Sunday, February 24, 2013

A little more on the bastards saying what they actually want

Joe Huffman had this a couple of days ago, and I said something about it then. I've been thinking about it more.

This kind of crap is why I mostly don’t argue anymore with statist thugs who hide behind the word ‘liberal’, and socialists/communists who hide behind ‘progressive’: they do not believe in individual liberty.  They claim they do, but their actions speak otherwise.
A: We’re supposed to believe that, in a document listing some of the most important individual rights, that the founders said “Oh, and we’ll throw in something that says ‘the State can have guns’. Really?
B: A bunch of actual Constitutional scholars(not lecturers like our President) have flatly stated that this ‘collective right’ crap is a direct threat to ALL rights; a number of them have stated that personally they’d be quite happy to see guns banned from the commoners, but that this ’collective right’ argument is incredibly dangerous.
Do the socialists/regressives not care about the threat to all rights in their argument?  Or do they WANT all rights considered collective?
(I know, I know, but I have to ask here)

And please don’t give me that “You must engage in civil discussion” crap. Offhand I can name three ‘progressive’* sites that have done the same thing to me: argue with their premise(no swearing, threatening or whatever, just argue against it and provide links) and they block you. Then half of them whine that “Those people don’t want to discuss things” while the other half congratulate themselves for ‘chasing off the troll’. You can’t demand people talk while you’re blocking them for daring to disturb the echo chamber.

Well, they do;  outside of the flat lying bastards I don't know if they truly don't understand that, or if it simply doesn't occur to them.

It's like dealing with the Obamaphiles who insist everything is still Bush's fault; doesn't matter that he's been out for five years, that Democrats controlled Congress his last two years and Obama's first two, etc. etc., NONE OF IT COUNTS: Obama is not responsible for ANYTHING except Obamacare**.  And so, for them, actual individual rights really don't mean squat to them.
Because at base those rights actually mean "Leave us the hell alone."  And the socialists flat cannot stand that; it means if you don't do what they want, they can't force you to, and that idea drives them even further out of their minds.

So, for the most part, I don't argue with them anymore.  But when I do, I don't play nice and let them get away with a damn thing.  Not anymore.

*Progressive: socialist/communist who doesn’t have the integrity or balls to openly say what they are.

**And some of them are now wondering if that was really such a great damned idea now that it's biting them and not just the 'evil rich people not paying their share'.

1 comment:

Billll said...

When writing my representatives, I point out that the legislation they are promoting (Colorado) does not address the stated problem and unduly burdens the law-abiding among their constituents.

I also point out that the laws in general are easily ignored and as they lay the groundwork for registration and confiscation down the road I can not in good conscience advise anyone to obey them.

If they don't trust us, we don't trust them.