wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
10 years ago
It is not that I disagree with you. So now what? We may not like it but is isn't going to change.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

How easily we assent to statism.

Firecrackers are illegal lots of places. A pretty early and widespread example of nanny laws, but everyone's okay with that sort of thing now, so never mind.

A firecracker going off is not like an "explosion". Now there are fireworks that have that character. But I thought the original story say "firecrackers", not fireworks. If the guy is shooting commercial-level firework rockets over the fence, that's a big difference. But firecrackers, even a big lit string of them, doesn't "explode". I suppose some might sound like a machine gun -- none I have ever seen come close, but I don't pretend to be an aficionado of fireworks. But I find it hard to think of them as indicating a clear and present danger to the President.

What is it, 99.99 percent of firecracker injuries are suffered by the people playing with them?

Has no one ever seen a Chinese New Year parade? They involve *lots* of firecrackers.

Like I said, no one ever seems to have much problem with any additional security measures to protect our elected officials. It's the President after all. It's the White House. Blah blah blah.

Put it this way. Suppose I take a bag of rotten tomatoes to an Obama speech. What's the chance that I'm going to (a) be able to get within throwing distance of him or (b) be able to throw one at him without being subject to use of force by the guys with earsets and interrogation a la Leroy Jethro Gibbs?

Maybe if presidents and congresspeople knew they had to deal with rotten tomatos, they'd do a little better job.

We'll never know, of course. Their tailored suits are too damn valuable to the national interest to allow such "lack of respect" to take place.

Bleh.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Wade, you missin' politics? I get the impression this discussion is more about "statism" than it is about firecrackers.

I had an uncle who got partially blinded in one eye messing with firecrackers. When I was a kid, a neighbor scared my dog with one - I got yelled at for beating the crap out of him even though he was a year older than me - never mind that I outweighed him by 20 pounds or so - he had it coming. But somehow, I think that isn't the direction you want the discussion to go hahahaha.

I never even heard the word "statism" until fairly recent years. Tell me, if a country that practices Communism is Communistic, is a country practicing "statism" therefore "statistic"? So then, would somebody who cares too much about "statism" then be called a ........ drum roll ........ a "stat whore"?

OK, Wade, sorry to take too lightly your pet "ism". To answer your question, I think your chances would be pretty good. The tomatoes wouldn't set off the metal detector, and if somebody questioned what you were carrying, you could always say you stopped off at the super market on the way to the speech. They say anybody willing to die trying would stand a good chance of getting close enough to assassinate somebody. If you were willing to do the time, I'd put it at about 70/30 you could perpetrate the crime - rotten tomatoes I mean. And after some roughing up and some Gibbs-like interrogation or worse, you probably would get off with nothing worse than disorderly conduct plea bargained down from assault.

As for statism, IMO, it's a problem, but an overrated problem. I hate government intrusion as much as the next person - no, more than about 99.99% of the population. However, my distaste for that intrusion is mostly bottom up - seat belt laws, left turn signals, that annoying little pause between red one direction and green the other, etc. And most of that crap is inflicted on us without even any legislation, just bureaucratic tyranny. Where in the Constitution is it strictly constructed that they can stick us with that shit? The higher level examples which I guess would be called "statism" used to be differentiated between do-gooderism, both in terms of government handouts and in terms of Federal versions of the kind of regulation I hate, AND the fields of national security and interventionist foreign policy. Back then, it was fairly easily framed as a liberal/Democrat versus conservative/Republican matter. Nowadays - you tell me when it became this way, my guess would be about 10 - 15 years ago - a group has risen up which you obviously are a part of that lumps it all in together, and detests both halves of that "statism". In addition to when, I'm wondering WHO framed it that way. My guess would be the leftist mainstream media, because obviously, the big winners are the leftist politicians - having a wedge very successfully driven between the two kinds of conservatives - those who think like you - opposed to BOTH of those descriptions of "statism", and those who think like me (which I assume you call "statists") who favor a high degree of national security and interventionist foreign policy.

