See other 4play Articles
Title: Goldi on Women's Suffrage
Source:
ElPee
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... rt.cgi?ArtNum=162468&Disp=5#C4
Published: Oct 16, 2006
Author: Goldi-Lox
Post Date: 2006-10-16 21:50:48 by Nostalgia
Keywords: None
Views: 1281
Comments: 142
4. To: High Hopes (#0) Women led the opposition, with seven in 10 saying they oppose the war. Twenty-eight percent say they support it, which is the lowest support among women in any CNN poll taken since the invasion more than three years ago. Women voting is a mistake. Women are emotional, changeable, and notoriously unstable because of hormone flux. They usually want to talk talk talk talk a situation over, under, around, and to death. LONG after the time for action. And action, even when the right thing to do, is the LAST thing they want, and will try to stop it after it starts. I'm a woman, and I know this is true. I'd give up my vote in a minute if they took it away from all other women as well. We just don't have what it takes to be "rulers" and "deciders". Those roles require cooler heads and harder hearts. Goldi-Lox posted on 2006-10-16 17:54:48 ET Reply Trace
Poster Comment: Oy Vey
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Nostalgia (#0)
I understand she burnt her bra years ago after it stopped working.
Oh my! Is she trying to build some sort of female hysteria defense for an upcoming trial we don't know about?
I think we should restrict the vote to men over 35 and women past menopause. No estrogen, a little testosterone, but not too much.
I agree with her. I think she's telling us how she really feels.
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
well, doncha just love the generalization? all women are like her. i don't think so.
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
Goldi is angry at the 70% that do not support her war.
She means "harder heads and colder hearts". The Palis are dogs right Gold? She's got issues, and they run deep.
"Americans are un American"
54% of Americans disagree!
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. - William S. Burroughs
No...Goldi is saying that "American WOMEN are un-American". 70% of WOMEN oppose the war...that is why she wants the 19th repealed.
Dear Goofy-Lox, why are you running a forum? I mean, if you are a hormone addled twit resign. If you don't feel the voting franchise should be used, stay home. Get a husband, do ironing, watch soaps, invite TLBSHOWBOAT over and share these profound, woman hating revelations you both share. And walk on the street when I walk down the sidewalk, I don't want one of you nasty second class women taking up space us real citizens deserve. /sarcasm There is something wrong with that idiot, and it ain't her gender.
Non proxy Munchausens?
Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has. - William S. Burroughs
He's very slow on paying his bills.
Hey Fred, can you lend me a few grand?
Do I hear a fat lady singing?
Classic Likud Post. Saved and copied.
She needs to get laid more than once in the last 10 years.
No, bruthah. I've got 6k plus due in and I'm a sucker. But, I've got a hot babe coming over tonight.
lol
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
Wow, I knew she was crazy as a shithouse rat, but this is beyond even my ability to believe. She's a stupid bitch who thinks all women are more stupid than she is. She needs a good slapping, and I bet she migrates to men who will give one to her. What a putz.
I don't get hot babes any more. I guess I've lost all my charm.
Do I hear a fat lady singing?
Could be. A couple of months ago she posted a couple of times that she wanted to fly an airplane into the UN building. Maybe the JBTs she loves so much have finally taken her into custody.
She likes her hair pulled...
Do I hear a fat lady singing?
Jesus, who's going to do that?
That IOU getting threadbare and care worn in the old wallet Fred old bean?
we should all kick in and buy buckeroo a plane ticket to maryland.
Remember, free speech is a privilege, not a right. In time of war speech should be censored and even prosecuted if it crosses the line. ~ Aaron on LP
Why is it that those with the most problems rule? Why do the deeply disturbed ascend to lord it over (and thereby diminish) the lives of the mostly well- adjusted? It goes something like this... First, nuts like Goldi falsely project their own failings onto humanity generally. Then, they neurotically seek to tyranize the whole in a vain quest to gain control over themselves. This is why Foley leads the charge on anti-pedophile legislation. And why Goldi seeks to disenfranchise her gender. They are inner-impelled to "free" themselves by enslaving the rest of us. To gain "sanity" by making the rest of us inmates in their own personal assylum. Perhaps this explains Bush's tyrannical impulses as well. After all, the child who cruelly maims frogs... and the man who murders 650,000 innocent Iraqis... Is a man-child in desperate need of a keeper.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Will any woman lay Bucky? I'll chip in.
go to the halloween store and pick up one of those rubber pull over bush masks.
Remember, free speech is a privilege, not a right. In time of war speech should be censored and even prosecuted if it crosses the line. ~ Aaron on LP
She looks a lot like my Mother-in-law. I probably should just let it go at that.
i think that's an accurate analysis, Dr. Arator. :P
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
Enter Screen Names of recipients separated by commas or semicolons. Good thinking.
Are those marines? ;o)
Honestly, I don't think a real woman would write this.
God is always good! Goofy-Lox feels herself being pulled in half. She supports the war criminals in power, but she is pissed because we have not declared on Mexico too. She resents Bush creating the conflict of supporting one evil and not being evil enough in terms of the immigration issue. This is one sick, nasty Neo Con. She has reached the Charles Bronson vigilante stage. You can just sense the one unspoken truth she has in her tiny bonelocked mind is she wants all liberals interned with leaders killed as the South African government used to do when any Black leaders emerged. Sally does not need her forum. It has become a tool she uses to ban, belittle and harass people who disagree with her. I was looking at old E mailings where she gave me a time out because she said I was too critical too often of Bush. She told me to get a blog. That's strange, I thought political forums were supposed to be where one expressed their political beliefs and why they have them. We really need to gather evidence like her telling me what news sources are forbidden after the fact of them being used and her claim that people like those with communist beliefs have no right to express their views or act like they have citizen's responsibilities and sue to have her change her cover page where she lies about el pee being an open forum. I'm willing to bet she would cave and change it just to avoid the court scheme. She also slandered me claiming my good friend Raisedeyebrows is me because we have often posted from the same site. I'm getting tired of this. The vulnerabilities are there, the only question is whether it is or is not a good idea to exploit them at this time.
Yes and no, she is very likely female, but in no way is she a lady or even a woman of the species in good standing.
Do they make large enough liquor water bottles for animal carriers to accommodate Buckeroo? Just curious mind you. I'm betting he can whine loud enough to disturb the regular passengers in the area above the cargo deck.
Good golly Miss Molly. I hope it wasn't twins he was carrying. That is one plump Elvis.
He is obviously carrying "twins". I suggest his taylor make some pant adjustments, and real soon.
Hey, taking pictures of the FRetard City Patriot Potties/After-Action Buffet security cops is NOT ALLOWED. Rimjob is going to very unhappy with you.
Pathetic. About as impressive as Rachael Corrie being at fault for her bulldozer death. Or palianimals having the right to breathe.
Oh ick. Just noticed that. Glad I already ate dinner.
um..i see some twins there. :P
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
Pray it wasn't raw Oysters.
hahahahaha...i wrote my observation before i read yours.
