"Yeah... kids."

Since everyone else is running with the BoB quotes, I thought I'd keep the game going, too...

As to Jambo's last rant...

I, too, encourage ANYONE that wishes to comment on and join in with the debates and discussion we have going on here at the Bund... Mr. Pasley, especially, since he has shown a degree of maturity in his ability to discuss differing opinions that is rare, even among the Bund!

However, after reading James' post, I am inclined to think that he won't return.

There is little doubt in my mind that his particular political view will never mesh with, or even tolerate discussion with, the likes of ANY of ours... but especially Ryan's. I find it impossible to imagine Ryan patiently listening to someone who is sympathetic to (let alone actively involved in) the politics of the SDS.

This is not a criticism, however. Mr. Pasley is perfectly capable of making his own determinations about where his sympathies and preferences reside... in the words of my mentor, "he's old enough to drink, drive and vote" so surely he's entitled to his opinion.

I fear only that he would misunderstand our own, rather unique and certainly rare ability to DEFEND our own political views in a (usually) rational and objective manner inside of a debate/discussion forum as CRITICISM.

While I detest generalisms as a rule, it is impossible for me to avoid using them in the course of an "online discussion". There is no basis for the formulation of opinion OTHER than the words written on the screen, so when I am asked to take another person's words into the conversation, I have to take them at face value... anything else would be unfair to the discussion as a whole. Thus, when I see Ryan making posts defending the position of a specific person or ideology (usually "conservatism" in its most contemporary usage), I tend to assume that he is also defending ALL the positions associated with that person or ideology... which isn't always true, I know.

Truth be told, Mr. Pasley reminds me more of Ryan than would probably make Ryan comfortable. He is a young idealist... just as Ryan was when I first met him. I know Ryan recalls the day very well... so convinced that all his Reagan-esque wet dreams would be realized with the election of G W Bush, the continued control of Congress by the GOP, and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court... even though he was barely old enough to REMEMBER the Reagan Presidency.

What is impossible for the supporters of the liberal agenda to understand seems to be the simple, immutable fact that ANY socialist agenda, no matter how big or small it is, reduces all common results to the lowest common denominator. If the effort in question is health care, then the BEST health care that will be available will equal the lowest-level of care provided within the system. That is the undeniable truth of the old saying "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link". The longer the chain, the less load it can carry.

Now, as much as I hate generalisms... I'm also very nervous of analogy. However, the "chain" analogy is very appropriate in regards to socialism. That being said, I have another analogy that is very applicable to a conservative point of view:

Archimedes is attributed with the saying "Give me a big enough lever, and I can move the world!" If the "lever" is opportunity, then the individual's ability to best determine AND obtain his/her own prosperity and success in life is the "world"... and no other hand need be involved. Human's only need the opportunities provided to us all by God Himself to succeed in life... anything else to the contrary is an excuse for mediocrity and dependency. This is as true now as it was when Man first walked the Earth.

I am convinced that even RYAN would agree that the US Government, as it stands right now, holds a degree of responsibility to the general welfare of the American public. The debate arrises ONLY when we discuss the DEGREE of that responsibility. The more responsibility we place on the Government for the public's welfare, the less responsibility we are able to take for our own lives and futures.

Every responsibility we surrender to the Government means we have surrendered a Right along with it. We are guaranteed the RIGHT to free speech, but we have the responsibility to not shout FIRE in a crowded theater just for a gag. We are guaranteed the Right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean we can use the arms in irresponsible or illegal ways. We are guaranteed the Right to public assembly, but not if that infringes Rights or safety of others. Surrender the responsibility of the action, and you surrender the Right of the act.

How many times have I heard liberals (but not Mr. Pasley, to be perfectly fair) say that they do not want their tax dollars going towards the waging of an "immoral" war... yet they scoff at the thought of a conservative saying he doesn't want HIS tax dollars going towards someone else's abortion or drug abuse treatment or depression counseling as "greedy" or "selfish" or "uncaring", when in fact it is NO DIFFERENT than the liberal's position... no different at all. The difference lies with the definition of MORAL, not RESPONSIBILITY.

I DO hope Mr Pasley continues to check in and comment... a fresh and contrary point of view is very nice, and even necessary (according to Jefferson) from time to time... and I DO hope he will take the time to discuss his points of view with us, in an attempt to make US see things as HE does.

He would be the first "liberal" to ever do so... ever.