Re: REMEMBER: Freedom is not free.

by Aaron Mon May 25, 2009 3:04 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.

.

And according to Aaron's logic, they were all men of honor.

How so? You'll have to explain.

I'm still waiting Ziggy.

by ziggy Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm

Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:

Your "right" not to rent property to select people whose conduct does not affect your well being intereferes with THEIR right to live in a place where they can otherwise afford to pursue their happiness.

First of all they made a choice. With choice comes rewards and consequences. One of the concequences of thier choice is that some disagree with their lifestyle. They find it offensive and thus they will not condone it.

And who or what powers annoint unto you the power to try to enforce, with "consequences", your ideas of moral right and wrong onto others- to approve or to not approve of their life choices- unless their choices violate your right to your own life choices? It should be of no consequence to a homosexual couple that you or I either do or don't find offensive or approve of their choices. Indeed, liberty is about choices. But obviously you do not condone liberty for homosexuals.

by Aaron Mon May 25, 2009 3:19 pm

Aaron wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.

.

And according to Aaron's logic, they were all men of honor.

How so? You'll have to explain.

I'm still waiting Ziggy.

by ziggy Mon May 25, 2009 3:20 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.

.

And according to Aaron's logic, they were all men of honor.

How so? You'll have to explain.

You said:

Aaron wrote:Cassius Clay was a man of honor for his response to the draft board in 1966 as was David Hackworth in the same era.

If Cassius Clay was a man of honor for his response to the law, then so were Arch Moore and his fellow West Virginia prison brethren in theirs. They all stood by their principles rather than bend to the laws of other men.

by Aaron Mon May 25, 2009 3:23 pm

I believe Al Capone was the individual you compared to Cassius Clay.

And Moore didn't stand by anything. He pled guilty to 5 felonies.

So how is Al Capone comparable to Cassius Clay?

by ziggy Mon May 25, 2009 3:27 pm

I didn't say he was. SamCogar made the comparison between Clay and West Virginia politicians.

by ziggy Mon May 25, 2009 3:33 pm

Aaron wrote:I believe Al Capone was the individual you compared to Cassius Clay.

And Moore didn't stand by anything.

Sure he did. He stood by his principles of criminality until he got caught. He did not turn himself in. He huddled in cars at midnight to make political payoffs and he engaged in all manner of obfuscation to stand by his principles of disdain for the law until he was cornered. He did not plead guilty out of principle. He plead guilty only out of desperation. And today- out of respect for his criminal principles- ole' Arch once again denies it all.

by Aaron Mon May 25, 2009 3:36 pm

ziggy wrote:I didn't say he was. SamCogar made the comparison between Clay and West Virginia politicians.

Yes you did.

ziggy wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.

.

And according to Aaron's logic, they were all men of honor.

So how was Al Capone comparable to Cassius Clay according to my logic?

by ziggy Mon May 25, 2009 3:40 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:
I have not only stood up for those things, but I have gone to jail to stand up and be counted when it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Have you? What have you done to "stand up for" those things?

So you are not the only one to ...............

Now I've been wondering about that.

Was it because of your draft-dodgeing refusals in the 60's ...... or more recently as one of those MTR'ing Protestors that were thrown into jail?

Why could it not be because of both- or because of one but not the other, or because of neither but because of a half dozen or so other things in between?

by ziggy Mon May 25, 2009 3:43 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:I didn't say he was. SamCogar made the comparison between Clay and West Virginia politicians.

Yes you did.

ziggy wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.

.

And according to Aaron's logic, they were all men of honor.

So how was Al Capone comparable to Cassius Clay according to my logic?

Because both stood by their principles by thumbing their noses at laws they didn't like until they were convicted and imprisoned for their crimes?

by Cato Mon May 25, 2009 4:46 pm

ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:

Your "right" not to rent property to select people whose conduct does not affect your well being intereferes with THEIR right to live in a place where they can otherwise afford to pursue their happiness.

First of all they made a choice. With choice comes rewards and consequences. One of the concequences of thier choice is that some disagree with their lifestyle. They find it offensive and thus they will not condone it.

And who or what powers annoint unto you the power to try to enforce, with "consequences", your ideas of moral right and wrong onto others- to approve or to not approve of their life choices- unless their choices violate your right to your own life choices? It should be of no consequence to a homosexual couple that you or I either do or don't find offensive or approve of their choices. Indeed, liberty is about choices. But obviously you do not condone liberty for homosexuals.

That's right pal, liberty is about choices. I choose not rent to homosexual couples, adulterous couples, or unmarried couples. I'll bear both the rewards and consequences for my choices, just as I expect homosexuals to. I will not be forced to condone policy for which I disagree.

by ziggy Mon May 25, 2009 4:57 pm

It is not condoning anything to simply live and let live.

by Cato Mon May 25, 2009 5:19 pm

ziggy wrote:It is not condoning anything to simply live and let live.

Then you live your way and I'll live mine. Don't use the government to force me to live your way and I won't use the force of government to shove my way on you.

by Aaron Tue May 26, 2009 7:14 am

ziggy wrote:Because both stood by their principles by thumbing their noses at laws they didn't like until they were convicted and imprisoned for their crimes?