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
US troops 'winning friends in Iraq' Why does Buck post these there at LP? Then he makes a show that he hates the piece and that he is, "...not a liberal nor a democrat as you claim. Nor am I a "compassionate conservative" or a Republican as yourself" to a bot's bot there. There are just some things I can't understand about the lad.
So I guess this means she should resign her position as forum moderator as, by her own admission, she is obviously unable to render sensible decisions because of her sex. I'll have to bring this up with her tomorrow.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Just don't let her serve what this guy's having: Because I feel like posting that ludicrous crap. I love the torturous methods of enigmas snapping jellyfish's backs ... like yours.
Actually, it is more the tactic of those conflicted. You are like the guy who says no while shaking your head yes. As far as torturous goes, I have no problem with your loony thread posting there. And as far as insults go, yours' amuse me.
You are very confused. I have maintained my perspectives upon the various HOT political topics forever. You know that, too. Of course, you won't produce any links worthy of merit to actually contradict me, either. All you can do is say what you believe which is an outright lie.
Believe? I didn't say I believed anything. I noted an interesting manner in which you seem to court conflict. You spoke so glowingly and compassionately about Goofy-Lox being a Mama protecting her creation, LP. Then you post an article she would agree with and post back patting denials that that is how you feel about the war. So, are you empathetic with her and trying to contribute in ways she likes, or hacking at her? You seem to have some conflict and I merely inquire regarding this. CS - "Goldi is just another JimRob." Rubbish. Shes struggling. Shes seeing a change in the political climate; shes renewed her forum with a re-fresh of tech and sees new forum members pouncing in more than ever. Shes a mother hen wanting none other than to protect the forum. Nothing wrong with that .... but, the strain is showing. buckeroo posted on 2006-05-04 2:17:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply I rarely perform the gang pings that you elude to. The article I posted was not intended for Goldie or anyone in particular. I simply stated my opinion by ripping it up which I have always performed. In effect, it was intended for EVERYONE including yourself whom is making a BIG_DEAL out of it. Ever since I have been at LP ( since 2002-3 ) I have been against GW Bush's Iraqi invasion. EVERYONE knows it, to include EVERYONE on 4um but yourself. Get a life, pal. You are losing yourself in delusion.
Yes, I am. Sally, for the most part has a much larger problem on LP than most forums. The spectrum of opinion is much wider than say here at 4um, as an example. I didn't like her banning you and a number of other posters. And I stated my adverse opinion about it, AS YOU KNOW.
How special of you. You are conflicted. When I showed you the contradiction inherent to your call to murder a man who acted in accordance with his conscious and refused to go back to take part in what he had come to realize is an illegal and immoral conflict you went ballistic and avoided any further discussion on the topic. He acted in accordance with the Geneva Accords that superseded his oath of enlistment. And you reacted by going nutz. So, what is it Buck? An illegal and immoral conflict people should display good moral judgment and refuse to take part in? Should the Geneva Convention that calls upon people who would say, "I was only following orders" to remember they have higher responsibilities, some of which call for them to disobey illegal orders be taken seriously? Or what? No, you are conflicted, that is obvious. And you have a Madonna/Whore relationship with Goofy-Lox on top of it. I only note what I see Buckeroo. I am more impressed by the contradictions I note then by your bluster about your beliefs.
The man contradicted his own oath. In the REAL world, we don't get to sit around and act like pansies protected by the tooth-fairy. We stand tall and confront our own basis of reality. We maintain our honor by ensuring that our own oath is actually worth something besides an at-ta-boy. The decision to join the military is totally voluntary in the US. And its a serious matter. The later decision to abandon his oath was, as well. But, it jeopardized others within his own unit. It could have cost others their lives.
ROTFL.
One cannot be honor bound to commit immoral acts. Few who took that oath ever anticipated the evil of these blood soaked neocons. No oath can be invoked to obscure the fact that the killing of non combatants is murder. No order to do so can be lawfully enforced. And, the logical place for an honest man in a corrupt system IS IN JAIL! Did you disagree with the Nuremberg findings that "I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS" was not an excuse?
It's a natural attraction, Mother Nature wouldn't make a mistake...what really turns me on...is the shake__Neal McCoy
You don't know squat, do you? Smirk, Rummy and Snarl violated the spirit of the oaths taken by our military men and women by engaging them in a war not conducted for the defense of this country. It is a war that makes nonsense of the oath by making our men and women who swore it mercenaries to Imperialism, and for profit entities like Kellogg Brown and Root. They didn't raise their right hand to take part in a pointless war of zero purpose to wind up being whores for Haliburton In a nonsense war with no mission or real defensive purpose, men do foolish things out of frustration and because our culture not grounded in good ethical behavior. They shoot at the cars of innocents to speed them up or move them out of the way on the road. They get angry and pull a man out and put a bullet in his head frustrated at deaths in their unit and because they could/t find whom they were looking for (real incident). The oaths were compromised by making people work in a war that is one huge war crime. I would refuse to go if I were still in. If enough people did combat refusals in illegal and immoral wars, they would be doing the true and best defense of their country. He went giving the liars the benefit of the doubt. He found out they were indeed lying and putting his unit and him in needless jeopardy of their lives for a purposeless conflict. He has courage, ethics and conviction. People like you who feel the oath is like some blood initiation into a mafia generally don't understand what a commitment to that oath means. He didn't abandon his oath, he honored it by refusing to fight in a war that makes nonsense of the sworn commitment to defend this republic and her constitution. It is Bush and company who take hat oath lightly and consider the U.S. Constitution a "goddamn piece of paper." We had our first refusals by officers to fly combat missions in B-52s doing carpet bombing in Indochina as the criminal Nixon shifted from a ground war to a navel bombardment and air war. Those were brave men with true principles accepting imprisonment and other negative sanctions rather then engage in criminal conduct at the behest of criminals of the illegal war making kind. Get your head out of your ass Buck. This is the real world and that oath means something. And if a man is smart and moral enough to put two and two together and realize they actually are being made to dishonor their oath bu serving in an illegal and immoral war, he is honor bound to refuse to go to that theater of operations.
Well said, great post.
Thank you. Actually, you said it better than I could. I believe that many Vietnam era vets feel the same and would have the courage to refuse and the morals to understand why. But, sadly, the military is now the JOB CORPS, and as Jefferson said, "Literacy is not a luxury, it is a moral condition." As the standards for enlistment fall ever lower we are arming up less educated (and less moral) individuals. It's no coincidence that for the most part the principled refuseniks are officers, and the AWOLers are just scared kids who don't want to get their brains shot partially away and end up drooling in playpens. The former understand the moral bankruptcy of this bloody imperialist folly, the latter just know that it isn't for the preservation of the Merken Way.
I love you. Don't make me point you out because you know who you are!
No oath can be invoked to obscure the fact that the killing of non combatants is murder. No order to do so can be lawfully enforced. And, the logical place for an honest man in a corrupt system IS IN JAIL! so very well stated.
