drbrumley
Well-known member
Now your being a dork, cause that is not what he means. The permission to be on the roads is given once and subject to nullification at a later time. Not that drivers liciences are a bad thing.
Thanks Bob
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
- Status
Now your being a dork, cause that is not what he means. The permission to be on the roads is given once and subject to nullification at a later time. Not that drivers liciences are a bad thing.
drbrumley
Well-known member
So your in favor of being tracked? I know you will say you've done nothing wrong, so why worry? Neither have I, but the thought of people I have never seen are watching me gives me the creeps.
And this is where your theology gets so out of place.
PKevman
New member
Right so what's the point of whining about it? And you didn't respond to the rest of what I said, (I guess you were distracted by my "dork"ness) :chuckle:
What about those people who should NOT have a driver's license. Isn't it a good thing to have some restrictions?
PKevman
New member
You must have missed my points earlier, so I'll reiterate them: How many people do you think actually WORK for the government? There would have to be MORE people working for the government than live in the USA to track every single phone call, letter, and email sent in our country each and every day.
Look, I am no proponent of the federal government. I speak out against it all the time. I despise the government run public schools, and think that we are over-taxed to death. We have a lot of really stupid laws in place.
But this is also not a reason to live completely lawlessly, and I know you agree with this.
drbrumley
Well-known member
PK, seriously bro, have you heard of technology right?
...but because your ethics are situational you're willing to use the federal government to accomodate your own pet agenda. This is nothing more than a double standard.
I agree.
That's an easy theory to test.
Drive without your license from now on... just leave it at home. After all, you have the freedom to act without permission, right?
I said that we do not have the ability to act without permission. You said that we did, in fact, have the ability to act without permission. That is the debate. Why we do not have the ability to act without permission is irrelevant to the question. The fact remains that we don't.
You said that Americans have the ability to act without permission and that anyone who disagreed with you was "paranoid."
Do you stand by that statement or not?
Can you conduct that act without it?
Then drive without it.
You don't need anyone's permission... right? Drive without it.
Since none of us have ever lived in such a society and no such society has existed on earth for millenia, what observations have you conducted that lead you to this conclusion?
Sadly, most Christians do not truly oppose killing and violence... they merely want to re-direct it toward their favorite target(s) and attempt to legitimize it by asking a government agent to do the dirty work for them.
For instance, Christians don't want state violence used to tell them when and where they can worship... but Christians are perfectly willing to use state violence to tell you who you can sleep with and who you can marry and which flowers you can grow in your back yard.
Most Christians cannot distinguish between responding against an initiation of force to protect the freedom of others to live as they please, and initiating force themselves as a means of pushing their beliefs onto others. It is truly frightening how violent the church today has become.
As Ghandi once said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
And another post from the "strangely ignored" column... Kevin, the Bush administration did say - many, many times - that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons. The assertion to the contrary is factually incorrect, and this incorrect position has affected your view of the Iraq war. Are you willing to change your mind on this and accept that the administration did, in fact, allege that Saddam had nukes and they did, in fact, say that Saddam refused weapons inspections, and both of those statements were false?
PKevman
New member
I'll review and consider the information you gave. :think:
I wouldn't be stunned if Bush lied. He lied about abortion after all.
He lied to you about nearly 800 weapons inspections at some 550 sites throughout Iraq, too. He lied to you about the reasons we went to war, the conditions under which we went to war and the casualties inflicted and sustained by the war.
Will you also read the congressional documents posted, do some research on Iraqi weapons inspections, and consider that as well?
- Status