I didn't say you WERE kingly, only that you professed to be so. Or are you going to deny the title of your own blog now, too?

lol, look at the pattern. I'm not obsessed, YOU are obsessed. It's not my crusade, it's the right's crusade. I'm not being petty, YOU'RE being petty.

Take argument,
deny it,
restate it verbatim toward the opposition,
mention Dick Cheney.

No, nothing like Col Gene, what was I thinking, lol.

OK, here are YOUR words on health care, Sean, from your "perfect party" article. You can find the article here (WWW Link):

Health Care...All American children are inherently covered by their citizenship. Universal coverage is the ultimate goal, but the needs of children, followed by seniors, comes 1st and foremost. Health care cannot be denied to any child by anyone licensed to practice in the US.

That's advocating for universal health care any way you slice it, Sean.

Now, let's move on to some more platform issues, shall we? All of these are viewable at the same linked article. I'm leaving off the platform issues which, though liberal, are at least not far from the LP's platform (gay marriage, etc):

Social Security....Social Security has worked and is the most successful public system ever created. Social Security will not be privatized and must be kept out of "for profit" interests. It is a public trust which must be upheld. Suggestions for improvement must have the forementioned requirements.

To not be privatized it must be government controlled. Yup, sounds like socialism to me. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

Now:

Environment /Global Warming...Is real and must be invested in to ensure our children's futures. Envormental concerns are to be considered at all times and given proper weight against other factors.

So much for private property rights. In your world, my property belongs to the state. Nice.

The first issue was the one I felt most pressing. You called me a liar for saying you advocated universal health care, yet there it is IN YOUR OWN WORDS. If you've changed your position on that, that's great. But I have not seen one single retraction of a single point expressed in this article.

If you're going to call someone a liar it's best if you erase all past traces. Especially since you have a fetish for bringing others' past comments against them in such a vindictive manner.

to refresh your memory...


Health Care...All American children are inherently covered by their citizenship. Universal coverage is the ultimate goal, but the needs of children, followed by seniors, comes 1st and foremost. Health care cannot be denied to any child by anyone licensed to practice in the US.


i also said, in another discussion....

if given the choice of having the goverment help, or having a person suffer becasuse of a political platform plank, i choose helping. no, it may not be the ideal way, but if mouths are fed, medicine is given, etc, i can support it.

and have pointed out that no one ever comes out with any decent idea that doesn't involve the govt. if they do, i am ALL EARS. when i challenged people to, they gave me nothing, just insults and false charges, like here.

what i said in another conversation, ironically, with the same 2 attackers, you and baker....

people have skewed my willingness on healthcare, esp for our children, to do certain things to ensure their health and wellbeing as an endorsement to every social program.

the libertarian party, on their platform say that they are against any social program. their reasoning is not that they are all bad, it is that , in their opinion, goverment doesn't know where to stop. their scenarios claim that eventually, everyone will expect a goverment handout.

i agree with them on many levels of that. i personally make an exception for our children amd am willing to let ss continue until someone comes up with something other than a handout to wall street.

you and baker can keep squaking, but you are wrong and are just trying to selectively nitpick my words, put words in my mouth and skew how i really feel.

in the end, i'm still a libertarian and there isn't thing 1 ya'll can do about it.

that has nothing to do wit hpersonal property rights. i did say there "given proper weight."




that's right. not "for profit" interests. later i clarified...


i don't think i would jump off the cliff on that issue. just as some think leaving iraq would create a disaster, abandoning all the federal assistance at once in my mind, would do the same. not only in the people it would instantly impact from a help standpoint, but literally 100's of thousands of jobs would be eliminated at once.

do i like giving hard earned money for someone else's benefit to the goverment? not really. but if it helps someone, that does make it better. sometimes goverment programs are a waste and help no one. sometimes, like ss, they have helped millions. i'm not so greedy or cold that i can willingly turn my back. and business has yet to provide adequate alternatives. are there other people outside the goverment who can provide certain services? maybe, but i haven't seen a model that i like.
one sidenote on ss. people focus on retirement benefits. they forget that social security provides many services that have nothing to do with retirement.

i believe we should work towards a "more perfect union" and reduce and eliminate taxes as we can. but i am not for throwing the poor out on their ass. i am not for turning my back on someone in need. perhaps someday we can create systems and people will be good and honest enough to do things instead of a goverment tax system, but today, we are nowhere near ready for that.

but in a perfect world, with no one suffering, sure, we would not need the systems or the taxes.

like i said before, i don't use libertarian philosophy to justify being a cheapskate or cold hearted bastard.

No, see, this is where you're wrong. It's not a false charge. I took my comments about your position DIRECTLY from your own words, Sean. YOUR words. Unedited, and uncut, and IN CONTEXT. A "lie" is something that is provably false, as my charge is NOT. Apparently you have as much trouble with English as you do with Latin.



Again, that's NOT what you said. You said Social Security WILL NOT BE PRIVATIZED. Were you lying then or were you lying now? As for the "exception for our children", it sounds noble enough, except how do you expect children to learn not to expect a government handout when you RAISE THEM on government handouts?

I never realized that Sean actually thought he was anything but a far-left ideologue.

Sean, you can call yourself whatever you'd like. You can say you're the King of Scotland but that doesn't make it so.

God, Sean, you're like Lucas with a slightly higher IQ!