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
I had a decision to make in those Vietnam war days. Do I go to the Moratorium Day demonstration against the war, then lie to the school where I had been. Going to a demonstration was not an authorized absence, and it was made clear to us in a special announcement by our vice principal. I decided to go ahead and say why I was absent. I decided I was right to stand and be counted against this evil war. I decided not to let them pervert my convictions by making me get a parental note saying I was elsewhere authorized as an absence. I was suspended for four days. Two who also did as I did were thrown off the student council for following their principles and exercising good ethical behavior and not lying about going to a demonstration forbidden only because it conflicted with the school administration's political views. We then had a sit-down strike the next day that paralyzed the school. Others and I were suspended for two weeks missing final exams for the school year. We had been promised re-reinstatement and a nullifying of the four day suspensions if we assuaged to requests to end the strike. I was thrown off the National Honor Society for, "grade problems and showing lack of commitment toward proper community and peer leadership." They even made a big deal about getting the pin back, (which I still have) trying to get my new school in Eugene, Oregon to watch for it if I wore it to seize it. It was not a move that added building blocks to a well padded resume. But I did the right thing. I learned early on that if you go against the wrong political corrosive flow, you will be made to pay and pay dearly. It put the fire in my belly I have to this day against this sort of ideological bullying. I won a special court martial my first enlistment accusing me of flipping the flag off during the National Anthem. I decided that this was so revoltingly and patently false and after a purpose as painting me as unAmerican for my political views of which I was very outspoken, I decided that if I were indeed to be convicted of what I would never do, I would ask for the longest sentence possible as a protest and demonstration of my will not to be bowed for my views. I learned how to be a good citizen with a discriminating and inquisitive mind by rejecting the fetishes that would tempt me to do otherwise. And if they ever, ever start rounding people up a la Nazi Germany for the 'wrong views,' I am going to make them pay as dearly as I humanly can for doing so. That is not a promise, that is a blood vow.
again, well said. as i have told buckeroo before, it takes a whole lot more courage to resist this evil once one comes to understand it than it does to go along--mistaken oath to the devil be damned.
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
you do have a most interesting history, Mike. i was so, so unaware of all this back then and, really, up until the last 5 yrs or so.
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
I was suspended for four days. Two who also did as I did were thrown off the student council for following their principles and exercising good ethical behavior and not lying about going to a demonstration forbidden only because it conflicted with the school administration's political views. We then had a sit-down strike the next day that paralyzed the school. Others and I were suspended for two weeks missing final exams for the school year. We had been promised re-reinstatement and a nullifying of the four day suspensions if we assuaged to requests to end the strike. I was thrown off the National Honor Society for, "grade problems and showing lack of commitment toward proper community and peer leadership." They even made a big deal about getting the pin back, (which I still have) trying to get my new school in Eugene, Oregon to watch for it if I wore it to seize it. It was not a move that added building blocks to a well padded resume. But I did the right thing. I learned early on that if you go against the wrong political corrosive flow, you will be made to pay and pay dearly. "The best students all pledge Omega, something that will look good on YOUR permanent record, Chip."__Greg Marmalard I wouldn't worry to much about it. Corporate America is looking for people who are innovative and with .....relaxed moral standards. They expect you to job hunt using their WATS line and to Zerox your Rolodex when you leave. In other words, corporate America is a whore house and they won't look down on your youthful idealism too harshly. (just don't testify before congress against them or they'll send some goons to slip an icepick in your ear) You may consider working for someone with a code of ethics. The Medellin Cartel, for instance.
I love you. Don't make me point you out because you know who you are!
EEEwwwww!!! Roll'em up el tanke goldilicks. LOL.
I'm a woman, and I know this is true.
#2. To: Nostalgia, ..., Brian S, aristeides, Itisa1mosttoolate, mehitable (#0)
#3. To: Nostalgia (#0)
Lord loves a workin' man; don't trust whitey; see a doctor and get rid of it.
#4. To: robin (#2)
#5. To: Nostalgia (#0)
#6. To: Nostalgia (#0)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#7. To: Nostalgia (#0)
Those roles require cooler heads and harder hearts.
#8. To: who knows what evil (#6)
Goldi is angry at the 70% that do not support her war
#9. To: jessejane, rowdee, Morgana Le Fay, Minerva, Zipporah, Lady X, Diana (#0)
(Edited)
#10. To: tom007 (#8)
"Americans are un American"
#11. To: tom007 (#8)
"Americans are un American"
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#12. To: Nostalgia (#0)
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
Get a husband, do ironing, watch soaps, invite TLBSHOWBOAT over
#15. To: Fred Mertz (#14)
#16. To: Nostalgia (#0)
Women are emotional, changeable, and notoriously unstable because of hormone flux.
#17. To: Nostalgia (#0)
I'm a woman, and I know this is true.
#18. To: Critter (#15)
#19. To: leveller (#16)
#20. To: Nostalgia (#0)
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#18)
#22. To: robin (#2)
Is she trying to build some sort of female hysteria defense for an upcoming trial we don't know about?
remote area who, after being asked by Reconnaissance Marines if
he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied "Yes, you."
#23. To: Mekons4 (#20)
I bet she migrates to men who will give one to her.
#24. To: angle (#17)
She needs to get laid more than once in the last 10 years.
#25. To: Fred Mertz (#14)
"He's very slow on paying his bills."
#26. To: angle (#17)
She needs to get laid more than once in the last 10 years.
#27. To: Ferret Mike, christine (#12)
(Edited)
There is something wrong with that idiot, and it ain't her gender.
#28. To: Morgana le Fay (#26)
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#28)
(Edited)
Will any woman lay Bucky? I'll chip in.
#30. To: Nostalgia (#24)
remote area who, after being asked by Reconnaissance Marines if
he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied "Yes, you."
#31. To: Nostalgia (#24)
We're ready for Goldie.
#32. To: All (#31)
#33. To: Arator (#27)
#34. To: Esso (#30)
She looks a lot like my Mother-in-law. I probably should just let it go at that.
#35. To: tom007 (#31)
#36. To: Nostalgia (#0)
I'm a woman, and I know this is true.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#37. To: Arator (#27)
#38. To: RickyJ (#36)
"Honestly, I don't think a real woman would write this."
#39. To: Morgana le Fay, Buckeroo (#26)
"we should all kick in and buy buckeroo a plane ticket to Maryland."
#40. To: tom007 (#32)
#41. To: Ferret Mike (#40)
I hope it wasn't twins he was carrying.
#42. To: tom007 (#31)
We're ready for Goldie.
#43. To: Nostalgia (#9)
#44. To: tom007 (#41)
(Edited)
"He is obviously carrying "twins"."
#45. To: Ferret Mike, tom007 (#40)
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#44)
Glad I already ate dinner.
#47. To: tom007 (#41)
#48. To: Morgana le Fay, Buckeroo (#26)
#49. To: Nostalgia, all (#0)
#50. To: mehitable (#49)
"I'll have to bring this up with her tomorrow."
