Forums

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
To the extent you're talking about the Violence Against Women Act, you assume too much. Whether it's constitutional or not, I don't think it was an issue appropriate for federal legislation. I'm opposed to the federalization of crime. So point that pronoun elsewhere, friend.

Well, if that's the case, and since I can't abide generalizations made against me, I'll have to back off. But, we're going to have to be consistent - if one of us can make "you guyz" pronouncements and lump us in with our erstwhile continuum cohorts, we both can. Or we both can't. Either I eat seniors, or I don't.

To the extent you're talking about state hate crime statutes . . .

Nope. Fed.

Now, are you willing to admit that your anger at me is motivated by your fear that I'm correct --- i.e., that the libertarian wing of the GOP will be unable to ride the religious reactionary lemmings right up to the precipice of theocracy, and then jete back to Coolsville at the last moment?

Nope. My anger was motivated by being lumped in in your anger with the religious right. Surely the heat of your post wasn't aimed merely at my belief that rationalism will out? (Honestly, I'm missing how this new Act somehow trumps what I said earlier about the rise and fall of rational interpretation.)

I don't know why you assume intellectual dishonesty in all your opponents here.

Scarily, I never think of people here as opponents. And, I don't assume intellectual dishonesty - were I to actually assume such a thing, there would be no point in pointing to it when I think I DO see it. Might as well say "damn, you're breathing again!" if that were the case. But, look back - seems to me that intellectual dishonesty is exactly the accusation I was responding TO. At that point, I think justification is a bit simpler.

Again, you have either no real life liberal friends where you live, or the ones you have aren't worthy of your friendship, because of your prodigious brain and all.

I have no friends at all. I sit here in the wheelchair night after night scratching out words with the chin pointer, spitting at the night nurse and remembering when things were better. No, check that. It's always sucked.

Personally, I think it's more likely that you sit in your rumpus room popping Demerol and lobbing empty bottles at a cardboard cutout of Tom Hayden. Which would be fine, if you didn't brag on this board about all the direct hits you landed.

I think I'm laughing now, but I honestly lost your chain of thought right at Hayden. (It's the Demerol, you know.)

Interesting side note: for all of your outrage, has it occurred to you that the Pro-C argument is almost an exact duplicate of the argument advanced from the South for the preservation of the right to own slaves in the face of the Northern onslaught? Main point was the preservation of an explicit constitutional right to property, while the Pro-C one relies on a thin-air right to "privacy". Savings grace to you - slaves are people, can't be property. Took a while for that to become accepted, interfering as it did with another set of rights and all. Would you have been comfortable fighting for the South in that debate? Only difference I can see is, it's a lot less practical to make a status decision in this new fight than it was in the old. Not a tougher decision on the merits, but more complicated politically. Great basis, huh? Can you define a substantive difference in the two situations that doesn't necessarily devolve to "but feti ain't people"?