1. We have an individual moral responsibility to care for the poor and needy. It's not the government's job. Redistributing the wealth to care for the poor is called SOCIALISM, Sean. If you're a socialist, that's fine. JUST BE HONEST ABOUT IT

2. We do not reduce government spending by increasing it, Sean. You are 100% right when you say we can't do these things overnight (or, even, within a decade, in my opinion). But increasing spending on social programs doesn't work us towards that goal, it works us away from it.

and don't think it was lost on me that ya'll had to change the subject and hijack the post for your own agenda.

this isn't a 7 year old story baker. the orig. 37 years was. but the new 18 years isn't. you just don't like the fact that this scumbag happens to be a republican and it was pointed out. but it's ok for the right to paint everyone else with stereotypical brushes and declare "there they go again!" with your generic brushes.

Yeah, Baker and I secretly conspired in a back room to bring you down, Sean.

Here's a clue: Baker and I never even communicate via email. And while we agree on a number of issues, we're hardly close enough to join together on something like THIS. The Latin thing (which, I realized, was the end result of a badly misfired joke) keyed all of this off, and that was a GLARING mistake.

that's not socialism. that's what Christ taught. socialism was what Marx taught. throwing that at me is just trying to put me down. "socialism" might as well be "dumbfuckism" in this context. you all think you are being eloquent with these backhanded insults, you are not.



that might be the 1st actual germaine and "pro discussion" thing you may have said to me in 6 months gid (but who's counting, lol) .

if you would speak to me more like that, instead of the way you and the right does to me on here and elsewhere, we might get back to having some decent discussions and i think you would find my "attitude" or ataleast the perception, not so hostile.

i think ya'll forget that there is an actual "3 dimensional" person behind this keyboard sometimes. am i guilty of that at times? sure. but i do try to "back off" and settle things down when they get out of hand.

and when i was allegedly "out of line" with tex and asked not to post there...i stopped. i also repeatedly apologized to her. has whip stopped to this day? compare that gid.

and one that was immediately corrected

Good grief, sean. Learn to READ! I said it's not the GOVERNMENT'S JOB! Making it the GOVERNMENT'S job is socialism. When did Christ advocate stealing property from the rich to feed the poor? Please show me the chapter and verse, because that IS what YOU are advocating.



It goes both ways, Sean. I find it telling that you see nastiness from the other side but you don't see it from yourself.

Would I have retracted my snide comment the other day had you asked me, or simply said "man, that's over the top"? Probably. It was deliberately hyperbolic, and I won't apologize for that. But the fact that you ORDERED me to do it only reinforces exactly what I've said. I don't take ORDERS; if you want a kind response, you OFFER a kind response.

The fact is, I DON'T agree with much of your politics. But you have as much right to them as I do to mine.

I've enumerated the issues that set me off where you're concerned, Sean. I don't think I'm being unfair in my analysis. Maybe, just maybe, if you want to see certain behaviour from others, you want to MODEL that behaviour FOR others.

i don't think it is either. but the govt is the best vehicle we have to do certain things. i'd like to see another...but haven't. i look at it like former late chief justice spoke about democracy... it's not the best form of govt. it's just that every other one is worse. (paraphrase)



actually i know when i'm nasty. most of the time, like anyone else. but when several like minded cronies come after me and parrot each other when many times, i know who threw the 1st stone, don't think i will ever accept that b.s.



well, for us gid,,,i think a lot of things have layered themselves upon one another. and like the mid east, sometimes it's hard to tell just exactly what preceded what. you know as well as i that we have, in the past, been discussing one thing cordially on one thread and at the same time are arguing or debating on another. and i think we are both "adult" enough to handle that most of the time. but lately, it hasn't worked.

i know that the incident with tex set you off back in march. and you felt compelled to "defend" her. i probably wasn't your favorite person at the time, so you got extra nasty. and yeah, i fired back. and since then, you have had a hard-on to try to paint me as a socialist, cause i guess that makes you feel more libertarian or something.

and in texas, maybe the party is much more conservative. but round here, there is a good mix of conservative and more moderate libertarians. but unfortunately, like in texas, the party round here can't get it's act together beyond being a bigger protest vote than the other "3rd parties." that probably frustrates both of us very much.

but where you would call bill maher a liberal, i'd call him a libertarian, and he is. i'd call tucker carlson a libertarian, as does he call himself that. and all of us are in lock step on the war, taxes and other issues. yeah, even marijuana. an issue i have hardly mentioned in 3 years, but you seem to want to cling to it and paint it as my only issue. do we disagree on others, sure. just like we do with each other.

with issues like SS and health care, i repeatedly state that my views are more pragmatic than philosophical. show me the private system that can deliver health care (and the issue has so much more to it that we never even get to cause we get caught up in this crap). show me a SS plan that can do it without turning over trillions to wall street fat cats. some of the same ones that ripped off all those pensions years ago and today.

i'd like to keep goin on this "diatribe novel" but my wife is pestering me to take her to go get her car that just got some work done on it. so, i'll catch ya later. i hope we can have some more reasonable discussions down the road (on both sides).

Petty & nitpicky, the Right is, huh? And the article's not?

if you think sex with 8 and 10 year old girls is that, then sure.

Under that standard, any scandal circa, say 100ce, would be news. Wanna write an article condemning Roman debauchery, go ahead. 'Bout as pertinent.

i disagree with your absurd analogy, but it's your dime daiwa,,,thanks for the comments:)