#51. To: Ferret Mike (#48)
Why does Buck post these there at LP?
#52. To: buckeroo (#51)
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
You are like the guy who says no while shaking your head yes.
#54. To: buckeroo (#53)
(Edited)
"All you can do is say what you believe which is an outright lie.
#9. To: Coral Snake (#5)
#55. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
So, are you empathetic with her ...
#57. To: buckeroo (#55)
(Edited)
"I rarely perform the gang pings that you elude to."
"Ever since I have been at LP ( since 2002-3 ) I have been against GW Bush's Iraqi invasion. EVERYONE knows it, to include EVERYONE on 4um but yourself."
#58. To: Ferret Mike (#57)
When I showed you the contradiction inherent to your call to murder a man who acted in accordance with his conscious and refused to go back to take part in what he had come to realize is an illegal and immoral conflict you went ballistic and avoided any further discussion on the topic.
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#57)
And you have a Madonna/Whore relationship with Goofy-Lox on top of it.
#60. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike, Zipporah, christine (#58)
The man contradicted his own oath.
#61. To: buckeroo (#58)
(Edited)
"The man contradicted his own oath. In the REAL world, we don't get to sit around and act like pansies protected by the tooth-fairy. We stand tall and confront our own basis of reality. We maintain our honor by ensuring that our own oath is actually worth something besides an at-ta-boy."
" The decision to join the military is totally voluntary in the US. And its a serious matter. The later decision to abandon his oath was, as well. But, it jeopardized others within his own unit. It could have cost others their lives."
#62. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
"And, the logical place for an honest man in a corrupt system IS IN JAIL!"
#63. To: Ferret Mike, buckaroo, christine, Zipporah, Angel Spawn, rowdee, Diana, robin (#62)
Well said, great post.
#64. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
One cannot be honor bound to commit immoral acts. Few who took that oath ever anticipated the evil of these blood soaked neocons.
#65. To: HOUNDDAWG (#63)
#66. To: HOUNDDAWG, buckeroo (#63)
#67. To: Ferret Mike (#65)
#68. To: Ferret Mike (#65)
I decided to go ahead and say why I was absent. I decided I was right to stand and be counted against this evil war. I decided not to let them pervert my convictions by making me get a parental note saying I was elsewhere authorized as an absence.
#69. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
I understand she burnt her bra years ago after it stopped working.
**LEAP**
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. Government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and choking life.
-- Osama bin Laden
"A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our govt was founded."
- Lincoln
All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William K Clifford
#70. To: christine, Ferret Mike (#66)
Absolutely! (and thank you, BTW) I remember reading about a young Mennonite soldier in The Great War who was sent to Leavenworth and dribbled like a basketball by those sadistic marine guards. (in the early 20th century the govt was still not convinced of the Mennonite resolve to resist going under arms, and this unfortunate man was to be an example to his brethren) They chained him with his arms over his head standing in icey water in the winter, and he quite naturally sickened and died. When his mother came to KS to claim his remains he had already been buried in his uniform. Not only do those sadists not understand religious or moral objections, but, they are bound by nothing but loyalty to their paychecks and fear of their own medicine, and the systematic torture/murder of refuseniks doesn't cost them a single wink at night. We've heard various stories about lawyers and even a chaplain in GITMO running afoul of BushCo's little harpies. But, have you ever heard of an instructor at WHINSEC (formerly the SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS) refusing to teach the finer points of connecting battery chargers to genitalia? There is no shortage of sadists willing to teach banana republicans how to instill sheer terror in raggedy dirt farmers. They'd have us believe that pure evil was represented by Christian Szell (as played by "Sir Laurence" in MARATHON MAN-he was allegedly based on Dr. Josef Mengele) but, in fact neither the Nazis nor the Israelis can teach Americans a goddam thing about the subject. (anymore-we studied with their experts once. But, as always our boys proved to be most apt pupils, and....)
again, well said. as i have told buckeroo before, it takes a whole lot more courage to resist this evil once one comes to understand it than it does to go along--mistaken oath to the devil be damned.
I love you. Don't make me point you out because you know who you are!
#71. To: HOUNDDAWG (#70)
Young man, you're on a real roll this morning......don't stop. Not ever. The truth may be painful at times, but it is what sets us free.
#72. To: rowdee (#71)
It's not as if I have any choice, really. The IRS and various elected officials have tried repeatedly to tenderize me in the past 23 years, but it only pissed me off even more. I turned down elecrical construction work at federal rate (about $30 hr) at the NSA in Fort Meade because I knew I'd never make it past the front desk. Other buddies told me that when they ran the check on them they told them which electricians had grandfathers who were Klansmen, etc. And, I'll never get a passport or internal ID card if such a thing comes to pass. I'm resigned to the prospect of being persona non grata in what used to be my own country. I've been this way ever since they murdered JFK, and each year the running dog media hacks further aggravated my neuroses by calling me and others "conspiracy theorists". So, my disdain for the wormy govt began long before most Americans even knew there was a problem, and I made no effort to hide it.
......don't stop. Not ever. The truth may be painful at times, but it is what sets us free.
I love you. Don't make me point you out because you know who you are!
#73. To: Nostalgia (#0)
Women are emotional, changeable, and notoriously unstable because of hormone flux. They usually want to talk talk talk talk a situation over, under, around, and to death. LONG after the time for action. And action, even when the right thing to do, is the LAST thing they want, and will try to stop it after it starts. I'm a woman, and I know this is true. I'd give up my vote in a minute if they took it away from all other women as well. We just don't have what it takes to be "rulers" and "deciders". Those roles require cooler heads and harder hearts. Uh .. I'm rendered speechless.. dear gawd.
Women voting is a mistake.
#74. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
Cool the theatrics, pal. Here is the oath we are discussing: And you say that its OK for an experienced soldier to just walk away and hide. Yeah, he can just skip away, whistling Dixie while sucking a government paid lollipop without any social stigma attached to his cowardice towards his own pledge. I say he should be executed.
People like you who feel the oath is like some blood initiation into a mafia generally don't understand what a commitment to that oath means.
I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Note that the last line is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection)
#75. To: buckeroo (#74)
I posted that a few days ago, you just don't pay attention sometimes. Answer the question in this earlier post for me please: Attacking a person who is hors de combat is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3) Persons are hors de combat if they have been captured, if they have surrendered, or if they are unconscious or otherwise incapacitated provided that they do not attempt to fight or escape. (Protocol I, Art. 41, Sec. 2) Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1) Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2) http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=36741&Disp=11#C11
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36741&Disp=9#C9
#11. To: buckeroo (#8)
If I were under official orders to be in the Armed Forces and in a combat zone, and my superior officer said, "Look, they are parachuting from that plane that is about to crash, fire them up!" and I absolutely refused, I would be disobeying the enlistment oath I quoted in my last post, but I would be obeying the Geneva convention accords. Do you agree? hors de combat Combatants who are hors de combat are out of the fight are and entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They are to be protected and treated humanely, without adverse discrimination. (Convention I Art. 3; Protocol I, Art. 4)
#76. To: Ferret Mike (#75)
Yeah. And I had to remind you again. Because you don't know how to read your own posts. In short, don't commit yourself about anything. You have no honor about your own oath.
