A moment of your time please, Libertarian

The BBQ Pit
1

I hate to do it, but regarding your drive-by snottiness in Why didn’t socialism take off in the U.S.? In what I can only construe as a comment on my explanations of Constitutional law to december, you said:

I was originally going to post this in the original thread, but it quickly became apparent that my response is not appropriate for GD. Accordingly:

Which in turn intercepted my discussion with december, and which strongly implied that I was belittling him because he is not an attorney as I am. That is simply not so. I was explaining what the law is when you butted in with your gratuitous lawyer-bashing.

Tough luck, that. If you opine about what the law is or how you think it should be interpreted, it is entirely reasonable–not to mention informative–for another person to reply with an explanation of what the law, in fact, is. That is especially true where, as in the thread in question, resolution of the issue depends on what the law actually is, not just a bunch of people expounding on what they wish it to be.

See, december said the Constitution prevented or inhibited the development of socialism in the United States. I disagreed with that, and provided legal authorities that showed how the Constitution (the commerce clause, specifically) placed little or no impediment to socialism. december followed up with another assertion about the state of the law, which I corrected (with reference to legal authorities, even). You then popped in with a comment that reflected directly on me and my posts, to the effect that december’s opinion must be “worthless” because he is not in “a private club” consisting of lawyers, judges, and legislators. It’s not helpful, it’s not appreciated, and it’s damn well snotty of you.

That is false. They are not just opinions. They are the law. Unlike your fantasy world, this is a nation where all kinds of laws exist. Acknowledging that is hardly grounds for expliclitly or implicitly bashing someone who explains what they are.

Really, Lib, these GD drive-bys of yours lately, where you whack people upside the head with the libertarianism stick without adding anything os substance to the discussion, are getting quite tiresome. I’ve long valued and respected you as a poster, but it’s time to cut it out.

2

That’s funny, though…I don’t recall any oath to follow the orders of the Supreme Court. Interesting take of Lib’s that.

3

Gee. a lawyer defending the near-exclusive lock that lawyers and judges have on America these days. I am shocked!

4

Fuck off, Robert. I “defended” no such thing. Hell, I didn’t even address it. You, like Lib, have merely descended into a thread to offer your opinion that lawyers suck. I expect better from Lib. You? You’re just an asshole.

5

Oh good, another knee jerking lawyer basher, we were running low on them.

I believe that minty’s point is that in the debate in question (as with many debates that fringe on ‘is this legal/ possible/ etc. in this jurisdiction’?), the issue of what the law actually says and is interpreted to mean and how it’s applied is spot on target. And, while I may be personally capable (as are many here) of reading the actual words in the Constitution, there are quite a few interpretations via the courts which have the effect of interpreting the Constitution.

So, while it’s true that I may indeed be capable of interpreting the Constitution, won’t matter one whit if the subsequent legal opinions of the courts disagree w/me.

His point of “what is the law” vs. “what I think the law is or should be” is spot on and valid.

I’ve heard that Aspercreme works well on reflexive knee problems.

6

Perhaps I missed the memo in class that said the ABA standard was now such that ONLY lawyers and judges could hire lawyers. See, in my naïveté, I had assumed that every single person had the right to hire a lawyer to defend and advocate his or her point of view.
But thank you, RobertTB, for pointing out my folly. I’ll be sure to ask my professor what our agenda is so that I can start following it toot sweet.

7

You’re shocked? Imagine how I felt when I discovered that I agree with Minty on something!

8

minty green

Your overly aggressive and pompous attitude shows up in so many GD threads.

I understand your need to debate, argue, roll your eyes, be overly defensive and rude…it’s a personality trait that more than likely contributed to your desire become a lawyer in the first place.

Maybe I misinterpret the holier-than-thou tone in so many of your posts or maybe you’re just cranky and bitter. Even the title of this thread, linked from GD comes of a little snooty. My guess: you more than likely need to get laid & loosen up a little.

9

However, be sure to consult a doctor before beginning this or any other course of treatment. :wink:

10

Great, that’s two random assholes I could care less about. John, m’boy, I’ve long considered you a prick of the first order, not to mention only slightly more sentient than the more sophisticated forms of dirt. Your disdain for me is therefore duly noted and accepted as a sign of ignorance well and truly fought. Also, be careful when you wander into GD. That’s where the big kids hang out.

