Is Steve74baywins ideas so messed up or nutso that you think

[steve74baywin]

If so many of you think my limited gov ideas are so messed up and off the wall that they deserve to be in their own forum, or just not even brought up in the discussions at all, now is your chance.
If enough think so, then I probably will not post anymore.
No sense wasting my time here.
I have been into aircooled VW's over 10 or more years, I don't find it that interesting talking about them everyday. I do enjoy politics and thought it neat to come to a site for one hobbies interest and discuss another very relevant one.

I have made corrections over the years to the way I discuss things. I am not interested in making any changes at this time. In the past week, I had responded to people replies and questions to my thoughts, and then I had some very rude things said to me. I think most corrections needed in this matter need to be done within each persons own self. So please spare me. In other words, take me as I am, or not.

You don't understand the concept of endangered? Protected? You don't understand how the law works? If you don't then ask someone to explain. But please refrain from making my brain hurt every time you issue a statement.

I'm sorry group. I can't play nice anymore so I should probably get my nap and a reset.

Now that I have a few more minutes I would like to take the time to reply to your reply to me a bit more.

The lack of logic here is stunning. You argue in circles.

Mike

That's it. You are either a 15-year-old troll, insane or have drug-induced brain damage.
It's gotta be two of those at the very minimum.

Whatever the case, it is impossible to have any sort of discussion with a person who ignores facts, common sense, reason and verified cites yet posts scatterbrained responses with largely the same care and forethought that a squirrel monkey masturbates.

A real Libertarian, if you ever met one, would kick your ass.

I mean every word of it. I am now convinced that you are intentionally fucking with us to keep the attention going and that you are nothing but a huckster and a fraud. That "who, me?" game wore thin long ago.

I call 'em like I see 'em. I am convinced that he is a pitiful fraud. He is about as deep as a laundromat's well-used connect-the-dots magazine. That he doesn't actually believe in anything except asking open ended questions which he uses as a method of drawing attention to himself. Yet he trembles, mumbles and dodges when asked to answer direct questions of any kind, and acts as the persecuted one when we call him on his thinly-veiled antics.

[Lanval]

I don't agree that what I wrote was rude. I commented on your argument tactics, not you. That said:

You'd probably be surprised at how many ideas (regarding limited gov't) you and I share. My point has always been centered on two things:

1. You don't know much about what you're talking about. In the last week you've said:
The US Constitution was the beginning of a conspiracy
You don't know what the Potato Famine was

Try this ~ send a note to Ron Paul (or some other mainstream Libertarian) and tell them you think the Constitution was a conspiracy to deny the rights asserted in the Declaration to the people of the US. What do you think he's going to say?

Then ask yourself this: If you don't know what the Potato Famine was (one of the most important events in the first half of the 19th century in terms of it's impact on America), what else don't you know? How can I trust you when you make historical statements when you lack even a high-school awareness of the history of the country (US History is typically a sophomore course)?

Frankly, I'd prefer if you kept posting, just be less "out there" ~ a more nuanced discussion of Libertarianism would be worth a lot to me; take the Raw Foods thing for example.

Instead of arguing that the cops are a bunch of Nazi, jack-booted thugs crushing the rights of the individual (not convincing) why not try talking about how in the Libertarian system, they would have been free to do what they want, while also suggesting how the system would account for the desire of the people to be protected from unscrupulous business people. Now THAT would be an interesting discussion.

I will conclude by stating that I don't think you're interested in such discussions; like Static, I see you making inflammatory statements designed to promote a rigid ideology that you hold as a gold standard. You appear unable (or at least unwilling) to acknowledge any positive aspects of the current governmental system, which marks you both as an ideologue, and as someone who appears unable to handle nuanced understandings that operate more within the middle of the spectrum, than at the ends.

Few if any readers will take such absolutism seriously; it's another form of fascism; "There is only one way, and it's the way of absolute truth". Unconvincing, to say the least. Yet this is what you offer, and then act surprised when people don't subscribe to your interpretations. That's no way to carry on a discussion ~ it's a pretty good way to create conflict, though.

