rehmwa

the oppression is if they have the power and authority to actual and legally restrict the rest of you and actually canceling a Sunday event if not, they can demand all they want, but in the end, they only have the right to not show up personally on that day just like the rest of you have the right to organize and go ahead and skate all you like so the question is --- they are demanding it. so what. Will they succeed? If they do, or can force it - then that a type of oppression If they can only rant impotently, then that is just you being a baby about choosing to listen to their speech on the subject - which they have a right to do (even if it is tired and boring and annoying) which is it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Absolutely And, per the intent of the OP - I'm even happier that it appears it was done in an objective and legal way rather than in an activist way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'm not sure what that means - 'liberal' policies just mean new and out of the box (if you avoid the partisan sterotype of the term). They can either move us to more individualistic stances (not restricting marriage, school choice, partial privatization of health care, freedom of travel, speech, etc) or they can move us away and more towards a collectivist stance (restricting rights, telling us what kind of light bulb we have to buy, restricting business opportunities, religious persecution, hiring and firing restrictions, redistribution, usurping property rights) So saying, that guy's a "liberal" doesn't help - what kind of liberal is important the funny thing about parties - both the DNC and the RNC are organized groups intending to push an agenda that does NOT equal (in general) protection of individual freedoms, just the opposite, they want to exercise power, not release it - so they both are primarily collectivists by design. that's the irony Unless you're just buying into the partisan stereotypes, but I think you're smarter than that ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I think you are missing the point - People ACTING in their best interests (tempered by courtesy and respect for reciprocal rights of others) result in the optimized best interest of the populace in general. That has nothing to do your inference here that individualism is about People VOTING their best interests and, via legislation, FORCING everyone else to go along with it.......that's the whole 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on food issues....that's still not individualism, it's more of what we got now you're confusing the common good, with government forcing a common consensus short answer - you just can't legislate a common good on subjective issues (like social issues), and direct issues kinda work out without interference ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

"from each according to his ability, to each as pandering dictates"? or even "all for Smee" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Would that god would be Thor or one of the hundreds of newer ones? I suspect it depends on the delivery system: is the bolt coming out of his eyes? a handheld blaster? his mouth? butt? a pointing finger? if so, which finger? I really can't narrow it down without more info ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I still believe it's wasted advertising space that we could 'generate revenue' with YOUR AD HERE for the children ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I disagree completely Individual rights "result" in the common good. The "common good" is something that happens, it's not legislated, it can't be forced. It's a cause, not an effect. Ignoring individual rights under the banner of the "common good" is bad for individuals, AND is bad for the common good. It think that your post actually speaks nicely to this. You just have to sort out the short term thinkers from the long term thinkers. Your "common good" thinkers are one of two groups: 1 - selfish pricks looking to establish control and power over others 2 - people with good intentions, but with absolutely no clue to actual and long term consequences ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

1 - the nation is founded on the concept that the best thing for the common good is to allow individuals to fend for themselves (to be free to act in self interest) and the net effect is an overall win. Because we interact, then behavior drives support that improves the lot for all. But it requires each person to actively be responsible for themselves or left behind. (you can't be a criminal). (e.g., you need lumber to build something, that guy will harvest and deliver lumber for a living - you both win - and you both are driven by self interest - it's not a conflict - it's the formula for success) It also requires each person to respect the others' to have the same rights (you can't be a busybody - the Prop 8 people crossed that line didn't they) you don't to have to be "the best judge of what someone else needs". That is not your job - it's their job. self interest does not equal - "cocooning yourself" - it requires interaction I think the school voucher thing is interesting in how people look at the world - 1 - we need to provide a public system to educate this group (very socialistic) - funjumpers position - ignores each kid - focuses on the social system 2 - we need to provide a system to educate "children" (a little better) - more broad, allows some support 3 - we need to make sure "each individual child" has the opportunity for an education (individual responsibility based on respect the needs of society to have strong and capable individuals - allows option for people to choose or provide support as they see fit) it takes a hell of a lot more education and observation and participation and pride to be part of an individualistic nation than to participate in a mass of programs, systems, and divisive groups ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