I posted that a few days ago, you just don't pay attention sometimes.
#77. To: buckeroo (#76)
Answer the question, stop stalling.
#78. To: Ferret Mike (#77)
Your hypothetical question shall never exist upon this planet. It certainly isn't within the framework of reality of my perceptions.
#79. To: buckeroo (#78)
Then why did they include that verbiage in the Geneva Accords? I am going to take that as a default to an answer that you in fact do not support the Geneva convention or international law regarding war. You sure are acting like you don't and just don't want to say so. The question is easy. A moron like Quantrill could even answer it. You feel that if you swear an oath to defend the Constitution, that obeying the orders to aid a criminal commander in chief subvert the U.S. Constitution is unavoidable because your oath says to do what they say, even should you know what they are doing is wrong. This is not the case, if they are engaged in an illegal and immoral war your oath binds you to disobey the orders of superiors that contradict the intent of their oath and yours'. This soldier is to be commented for refusing to go to combat involving an illegal and immoral war. You arguing he is duty bound to do so is a de facto support of Mr. Bush and his war efforts. You are conflicted. You don't support Bush and what he does, but you believe people who know better should act as if they don't in order to help him in the commission of conducting a wrong. You just can't have it both ways. You don't make any sense.
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#79)
Convince me why I should answer your question .... Shall I learn that no matter which answer I provide, you shall attempt to be outraged? Isn't that why you invited me to this thread in the first place? And, moreover, I see you have changed your reasons to chat with me. The issue you have with me has nothing to do with Goldi, the thread's title. Nor is the issue about my perspective concerning honor, some past thread you picked off from LP. You just want to play around. You want to see if I contradict myself in such a way that you can achieve a method of immortality to eliminate those stale elephant GOP cartoons that you use as your postscript. Get rid of that crap, you look foolish.
If I were under official orders to be in the Armed Forces and in a combat zone, and my superior officer said, "Look, they are parachuting from that plane that is about to crash, fire them up!" and I absolutely refused, I would be disobeying the enlistment oath I quoted in my last post, but I would be obeying the Geneva convention accords. Do you agree?
#81. To: buckeroo (#80)
yawn
Remember, free speech is a privilege, not a right. In time of war speech should be censored and even prosecuted if it crosses the line. ~ Aaron on LP
#82. To: buckeroo (#80)
It is a simple question not requiring much effort. I don't intend outrage or attack whatever your answer. I ask because I am curious. You contradict yourself and you don't want to talk about it. In regards to playing Martha Steward concerning my additions to my posts, I don't give a rats ass if you like them or not. Do you or do you not believe the oath of enlistment means one must obey illegal orders given by superiors even if obeying them violates the Geneva Accords?
#83. To: Ferret Mike (#82)
So why did you ping me to this thread? You want something don't you? And when I didn't give you what you wanted about Goldi ( your wonder-woman ) you changed the subject attempting to continue some form of grievous questioning that could have been easily performed on the appropriate thread. No tact .. no honor. No understanding.
I don't intend outrage or attack whatever your answer.
#84. To: rowdee, HOUNDDAWG (#71)
a man of substance (but i'm not pointing him out ;)
Young man, you're on a real roll this morning
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
#85. To: Morgana le Fay (#81)
SleepyTime in NewYork ...
#86. To: Ferret Mike (#82)
Reshape your question, grasshopper .. into an intelligible method from which I can answer. Your inferences give away your October Surprise. You forget that I am a vet as yourself.
Do you or do you not believe the oath of enlistment means one must obey illegal orders given by superiors even if obeying them violates the Geneva Accords?
#87. To: buckeroo (#83)
You blubbered about pots mentioning you without a ping, so I included one as I had said I would should I mention your account name. Make up your mind; do you ant me to ping you when I mention you or not? You invited yourself in. I merely pinged you when mentioning your account name as I had said I would as per your request/whine previously. Honestly Buck, grow the hell up. You can really be quite the little fussbudget.
"So why did you ping me to this thread? You want something don't you?"
"And when I didn't give you what you wanted about Goldi ( your wonder-woman ) you changed the subject attempting to continue some form of grievous questioning that could have been easily performed on the appropriate thread."
#88. To: buckeroo (#86) (Edited)
One either supports the Geneva Accords or does not. I assume your answer is you do not. I am through playing games. I default to assuming the answer you make most likely through experience in dealing with non-answers like yours. I don't live in frustration wondering things. You do not support the Geneva Accords, anyone violating them are good troops as long as they obey their superior's orders. That is exactly what you believe.
"Reshape your question, grasshopper .. into an intelligible method from which I can answer. Your inferences give away your October Surprise. You forget that I am a vet as yourself."
#89. To: Ferret Mike (#87)
Your Internet etiquette goes a long way for me to describe any offensive or defensive material as I choose. A ping to me helps so as to relieve my HUGE task list about baby-sitting renegade Internet posters that have obviously formed an opinion to grind an axe with me. Irrespective of your reasoning, you act like I hurt you somehow. Over the 8 years you and I have posted on web boards on the Internet ( don't know if you post on IRC, Usenet, BBS ) ... where have I attempted to hurt you?
#90. To: Ferret Mike (#88)
That's a government treaty. The acts of government bodies are considered not mine.
One either supports the Geneva Accords or does not.
#91. To: christine, HOUNDDAWG (#84)
Yeah....lets not discuss the substance :)
a man of substance (but i'm not pointing him out ;)
#92. To: buckeroo (#89)
Nowhere I know of. You have strange ways of looking at things, but I don't dislike you. In any event, I wouldn't worry that much about my opinion and priorities when posting. And I wouldn't try this hard to put me on the defensive when changing the subject anyway. I'm familiar with the tactic. That doesn't work on me either.
"Irrespective of your reasoning, you act like I hurt you somehow. Over the 8 years you and I have posted on web boards on the Internet ( don't know if you post on IRC, Usenet, BBS ) ... where have I attempted to hurt you?"
#93. To: Ferret Mike (#88)
Lets see now .... from Goldi to Geneva ... what no G- Strings to compliment your tirade with me? Well, the good news, I like Gold as in Au. I enjoy having lots of the stuff. LOL ... you are too funny. You couldn't Grind an axe with me if you wanted to. I can Grind an axe as I choose with you, though. Its just the way it is, pal. But, I have never hurt you in any way .. nor do I intend to.
I don't live in frustration wondering things.
#94. To: Ferret Mike (#92)
You are attempting the chess game of intellectual battle with me, playing an offense. I am just asking about your intentions is all; and as I do so, I am slowly chipping away your capability to defend your own arguments against me. Its your tirade, not mine. HELL, I can go along with the ride until I choose to quit.
