The way I see things

[raife]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

I agree with [a href=http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/m4mdc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=86130&mesg_id=86651&page=]Jackhammer[/a]'s observation that this is devolving into a political discussion, so any further back and forth should go to the Politics forum. [blockquote][blockquote]OK, yes I see that you hold to the Fox News spin on this, in the shadow of "war" fraidy-cat USians run to the party with the big guns, but in reality approval ratings for both parties and all offices of the government are at historical lows.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]I spoke of ideology rather than party, and what I said holds true for the period before 9/11 as well. The fact is that conservatives have been more successful than liberals in shaping the national political debate for many years now -- that cannot be denied. They have succeeded in pulling the Republican party and the country as a whole to the right. You may not like the results, but you cannot deny that this is how our political system is supposed to work. Everyone has the opportunity to participate in the national debate, and those who convince the greater number of people are the winners. That is all that is happening, not some sinister conspiracy.[/blockquote] As an Integralist I don't buy into this false liberal-conservative dichotomy, I, as are most of the population, am conservative on some issues, (classical) liberal on others. What we have is two political parties who have locked themselves into power and set up gerrymandered districts and other roadblocks to entry to deny other voices and views access to the levers of power. This is where the "revolution" I was talking about, fits in. We need to correct this obstruction to adequate representation. [blockquote][blockquote]I think you hit the nail on the head as far as one of the more serious problems with law enforcement. The answer is to dump the bums and rehire...[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]Rehire from where? Are we supposed to import policemen from Europe? We get our policemen from the same society that we all live in. That's why our police forces reflect the same ideas and prejudices that exist in society as a whole. That's not the problem. The problem is in telling people that it's acceptable to ignore laws you think are morally wrong. Suppose the cops start doing that as well? What then?[/blockquote] The police are there to do a job, not exercise their personal prejudices, and if they can't do that adequately, which should mean providing society the most bang for the buck and prioritizing on the most egregious crimes, then there are many others of the temperament, such as yourself for example, who would make much better Guardians of Society.

[p]TTFN...[/p]

[raife]

RE: Where is this thread?

 

[blockquote]Secondly, this thread has clearly come very close (if not crossed) the line into politics and maybe should be moved?[/blockquote] Point taken... discussion relocating (at least on my part). We wouldn't want to be hypocrites now would we? [blockquote]I don't want to rain on what has become a great discussion between members, BUT, in rereading the vision statement which I have to agree to everytime I want to come here, it specifically states;[/blockquote] This shouldn't be happening, are you dumping your cookies or something? How annoying that would be...

 

:* big boy

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Where is this thread?

 

This shouldn't be happening, are

>you dumping your cookies or something? How annoying that would

>be...

>

>:* big boy

 

Maybe that frustration accounts for my momentary outburst.

 

But, no, I am not dumping cookies, I am using Firefox, and I have to look at the rules everytime I access the message center. if you have a solution for that, this big boy would be grateful.

[+ deej]

RE: Where is this thread?

 

>if you have a solution for that, this big boy would

>be grateful.

 

Look in Daddy's Place. Asked and answered. :*

[LovesYng]

RE: Where is this thread?

 

Put the message center in your favorite places.

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Where is this thread?

 

I LOVE the service in this place. I am going to shop here all the time.

[woodlawn]

>Woodlawn your points are interesting and well taken.

>However, I don’t think most African Americans would agree with

>you. They obtained almost immediate and permanent entrance

>into all major public colleges and universities throughout the

>south. You are certainly correct that there was some white

>flight in the public k-12 schools but the numbers of students

>leaving for an extended period wasn’t that great. Many white

>southerners who opposed integration most strongly were simply

>to poor to move or pay for private schools.

 

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. The public school system is very nearly as segregated by race today as it was when Dr. King was still alive. And I don't know why you would limit your remarks to the South. Were you in hibernation during the violence and turmoil that occurred when northern cities like Boston tried to integrate their public schools? The same "white flight" has afflicted many cities in the North and Midwest.

 

The fact is that the integrationists' dream has failed. Whether you look at schools, neighborhoods or churches, the fact is that the two races are still segregated. It is no longer a matter of de jure segregation, but does that really make a difference if the result is the same?

 

And if they are examples of selective civil

>disobediende don't they collectively make up something of a

>tradition?