It is that wedge that more than any other single factor gave us the evil known as Obama - and a huge serving of the kind of statism we both detest.

Dontcha just love political discussion, Wade? Dontcha just feel sorry for those losers who don't? hahahahahahaha
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

It is not that I disagree with you. So now what? We may not like it but is isn't going to change.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



I don't know. I'm not a revolutionary, nor someone who can get lots of followers when I start things.

All I can do is try to speak my beliefs the best, and hope some others listen. And that, eventually, some of those who listen will people who others will follow.

As Arlo Guthrie put it, "if one person does it, then they'll just think you're crazy ... but if forty people a day do it, then ...."




And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

However, my distaste for that intrusion is mostly bottom up - seat belt laws, left turn signals, that annoying little pause between red one direction and green the other, etc. And most of that crap is inflicted on us without even any legislation, just bureaucratic tyranny. Where in the Constitution is it strictly constructed that they can stick us with that sh!t?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



The Commerce Clause (per Justice Jackson in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942).

So it's not just 15, but nearly 75 years since "strict construction" fell out of the story.

And with now three generations of Americans "educated" in schools that have been teaching deference to government as both mommy and daddy of last resort, I fear that it's never going to get back in.

You see, I don't see this as a "political" problem at all. Politics is about getting power to make other people do things we want them to do. It's merely a place where people argue about what government should do to others on our behalf.

What is needed is not a political solution where we shift power from liberal to conservative or from conservative to liberal. It's not a solution where we use the state to make others do what I think they should do or make me do what others think I should do. What is needed is a constitutional solution. A solution where we recognize that politics is not the solution. That it cannot be, even when it acts via a majority of the population.

We need a solution where we re-constitute ourselves and remember (or, for most, now, learn) that the function of the state is not to give control to experts and other philosopher-kings as that idiot Plato thought. It is not to impose order on individuals who naturally will war against each other like Thomas Hobbes thought. And it is definitely not a toolbox for building us into "the good society," for providing "the greatest good for the greatest number," as Jeremy Bentham and his legion of liberal and conservative descendants have it. The state is merely something that we use to protect the rights of individuals of those who, out of bad motives or good ones, would use the power of the state to restrict.

But in a nation where less than ten percent has ever carefully thought about the words of the Declaration of Independence, where less than a fraction of one percent has ever read Paine or Burke, The Federalist OR The Anti-Federalist?

I have no clue how it will ever happen.

All I know how to do is emulate Don Quixote.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

[quote=texaspackerbacker;257550 However, my distaste for that intrusion is mostly bottom up - seat belt laws, left turn signals, that annoying little pause between red one direction and green the other, etc. And most of that crap is inflicted on us without even any legislation, just bureaucratic tyranny. Where in the Constitution is it strictly constructed that they can stick us with that sh!t?

Originally Posted by: Wade 



The Commerce Clause (per Justice Jackson in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942).

So it's not just 15, but nearly 75 years since "strict construction" fell out of the story.

And with now three generations of Americans "educated" in schools that have been teaching deference to government as both mommy and daddy of last resort, I fear that it's never going to get back in.

You see, I don't see this as a "political" problem at all. Politics is about getting power to make other people do things we want them to do. It's merely a place where people argue about what government should do to others on our behalf.

What is needed is not a political solution where we shift power from liberal to conservative or from conservative to liberal. It's not a solution where we use the state to make others do what I think they should do or make me do what others think I should do. What is needed is a constitutional solution. A solution where we recognize that politics is not the solution. That it cannot be, even when it acts via a majority of the population.

We need a solution where we re-constitute ourselves and remember (or, for most, now, learn) that the function of the state is not to give control to experts and other philosopher-kings as that idiot Plato thought. It is not to impose order on individuals who naturally will war against each other like Thomas Hobbes thought. And it is definitely not a toolbox for building us into "the good society," for providing "the greatest good for the greatest number," as Jeremy Bentham and his legion of liberal and conservative descendants have it. The state is merely something that we use to protect the rights of individuals of those who, out of bad motives or good ones, would use the power of the state to restrict.