And I wouldn't try this hard to put me on the defensive when changing the subject anyway. I'm familiar with the tactic. That doesn't work on me either.
#95. To: rowdee (#91)
A man/woman giving their oath ( for any reason, signing a check, providing a service as fixing an automobile, ensuring a family unit, a pledge towards their own military unit engaged in battle ) and not delivering their best efforts has no substance to themselves nor society at large. Is your opinion nothing more than the removal of an oath so as to lower the bar upon honor?
lets not discuss the substance
#96. To: rowdee, christine, (#91)
Yeah....lets not discuss the substance :) Inside joke?
a man of substance (but i'm not pointing him out ;)
#97. To: buckeroo (#95)
Huh? Whew....think I'll go back to playing a card game.....have a good evening, buckeroo. Nite...
Is your opinion nothing more than the removal of an oath so as to lower the bar upon honor?
#98. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike (#95)
Give it up already. You are burying discussion threads of real importance regarding the Military Commissions Act. Based on what our President just signed into codefied law, Buckeroo is right. End of story. The Geneva Conventions are toast. No one, including soldiers, have any right whatsoever to question anything the President requires of GI's of ordinary Joes on the street. America is under the rule of the President and the Secty of Defense. And if you think McNamara, Cohen, and RumDum sucked, wait until you get a load of Joseph Lieberman and Hadassah, his wife as back seat driver. And if you have any Democrat voting friends in Connecticut,I suggest you contact them tout de suite so they cast their vote against Joe, anyone but Joe. You don't need to believe in conspiracy theories to recognize/identify the train wreck that awaits America if Joe gets to be Secty of Defense. Over and out.
Is your opinion nothing more than the removal of an oath so as to lower the bar upon honor?
#99. To: buckeroo (#95)
Whether a soldier has honor lives or dies upon his conduct on the battlefield. If he violates the international law we are signed onto to capriciously follow bad orders asking him to do so, he has no honor at all. If he was dumb enough to not be able to ethically judge his conduct correctly, he can use that in mitigation and extenuation of the penalties, but he still would be violating international law. Violating the Geneva Accords would be a violation of his oath of enlistment, not the disloyal of bad orders.
"Is your opinion nothing more than the removal of an oath so as to lower the bar upon honor?"
#100. To: scrapper2 (#98)
Wrong. End of story.
"Based on what our President just signed into codefied law, Buckeroo is right. End of story."
#101. To: rowdee (#97)
No. Lets play "cards" right here. I say honor is an important concept about transforming America towards the roots about our nation. Isn't that an obvious characteristic about anyone you know on a personal basis? "When we say we are going to do something, we mean it?" One of the reasons why our world is quickly changing is because individual efforts have been supplanted by collective ones. This has always lead to turmoil anywhere around the world. We should hold individual merit to the highest level of placement within the scope of challenging the world around us. This means that our honor is about all we can offer ... not some compromise that government suggests.
#102. To: scrapper2 (#98)
I know what a pantload Joseph Lieberman is by the way. I grew up in Connecticut, in fact I was born there. I support Ned Lamont.
#103. To: scrapper2 (#98)
Bullshit.
"No one, including soldiers, have any right whatsoever to question anything the President requires of GI's of ordinary Joes on the street."
#104. To: buckeroo (#101)
You sound as clueless regarding what honor and commitment is as Bush and other Neo Cons do. If I were in combat and a member of my unit violated the law, I would either act to stop them or report it and expect them to be held accountable for what they did. That is how you act as a professional on the battlefield. Not by throwing out common sense and human decency in order to commit to following illegal orders.
"One of the reasons why our world is quickly changing is because individual efforts have been supplanted by collective ones. This has always lead to turmoil anywhere around the world. We should hold individual merit to the highest level of placement within the scope of challenging the world around us. This means that our honor is about all we can offer ... not some compromise that government suggests."
#105. To: Ferret Mike (#103)
What "right" do they have?
#106. To: Ferret Mike (#104)
In actual battle, we have our assholes all puckered upped, sometimes crying our hearts & souls out about why we are this mess to begin with. Is that the "professionalism" you want to see? Because, in battle it gets no better than this. I should know.
That is how you act as a professional on the battlefield.
#107. To: HOUNDDAWG, Mike Ferret (#70)
This is awesome. Are you akin to Mike Ferret that never experienced "battle" .... and as a result believe that some interconnection within the "political ether" magically protects you as you strum your banjo?
I remember reading about a young Mennonite soldier in The Great War ...
#108. To: buckeroo (#106)
But you don't. Despite the stress and chaos of war, there are rules of conduct and engagement. I want them followed. If you want respect, you should show it. Violating the international laws of war can endanger American military when people reciprocate the same treatment unto them. You ignore common sense and good ethical behavior at your own peril. Despite what you think, there is no shortcut in the conduct of war that violates the Geneva Accords that doesn't eventually cost you dearly in the end.
"I should know."
#109. To: Ferret Mike (#108)
You want tea & crumpets offered as a method recess, 'eh? Cool. Who cares about that? That's a government problem far beyond your reach or mine. Its an issue that is worthless to elaborate upon. Its an issue only politicians may control. And your pathetic elevation of the point simply shows your distress about arguing the point. Individual honor is a steadfast issue with me and the whole world. We are nothing more than our, individual word and capability to fulfil our own dignity and honor based upon a promise as far as we can individually create effort. And here you are saying its all about believing in government ideals while compromising our own viewpoints.
Despite the stress and chaos of war, there are rules of conduct and engagement.
Violating the international laws of war can endanger American military when people reciprocate the same treatment unto them.
#110. To: buckeroo (#109)
You seem not to have any idea what honor or what good ethical behavior is. Thanks for sharing, I appreciate your forthright answer that you throw ethical behavior and lawful conduct out the window in any war you are involved in. If I were around you in a combat situation, I wouldn't turn my back on a scoundrel like you. If I couldn't avoid such a misfortune in any way first that is.
"And here you are saying its all about believing in government ideals while compromising our own viewpoints."
#111. To: Ferret Mike (#110)
You couldn't. You would have just been standing around doing nothing writing your mother while shining my boots or bringing coffee to our troops in the brigade based upon my orders. And you would have been scooted home bound to make you happy about your own freedoms that you have no personal honor to protect.
If I were around you in a combat situation, I wouldn't turn my back on a scoundrel like you.
#112. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
Masterful post, and if I may, reminiscent of this exchange between Henry Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, when Emerson visited Thoreau, imprisoned for having failed to pay the poll tax in protest against slavery: Emerson: Henry, what are you doing in here? Thoreau: The question is, what are you doing out there?
And, the logical place for an honest man in a corrupt system IS IN JAIL!
#113. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#112)
Why should anyone claim that a citizen requires jail time? Masterful post .... my ass. Oh, you never understood the Magna Carta. And you never read the the document. Well, of course.
Masterful post ....