There in lies the problem. You don't understand the difference between the two.

by ziggy Tue May 26, 2009 11:28 am

Why is that a "problem"?

So can you explain the difference between them?

by Aaron Tue May 26, 2009 11:51 am

by ziggy Tue May 26, 2009 11:52 am

We didn't figure you would.

by Aaron Tue May 26, 2009 12:06 pm

We??? You got a mouse in your pocket?

I could explain but I don't see the point. I'm not experienced enough.

"Never argue with a idiot. They bring you down to their level then beat you with experience."

Author unknown

by ziggy Tue May 26, 2009 2:50 pm

I could explain but I don't see the point. I'm not experienced enough.

We knew you couldn't.

by ziggy Tue May 26, 2009 2:51 pm

"Never argue with a idiot. They bring you down to their level then beat you with experience."

Good advice!

by ziggy Tue May 26, 2009 8:09 pm

Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:It is not condoning anything to simply live and let live.

Then you live your way and I'll live mine. Don't use the government to force me to live your way and I won't use the force of government to shove my way on you.

I am not the one who thinks that I have the only correct "right and wrong" understanding of religion and government. It is the folks who are certain that there is only one correct way to look at the Bible or the Constitution that have need to use the governmnet to force everyone else to live the way they think they should.

by Cato Wed May 27, 2009 9:23 am

ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:It is not condoning anything to simply live and let live.

Then you live your way and I'll live mine. Don't use the government to force me to live your way and I won't use the force of government to shove my way on you.

I am not the one who thinks that I have the only correct "right and wrong" understanding of religion and government. It is the folks who are certain that there is only one correct way to look at the Bible or the Constitution that have need to use the governmnet to force everyone else to live the way they think they should.

Not once have I insisted the government force my views on another soul. At the same time you and Terry have by your support of so called anti-discrimination laws. I've even stated that I don't care what anyone else does or how they live. I don't care what anyone else does with their property or lives. If they want to accept and condone homosexuality, fine. If people want to be homosexual, that's fine also. I'm not stopping you or anyone else for that matter from doing anything you desire with your property. I choose not to condone that type of behavior.

As far as the remainder of your post. If you want to believe that there is no correct or incorrect way to understand the bible or US Constitution, feel free to do so. That doesn't make you right or somehow intellectually superior. It demostrates intellectual dishonesty. As far as using the force of law to force you views on others, you and Terrry are the ones that support anti-discrimination laws, I'm not.

by Aaron Wed May 27, 2009 10:07 am

ziggy wrote:
"Never argue with a idiot. They bring you down to their level then beat you with experience."

Good advice!

You win...

REMEMBER: Freedom is not free. - Page 3 Throwing_in_Towel

by ziggy Wed May 27, 2009 11:41 am

As far as the remainder of your post. If you want to believe that there is no correct or incorrect way to understand the bible or US Constitution, feel free to do so. That doesn't make you right or somehow intellectually superior.

Now you agree with me. That is my point exactly- that though we may disagree on interpretations of these books or documents, it does not mean that either of us is either superior or inferior to the other. It menas that what works for you may not work for me, and what works for me may not work for you. Honest people can disagree about how to live live their lives.

You were doing pretty well until you said:

It demostrates intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty by whom? By those who disagree with your interpretations? You are back to that intellectual superiority thing again- that you are somehow intellectually superior to and more intellectually honest that those who disagree with you.

You simply cannot fathom that honest people can come to different conclusions on matters of religion and government without one or the other being liars (or "intellectually dishonest", to use you term).

If what you say is actually true, then we do not need a republic based in liberty to pursue happiness in our own ways. We only need a system wherein the King determines what is right and wrong and makes everyone follow the only correct way- or a return to the time when nations were ruled and controlled by the Catholic Church and the Pope, maybe. That way there is no debate about right and wrong and whether there is only one or several rights and wrongs for various peoples-just ask the Pope what is right for today and get the answer straight from God's personal emissary. That the ticket!

by ziggy Wed May 27, 2009 11:42 am

As far as the remainder of your post. If you want to believe that there is no correct or incorrect way to understand the bible or US Constitution, feel free to do so. That doesn't make you right or somehow intellectually superior.

Now you agree with me. That is my point exactly- that though we may disagree on interpretations of these books or documents, it does not mean that either of us is either superior or inferior to the other. It menas that what works for you may not work for me, and what works for me may not work for you. Honest people can disagree about how to live live their lives.

You were doing pretty well until you said:

It demostrates intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty by whom? By those who disagree with your interpretations? You are back to that intellectual superiority thing again- that you are somehow intellectually superior to and more intellectually honest that those who disagree with you.

You simply cannot fathom that honest people can come to different conclusions on matters of religion and government without one or the other being a liar (or "intellectually dishonest", to use you term).

Even after it adoption, the Founders had disagreements about how to interpret and apply the Constitution. Which of the Founders were intellectually dishonest because they disagreed with some of the others about it?

by Sponsored content