$1M Alligator Shoes Please

[Flipper]

I actually knew that. It's day 89 (or something) in Bob's book about the first 100 days of the ACM.

Or, as I like to refer to it as, Revolution Day.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Flipper

So you don't really have an issue with the PRC with its forced abortions, anti-american rhetoric, and non-state Christian persecution (not to mention communism), however you'll stand up to Iraq?

That, my friend, is moral relativism. Welcome to the club.

More like cowardice. Iraq was a paper tiger, militarily.

The PRC is not.

:chuckle:

 

[Flipper]

Not so much cowardice as pragmatism, I think.

But a pragmatic risk assessment of two moral questions becomes one of moral relativism.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Gerald

Iraq was a paper tiger, militarily. The PRC is not.

I agree. Anyone who thinks the PRC is toothless should talk to someone who fought the Chinese in Korea.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Flipper

Jefferson:



Riiiight. Of course, everyone opposed to theocracies will take this blatant overthrow of the Constitution lying down. Come to think of it, isn't it a US citizen's duty to violently oppose such attempts?

Of course, as there will be no ballot box to go to register our displeasure, the gun is the only alternative left.

Such a stable and safe system, we will have, racked by civil guerrilla war.

I don't suppose you'll also be legalizing automatic weapons as well, will you?

The amusing thing is that those who supposedly oppose humanistic tyranny--whether it's Enyart's group, Christian Reconstructionists, or what have you--wind up with an alternative just as bad if not worse than what they fought against.

For eloquence, see Lewis's words below...

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Flipper
Not so much cowardice as pragmatism, I think.

Where the Enyartite Monarchists are concerned, pragmatism = cowardice.

After all, if your heart is pure, your cause is just, and God is on your side, what is there to worry about?

But a pragmatic risk assessment of two moral questions becomes one of moral relativism.

Bingo!
:thumb:

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Flipper

Not so much cowardice as pragmatism, I think.

But a pragmatic risk assessment of two moral questions becomes one of moral relativism.

Wrong. I am under no moral obligation to wrestle to the ground a man with a gun holding up a store in which I am patronizing. I can, however, if I choose to do so. I am not obligated to risk my wife and children being without their respective husband and father for the rest of their lives because I am dead.

 

[Gerald]

What makes a man into a monster...?

What makes a man into a monster...?

Originally posted by granite1010

The amusing thing is that those who supposedly oppose humanistic tyranny--whether it's Enyart's group, Christian Reconstructionists, or what have you--wind up with an alternative just as bad if not worse than what they fought against.

For eloquence, see Lewis's words below...

Indeed. For the zealot there is always the danger of becoming that which you despise...

 

[Flipper]

Wrong. I am under no moral obligation to wrestle to the ground a man with a gun holding up a store in which I am patronizing.

What if you had a bigger gun? What if you had previously promised the shopkeeper you would help protect his store?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Flipper
What if you had previously promised the shopkeeper you would help protect his store?

I suspect Jefferson has better sense than to make promises like that.

Risk to continued good health and all that...
:chuckle:

 

[Flipper]

No, but the US has made that promise.

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Re: Abandoning the brethren to their fate, are you...?

Re: Re: Re: Abandoning the brethren to their fate, are you...?

Originally posted by Gerald

What "neighbors" did we free from Saddam's tyranny? There are hardly any Christians in Iraq.

Who said only Christians are our neighbors and worthy of our care? Certainly not Jesus.

(see Luke 10:25-37)
(Except for you, Gerald. Don't bother.)

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Gerald

I suspect Jefferson has better sense than to make promises like that.

Wow! Gerald actually got something right!

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

That's the nice thing about living in a democracy. If you want the politicians to do something differently all you have to do is convince enough of their constituents to agree with you and vote accordingly.

That's the nice thing about living in a democracy. If you want the wolves, who are the majority, to do something differently (like eat grass instead of mutton) all you have to do is convince enough of them to agree with you sheep (who are the minority) and vote accordingly.

:first: POTD!

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Wow! Gerald actually got something right!

I'm glad to see that my conclusion of "Jefferson = big chicken" is accurate...

It's easy to fight the Good Fight™ if the integrity of your skin is not at risk...

You're in the habit of fleeing from danger, I take it?
:chuckle:

 

[Jefferson]

I knew it was too good to last.

 

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

That's the nice thing about living in a democracy. If you want the wolves, who are the majority, to do something differently (like eat grass instead of mutton) all you have to do is convince enough of them to agree with you sheep (who are the minority) and vote accordingly.

:idea: So members of groups persecuted by the majority should take the reins themselves if they want things to change. I agree! It's about time for a lesbian muslim communist of african descent to take over. That'll fix things.

 

[OMEGA]

gun

gun

Hey Jefferson,

Don't you just LOVE GERALD !! :doh:

Doesn't it just make you want to go out and buy a . . .

and GIVE IT TO HIM .:thumb:

 

[Gerald]

Re: gun

Re: gun

Originally posted by OMEGA

Hey Jefferson,

Don't you just LOVE GERALD !! :doh:

Doesn't it just make you want to go out and buy a . . .

and GIVE IT TO HIM .:thumb:

Oh, stop trying to be coy, you!

Be a man and pull the word "gun" down into the body of the message.

Neither Jefferson nor you has the wherwithal to shoot me down in cold blood (Well, not Jefferson, anyway. You, however, tap-dance right into funny farm territory...).

You've managed to confirm my suspicions as to why you were so vehement for me to post a photo of myself, though...:kookoo:

 

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Yes, conflict. A lot racial hatred and physical violence between people of different races stems from the perception that they vote for different social outcomes.

The conflict does come from people voting for different candidates, it comes from people having different ideas.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Not their neighbor. That's the beauty of it.

If not their neighbor, then who?

Originally posted by Jefferson I'm not sure I understand your question here. It won't "require" it and it won't be equal. Rather, social conflict will be nonexistent as a natural result of your neighbor having absolutely nothing to do with how much of your paycheck the government took for itself.

I highly doubt that that will solve the problem. People are irrational, emotional beings. If they don't like the actions of whoever is in charge, then they will probably take it out on that person's supporters likely as not.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Why would they not? What specific Biblical law would they object to?

Leviticus 11:5-8

And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Leviticus 11:10-12

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 18:21

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 18:29

For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

Leviticus 19:19

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Leviticus 19:37

Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 20:27

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Originally posted by Jefferson
There should be a test oath in order to qualify as a candidate for the lottery. The monarch would be bound by the constitution just like our presidents today are bound by our constitution. They can't do anything they want.

I could take an oath, that wouldn't mean that I'm a Christian. Also, how would you decide on what laws the constitution should have?

Originally posted by Jefferson
Sure it would. It's not that complicated. Name me one issue regarding national policy that you would consider to be over your head.

Have you ever heard of the Sword of Damocles?