See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Attention 4um Members
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://none
Published: May 4, 2008
Author: me
Post Date: 2008-05-04 22:40:24 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 17722
Comments: 655
I have to be honest, I'm completely distressed at what's happened to this forum. The fighting and the distrust between those for and those against Obama has gotten to the point where, in my opinion, it's destroying the forum. What's the point of having an open free speech venue when everyone is bozo'ing everyone else? When I read my mission statement and what Freedom4um was created to be, I don't even recognize the place anymore. There will be changes made in the near future as I decide what is best for the continued growth of this forum.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-273) not displayed.
.
.
.
#274. To: Pinguinite (#269)
Personal interests ? *Our* 2nd applies to our NATIONAL INTEREST. Neil, you are no longer trustworthy.
i think JT's position on that got misinterpreted like your original 2A one did. if you recall, you asked people to make a choice. most everyone said that they wouldn't or that they would change the scenario. JT was the only one who answered as if he were FORCED to choose between the life of one child and millions of other men, women, and children. that certainly doesn't mean that his decision was for his own personal interests. quite the contrary, it's unselfish and is an indication of caring for a greater number of people.
pardon the intrusion but what the hell sort of 'hypothetical scenario' would ever require such a bizzare nonsensical act? how would killing a kid ever be in any way related to defending gun rights? sounds like an invalid accusation and invalid example against tull. now if the kid or anyone had a gun pointed at you with evil intent then go for it., but even then, you'd probably react in a less lehtal way. i.e., grab their hand and take the gun. it sounds like pinguinite is alleging that all ardent gun rights supporters are somehow maniacal murderers. (??)
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." John Yoo has actually said, in response to a question at an appearance, that he would approve torturing a child in the course of the war on terror. And, of course, that has in fact been done at places like Abu Ghraib.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I think it's fine the way it is, after all, you say we have a right to non association. making changes because of discord would be counter productive. its not like the place has been overtaken by war hawks or anything. i dont think anyone with a lick of sense would ever seriously support any establishment candidate now would they? Well, even if a wll-intentioned person did, as someone said last week everyone is on a different journey. i doubt many people on such a forum would support an establishments man though.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." yeah but how does that relate to the example above where someone would have to harm an innocent to protect a right? the yoo example of torturing kids is not applicable to preserving any freedom.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." (1) You seem to be assuming that our national interest necessarily outweighs the interests of the human race. Aggressive war might be in the interest of the country that wages it, and still be very definitely wrong. But (2) I would maintain that aggressive wars like Bush's (or like the ones McCain and probably also Hillary would launch) are NOT in the U.S.'s interest, and indeed weigh more heavily in our nation's interests than does the 2nd Amendment.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I suspect Yoo -- and Bush and Cheney -- would not agree.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
#5. To: christine (#3) I am bozoed 3 times now. I have no one on bozo. I think people that use bozo filter are sissies. :) Tagline space for rent. Critter posted on 2008-05-04 22:51:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply I have effectively trial-ran your idea of banning the filter. now everyone who has bozo'd you just read what you said.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." And upon the surrender of our 2nd, in
promise of global peace, what ensures that we won't become an unarmed nation,
ruled
by war mongering thugs?
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Yeah, I was just having fun.
.
I am unaware of anybody suggesting abolishing the 2nd Amendment. Obama wants to limit gun rights more than some people here would like, but he has never suggested anything like total abolition. In fact, by giving it as his constitutional view that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, he goes further in your direction than any Democratic presidential candidate within my memory, and also than Hillary today.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
since innocent people could never pose a legitimate threat to gun rights in the first place, i agree that killing innocents under the guise of 'protecting rights' is nonsense since such a scenario could not exist and is not valid. (I am not referring to a war that meets the stringent standards of the just war doctrine in which innocents are killed, that's a different topic.) Another aspect is that there's no doubt that some of these do-gooder gun grabbers are well intentioned. their conscious is clear and they believe they are doing the right thing. you want to see such an example? look at this 'health inspector bitch and how she with the pigs protection violate this guys right. they ended up seizing the guys home as a result of this violation of his rights. yet look at her, the socialist %$#@!. her conscience is 100% clear. would you say defending your land against such 'benevolent' intruders is wrong? this video is amazing.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." I bet you're one of the folks who has me bozoed, but in case you're not, if Obama suggested limiting 1st amendment rights would you still support him?