#114. To: buckeroo (#111) (Edited)
We signed onto the Geneva Convention and are obligated to follow the rule of law as it protects our people as much as anyone else. You are arguing the point that we don't have to follow any law, that we can ignore the law book and just do as we feel suits our most sleazy idea of what is most convenient for us to do. And because you know this is indefensible, you do the comical decent into the world of half baked ad homenim attack. Sonny boy, I'd polish one boot in combat with you around. And that is the one I stuck up you ass when I kicked it if you were dumb enough to act in real life like you do in forum toward me. You have neither honor nor common sense, otherwise you wouldn't talk so ignorantly, here. You talk insultingly about who has no honor after claiming we as a nation should operate in war as if we have no honor or commitment to the rule of law because you realize you have painted yourself into a corner and left yourself with no defensible ground in claiming the oath of enlistment just means we follow the orders from the top on down and question nothing about any impropriety in how the leadership we follow. You claim I have no honor after showing you don't know what the word means. Your silly words don't bother me Buckie. In this case you are projecting your own inadequacies and failings, not mine. My sense of honor and comprehension of commitment to personal honor and to operate with integrity and commitment to sound ethical behavior is preferable to your contention the rule of law has no point of reference except what people like Bush say it does in a very self serving way. Nobody is too high on the chain of command to ignore sound ethical behavior, commitment to the principle of law and decent human conduct. You have taken the position that Bush and company are above the law, and the oath of enlistment means you must follow them with the same irrational commitment as lemmings following lemmings as they run into the sea to drown. It is you who you insult with your words meant to anger and distract, not me. So forget about me angering up and climbing down into the gutter to join you in your pointless, kindergarten grade mud fest. The tactics of insult to smoke screen how badly you lost this debate doesn't work on me any more then other tired worn out tactics you have tried here. You can wallow in your grammar school level modus operandi without me If you want to react to losing a debate by pouting like a child, it is your problem, not mine.
#115. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike, Zipporah, christine, rowdee, Diana (#107)
Well, I've been in two shooting situations and I've had considerably more real world gun handling experience than any of the draft dodgers for whom you wish to serve as fluffer. I've also arrested several felons including a former bank robber who did time in Leavenworth, and I had no illusions about who was protecting me. But, even if that was not the case your point is unsustainable for one reason: "You're no more entitled to opinions that you cannot validate than you're entitled to merchandise that you cannot pay for." I asked you a question earlier and I said "You cannot be honor bound to commit immoral acts." You have yet to offer any witty or dismissive reply. I understand honor and morality which is why I A) don't have any problem responding to you, which is more than you can say to me, and B) don't shill for a criminal syndicate while trying to pass it off as "honor". I've written two newspaper columns in the past and I used my own name and I never shied away from expressing my views, but my critics were always anonymous. You know all too well how ridiculous you appear which is why you'd only sell your confused anti logic anonymously and never in a public forum where people could shame you for your craven attacks and rank political advocacy.
This is awesome. Are you akin to Mike Ferret that never experienced "battle" .... and as a result believe that some interconnection within the "political ether" magically protects you as you strum your banjo?
#116. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#112)
Thoreau: The question is, what are you doing out there Outstanding.
Emerson: Henry, what are you doing in here?
#117. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike (#101)
Thanks for clarifying whatever it was that was like a burr under yer saddle. Obviously, I've not been following the bitchin you and Ferret have been engaged in. I believe in honor, yes. And I believe in upholding your word once its given. At the same time, I will say that if I agree to "X", I will attempt to do it to the best of my ability--unless I have to kill innocent beings to do it. AND, I think that once the 'contract' is initiated, BOTH sides should be honoring their word. Kindly notice that every elected gubmint official is required to take an oath of office....and somewhere in there, they take the name of God as witness to the covenant/contract/whatever you desire to call it. AND then, they immediately ignore it. Are we talking honor among thieves? Or honor among honorable men? Which ones are to be upheld--oaths or agreements, including handshakes?
#118. To: Ferret Mike (#114) (Edited)
good post, Mike, but my question to you is this. who is going to ensure that bush or anyone else is held to this standard when they've so blatantly violated the law? it seems to me no one in the world. btw, have you seen this? Peace, Propaganda, and The Promised Land where has the rest of the world been for the Palestinians?
Nobody is too high on the chain of command to ignore sound ethical behavior, commitment to the principle of law and decent human conduct.
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
#119. To: Nostalgia (#0)
I wonder if it's an RNC talking point: Limbaugh Doesn't Want Single Women to Vote.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
#120. To: aristeides (#119)
but draft dodging, torture-loving shills for the GOP should
I wonder if it's an RNC talking point: Limbaugh Doesn't Want Single Women to Vote
#121. To: HOUNDDAWG (#115)
Sounds like the ol' boy let his mouth overload his ass again. :)
#122. To: rowdee (#121)
I don't enjoy harsh exchanges, but I get irritated with anyone who supports pure evil and wraps that support in a mantle of moral righteousness. BushCo is the tip of an iceberg of blood, oil, greed and lust for power. And, I don't believe that there are two sides two every issue. Bush has no redeeming qualities other than his apparent ability to buy loyalty in those who were already for sale. And, I'll be damned if I'll suffer a lecture on honor or morality from some demented, ass licking dwarf.
Sounds like the ol' boy let his mouth overload his ass again. :)
#123. To: HOUNDDAWG (#122)
I couldn't figure out where he was coming from when he made that comment to me about honor--until I started reading more of the thread and realized there was a pissing match going on. Don't blame you for not taking kindly to such remarks and having the spine to so state it. Generally, I agree completely in trying to maintain a collegial atmosphere on threads, but every so often it is necessary to handle situations in a more forceful way (covering my ass here, you see--LOL) because it seems as though some people leave their brain parked too long in stupid and the gearshift needs a whack to get it engaged.
#124. To: rowdee, Peetie Wheatstraw, christine, Zipporah, bluegrass, Ferret Mike, Neil McIver, rowdee, Diana (#123)
Well said. I'm sure we haven't heard the last from the political schizophrenic who sites The Magna Carta in one breath while championing the goals of the man who abolished the most precious plank of The Great Charter-habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in the next. I know when someone is trying to dazzle me with a poor attempt at high powered perception and piercing logic. Truth has a vibration of its own. And, agenda-driven gibberish, a distinctive aroma like belching pockets of methane from an organic trash pile.
Generally, I agree completely in trying to maintain a collegial atmosphere on threads, but every so often it is necessary to handle situations in a more forceful way (covering my ass here, you see--LOL) because it seems as though some people leave their brain parked too long in stupid and the gearshift needs a whack to get it engaged.
...and if by chance I should hold her, let me hold her for a time...but if allowed just one possession, I would pick her from the garden, to be mine....