 

Sure. But you make a mistake if you think that this tradition is at the service only of the liberal cause. Due to the same tradition, a woman's right to choose is now under siege in many parts of the country. So is the rule on keeping religion out of the schools. The Right is now using this same tradition to tear down many of the things the Left used it to accomplish. Turnabout is fair play. Isn't it?

[Epigonos]

I limited my comments to the south because that is where significant k-12 integration initially took place. In the south Whites and African Americans frequently lived in close proximity to each other. Even though they frequently lived only a matter of blocks from each other they attended separate segregated schools. That ceased once the federal government intervened. Yes some whites sent their children to private school, for a short period of time, and others moved but generally speaking great numbers of southern schools became integrated. On the other hand segregation in the Northeast, Midwest, and, West was not quite so blatant. In these areas students, regardless of ethnicity, who lived in proximity to each other, went to the same school. What fostered segregation then and to some extend still does is housing patterns. The old inner cities were and still are dominated by poor minorities while the suburbs were and to a great extend still are dominated by middle and upper class Whites. The problem with integration in these areas is more a socioeconomic problem than a racial one. The major problems that developed in cities like Boston and Kansas City were caused when some federal courts tried to force long established inner city districts and suburban school districts to combine to achieve racial balance. Eventually that concept was abandoned by the actions of higher courts and de facto segregation has continued based on the above housing patterns.

Though it may sound, at times, as if I was in hibernation in the late 60’s I was in fact beginning a 35 year career of high school teaching in an affluent suburb of Los Angeles. During those 35 years the school, where I taught, evolved from a bastion of upper middle class whites to a bastion of upper middles class Hispanics with a minority of both Anglos and African Americans.

Honestly I did not and would never claim that civil disobedience served only the interests of liberal causes. Several ministers of the Christian Right have taken it to new heights, particularly in the area of the anti abortion fight. They have encouraged demonstrations, patient, doctor and nurse intimidation, and even clinic bombings.

Now what with all this discussion of liberal and conservative I come to a thought about just exactly what am I politically – not that anybody here care but me. I consider myself a reactionary conservative Republican ECONOMICALLY and a Libertarian SOCIALLY. In the end that makes me something most people reading this threat won’t ever have heard of – A BARRY GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN. God knows poor Barry must be turning over in his grave seeing what has become of the Republican Party today. I will always remember that at the height of the gays in the military controversy a reporter approached the then former Arizona Senator and asked him his opinion and he answered that he really didn’t give a damn if a person in the military was sexually gay or straight as long as they could shoot straight. By the way he was also a retired reserve army general. Oh well times do change and NOT always for the better.

[raife]

As per Woodlawn, this is ideological not political, so I'm indulging just a bit more... (how's that for semantic rule-parsing... ) move if you must... [blockquote]Now what with all this discussion of liberal and conservative I come to a thought about just exactly what am I politically – not that anybody here care but me. I consider myself a reactionary conservative Republican ECONOMICALLY and a Libertarian SOCIALLY. In the end that makes me something most people reading this threat won’t ever have heard of – A BARRY GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN. God knows poor Barry must be turning over in his grave seeing what has become of the Republican Party today. I will always remember that at the height of the gays in the military controversy a reporter approached the then former Arizona Senator and asked him his opinion and he answered that he really didn’t give a damn if a person in the military was sexually gay or straight as long as they could shoot straight. By the way he was also a retired reserve army general. Oh well times do change and NOT always for the better.[/blockquote] [p]Amen, my fellow fellow LA compatriot! I care. I have used that same term "Barry Goldwater Republican" to describe myself in the past. You and I are not far apart ideologically. But to live fully as a libertarian in these troubled times means taking shortcuts with the law (aka civil disobedience). That's the thing I can't seem get across to the other conservatives on this board that romanticize traditionalism, and somehow think they can have it both ways: a traditionalist view of the "rule of law", yet we won't say anything about the hookers we see on the side... "we're all sinners under God". It reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker![/p] [p]I just cut to the chase and say, "I respect the laws concerning human rights and dignity. The laws that are Constitutionally based, just not the laws that want to get all up in my business and tell me how to live my private life, when I'm affecting no one but myself and my consenting partner(s). I run the calculated risk of violating these irrational laws to make my life richer and more rewarding, and I accept the consequences should I get caught. A perfectly consonant stance, free of the cognitive dissonance (or repression) that these other blokes must endure.[/p] [p]Seems so simple... Just me I guess.[/p]

[woodlawn]

Yes some whites sent their children to private

>school, for a short period of time, and others moved but

>generally speaking great numbers of southern schools became

>integrated.