Tagline space for rent.
The Bushite Republicans have so far kept their hands off the 2nd Amendment -- because it was in their political interest to do so. However, given the cavalier treatment they have given the rest of the Bill of Rights, I see no reason to have any confidence that they will keep their hands off the 2nd Amendment forever.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I have a lot of respect for Neil's opinions and I just happen to agree with him on this one. I do like my guns and the right to own them as much as the next guy, but I can't see sending our brave men and women off to kill and get killed is worth voting for or against any candidate based solely on my fears of having my gun owning rights diminished. It's a wedge issue anyway. I don't think that anyone is going to do away with the 2nd amedment.
That's the hypothetical. Stay focused. Your answer?
Actually, I have never actually said I support him. What I have said is that I am undecided between Barr and Obama. But we in fact do have limitations on the 1st Amendment today. For things like shouting "Fire!" in a theater and other things that create a clear and present danger. And most reasonable people support such limitations, within reason. I do. I imagine Obama does.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I do not say the 2nd Amendment has no importance. I am saying it can be outweighed by other things. No doubt a post-2nd Amendment America would also wage aggressive wars. I don't want that either. But there's no reason to think Obama would abolish the 2nd Amendment. And there's plenty of reason to doubt that a McCain would protect it any more than the rest of the Bill of Rights.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
it's a nonsensical discussion. we dont have to nor should we give up our basic human right of self defense in promise of ''world peace''. what bullshit. anyone who would fall for a gun grabber's promise of less war is deluded. THE ONLY REASON ANY POLITICAN EVER WANTS TO DISARM ANYONE, IS TO ULTIMATELY KILL THEM. no one sincerely for peace would ever try to oppress man's natural right, IMO.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I am saying it can be outweighed by other things. Your very presence is offensive.
three hunnerd
You continue to drift intentionally. Your answer?
They did? I remember seeing that a while ago, maybe a year or two. They actually were able to seize his home?
Tagline space for rent.
When the government decides to disarm us, they will. No one man will do it.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I'm also not sure what good a 45 would be against a smart bomb or whatever new weaponry might even be used against us by a tyrannical war machine regime.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
We get to die with hot iron in our hands? How nice. basically
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
OK would you still be considering him if he suggested that limiting the 1st amendment was ok? That does present a clear and present danger, but how would my owning a full auto m16 present a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to anyone? Limiting my right to own a full auto would be the same as limiting your right to say anything, because any word coming out of your mouth can be potentially as dangerous as me having a full auto in my closet.
Tagline space for rent.
In one breath you can say it turned your stomach, and in the next you think it is essentially his fault that they entered illegally, found what they wanted to find, and seized his land?
Tagline space for rent.
a well placed .45 round can take out one of their JBTs, and enough well placed .45 rounds could make the other team forfeit the game.
Tagline space for rent.
yeah I came across that video and read all the comments, its funny but one link posted actually led back to here and a post here by fred mertz. if you do a search for my comments to him i think youll find the link and articles about the guy in the video. he did lose his home which was seized and auctioned. some people there at youtube posted that they'd have dropped both of them on the spot. well, everyone has their line in the sand. i leave it to the individuals conscience. i have often said my definite line in the sand is CPS. I would never allow anyone to steal my kids and i will never understand why anyone allows it. yes, in such a hypothetical scenario the govt would kill the person defending their rights, and burn their house down. But you know what? it would have been worth it. On the other hand in know personally many people who have gotten their kids seized by the state and eventually gotten them back. so if they had reacted like i would, they would not be alive and happy and together today. But no, i don't care. i could never allow such a thing to happen. such things must never be allowed, IMO. ever. the hypothetical which i refer to would be nearly identical to this video, theyd come with their jackboots in tow and violate the family. man this video makes me sick.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."
Comments (314 - 655) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSo, by his own admission, I characterize JT as willing to murder innocent people to further his own personal interests.
#275. To: Pinguinite, Jethro Tull (#269)
#276. To: Jethro Tull, Pinguinite (#273)
that in a hypothetical scenario, he would shoot an innocent girl as a means to an end of furthering 2A rights.
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#277. To: Artisan (#276)
pardon the intrusion but what the hell sort of 'hypothetical scenario' would ever require such a bizzare nonsensical act? how would killing a kid ever be in any way related to defending gun rights? sounds like an invalid accusation and invalid example against tull.
#278. To: christine (#0)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#279. To: aristeides (#277)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#280. To: Jethro Tull (#274)
*Our* 2nd applies to our NATIONAL INTEREST.
#281. To: Artisan (#279)
the yoo example of torturing kids is not applicable to preserving any freedom.
#282. To: Pinguinite (#272)
#283. To: Critter (#5)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#284. To: aristeides, Artisan (#280)
I would maintain that aggressive wars like Bush's (or like the
ones McCain and probably also Hillary would launch) are NOT in the U.S.'s
interest, and indeed weigh more heavily in our nation's interests than does
the 2nd Amendment.
#285. To: ... (#270)
#286. To: ghostdogtxn (#285)
#287. To: Jethro Tull (#284)
And upon the surrender of our 2nd, in promise of global peace,
what ensures that we won't become an unarmed nation, ruled by war mongering
thugs?
#288. To: Jethro Tull (#284)
And upon the surrender of our 2nd,
#289. To: Pinguinite, ghostdogtxn (#272)
(Edited)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#290. To: aristeides (#288)
#291. To: ghostdogtxn (#282)
given a choice between having a lunatic warmonger (who will staunchly defend the 2d Am. but murder a lot of foreigners for no damn reason I can think of) versus someone who won't murder the foreigners (but is 'weak' on the 2d Am),
#292. To: ghostdogtxn, Pinguinite (#267)
Pinguinite takes the position that if we have to give up some ground on the R2KBA issue in exchange for not dropping bombs on some other population, then that's a sacrifice he's willing to make.
#293. To: aristeides (#288)
And upon the surrender of our 2nd, in promise of global peace, what ensures that we won't become an unarmed nation, ruled by war mongering thugs?
#294. To: Critter (#290)
if Obama suggested limiting 1st amendment rights would you still support him?
#295. To: Jethro Tull (#293)
#296. To: ... (#286)
#297. To: Jethro Tull (#284)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#298. To: aristeides (#295)
#299. To: aristeides (#295)
I do not say the 2nd Amendment has no importance.
#300. To: All (#299)
#301. To: aristeides (#295)
And upon the surrender of our 2nd, in promise of global peace, what ensures that we won't become an unarmed nation, ruled by war mongering thugs?
#302. To: Artisan (#289)
they ended up seizing the guys home as a result of this violation of his rights.
#303. To: ghostdogtxn (#298)
A strong second to that point, counsellor.
#304. To: Artisan (#289)
#305. To: aristeides (#291)
#306. To: aristeides (#295)
But there's no reason to think Obama would abolish the 2nd Amendment. And there's plenty of reason to doubt that a McCain would protect it any more than the rest of the Bill of Rights.
#307. To: Arete (#303)
#308. To: ghostdogtxn (#305)
What good will the 2d Amendment do us if they don't respect habeas corpus, posse comitatus or the 4th Amendment?
#309. To: robin (#306)
#310. To: aristeides (#294)
Actually, I have never actually said I support him. What I have said is that I am undecided between Barr and Obama.
For things like shouting "Fire!" in a theater and other things that create a clear and present danger.
#311. To: ghostdogtxn (#304)
As for them seizing his land, I suspect that had to do with something he was keeping there, or the condition it was in, and not just their illegal entry.
#312. To: robin (#306)
#313. To: Critter (#302)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
.
.
.