Conservative Definition of Freedom

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
natedogg > copernicus imo, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

owsley would be ashamed to have you use his name

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natedogg > copernicus imo, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

owsley would be ashamed to have you use his name

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] obligatory monthly Copernicus reference to lysergic acid consumption and/or knowledge.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natedogg > copernicus imo, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

owsley would be ashamed to have you use his name

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] obligatory monthly Copernicus reference to lysergic acid consumption and/or knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monthly?? link em

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone > copernicus imo, lol

[/ QUOTE ]
fypqft

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natedogg > copernicus imo, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

owsley would be ashamed to have you use his name

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] obligatory biannual Copernicus reference to lysergic acid consumption and/or knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP?

I remember one other distinct one somewhat recently and am pretty sure there are others. For the "he would be ashamed comment", I am reminded of the Robin Williams "A clue, sherlock" line if anyone else has seen that dvd of him.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natedogg > copernicus imo, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

owsley would be ashamed to have you use his name

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] obligatory biannual Copernicus reference to lysergic acid consumption and/or knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP?

I remember one other distinct one somewhat recently and am pretty sure there are others. For the "he would be ashamed comment", I am reminded of the Robin Williams "A clue, sherlock" line if anyone else has seen that dvd of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, so one in the last month (maybe, and probably not in politics), and no others = monthly.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natedogg > copernicus imo, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

owsley would be ashamed to have you use his name

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] obligatory biannual Copernicus reference to lysergic acid consumption and/or knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP?

I remember one other distinct one somewhat recently and am pretty sure there are others. For the "he would be ashamed comment", I am reminded of the Robin Williams "A clue, sherlock" line if anyone else has seen that dvd of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, so one in the last month (maybe, and probably not in politics), and no others = monthly.

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] Copernicus being a huge nit to someone who is drunk

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natedogg > copernicus imo, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

owsley would be ashamed to have you use his name

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] obligatory biannual Copernicus reference to lysergic acid consumption and/or knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP?

I remember one other distinct one somewhat recently and am pretty sure there are others. For the "he would be ashamed comment", I am reminded of the Robin Williams "A clue, sherlock" line if anyone else has seen that dvd of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, so one in the last month (maybe, and probably not in politics), and no others = monthly.

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] Copernicus being a huge nit to someone who is drunk

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] A drunk retreating to a feeble excuse when he can't suport his weak attempt at pleasing the board sycophants

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
If I am free to pursue whatever I consider to be my goal, then that is freedom. If someone else decides, I am, by definition, not free.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is very well put. Obviously this means there's no perfect freedom, but that's ok. Some goals are more acceptable than others.

Consider:
Person A: His goal is to kidnap young girls and rape them
Person B: His goal is to have gay sex with a different partner every night

I have no problem imposing my morality on Person A and restricting his liberty to pursue his goals.

Santorum, in addition, has no problem imposing his morality on Person B, by exactly the same rationale (in his mind).

Is there a fundamental difference in our attitudes? Or is it just a matter of degree? I'm not sure, but I hope it's the former, since I consider myself to be reasonable, and Santorum to be a judgmental, moralistic douche.

We've all got a set of behaviors/goals that we consider to be not just unappealing but flat-out unacceptable. I think Santorum's set is very large, and my set is very small and just right. But certainly somebody somewhere might think my set is very large and would call me a judgmental douche.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I am free to pursue whatever I consider to be my goal, then that is freedom. If someone else decides, I am, by definition, not free.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is very well put. Obviously this means there's no perfect freedom, but that's ok. Some goals are more acceptable than others.

Consider:
Person A: His goal is to kidnap young girls and rape them
Person B: His goal is to have gay sex with a different partner every night

I have no problem imposing my morality on Person A and restricting his liberty to pursue his goals.

Santorum, in addition, has no problem imposing his morality on Person B, by exactly the same rationale (in his mind).

Is there a fundamental difference in our attitudes? Or is it just a matter of degree? I'm not sure, but I hope it's the former, since I consider myself to be reasonable, and Santorum to be a judgmental, moralistic douche.

We've all got a set of behaviors/goals that we consider to be not just unappealing but flat-out unacceptable. I think Santorum's set is very large, and my set is very small and just right. But certainly somebody somewhere might think my set is very large and would call me a judgmental douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are overestimating the difference between your set and Santorum's, because you happen to disagree with his politics.