Best,

Mike

[ruckman101]

Ehh....he don't bother me. But then I don't get too deep into it with Steve, either. The "constitutional" discussion is pointless because the documents drawn up are open to interpretation, and they certainly are. Steve favors interpretations by folks generally far to the right. My issue there is the call to "return" to the founding principles, if we could decide what those were. I do know, however, that one of those founding principles was that the constitution would be a living, breathing, changing document. Best part of it. Flexibility to cope with what was, and is, unknowns. So to return to an interpretation of the document that addressed the concerns of society a couple hundred years ago seems wholly inadequate for concerns today.

True, Steve can be a bit "taken forced with guns and violence" tunnel visioned, his catch phase always reminds me of Warren Zevon's tune, "Lawyers Guns and Money".


neal

[RussellK]

If enough think so, then I probably will not post anymore.
No sense wasting my time here.

Is the takeaway that if none of us agree with you, you are wasting your time? That's the problem when you have an agenda.

You know what I think is messed up? This poll is messed up. What's this about. If enough people say stay you can take that as a mandate to continue to hijack threads? If enough say go the you get to play the victim? Sorry. You make your own choice. I'm not voting. But understand this. It was never about ideas. It was about presentation.

[BellePlaine]

I have been into aircooled VW's over 10 or more years, I don't find it that interesting talking about them everyday.

Yeah, right! This quote from the guy who started the "What have you done for your Bay today"? sticky on TS!

I'm not voting either. This should board should be fun, if it doesn't feel good to you (or to anyone else for that matter) then hang it up. Only you can determine that.

[steve74baywin]

I have been into aircooled VW's over 10 or more years, I don't find it that interesting talking about them everyday.

Yeah, right! This quote from the guy who started the "What have you done for your Bay today"? sticky on TS!

I'm not voting either. This should board should be fun, if it doesn't feel good to you (or to anyone else for that matter) then hang it up. Only you can determine that.

Dude, that's not me on the Samba. I'm not "Bay Window Steve". I've got the same name on there as here. It has probably been years since I posted anything on the Samba. I wouldn't be surprised if I have less the 5 post on TS since the start of this forum. I'd log in to the Samba to check my last log in date and post, but then my log in date would change.

It is still much fun for me to post in the Free Speech Forum.
In fact maybe too much fun.
This poll isn't to tell me how much fun it is. I'm actually doing this to see if it really does aggravate that many people, and if it does, I will stop. I thought I explained that.

[Velokid1]

I won't vote either. I do sort of enjoy the sweet irony, Steve, of someone who has such faith in the individual's ability to responsibly steer their own fate asking others to legislate their actions. You gotta admit, that's amusing.

[steve74baywin]

If enough think so, then I probably will not post anymore.
No sense wasting my time here.

Is the takeaway that if none of us agree with you, you are wasting your time? That's the problem when you have an agenda.

You know what I think is messed up? This poll is messed up. What's this about. If enough people say stay you can take that as a mandate to continue to hijack threads? If enough say go the you get to play the victim? Sorry. You make your own choice. I'm not voting. But understand this. It was never about ideas. It was about presentation.

No take aways, read into it what you wish.
The poll question ask what it ask.
I do not care about the presentation part, as I stated above, I have changed some already and I am not changing the presentation anymore. People can live with that. I didn't ask about presentation, that is for you to deal with. Your feelings being hurt has come up too often already on this site if you ask me. Your causing more problems with your tender feelings I think than I am. You deal with. My question is if you think what I say is so messed up and nutso. If it is I won't play the victim, I will stop, and I will have no need to talk about it, I probably won't be around much, as I mentioned I don't talk VW's all that much in spite of someone thinking I am someone else on the Samba.
I am making my choice, I made the choice to put up this poll.

[steve74baywin]

I won't vote either. I do sort of enjoy the sweet irony, Steve, of someone who has such faith in the individual's ability to responsibly steer their own fate asking others to legislate their actions. You gotta admit, that's amusing.

Please explain yourself better.
It's look like you think I'm asking people to say if my presentation is okay or not.
That is not the question asked. I am wanting a vote on if my belief's, the things I say are so messed up or nutso, not how I present them. I guess I thinking if the really are that messed up to you all, then it's not worth it. Screw the presentation part, you all can live with that.

Edited to add this from my first post, maybe you all aren't seeing it.

If so many of you think my limited gov ideas are so messed up and off the wall that they deserve to be in their own forum, or just not even brought up in the discussions at all, now is your chance.

[Velokid1]

I don't agree with all your ideas, or even most of them, and I wouldn't say I have a "problem" with your presentation. The amount of time you spend posting about what is really the same thing over and over seems... Curious to me. You seem obsessive, to be blunt about it. Do you sleep? Eat? Work? You seem completely overwhelmed by your libertarian ideas. Not trying to be mean but is there something else going on with you? Depression or something?

[steve74baywin]

I don't agree with all your ideas, or even most of them, and I wouldn't say I have a "problem" with your presentation. The amount of time you spend posting about what is really the same thing over and over seems... Curious to me. You seem obsessive, to be blunt about it. Do you sleep? Eat? Work? You seem completely overwhelmed by your libertarian ideas. Not trying to be mean but is there something else going on with you? Depression or something?

I sleep very well and regular. I eat very regular. I am self employed. I do have more free time than a typical 40 hour a week worker. Most of my time posting is in a 3 to 5 hour window. Do I think about this stuff alot when I am not on the computer? Yes I do. As I said a few months ago, this political stuff and the conditioning of humans are the two things of biggest interest to me, for about 6 to 8 years.
Thinks could be better, but I am fine.
My political ideas are an ideal or based in principle , so that is why it appears that I post the same thing, because my belief's don't vary based on feelings, but you've heard them before, I don't think you need to hear them again now today in this thread.
But thank you for your concern.

Russellk,
Something I said has pissed you off. It wasn't directed at you as you implied when you said the them, them, them is you.
I did not mean to piss you off. I apologize.
I have a suggestion. Why don't you PM me when my postings are bothering you. Anyone else for that matter. I usually stick on topic, any downgrading is usually to people who "think" a certain way not, sometimes that still can be received by individuals. PM me, I really want to not only show you what I believe, but I do want to remain or become friends.

[Cindy]

My only point of contention is this--I wish you would read more and learn as much as you can about everything. As Lanval pointed out in another thread, if you aren't familiar with the most basic events of history then you're missing a lot of pertinent information--information that could inform your opinions. Your lack of familiarity with the facts really shows, and makes your conclusions ring hollow.

There's a saying among college professors (among the ones I admire anyway): The more you learn, the less you know. Your conclusions are too absolute for me to take them seriously. I have a Master's degree in American history and yet there are very few things I'm sure of, intellectually speaking. Forming a well-supported opinion can take years of research and study. You have an emotional investment in your claims--a necessary component, but very limiting without a more scholarly foundation. That's something you can work on without a formal education--just read and read and then read some more.

Cindy

[steve74baywin]

My only point of contention is this--I wish you would read more and learn as much as you can about everything. As Lanval pointed out in another thread, if you aren't familiar with the most basic events of history then you're missing a lot of pertinent information--information that could inform your opinions. Your lack of familiarity with the facts really shows, and makes your conclusions ring hollow.


Cindy

I've mentioned in other post that I have spent a lot of time in the last 8 years looking into the history and founding of this country. One of the times Mike mentioned my lack was when Neal mentioned the Irish Potato famine I asked Neal more about it, which I knew some about it, but the other times he mentions it is in discussions, however he has abandoned most of the discussion we've had after I posted or countered, he has mentioned going back and continuing, but he has yet to do it.
In fact, it is getting to a bit of a broken record from Mike, he never really counters anything I say with anything other than telling me how I lack an understanding of history. I often wonder if he is showing how I sometimes sound, you know, like I know it all.

[ruckman101]

Much of history is ignored. The omissions are telling. Howard Zinn is a fantastic historian.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Much of history is ignored. The omissions are telling. Howard Zinn is a fantastic historian.


neal

Yes, I have his book "A People's History Of The United States ".
I recommended it to Cindy probably over 3 years ago.
Both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky speak several times in the video "The Corporation" that I recommended the other day.