#125. To: Nostalgia (#9)
It's Soccer Moms dear, not Sucker Moms. But you are qualified to run a forum and have a government job. Okay.. As opposed to the long debate before bombing Lebanon. Okay... Projection, and a pantload. Prove it. What about Transvestites, oh.. well, nevermind. How can she reach such a conclusion if she is not qualified by her own definition to make them? ~~ Actually, I agree no woman should vote...for an incumbant. And you know, to carry this a step forward, how about not voting FOR WOMEN. What about teachers, are women stable enough to teach? Or to be a nurse? Or to join the military? Well, I'm sure women in the military is fine... we do need those recruits. Sheesh.
Women voting is a mistake.
Women are emotional, changeable, and notoriously unstable because of hormone flux.
They usually want to talk talk talk talk a situation over, under, around, and to death. LONG after the time for action.
And action, even when the right thing to do, is the LAST thing they want, and will try to stop it after it starts.
I am a woman
and I know this is true.
Surely there lines forming for more of this 'truth' you speak of I'd give up my vote in a minute if they took it away from all other women as well.
We just don't have what it takes to be "rulers" and "deciders". Those roles require cooler heads and harder hearts.
#126. To: Ferret Mike (#114)
I don't know about you, but I didn't.
We signed onto the Geneva Convention ...
#127. To: Ferret Mike (#114)
No I am not. You are saying I have to accept any law. There is a BIG_DIFFERENCE, pal.
You are arguing the point that we don't have to follow any law ....
#128. To: HOUNDDAWG (#115)
Its an irrelevant expression. I don't believe in government upon any level. Government is not moral, either, nor shall government EVER be moral.
"You cannot be honor bound to commit immoral acts."
#129. To: rowdee (#117)
Why are there only two sides based upon your suggestion, above?
AND, I think that once the 'contract' is initiated, BOTH sides should be honoring their word.
#130. To: HOUNDDAWG (#122)
So whom made you the purveyor of "morality?" Aren't you therefore defying your own comment just above?
... I get irritated with anyone who supports pure evil and wraps that support in a mantle of moral righteousness.
#131. To: jessejane (#125)
ziiiiiing
How can she reach such a conclusion if she is not qualified by her own definition to make them?
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
#132. To: jessejane (#125)
Good lord, jj......given all the negatives she throws at wimmen, your list forgot the most important thing of all: motherhood! I mean, what's desirable about a mom that: 1) Women are emotional, changeable, and notoriously unstable because of hormone flux. Using her rationale, every woman should be sterilized at birth to prevent them from becoming mothers OR voters. JMO.
And you know, to carry this a step forward, how about not voting FOR WOMEN. What about teachers, are women stable enough to teach? Or to be a nurse? Or to join the military? Well, I'm sure women in the military is fine... we do need those recruits. Sheesh.
2) They usually want to talk talk talk talk a situation over, under, around, and to death. LONG after the time for action.
3)And action, even when the right thing to do, is the LAST thing they want, and will try to stop it after it starts
and........4) We just don't have what it takes to be "rulers" and "deciders". Those roles require cooler heads and harder hearts.
#133. To: buckeroo (#129)
Make it a threesome if that makes you happy, bucko.
#134. To: rowdee (#133)
Thats funny. But you missed my point.
#135. To: buckeroo (#134)
Well......sorry to disappoint ya, but my feathers aren't gonna get ruffled tonight; that's about all the arguing you'll get from me this evening. :) But you have my permission to take it however you desire in order to make your most salient point....or whatever........'kay?
#136. To: rowdee (#135)
I have always loved your posts, rowdee. Your awesome libertarian concepts keep me glued to your capabilities to create the words and express the same in a manner that watches you. I just don't express myself much in this way and so you understand me as an argumentative SOB. This is what happens to some of us as being critical and voicing an opinion. It follows the path of what I am trying to do. You probably feel the same from time to time. Best Regards!
Buckeroo
#137. To: buckeroo (#136)
I must say I find this a bit funny, buck......consideriing that generally with the things I am passionate about I have the least degree of tolerance for stoopidness and will generally state my thoughts or position in the most briefest of what some consider 'foul' language. Therefore, I must believe you are trying your hand at 1) flattery (nice, but ....?) or 2) you have the wrong person in mind as being a creator of much of anything. For the record, argumentative isn't such a bad thing......but I get really tired of reading the same ol, same ol for 100 comments or so back and forth. I've read a number of your posts that have been articulate and passionate in concern for the restoration of a constitutional republic. More people should be desirous of that. But I'm not holding my breath. Republics, as a form of government, don't have a long history of success. And given where we are with the moral decay and rotten gubmint, I believe we're about to go the day of My regards back atcha, Dee
Your awesome libertarian concepts keep me glued to your capabilities to create the words and express the same in a manner that watches you. I just don't express myself much in this way and so you understand me as an argumentative SOB
dodo birds the roman empire.
#138. To: buckeroo (#127) (Edited)
You raised the right hand and swore this oath going into the military. Inherent to the oath is acceptance of the Geneva Accords as rule of international law regarding conduct of war. You are a hypocrite, and myopia regarding your own history leaves you here a childish whiner. I know it if you do not; pal. You are trying to take the ground you would only have if you had declared yourself a sovereign citizen above the recognition and invocation of all the compromises to our sovereignty as human beings inherent to life in our culture if you live in any context of it's rules. This is fine if you had done this, but by your own admission of having gone into the military, this is not so.
"No I am not. You are saying I have to accept any law. There is a BIG_DIFFERENCE, pal."
#139. To: buckeroo, rowdee (#130)
So whom made you the purveyor of "morality?" Aren't you therefore defying your own comment just above? There are moral absolutes or Mala In Se laws that require no debate. Your moral underpinnings however confused cannot exist in a vacuum. Your unwillingness or inability to acknowledge Mala In Se doesn't make me a purveyor of "morality". It makes you a kindred spirit of Ted Bundy.
... I get irritated with anyone who supports pure evil and wraps that support in a mantle of moral righteousness.
...and if by chance I should hold her, let me hold her for a time...but if allowed just one possession, I would pick her from the garden, to be mine....
#140. To: HOUNDDAWG (#139) (Edited)
#141. To: Ferret Mike (#140)
I've seen The Great Dictator. Thanks.
...and if by chance I should hold her, let me hold her for a time...but if allowed just one possession, I would pick her from the garden, to be mine....
#142. To: Ferret Mike (#138)
You are a hypocrite, and myopia regarding your own history leaves you here a childish whiner. I know it if you do not; pal. I swore to defend the US Constitution as a soldier and to obey the chain of command. I fulfilled my oath and duties 38 years ago and I received an honorable discharge. My job is complete swearing an oath. Are you saying that because I fulfilled my responsibilities that I must carry those same oaths forward forever? Are you insane? Look at yourself calling me a hypocrite when you have foolishly assumed a spineless position. I owe no allegiance or duty to any government. And I don't have to accept the rules of warfare based upon any nation's or government's agreements. I am free unlike yourself wherein you are chained to some despotic concept about law.
You raised the right hand and swore this oath going into the military. Inherent to the oath is acceptance of the Geneva Accords as rule of international law regarding conduct of war.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest