a Tome that would qualify as such? Ever? Show me--I'm kinda sure you're full of it there), and then accuse me of
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, it's a literal fact of the text at hand that "self defense" was such a given in the 1787 context that it need only be implied by "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
In what way? Was our young country truly so lawless that people routinely had to take the law into their own hands because the people who lived here were so atrociously uncivilized that there was violence on the streets as an everyday occurrence in every town?
Hey, speaking of moveable goalposts, why don't you admit that the Constitution was a pact between States written to create a Federal government, while specifically not re-inventing that of Great Britain? Of course the ideals expressed in the Constitution are not about, say, downtown Salem, Massachusetts. Guess what? That was a matter for. . .Massachusetts.
The concept of Federalism has been completely obscured by the motorized goalposts of Progress, no?
Can you tell me of a case where someone needed a giant clip of ammo for self defense?
Once upon a time, there was a Godless Commie dickhead n
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the ideals expressed in the Constitution are not about, say, downtown Salem, Massachusetts. Guess what? That was a matter for. . .Massachusetts.
And yet you are trying to get the federal government to impose laws to limit what Massachusetts - or any of its jurisdictions - can pass for themselves when you don't like those laws.
Can you tell me of a case where someone needed a giant clip of ammo for self defense?
...
moveable goalposts
Pretty much, that. Do I owe you a thanks for supporting my initial argument with your alternate-reality parable at the end of your post?
Re: (Score:1)
And yet you are trying to get the federal government to impose laws to limit what Massachusetts - or any of its jurisdictions - can pass for themselves when you don't like those laws.
Great evidence-free handwave, there.
And if the parable brought consciousness to you, then great! But I need more evidence to achieve optimism.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you are trying to get the federal government to impose laws to limit what Massachusetts - or any of its jurisdictions - can pass for themselves when you don't like those laws.
Great evidence-free handwave, there.
You want evidence? You provided it for us in this very JE. You want the federal government to overturn local laws that you don't like. You demonstrated that very plainly.
You have a very interesting case of selective faith in the federal government. You want the federal government to swoop in and overturn all local gun regulations across the country, that you have made perfectly clear. I don't see you asking the federal government to grab ahold of Roe vs Wade though and do the same with the wide sp
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can summarize my actual viewpoint in the word: "Federalism".
Why are you so inconsistent in your application of it? Some times you want the federal government to take a hike, and other times you want them to come and impose your will upon the entire country. Why do you get to have it both ways?
Re: (Score:1)
That the Federal government has aggrandized its power and mucks about with individuals (e.g. entitlements) is our chief source of woe.
Where is it that you find me inconsistent? Oh, never mind: you'll retrospectively imagine something. You all cool like that & stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is it that you find me inconsistent?
I've pointed out inconsistencies before. There are specific local laws that you want the federal government to overturn (for example gun regulations) and others that you want upheld (marriage restrictions, abortion restrictions, as two examples) with no intervention from the federal government. None of those fall under "interstate commerce" so why is one so different to you than the other two and so astronomically important for the federal government to swoop in and tell the states or smaller jurisdiction
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, going the Full Damn_Registrars?
Re: (Score:1)
There are specific local laws that you want the federal government to overturn (for example gun regulations) and others that you want upheld (marriage restrictions, abortion restrictions, as two examples)
Except, that's not true, speaking of inconsistencies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are specific local laws that you want the federal government to overturn (for example gun regulations) and others that you want upheld (marriage restrictions, abortion restrictions, as two examples)
Except, that's not true, speaking of inconsistencies.
When you have bothered to stop all your goalpost-moving long enough to breathe, you have been consistently arguing that you see local gun laws as "immoral" and in need of the federal government to come in and "save" the populace from.
Hence, from your point of view, it is a grave injustice for any jurisdiction smaller than the federal government to dictate in any way what kinds of weapons an individual can own; you see this as something that the federal government is morally obligated to save the people
Re: (Score:1)
The spin offs you vote for are the same old crap, selling glyconutrients, or some other hogwash.
Re: (Score:1)
When you have bothered to stop all your goalpost-moving long enough to breathe, you have been consistently arguing that you see local gun laws as "immoral" and in need of the federal government to come in and "save" the populace from.
No, sorry, must be one of your strawmen. How would self-defense become a moral issue, exactly? I use "moral" to cover purely subjective religious beliefs, e.g. "you were you when your genetic information was complete". But feel free to proffer a URL where you think I made some sort of moral case regarding the 2A.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You would actually vote for those people?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No you aren't. Find somebody else for the primaries. And you are not limited to what is on the ballot. But, if you want to sell out to play along with the 'lesser evil' chumps, I am not one to stop you
Re: (Score:2)
How would self-defense become a moral issue, exactly?