But in a nation where less than ten percent has ever carefully thought about the words of the Declaration of Independence, where less than a fraction of one percent has ever read Paine or Burke, The Federalist OR The Anti-Federalist?

I have no clue how it will ever happen.

All I know how to do is emulate Don Quixote.



Excellent post, Wade, but you really should re-format it so that your wise words you up as yours instead of looking like I said it. Perhaps we could get some moderator help ......


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

The Commerce Clause (per Justice Jackson in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942).

So it's not just 15, but nearly 75 years since "strict construction" fell out of the story.

And with now three generations of Americans "educated" in schools that have been teaching deference to government as both mommy and daddy of last resort, I fear that it's never going to get back in.

You see, I don't see this as a "political" problem at all. Politics is about getting power to make other people do things we want them to do. It's merely a place where people argue about what government should do to others on our behalf.

What is needed is not a political solution where we shift power from liberal to conservative or from conservative to liberal. It's not a solution where we use the state to make others do what I think they should do or make me do what others think I should do. What is needed is a constitutional solution. A solution where we recognize that politics is not the solution. That it cannot be, even when it acts via a majority of the population.

We need a solution where we re-constitute ourselves and remember (or, for most, now, learn) that the function of the state is not to give control to experts and other philosopher-kings as that idiot Plato thought. It is not to impose order on individuals who naturally will war against each other like Thomas Hobbes thought. And it is definitely not a toolbox for building us into "the good society," for providing "the greatest good for the greatest number," as Jeremy Bentham and his legion of liberal and conservative descendants have it. The state is merely something that we use to protect the rights of individuals of those who, out of bad motives or good ones, would use the power of the state to restrict.

But in a nation where less than ten percent has ever carefully thought about the words of the Declaration of Independence, where less than a fraction of one percent has ever read Paine or Burke, The Federalist OR The Anti-Federalist?

I have no clue how it will ever happen.

All I know how to do is emulate Don Quixote.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Excellent post, Wade, but you really should re-format it so that your wise words you up as yours instead of looking like I said it. Perhaps we could get some moderator help ......



hahaha I think something is needs to be repaired in the quoting. It did it to my post also.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago
Was your reference to the Commerce Clause meant to say that there in fact IS Constitutional authority for all that low-level local and state government crap and intrusion that I mentioned, so much of which gets rammed through without people or even legislators having the opportunity to vote down? Or were you just referring to the Commerce Clause as the primary Constitutional excuse used by "statists" to justify what they do?

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the disgusting re-education of several generations of Americans. The same deplorable result can be seen in a LOT of different topics beyond what you would call statism - social and moral beliefs and standards, even sports (see the concussion thread hahahaha). The thing is, Wade, those crowd-followers - the disgustingly re-educated masses - now have the voting majority by a wide margin. And lest you see any hope of undoing the situation, just look around at who dominates the three primary avenues of shaping minds: the education establishment itself, the news media, and the entertainment community.

Your line about Don Quixote: the major difference between Don Quixote and you (plural you including all those who deplore the various manifestations of "statism") is this:

When Don Quixote fought the windmills, the windmills did NOT become exponentially stronger. You guys in splitting the forces of good, have indeed strengthened extremely the exact people who are doing the most harm in terms of expanding statism. Can't you see that?
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

Was your reference to the Commerce Clause meant to say that there in fact IS Constitutional authority for all that low-level local and state government crap and intrusion that I mentioned, so much of which gets rammed through without people or even legislators having the opportunity to vote down? Or were you just referring to the Commerce Clause as the primary Constitutional excuse used by "statists" to justify what they do?



Unfortunately, because of the breadth of the decision in Wickard v. Filburn and subsequent Commerce Clause cases, there is virtually no limitation on what Congress and Feds can do to regulate our activities. I think Roberts was *trying* to put some limitation on it in the Obamacare case (can't remember name), but his reasoning was (or had to be given that long line of precedents) so tortured to get there IMO that it'll be easy for any judge to effectively ignore whatever restriction it was.