 

Sorry, that is not true. The vast majority of public schools in the nation remain either lopsidedly white or lopsidedly minority. There are very few that do not fit into one category or the other. The only way one can call the nation's public schools integrated if by defining integrated to mean having at least a few students of a different race than the majority. That is not what the integrationists were trying to achieve.

 

 

> The old inner cities were and still are dominated

>by poor minorities while the suburbs were and to a great

>extend still are dominated by middle and upper class Whites.

>The problem with integration in these areas is more a

>socioeconomic problem than a racial one.

 

>The major problems

>that developed in cities like Boston and Kansas City were

>caused when some federal courts tried to force long

>established inner city districts and suburban school districts

>to combine to achieve racial balance. Eventually that concept

>was abandoned by the actions of higher courts and de facto

>segregation has continued based on the above housing

>patterns.

 

The old inner cities were not dominated by minorities -- that is a recent phenomenon that has occurred as whites have moved out. And segregation in cities like Boston and Chicago had nothing to do with economics. The Boston neighborhood that proved most resistant to integration is Southie, one of the poorest white neighborhoods. There are also poor white neighborhoods of Chicago that have resisted integration. In Boston when the public schools were required to integrate, the parochial schools were ordered by the diocese to admit black students also. But in South Boston the principal of one of the largest Catholic schools, a priest, refused to obey the order, with the full support of the students and parents. As I recall, Cardinal Bevilacqua had to go to the school personally to order the principal to comply.

[woodlawn]

>I just cut to the chase

>and say, "I respect the laws concerning human rights

>and dignity. The laws that are Constitutionally based,

>just not the laws that want to get all up in my business and

>tell me how to live my private life, when I'm affecting no one

>but myself and my consenting partner(s).

 

Sorry, but the Constitution is about limiting the powers of the federal government. The framers made it quite clear that with the exception of a few powers reserved to the federal government, the states were to have power over all the issues that we now call "social issues." Thus, there is nothing in the Constitution or the associated documents to suggest that states should not have power to regulate issues like abortion, contraception or prostitution. And Goldwater would certainly have agreed with that statement.

[OneFinger]

>And Goldwater would certainly have agreed with that statement.

 

Boy, you're sure showing your age with that comment. I assumed you were much younger.

 

Looks like you are now part of the "Troll" pact. ;-)

[woodlawn]

>>And Goldwater would certainly have agreed with that

>statement.

>

>Boy, you're sure showing your age with that comment. I assumed

>you were much younger.

 

Have you ever heard of getting information by reading a book? One doesn't have to have met Goldwater in order to know his views on various issues.

[raife]

[blockquote]Sorry, but the Constitution is about limiting the powers of the federal government. The framers made it quite clear that with the exception of a few powers reserved to the federal government, the states were to have power over all the issues that we now call "social issues." Thus, there is nothing in the Constitution or the associated documents to suggest that states should not have power to regulate issues like abortion, contraception or prostitution. And Goldwater would certainly have agreed with that statement.[/blockquote] [p]Both US and State legal systems in this country were originally derived from the Constitution, a well established body of fundamental principles formed in due consideration of human dignity, rights and freedoms which I quite respect. As long as Federal and State legislation is derived from and written in accordance with these Constitutional principles, in spirit and letter, I'm quite the good citizen. Both the States' attempts to regulate every facet of personal consensual behavior aka "morality legislation", and the recent Federal government's eagerness to legislate outside Constitutional boundaries I most decidedly do not respect, hence my adherence to these extra-Constitutional regulations, will be circumstantial at best.[/p] [p]If you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit that you work pretty much the same way. But, you have this romantic image of the perfect law-abiding Citizen, a Utopian standard that you, being a "carnal" human male in your "sin nature" cannot meet, so you are doomed to a life of not measuring up to your own standards or "sin" as you will have it, which results in guilt and shame. Suit yourself. It's your worldview. I derive my spiritual principles quite differently, sans the guilt and shame parts.[/p]

[twinklover]

"[T]he recent Federal government's eagerness to legislate outside Constitutional boundaries I most decidedly do not respect, hence my adherence to these extra-Constitutional regulations, will be circumstantial at best.

 

If you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit that you work pretty much the same way. But, you have this romantic image of the perfect law-abiding Citizen, a Utopian standard that you, being a "carnal" human male in your "sin nature" cannot meet, so you are doomed to a life of not measuring up to your own standards or "sin" as you will have it, which results in guilt and shame. Suit yourself. It's your worldview. I derive my spiritual principles quite differently, sans the guilt and shame parts."

 

But Lawrence v. Texas reversed Hardwick v. Bowers. What is the "Constitution" is not static. And Lawrence will not be the end of the story. But decriminalization of prostitution will likely follow through legislation, not through the courts.

 

However, I am very puzzled raife why you allege that persons who do not view themselves as "above the rule of law" should somehow feel "guilt" and "shame." We don't. We do not condone lawbreaking of any kind, but we in no way feel guilty or shameful if we or others in fact break the law. Rather, we believe the the chips should fall where they may; commit a crime, pay the price.

[woodlawn]

>Both US and State legal

>systems in this country were originally derived from

>the Constitution, a well established body of fundamental

>principles formed in due consideration of human dignity,

 

That is quite untrue. All of the states that ratified the Constitution in 1789 already had their own legislatures and legal systems before the Constitution was even written. How could state legal systems be derived from the Constitution when they existed before it existed?

 

> Both the States' attempts

>to regulate every facet of personal consensual behavior aka

>"morality legislation", and the recent Federal government's

>eagerness to legislate outside Constitutional boundaries I

>most decidedly do not respect, hence my adherence to

>these extra-Constitutional regulations, will be

>circumstantial at best.

 

The fact is that regulating what we call 'social issues' is a tradition that is much older than the ideas of limited government embodied in the Constitution. You keep making it sound as though it is something new that has just appeared on the political scene, but the truth is exactly the opposite.

 

 

>If you were being honest with

>yourself, you'd admit that you work pretty much the same way.

 

Since you know absolutely nothing about my life or history, it's pretty ridiculous for you to tell me what they are like. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

 

>But, you have this romantic image of the perfect law-abiding

>Citizen, a Utopian standard that you, being a "carnal" human

>male in your "sin nature" cannot meet,

 

 

Again, you know nothing of my personal philosophy, a subject I have not discussed with you and have seldom, if ever, mentioned on this board. You are simply making up whatever shit you think will support your arguments and pretending it has something to do with me. Someone who does that has no business using the word "honest."

 

What I have been discussing in this thread is not my personal philosophy, but some very practical issues that should be considered by people who advocate ignoring any laws one does not consider moral.

 

I have been saying the same thing to you that I would say if I were having this conversation with the former Chief Justice of Alabama who refused to remove the Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse even after he was ordered to do so by a federal court. Like you, he insisted that he would not follow laws that did not accord with his personal moral beliefs. I think you and he have a lot in common. And both of you represent the same danger to a society that is based on law rather than on the whims of individuals.

[raife]

[blockquote]Since you know absolutely nothing about my life or history, it's pretty ridiculous for you to tell me what they are like. You simply do not know what you are talking about.[/blockquote] All I know is what you've said on the board(s), which points to you being very enamored of traditionalism and social conservatism, thus my obvious response of treating you as a social conservative doing something very hypocritical. If you are just making arbitrary shit up and taking hypothetical stances for the sake of argument-baiting, I don't have much respect (or time) for you. You don't make your views or intentions clear and hide behind your anonymous façade, the better to ambush and berate people. I debate from the heart, the better to clarify my own thoughts and beliefs. Your time is probably better served over in that other place with the Mean Girls.. they seem to respect and venerate you, and consider you one of their "tribe". I can't much argue with that.

[raife]

[blockquote]But Lawrence v. Texas reversed Hardwick v. Bowers. What is the "Constitution" is not static. And Lawrence will not be the end of the story. But decriminalization of prostitution will likely follow through legislation, not through the courts.[/blockquote] The Constitution as the original source document is static (except for the Amendments), the interpretation of the Constitution by SCOTUS is on the move. Yea, any legalization will probably be done through legislation, unless Ruth Ginsberg (as the only advocate of legalizing prostitution on the SC) gets some company. [blockquote]However, I am very puzzled raife why you allege that persons who do not view themselves as "above the rule of law" should somehow feel "guilt" and "shame." We don't. We do not condone lawbreaking of any kind, but we in no way feel guilty or shameful if we or others in fact break the law. Rather, we believe the the chips should fall where they may; commit a crime, pay the price.[/blockquote] No, I'm saying that espousing the traditionalist stance of aspiring to be a perfect law-abiding citizen, yet chronically breaking the law by hiring escorts is hypocritical by nature, thus such a person would feel guilt and shame if they really hold to this belief (and are not just saying this to please their peers). It is Rational (& post-Rational) types, including myself and perhaps you as well, who believe in letting the chips fall where they may. I fully realize I'm subject to the law. I willingly choose to follow laws I believe to be reasonable and just. The others I just usually coincidentally happen to follow. [p]I don't think we disagree at all on this. Sorry for the confusion.[/p]

[woodlawn]

>All I know is

>what you've said on the board(s), which points to you being

>very enamored of traditionalism and social conservatism, thus

>my obvious response of treating you as a social conservative

>doing something very hypocritical.

 

I defy you to produce any post of mine in which I say that I agree with the positions of social conservatives or that prostitution is evil or should be banned. You can't, because there is no such post. You are simply making shit up because that is easier than debating the positions I have actually taken here. How disappointing.

 

 

> If you are just making

>arbitrary shit up and taking hypothetical stances for the sake

>of argument-baiting, I don't have much respect (or time) for

>you. You don't make your views or intentions clear and hide

>behind your anonymous façade, the better to ambush and berate

>people.

 

I have made it extremely clear that, whatever I may think of the merits of the laws against prostitution, there is a real danger involved in advocating that people ignore any laws they don't happen to like. That is a very simple issue. It is also a very different issue from the issue whether it is a good idea to ban prostitution. Anyone of at least average intelligence should have no trouble understanding the distinction.

 

>I debate from the heart, the better to clarify my own

>thoughts and beliefs. Your time is probably better served over

>in that other place with the Mean Girls.. they seem to respect

>and venerate you, and consider you one of their "tribe". I

>can't much argue with that.

 

You go on and on and on and on about the importance of the freedoms embodied in the Constitution and the wisdom of ignoring rules that infringe on those freedoms. But you praise a board where those freedoms are NOT honored and you denigrate a board where they ARE honored. That seems very hypocritical.

[raife]

[blockquote]You go on and on and on and on about the importance of the freedoms embodied in the Constitution and the wisdom of ignoring rules that infringe on those freedoms. But you praise a board where those freedoms are NOT honored and you denigrate a board where they ARE honored. That seems very hypocritical.[/blockquote]How very easily you strip away all context, just so you can reframe and apply your simplistic stick-on labels. The reality is that both boards have censored in the past and will censor in the future. Occasionally moderators will become overzealous and emotional, then overstep their boundaries. If they are called to task on the issue, as I believe they were, and corrective measures are taken. Then all parties can be satisfied with the results.

 

Censorship applies where ideas are concerned. Censorship requires content. When someone tells an endlessly yapping small dog to "Shut the Fuck Up FiFi!" I don't consider that censorship.

[woodlawn]

>How

>very easily you strip away all context, just so you can

>reframe and apply your simplistic stick-on labels. The

>reality is that both boards have censored in the past

>and will censor in the future. Occasionally moderators will

>become overzealous and emotional, then overstep

 

This board makes no bones about the fact that it has a policy of censorship based on content of the posts. That has nothing to do with "overstepping." The other board has no censorship policy, merely a rule of confidentiality.

 

> If they are called to task on the issue, as I

>believe they were, and corrective measures are taken. Then all

>parties can be satisfied with the results.

 

If all parties were satisfied then the other board we are discussing would not exist, much less have attracted a membership of close to 100 people in just a couple of weeks.

 

 

>Censorship applies where ideas are concerned.

>Censorship requires content. When someone tells an endlessly

>yapping small dog to "Shut the Fuck Up FiFi!" I don't

>consider that censorship.

 

Tyrants and their apologists throughout history have redefined "censorship" in ways that allow them to silence whoever they dislike without being included in the definition. And they've often used the sort of nasty personal insults you use above (and which are supposedly prohibited here). Castro called the political opponents he censored "los gusanos," the worms. Somehow it does not surprise me to see that you are on his side of this argument. I'm sure the two of you have lots of other qualities in common as well.