Self-defense is a strawman argument with regards to the second amendment. The text of the second amendment never mentions self defense in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore there has never been a federal restriction on firearms that restricted self defense in any reasonable way, and none of the restrictions on ammo clips that have ever existed in this country ever did either.
But if you now claim to not be attempting to use "morality" to get the federal government to step in and throw out local laws,
Re: (Score:1)
That is, until Woodrow & the Progressives pulled some key safety features, setting us on a slippery slope. . .
Re: (Score:1)
Furthermore there has never been a federal restriction on firearms that restricted self defense in any reasonable way, and none of the restrictions on ammo clips that have ever existed in this country ever did either.
Great troll. I'm confident you're not such a blithering idiot as to be unaware of the National Firearms Act [wikipedia.org], which says I cannot own a .50 cal machine gun for self defense purposes. (By the way, they're a literal blast to fire.)
But if you now claim to not be attempting to use "morality"
In much the same way you never claimed to use photon torpedoes to destroy Atla
Re: (Score:2)
a .50 cal machine gun for self defense purposes
And what would you be defending with a .50 cal machine gun? Are you expecting the Russians to attack your house? I don't disagree that they are fun to fire, but I've never seen one that a reasonable person could carry - even openly - as part of a regular existence.
to pretend that self-defense is NOT an implicit requirement for life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness is a pretext for bringing in some flavor of authoritarianism.
First of all, no.
Second of all, no.
Third, I did not take a stance against self-defense, in spite of your efforts to claim the contrary. I only pointed out that the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with self-defense.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, you do come full circle, many times now with that Wilson crap. While you're looking for candidates, see if you can find a new obsession. That one is mighty old and really means nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The best solution. Until you come up with something better.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How do you argue that we're all just so much meat on the one hand, and then proffer any sort of superlative on the other?
That's the prerogative of being human. We set the reference point. Besides your question makes no sense. What difference does it make whether we are just meat or not? I don't care, why should you? We're still here, and soon we won't be. Enjoy the time you have and travel light.
Re: (Score:1)
Yourself and your property from a Grizzly Bear, for one. Even the mighty
They're rare here in Wisconsin, but head west and they get more common.
More conspiracy theories! (Score:1)
He's only trying to boost the ratings after flopping for all those years. An arrest can only help. C'mon man, he's still married to his first wife. That's gotta mean something...
Re: (Score:2)
he's still married to his first wife. That's gotta mean something...
Well, he's a practicing Jew [wikipedia.org], but apparently that wasn't enough to keep Chuck Todd from replacing him at Press the Meat [wikipedia.org].
not my takeaway at all (Score:1)
This doesn't set back fascism a little, just reveals it a little (and when the populace doesn't care, then those are not both one and the same). And too many laws is bad, but, at least at the amount that we have, that's not what's leading to uneven enforcement.
A couple of the earlier comment-leavers (I didn't read all of the comments) touched on the problems:
[...] illustrates the contempt with which government agencies treat the law and the citizenry.
and:
Politics supersedes the law. The “rule of law” now means “who rules, makes up the laws.” The legal framework that stabilizes a society has been thrown out [...]
One of the reasons we have uneven enforcement is because we have a ruling class in this country. It is comprised of those on the Left who are in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, even in systems other than democracies it's usually on the people as to what they'll put up with. In ours the populace is ultimately to blame, for the corruption that exists (whether Leftism- or corporate-induced).
But in our defense, we've been disarmed. Both literally and figuratively. While maybe technology and deepness of pockets has rendered us no longer able to physically restrain our government and its ruling class, we've been societally neutered of the knowledge and background and spirit to r
Re: (Score:2)
I think when the Irish and Polish and Italian immigrant waves came, they actually liked the basic system of America and wanted to melt into it. They thought they could make it just fine on their own, by working. Now we have multiculturalism and its encouragement of cultural segregation, and of not learning the language and customs and fully joining in. Now suddenly these days it's like America is at a zenith of racism and the message that can and does resonate is that you can't make it on your own in America, without the Left's help.
You have to admire the Left's genius in realizing that there is more political power to be derived from keeping people divided, rather than having them unite under one set of capitalistic Judeo-Christians values.
Re: (Score:1)
Well it's all they had decades ago, when they used to be on the outside of the mainstream; all they could do is cobble together disparate voting blocs. Which, as I understand it, didn't always mesh, as I seem to recall hearing that some Dem conventions of a while ago weren't exactly models of unity. But the constant beating into their constituents of the message that Republicans hate and are out to get all of them, and that you can't make it without the Left, whether you're Black, gay, trans-this-or-that,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
When I got my new phone, I asked Siri "what time will the rain start tomorrow". She said "yes, it's going to rain tomorrow".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Dear smittybot,
If you can understand this, please tell smitty that he needs to do a lot more work on your AI algorithms, as this bit about picking up on one key word and crafting a plausible-outside-of-context, one sentence response... is just not fooling anyone.
Thanks a whole bunch,
BD
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Et tu, smitty? I knew the likes of DR and fusta would always be just wasting my time, but I wasn't expecting that from a religious Rightie. (Yes, even one who displays a real soft spot for the wicked.)
Oh well, it's not like I didn't already assume that you've got nothing when it comes to actually backing up your optimistic stance. I certainly can't come up with anything, at least not conceivably in our lifetimes.
Re: (Score:1)
Just noticed a couple of headlines here:
"Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change"
and
"The NSA Is Viewed Favorably By Most Young People"
Yes, America is quite lost for at least the next two or three generations. Like I've said before, after that there's a slight chance of a generation actually stopping to think about what a shithole America had become.
So the Left's goal is to take us as far Left as they can and they hope past the point of no return, before any generation wakes up. We could
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So Jesus is going to save America from becoming a communist shithole? That's certainly not what my Bible says. I guess you just don't like to face the tough issues/reality. It's your prerogative.
Re: (Score:1)
Until that return, though, politics happen.
What is your specific question, please?
Re: (Score:1)
Man you are some bad AI. For the 3rd fucking time:
So what could possibly cause the populace (the citizenry plus the non-citizenry, that is) to want to get more involved in standing up to corruption and the slide Leftward.
p.s. You had said:
But the answer is that more involvement from the citizenry is the answer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And what do you imagine could cause that? (And if you're thinking about just saying "God", well, then "oh no, sorry, we were looking for what could possibly cause mankind these days, of its own volition, to turn back to God".)
We obviously know God will be victorious in the end, but if revivals are all Him (which would clash with my belief in Free Will/IANACalvinist), what makes you think He necessarily has another one planned?
Re: (Score:1)
And if you're thinking about just saying "God", well, then "oh no, sorry, we were looking for what could possibly cause mankind these days, of its own volition, to turn back to God".
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?", said Jeremiah 17:9
what makes you think He necessarily has another one planned?
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:4
I mean, I clock in around 2.5 on the TULIP scale myself, but I am of the sola scriptura ilk.
Re: (Score:1)
Unparsable. Fail.
I'm getting pretty close to treating your journal as write-only.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Here's one: How many more times do you think I'll assume good faith on your part, when you ignore what we're talking about and then feign to be interested a day or three later (and somehow unable/unwilling to simply scroll up and read what we were talking about), and then rinse, lather, repeat?
Re: (Score:1)
We obviously know God will be victorious in the end, but if revivals are all Him (which would clash with my belief in Free Will/IANACalvinist), what makes you think He necessarily has another one planned?
And I have to say that I fall about midway between Arminianism & Calvinism. Perhaps I was too cryptic. And now you seem to be getting testy. If you feel the need to drop this thread, I accept that in advance. If you want to discuss the point, fine.
Re: (Score:1)
I fall about midway between Arminianism & Calvinism.
Esplain, please.
Perhaps I was too cryptic.
LOL. Dude, that should be your .sig!
And now you seem to be getting testy.
LOL! You think I'm just now getting testy?!
Re: (Score:1)
ISTR that you're Roman Catholic. On the one hand, that means that these theological matters (and occasional heresies) are long since settled. Got that. Still worth knowing about as you venture into de
Re: (Score:1)
Well usually "explain what you meant by this particular juxtaposition" doesn't mean "provide wikipedia links for extensive reading on two subjects and let me puzzle it out for myself", but whatevs, dude.
ISTR that you're Roman Catholic.
Wow, you really aren't paying attention. I guess, going forward think of my posted responses in your journal as just me collecting my thoughts.
Re: (Score:1)
In ours the populace is ultimately to blame, for the corruption that exists...
Holy shit! I am in an echo chamber! But I never expected to hear my own so many years later! Your mimicry is astounding. And that other stuff you prattle off is pretty good for a laugh too. You may never know it, but you have my thanks.