As for state and local governments, no, the Commerce clause hasn't enabled that except perhaps indirectly. Directly, the broad Commerce Power reading courts have given makes it easier for Feds to overrule actions by state/locals.

Indirectly, though, this broad reading of Article I (transforming it from a statement of limited federal powers to a statement of unlimited ones) just enables and encourages the "government is here to make life better" notion. If you look at Jackson's rationale it isn't so bad (Jackson, after all, was a pretty bright guy and a fine jurist), but if you look at what has happened when his rule was in the hands of second- and third-rate Supremes, and third- and fourth-rate judges in the lower courts, the federal rationale trumping state/local action is invariably some "better society"/"greatest good for the greatest number" nonsense. And you see that the opposing position invariably couches things in terms of the relative benefits of having the feds helping us coerce each other or having the states/locals helping us coerce each other.

Look carefully at much of the "state's rights" argument against judicial activism and you see that it is a debate about which part of the "state" [used as a synonym for government in general] has the rights to threaten people with bad consequences if they behave in one way and give them good consequences when they behave another way. Some want the fed government to have the power to coerce (most modern liberals), others want that power reserved for state [a particular kind of geographically-determined government] and local governments. Neither, however, has much interest in restraining themselves in the support of some government action to coerce other people.


I wholeheartedly agree with you about the disgusting re-education of several generations of Americans. The same deplorable result can be seen in a LOT of different topics beyond what you would call statism - social and moral beliefs and standards, even sports (see the concussion thread hahahaha). The thing is, Wade, those crowd-followers - the disgustingly re-educated masses - now have the voting majority by a wide margin. And lest you see any hope of undoing the situation, just look around at who dominates the three primary avenues of shaping minds: the education establishment itself, the news media, and the entertainment community.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I have very little hope. A nation that re-elects people like our current President, majorities that can't find anyone better than Iowa's current governor, a nation that concedes the "leadership" function to the selections made by Republican and Democratic parties when neither has proven themselves worthy of their role in decades, a nation that pays more attention to what actors say about social problems and political worth than it does to engineers and nurses, a nation that thinks either CNN or FoxNews or any other network is worthy of their time, a nation whose citizens can rarely discuss politics more deeply than the sound bites provided by candidate election committees? A nation whose holders of graduate and professional degrees are no better at filtering out the noise than high school drop outs or the victims of Downs syndrome. A nation whose citizens have barely heard of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Burke, and Tocqueville, much less actually read, discussed, or simply thought about their ideas.

No, I'm not very hopeful.

I don't see the Thomas Paines among us. I don't see the Jeffersons and the Madisons and the Adamses and the Franklins. And I certainly don't see any George Washingtons. But I do see a nation that would support the locking up any Paul Reveres or tSam Adamses.

No, I'm not very hopeful. We may have enough inertia to hold the forces of darkness out until the Babel of our social democracy and our deference to authority and our me-me-me-ness finally implodes like a worn-out Vegas resort.

I might be one of the lucky ones, since my prior bad living is likely to mean I fail to reach our average life expectancy. But the Great Experiment is on life support and our respirator cords are so damn frayed that anyone who tries to plug the machine in is more likely to get electrocuted than he or she is to get the patient breathing better.

No, I'm not very hopeful. Not at all.


Your line about Don Quixote: the major difference between Don Quixote and you (plural you including all those who deplore the various manifestations of "statism") is this:

When Don Quixote fought the windmills, the windmills did NOT become exponentially stronger. You guys in splitting the forces of good, have indeed strengthened extremely the exact people who are doing the most harm in terms of expanding statism. Can't you see that?



Ah, but you err in thinking that there are forces of good being split. Because Pogo was right.

The enemy is not the liberals or the conservatives. It is not CNN and it is not FoxNews. It is not the Republicans, it is not the Democrats. It is not the left or the right or the center. It's not even that Obama slug.

The enemy is met every day. In the mirror. It is us.

Politicians, bureaucrats, they're just really expensive prostitutes with a lifetime supply of penicillin.

It's us, the addicts to sex with really expensive prostitutes, who are the disease carriers.

The problem isn't the whorehouse. It isn't even that the whorehouse is now taller than the Twin Towers. The problem is that we all want to keep building whorehouses even though we're suffering from late-stage syphilis.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

I have very little hope. A nation that re-elects people like our current President, majorities that can't find anyone better than Iowa's current governor, a nation that concedes the "leadership" function to the selections made by Republican and Democratic parties when neither has proven themselves worthy of their role in decades, a nation that pays more attention to what actors say about social problems and political worth than it does to engineers and nurses, a nation that thinks either CNN or FoxNews or any other network is worthy of their time, a nation whose citizens can rarely discuss politics more deeply than the sound bites provided by candidate election committees? A nation whose holders of graduate and professional degrees are no better at filtering out the noise than high school drop outs or the victims of Downs syndrome. A nation whose citizens have barely heard of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Burke, and Tocqueville, much less actually read, discussed, or simply thought about their ideas.

No, I'm not very hopeful.

I don't see the Thomas Paines among us. I don't see the Jeffersons and the Madisons and the Adamses and the Franklins. And I certainly don't see any George Washingtons. But I do see a nation that would support the locking up any Paul Reveres or tSam Adamses.

No, I'm not very hopeful. We may have enough inertia to hold the forces of darkness out until the Babel of our social democracy and our deference to authority and our me-me-me-ness finally implodes like a worn-out Vegas resort.

I might be one of the lucky ones, since my prior bad living is likely to mean I fail to reach our average life expectancy. But the Great Experiment is on life support and our respirator cords are so damn frayed that anyone who tries to plug the machine in is more likely to get electrocuted than he or she is to get the patient breathing better.

No, I'm not very hopeful. Not at all.



Ah, but you err in thinking that there are forces of good being split. Because Pogo was right.

The enemy is not the liberals or the conservatives. It is not CNN and it is not FoxNews. It is not the Republicans, it is not the Democrats. It is not the left or the right or the center. It's not even that Obama slug.

The enemy is met every day. In the mirror. It is us.

Politicians, bureaucrats, they're just really expensive prostitutes with a lifetime supply of penicillin.

It's us, the addicts to sex with really expensive prostitutes, who are the disease carriers.

The problem isn't the whorehouse. It isn't even that the whorehouse is now taller than the Twin Towers. The problem is that we all want to keep building whorehouses even though we're suffering from late-stage syphilis.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Wade, I greatly admire your idealism, but didn't Paine or any of those other shapers of ideology ever say anything about "the lesser of two evils", not "throwing out the baby with the bath water", "half a loaf is better than none"?

Will you not concede at all that one political side is EXTREMELY more prone to enable "statism" by either half of the definition? And that by stubbornly dividing conservative pro-American people/voters, your side is putting that side in position to run rampant in the direction you don't want the country to go?

Back to your earlier post about Bentham and "the greater good for the greater number". IMO, it makes a helluva large difference whether that statement is mere false rhetoric designed to get votes/support OR whether it actually is the greater good for the greater number. What if it is the latter? That could easily imply a lack of fairness - grabbing from the smaller number of achievers in order to make life better for the larger number of consumers. People can argue about whether that is a good thing or not - that is the essence of the liberal v. conservative debate - the self sufficiency/self serving v. humanity/kindness debate. For purpose of this post, I'm not gonna come down on either side of that debate. I'm simply gonna say, there are a whole lot more of the consumers than there are achievers/producers. Therefore, it is a losing proposition politically to go against "the greater good for the greater number". If it's all just false rhetoric, that is another matter, but even then, the falseness must be defeated, and that is definitely an uphill battle when all the effective "educators" i.e propagandists are on the other side.