however - since you seem to see things as left vs right rather than individualism for social construct, I doubt any debate here will be coherent ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Let's see - Shah's story (based on the false assumption that that the house price stays static DESPITE the huge reduction in money down) home is priced around 100K - need 20% down, poor homeowner only has $15K available - he doesn't get the house but that's not "fair" - so government steps in and forces banks to make bad loans - everybody can get a house for 3% down - does everybody win? reality - demand goes UP and up and up that 100K home is now costing 300K, but you only need 9K (instead of 20K) to get the loan same guy that CAN'T afford 20% on the 100K home now can afford 3% on a 300K price - the GUY isn't any different - the HOME isn't any different - he's also poor, so he doesn't CARE with the loan amount is - only the downpayment - short term thinker in action by the way - with only $9K down, he spend the leftover $6K on "home improvements" yippee kai yay! Everyone bitches when reality sets in and that person that shouldn't own that house in the first place now has a $300K loan he can't pay off and the house is now worth it's real value - and maybe has a lawn irrigation system, or a new furnace - big freakin' deal Nowhere in here did government intervention help anybody. I sure hurt almost everybody the furnace sales guy is happy for another month, I guess ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

silly in that it's not a good analogy for this discussion separate from it's a great thread topic (I'm more in line with the position that if you have a kid, you pay for them. I have a kid, I'd rather pay directly for education than have the government as my middleman.) it's not just singles that protest, there are parents that also protest - in fact, you completely leave out the point that parents that pay for private education have to pay twice, once for their kid, and again for everybody else (including those singles that had the same free ride through school when they were young). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

taxes for schools - an uncomfortable examples for this issue, it's silly. If we want to provide education for the children, then the benefit needs to follow the child, not the school (i.e., choice) - regardless of marital status of the guardians. The better example is that married couples might get deductions or penalties that two independent single people can't get - that's silly again - the problem with government trying to 'encourage' behavior rather than just having rules for "individuals' being the same you know my position - marriage and the inferred contractual benefits should be eliminated completely from law. treat the individuals as individuals, and let their partnering activities be personal or laid out on a case by case basis. Or, at least reduce the benefits to partnering to the most bare bones absolutely and then make it a boiler plate contract requiring registration - and allow ANY combination of two people to apply for it. take out the emotion and the egos, and just treat individual citizens. not pairs, not subgroups. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's a sweet sweet rant (I wonder who will take you seriously and write an angry response?) (and yes, this post of mine will be present, yet someone will do it anyway - the beauty of SC) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

why does he have to provide all possible scenarios even for setups he doesn't jump? - he practiced the procedures, under the advice and mentorship of an experienced cameraman - for the set up personally owned - do you think he missed any other scenarios for that setup? You have a TON of experience - can you fill in the gaps for other setups? I think that's useful. Or do you have it on a website elsewhere. (I've followed a lot of your input on camera work when I put my setup together, I'm sincerely interested in your input. I'm not just busting on you busting on him) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

how about "I get by with a little help from my friends" or just "get some" Edit: I'm not sticking true to my libertarian and agnostic roots. Here's my final answer: We need to charge it out as advertising space to increase direct revenue. "Drink Pepsi" and such ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's really the issue, isn't it no matter how important a person, or a group, or a party, or society as a whole wants to be machiavellian about their pet causess, the rule of law cannot be hijacked for any reason - any highly emotionally and politically charged case like this has to be examined for judical sincerity (I am not intending for anyone to infer that I personally claim a hijack - keep your strawmen. I just appreciate LawRocket's position that it's important to cleanly be able to identify decisions that are lawful vs activist) I hope the underpinning is well justified by law. That's the result that should make everyone happy. (and if we are sincere, it's supposed to at least 'satisfy' everyone regardless of their position - for or against.) If not, then perhaps we can finally note that this is not a matter for the courts, but that the legislative branch has to stop hiding from the issue and fix the laws directly. this applies to so many issues in multiple states and the federal level....not just a couple pet issues of high visibility ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I know what you meant and I appreciate your point. I'm just being my normal cynical self. I believe they overruled the ban. I believe the point of your comment is whether they follow written law and the right process to come to the right conclusion, rather than rewriting law to come to the right conclusion. One is the law, the other is political requiring the judicial to be unconstitutional in usurpation of the legislative duty. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

This. No special replacement is necessary, just do it through attrition, thereby gradually making the pieces with "In God We Trust" on them worth more than their face value. Blues, Dave this, but while we're at it then - replace it with "in spending cuts we trust" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's a cute statement - regardless of whichever way it turns out ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Who cares? If it costs to change, there's no 'real' reason. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

That's a nice post, Dave. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

oh yeah? tell that to Adam ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

ok, but releasing a plague on the dogs is also an option ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

in this example, weren't you the one trying to enforce the arbitrary rule? wouldn't it just be easier to shoot any loose dog that makes a deposit on your lawn rather than have some impotent rule in the 'covenant' and the word "covenant" isn't that a bit pretentious? I mean, seriously, it's not like you'll release the plague or anything. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants