Re: Current Majority is Ruining NH

[tracysaboe]

I would have a sorry view of Christianity if you were its only representative within my sphere of knowledge, Tracy.  Fortunately, I know many other Christians.

I could say the same thing about you in regards to aithiests. You've been like this every since I met you over a year ago on the FSP forums. My Christianity and your aithiesm has nothing to do with the current discussion at hand, so I just have to assume the above statement is just another obstructionist tactic in your dialogic to, again, be annoying.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

He likes to wave his religion in other people?s faces, and demean others for not being what he envisions as Christ-like, and yet he will engage in behavior which is highly un-Christian.

Many times, in my life, I find that it's the people who accuse others of being judgmental are in fact the people judging. You showed you were highly hypersensitive in the previous thread on nudity and completely inserted your own assumptions into what I was saying so that you could interpret whatI was saying as judgemental in your eyes.  You're the hypersensitive one with the chip on his shoulder. I never said once I had a problem with public nudity. Just that given the current culture that's how most mainstream Christians interpret things.

Tracy

[MaineShark]

I don't feel putting all the quotes in here so I will just try and respond.

- Marple also has other legislation including: establishing a common law court, revoking the charter of the NH Bar Association, and establishing allodial property rights.  He has also endorsed the Free State Project and said that might invoke the Right To Revolution and secede from the U.S. if necessary.  From what I hear he refuses to accept his legislative pay because the only true constitutional money is gold.  I don't know what else you want.  Do you want him to come on here and say "I am a libertarian in the Republican Party"?

Okay, I invite you to go to the link that Denis posted.  Read through the bills, then try to post that Marple is a libertarian, and do so with a straight face.  Libertarians don?t tell you who you can trust to care for your children, nor do they tell you what sort of engine you can use to propel your boat on particular waterways, unless they happen to personally own those waterways.  Just for two examples, and just from that single list of bills.

- NH's rank regarding taxes has gotten better under Republican control.  The overall percentage burden has gone down too.  It was about 9% in the 70's and its 8% now, the second lowest in the nation (behind Alaska, which pays its residents oil dividends).

Does that make you a believer?

No, because it was even lower in 1980 than it is now.  And it?s gone both up and down within that range, hasn?t it?  Hence, the Republicans raised taxes.

But, as I asked, what was the tax burden before they took power, compared to now?  Not what it was in 1970.  When did the Republicans come to power?  What was the tax burden at that time?  Simple questions that don?t seem to be getting answered...

But... but... Dick Marple doesn't have a capital L next to his name!! He must not be WORTH supporting!!! What the fuck.

Was that directed at anyone in particular, or just general dissatisfaction with LP members?

I would have a sorry view of Christianity if you were its only representative within my sphere of knowledge, Tracy.  Fortunately, I know many other Christians.

I could say the same thing about you in regards to aithiests. You've been like this every since I met you over a year ago on the FSP forums. My Christianity and your aithiesm has nothing to do with the current discussion at hand, so I just have to assume the above statement is just another obstructionist tactic in your dialogic to, again, be annoying.

Okay, this amuses me.  Earth to Tracy: I?m not an atheist.  If you care to read the two fairly-recent threads on the topic that reside in the ?Debate? forum, you?ll find that I tend to come down very hard on atheists.

As far as posting for the purpose of obstructing discussion, I?m curious what you imagine that the post of yours which I was replying to was, if not that?

Many times, in my life, I find that it's the people who accuse others of being judgmental are in fact the people judging. You showed you were highly hypersensitive in the previous thread on nudity and completely inserted your own assumptions into what I was saying so that you could interpret whatI was saying as judgemental in your eyes.  You're the hypersensitive one with the chip on his shoulder. I never said once I had a problem with public nudity. Just that given the current culture that's how most mainstream Christians interpret things.

I didn?t ?insert my own assumptions.?  You made a clear-cut statement that nudity is sexual in nature, and I debunked that.  That?s it.

On the other hand, when it comes to posting for the purpose of obstructing discussions, well, I think you?re doing an excellent job of demonstrating that tactic.

For the record, anyway, I am extremely judgemental, and make no apologies or excuses for that.

Joe

[tracysaboe]

Okay, this amuses me.  Earth to Tracy: I?m not an atheist.  If you care to read the two fairly-recent threads on the topic that reside in the ?Debate? forum, you?ll find that I tend to come down very hard on atheists.

My apologies, for the most part I don't read alot of your threads and posting because of my experience with you over at the FSP forums. I thought you'd said you were aithiest over their, but if I mis-remembered, I apologize.

Regardless,

First of all, I was responding to a question somebody else asked. I fail to see how that's being "judgmental." If you felt you were being judged, then I suggest it is you who has a guilty conscience. The problem's with you, not me.

2nd, I never said nudity was sexual in nature. I might have said many people believe it is. I also remember saying, "The way I was raised." Apparently, you don't understand that it's possible for a person to be raised one way, but then develope different views of their own later on. But lets not hijack this thread over your misreadings of what I wrote in another thread.

Tracy

[MaineShark]

First of all, I was responding to a question somebody else asked. I fail to see how that's being "judgmental." If you felt you were being judged, then I suggest it is you who has a guilty conscience. The problem's with you, not me.

You quoted my post and told Jane that I have no interest in anything except arguing, which is just plain asinine, anyway.  How is that "responding to a question somebody else asked"?  Try to make some sense, please...

And you were the one who used the term "judgemental," not I, so the rest of that paragraph is nonsensical.

2nd, I never said nudity was sexual in nature. I might have said many people believe it is. I also remember saying, "The way I was raised." Apparently, you don't understand that it's possible for a person to be raised one way, but then develope different views of their own later on. But lets not hijack this thread over your misreadings of what I wrote in another thread. I'm not responding to you in this thread anymore.

No, you quite specifically stated that nudity, in and of itself, is sexual.  Not that it is the way you were raised.  I can quote you, if you like...  It's your hijack, so feel free to request it if you want to look like a fool.  But don't try to put any "us" in your thread-hijacking.

Joe

[tracysaboe]

You quoted my post and told Jane that I have no interest in anything except arguing, which is just plain asinine, anyway.  How is that "responding to a question somebody else asked"?  Try to make some sense, please...

You called me judgemental. Or at least said I "accuse others of not being Christlike" or whatever.The only thing I could think about was the other thread about nudity which was a responce to a question.

If you're refering to the statement that you have no interest except just arguing, well, that's simply the voice of experience. Every single time I've ever discussed anything with you, all you can do is pick minute irrelevent things apart while obstructing any real discussion about the main part of the discussion. you've been that way when Green and I were dicussing war with you, and when Mike and I were discussing why it wasn't right to steal souter's property. Recently in the nudity thread. It's a pattern of being argumentitive, for no reason other-then being argumentative. My statement is nothing but the truth, based on my observations of you every time I've come in cyber-contact with you. I make no apologies for such a statement.

you quite specifically stated that nudity, in and of itself, is sexual.  Not that it is the way you were raised.  I can quote you, if you like...  It's your hijack, so feel free to request it if you want to look like a fool.  But don't try to put any "us" in your thread-hijacking.

Joe
[/quote]

No, I didn't. If you can find such a quote, then you're taking it out of context, and it was in responce to a question. You're the one who chose to jump all over me, and turn a light-hearted thread into another of your "I'm better then you because I can pick appart minute irrelevent details" excersizes. Whatever makes you tick I guess.

Tracy

Tracy

[MaineShark]

So much for not replying to me.  I can certainly see how much your word is worth.

And gee, thanks for tampering with the posts in the thread, so now replies to people other than you are in the wrong forum.  Talk about obstructing for the sake of obstructing.  You could have copied posts over instead of tampering with the original thread.  But that would take too much maturity, apparently...

You called me judgemental. Or at least said I "accuse others of not being Christlike" or whatever.The only thing I could think about was the other thread about nudity which was a responce to a question.

I never used or implied anything about being judgmental.

If you're refering to the statement that you have no interest except just arguing, well, that's simply the voice of experience. Every single time I've ever discussed anything with you, all you can do is pick minute irrelevent things apart while obstructing any real discussion about the main part of the discussion. you've been that way when Green and I were dicussing war with you, and when Mike and I were discussing why it wasn't right to steal souter's property. Recently in the nudity thread. It's a pattern of being argumentitive, for no reason other-then being argumentative. My statement is nothing but the truth, based on my observations of you every time I've come in cyber-contact with you. I make no apologies for such a statement.

Yes, I clearly couldn?t actually think something other than what you think.  I must just be arguing for the sake of arguing.  Who, precisely, do you think you are?

I mean, clearly I couldn?t have respect for the truth and call people on falsehoods, regardless of whether those falsehoods are in favor of or in opposition to something I believe in (like, opposing war).  Honesty is honesty, and liars have no place in the freedom movement.

I clearly couldn?t think that Souter should suffer through poetic justice.  I mean, that?s not what you think, so if I say that I must just be arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I didn't. If you can find such a quote, then you're taking it out of context, and it was in responce to a question. You're the one who chose to jump all over me, and turn a light-hearted thread into another of your "I'm better then you because I can pick appart minute irrelevent details" excersizes. Whatever makes you tick I guess.

Here, I?ll quote the whole paragraph:

Of course the bible never explicitly says anything about nudity itself per sae. Jesus said the real issue is your heart. "If a man lusts after a women, he has committed audultury with her in his heart." It's certainly a lot easier to not lust after a women if she's fully clothed. On the other hand -- the skanky stuff women wear sometimes is actually more enticing then simply being naked. And you can lust after somebody who's fully clothed too. Ultimately, everybody is responsible for gaurding their own thoughts.

Happy?  Anyone can see that I?m not taking the statement out of context.

As I said in that thread, your ability to ?lust after? some woman has nothing to do with her lack of clothing, unless you believe that nudity is sexual.

The thread ceased to be ?lighthearted? when you accused friends of mine of betraying their faith.

As for me being better than you - not that I've ever said that - you might look to the fact that I deal honestly, even with people I disagree with, and never would tamper with someone else's thread just to please my vanity.

Joe

[tracysaboe]

Their you go again saying that I "Accused" others of betraying their faith. I did no such thing, you're the one infering such things over and above what I said. Don't be so hypersensitive.

You've the one accusing me of being accusitory, when in fact no such slight accored.

"It's certainly a lot easier to not lust after a women if she's fully clothed"

In todays sexualized American culture, for most people the above statement is true. Notice I didn't say it was impossible to not lust in such a cercumstance and if you'd read further I say as much. Simply more difficult. Here's another example of picking about things, simply for the sake of picking them apart. You knew full well what I meant, and nobody else jumped down my throat about it.

In regards ot the other issues, it has nothing to do with whether you disagreed or not. Other people can disagree and have civil debates and no back and forth. You on the other hand, pic apart minute things, that have no baring to the main issues, just to pick them apart, so don't red herring me with this "Certainly I couldn't have just disagreed" If that was all it was, it wouldn't have been an issue. Other people disagreed and I got along fine with them.

Tracy

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

I think you guys should go find a Finnish sauna and sit in there naked together until you have either settled your differences or died of heatstroke. 

Tracy

[MaineShark]

I think you guys should go find a Finnish sauna and sit in there naked together until you have either settled your differences or died of heatstroke. 

I think I'd sooner associate with someone like Green, in all honesty.  At least he didn't try to pretend he was an adult, while he behaved like a child.

Joe

[tracysaboe]

Green called himself an anarcho-communist. I disagreed with him alot. But at least we could communicate.

Tracy

[Recumbent ReCycler]

Can't we all just get along???    Some of the topics discussed are somewhat humorous IMO.  I think most of the dissention is caused by misunderstanding.  As a Christian who was born in Finland, I was taught to love my neighbor, etc., and that it is normal to steam ourselves in the sauna and run around in the rain naked, and we didn't view those as contradictory.  I think that the whole idea that nakedness is sexual in nature is not from Christianity itself, but from a large subset of the American culture that includes a lot of Christians who have adopted that view as a part of their belief system.

[MaineShark]

Green called himself an anarcho-communist. I disagreed with him alot. But at least we could communicate.

Communication is easy between people who have a lot in common...

Joe

[tracysaboe]

No, we disagreed on pretty much everything, except about the war. and you actually said you were against the war too, but everytime we had a reason to oppose it you argued with us like we were all idiots. So it's no wonder I think you argue just to argue.

I disagreed with Jane about the souter case and we definitily exchanged words, but at least I could communicate with her.

Anyway, For all the difficulties that I've had communicating with you in the past, maine. I'm sinserly glad that your in New Hampshire actively working toward liberty. Onlike the other charactor (He who we used to ignore but is no longer here, not Green, the Georgist.). that I didn't get along with, you're actively working for liberty and you're not actively promoting taxes like he was. One of these days I'll get there. Currently I'm in SD fighting both the SDLP and the Republican party to support Ron Paul. Our primery matters too.

I think if we met in person we'd get along better, but with the way my communication skills are and the way you nit-pick everything, it's just difficult I think for us to have a conversation online.

Tracy