Maybe all of us "statist" conservatives should heal the rift by coming over and joining your side - supporting God damned Ron Paul - or at least Rand Paul or whatever. But IMNHO, that would just do too much harm for the country - sacrificing homeland security for phantom rights and freedoms which are threatened only in the minds of a paranoid few. And throwing away American world dominance and letting the chips fall in terms of not combatting the evil which America has saved the world from for nearly 100 years. Neville Chamberlain would have been a big Ron Paul supporter. So would Hitler hahahaha - and all the proponents of Communism too.

Nope, we, the Pro-American conservatives just can't throw away American security and dominance. Instead, we NEED the help of you, the anti-statism conservatives. With that help, we have a solid chance of "half a loaf" of anti-statism - the domestic side. Without it, we are split, and we get whatever Obama and the radical left decide to inflict on us.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

Wade, I greatly admire your idealism, but didn't Paine or any of those other shapers of ideology ever say anything about "the lesser of two evils", not "throwing out the baby with the bath water", "half a loaf is better than none"?

Will you not concede at all that one political side is EXTREMELY more prone to enable "statism" by either half of the definition? And that by stubbornly dividing conservative pro-American people/voters, your side is putting that side in position to run rampant in the direction you don't want the country to go?

Back to your earlier post about Bentham and "the greater good for the greater number". IMO, it makes a helluva large difference whether that statement is mere false rhetoric designed to get votes/support OR whether it actually is the greater good for the greater number. What if it is the latter? That could easily imply a lack of fairness - grabbing from the smaller number of achievers in order to make life better for the larger number of consumers. People can argue about whether that is a good thing or not - that is the essence of the liberal v. conservative debate - the self sufficiency/self serving v. humanity/kindness debate. For purpose of this post, I'm not gonna come down on either side of that debate. I'm simply gonna say, there are a whole lot more of the consumers than there are achievers/producers. Therefore, it is a losing proposition politically to go against "the greater good for the greater number". If it's all just false rhetoric, that is another matter, but even then, the falseness must be defeated, and that is definitely an uphill battle when all the effective "educators" i.e propagandists are on the other side.

Maybe all of us "statist" conservatives should heal the rift by coming over and joining your side - supporting God damned Ron Paul - or at least Rand Paul or whatever. But IMNHO, that would just do too much harm for the country - sacrificing homeland security for phantom rights and freedoms which are threatened only in the minds of a paranoid few. And throwing away American world dominance and letting the chips fall in terms of not combatting the evil which America has saved the world from for nearly 100 years. Neville Chamberlain would have been a big Ron Paul supporter. So would Hitler hahahaha - and all the proponents of Communism too.

Nope, we, the Pro-American conservatives just can't throw away American security and dominance. Instead, we NEED the help of you, the anti-statism conservatives. With that help, we have a solid chance of "half a loaf" of anti-statism - the domestic side. Without it, we are split, and we get whatever Obama and the radical left decide to inflict on us.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



I'm not sure how I "divide" conservative voters. Are you confusing me with Ron/Rand Paul?

As for one side being worse statists than the other...I think it's a tossup. Oh, if I have to settle for "lesser of evils" I probably would go to the conservative side of things. But that's because I'm as bad as everyone else -- it doesn't bother me as much when the rules restrict others more than they restrict me.

But if you look at the so-called conservatives/Republicans since I've been paying attention -- Nixon, Ford, Reagan (who I voted for twice), Bush I (who I voted for), Bush II-A (who I voted for), Bush II-B (who I didn't) -- they have increased the reaching/sticky/manipulating/forcing/regulatory fingers into our lives just as much as the Carters and Clintons did. Government didn't get smaller under either of them. Intrusion into our lives didn't get smaller.

And the reason it didn't get smaller is, again, that that's what the American people demand of them. "There oughta be a law" is our natural reaction to just about any problem.

Sorry, but I am no longer a conservative of any kind.

If you want the state, any state, to solve our problems, you are part of the problem. Not part of the solution.

The problem isn't splitting the vote. The problem is thinking voting is the way to solve the problems. The problem isn't that the other side gets power. The problem is thinking that getting power is the way to solve the problems.




And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (47m) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (1h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (12h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (18h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (19h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (20h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (23h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.