Now, I was really hoping that Libertarian–somebody whose opinions I do value and respect–would drop by to explain what he meant and why he said it in the linked thread.

11

And in case anyone missed it a couple months ago, here is my Pit thread where JohnBckWLD got eviscerated. Don’t miss the linked GD thread that inspired it all, where his ignorance was demonstrated by multiple posters, including me.

Sorry to hear you’re still sore, JohhnyBoy.

12

sure, go ahead and defend the near-exclusive lock that doctors and medical personnel have on medicine. :wink:

13

While Minty Green is a totally evil and reprehensible human being, and I can barely begin to list his many faults, I have generally found him to wield his lawyerly knowledge in a polite and informative fashion. He tends to be neutral and even-handed when clarifying a point of law and doesn’t use his special knowledge as a bludgeon.

Since it’s the only thing that he ever does right, it kind of sucks to give him a hard time about it.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Minty Green deserves a better class of enemy than you shitbirds.

14

Y’know, minty. I heard it is a side effect of your case of Raving Bitchitis that makes you see assholes everywhere, even when you look in the mirror.

Maybe when your case of Raving Bitchitis clears up, you will see things more clearly.

Of course, this case seems to have been going on for YEARS.

15

No. Better than that.

16

Ummm . . .

Hey Minty–you smell like poop.
(How’s that?)

17

Personally, I find Libertarian to be an excellent example of the wonderful complexity of human beings.

I value his opinions and insight on many topics. I think he does well representing a more modern angle on Christianity, for example, as a faith of love and tolerance and acceptance. (And this comes from an atheist.) (That said, the “ontological proof” thing is getting old.)

Likewise, I thought the thread he put together a few months ago on the top fifty movies – I forget the criteria: quality? influence? whatever – was leagues beyond the similar material spewed by the American Film Institute.

When it comes to political structures, though, I think he’s got some big-ass blinders on. Libertarianism, to me, is an interesting and idealized system that works well on paper but not in the real world because it fails to take into account many weaknesses of human psychology. When Lib tries to reduce every single issue to a question of property, I usually roll my eyes.

And specifically re the issue in the OP, about interpretation of law, I think he’s completely off the mark. It’s like he’s standing on the third-base line, complaining that the diamond would work better if it were a pentagon or something. Not an invalid perspective. Just irrelevant to the system under which we live.

So. Generally good-hearted person, articulate writer, unique thinker, occasionally an ass. Sounds to me like the perfect prescription for a valuable contributor to the SDMB.

18

Minty, take the comment quoted as symptomatic of something that has been running rampant on these boards for some time, and maybe since their beginning. There are a fair number of people who are with us here because this is the one place in the world that their opinions get equal space. They get very hostile when it is pointed out that their opinions are marginal or their thinking flawed. When their positions are criticized, they react like petulant children–and why not, since criticism simply diminishes the luster of their brief moment in the spotlight. Trying to correct these people is very much a pearls before swine proposition. Pigs don’t much appreciate pearls and they sure won’t thank you for them.

Why lawyers in particular as the target of their wrath? Easy answer, lawyers scare the hell out of them. Lawyers with their ready resort to the wisdom of the ages and their ability to administer the quick reality check. Lawyers all the time boring in on the weakness of their logic. Lawyers all the time puncturing their balloon by citing chapter and verse showing that their particular take the rules of a civilized society is not shared by the institutions that make and interpret the rules. Lawyers who know the secret words and phrases that conjure up the forces that are always keeping out friends down and depriving them of their rightful place as arbitrator of every thing. We all know that if your life is not as you would like, if you don’t get it your way every time, if the rules of the society are the way you would make them then it all some lawyer’s fault.

19

Oh no! Not a “snooty” title in the pit… what ** is ** the world coming to?

20

I’ve had a bone to pick with Lib recently.

About this thread.

Ok, His first few posts in that thread were fine. He was asking for some information that would clarify some points (while not being rude).

Then it degrades to an accusition of me using more than one username (something I would never do as I believe it is a punishable offense here as well as a rude move):

(I never did get a reason why he brought this up if he wasn’t questioning my veracity)

He calls other posters in the thread “lap dogs” (while the only people he could be targeting were ones who were simply saying they were sorry that the event happened)

after being asked to kindly lighten up by another poster he responds with:

Also, other posters repetedly brought up the possibility that he was analyzing the situation to death (the main reason his contributions to that thread were not appreciated by many).