Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on August 09, 2008, 04:03:35 PM
-
This one cracks me up... I applaud the NRA; <golf clap> but find the 'spy' pretty lame.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5541490&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5541490&page=1)
Fer god's sake; she's into 'pugil stick fighting'... ROFL!
... makes me wonder what kind of nutballs the the anti-gun groups have spying on us.
-
This one cracks me up... I applaud the NRA; <golf clap> but find the 'spy' pretty lame.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5541490&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5541490&page=1)
Fer god's sake; she's into 'pugil stick fighting'... ROFL!
... makes me wonder what kind of nutballs the the anti-gun groups have spying on us.
Funny that a group so bent on supposedly protecting people's rights is so easily willing to crap all over other people's rights, who disagree with them.
-
makes me wonder what kind of nutballs the the anti-gun groups have spying on us.
Not saying its right by any means.......but anyone who thinks that kind of thing doesn't go both ways is pretty naive.
I knew a young guy a few years back that was an animal rights activist. He faked applying for a job at a slaughter house just so he could discretely film stuff going on when they gave him the plant tour. The guy was kinda out there beyond left field.....
-
Funny that a group so bent on supposedly protecting people's rights is so easily willing to crap all over other people's rights, who disagree with them.
Exactly which rights is the NRA crapping all over? They very well may be breaking some lobbying laws....but which rights are they crapping on?
-
I'm glad anti-gun groups are being spied upon. They need to be if for no other reason they want to disarm everybody. I support the NRA by this action 100%. Gun control is too important an issue not to play hard ball. Both sides do it and this type of spying has gone on for thousands of years. I personally want to know everything I can find out about a dangerous opponent, such as the freedom deniers.
Les
-
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. - Sun Tzu
We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors. - Sun Tzu
-
Gee of course the anti gun folks don;'tr have anything to do with the NRA. Naah none of them would buy a membership to keep tabs on the NRA......
Kinda like the anti hunting folks who try to buy as many game tags as they can to keep hunters from getting them. Or applying for the hunting tag lottery so that a hunter would be denied a permit.
Yawn, big fat hairy deal. Both sides engage in checking each other out. The anti's are just crying now since they lost the supreme court ruling.
-
Lautenberg wants to use taxpayer money to investigate legitimate strategy on the part of the NRA, which is checking their every political move. The NRA is doing this in my interest because I'm a member and this is what I want them to do.
On the other hand, Lautenberg wants to use taxpayer money to do his bidding (what Senate hearing is necessary for something like this?), so he is also using my taxes for his political purpose. I'm paying for both, one means indirectly and the other because I wish to. And that is the difference here. I wouldn't be surprized if the NRA memberships by any "anti" moles weren't paid using taxpayer money. But I will leave it at that, since I have no proof. If they were then I think that would be a dishonorable thing to do.
Les
-
Funny that a group so bent on supposedly protecting people's rights is so easily willing to crap all over other people's rights, who disagree with them.
OK, Tell me how anyones rights were violated? Anything illegal? Unless I'm missing anything, A low class partisan hack is calling out the NRA for paying someone to inform on an opponents action. Something he would applaud if the sides were reversed. The funny part is she was getting paid by the NRA to act against their interest as part of her cover.
-
I wish before people get all indignant and up on a high horse over this, it might be worth considering there has only been an allegation by MotherJones Magazine, and no proof has been offered, guilt not admitted.
It's always possible this whole thing was a setup to make the NRA look bad.
-
If the NRA weren't studying the enemy I'd want my membership dues back.
-
OK, Tell me how anyones rights were violated? Anything illegal? Unless I'm missing anything, A low class partisan hack is calling out the NRA for paying someone to inform on an opponents action. Something he would applaud if the sides were reversed. The funny part is she was getting paid by the NRA to act against their interest as part of her cover.
crockett won't be back. It's a hit and run post.
Ironically, with the 2nd amendment, and groups like the NRA, he wouldn't even be allowed to post on the USA innernets.
-
the USA innernets.
Rip.....I just gotta ask....what the heck is an innernets and is it only in the USA?
:devil
-
If the NRA weren't studying the enemy I'd want my membership dues back.
What that man said. :salute
-
I would not put any stock in anything Frank Lautenberg says regarding the NRA.
Lautenberg is one of the Senate's most militant left wing members. He is an extremist pro-choice/gun banner. Furthermore, Lautenberg is up for re-election, so he's looking to to put his name in the headlines.
-
Crokrett is Davy Crockett. Maybe he knows what he's talking about. Any of you ever think about that?
Les
-
Maybe he knows what he's talking about. Any of you ever think about that?
Sure, it's why I asked the question I asked. ;)
He just hasn't been back to answer. /shrug
-
The senator's demand came a week after reports that for more than a decade, McFate worked for gun-control groups, volunteering her time to organize protests, develop policy, lobby politicians and serve on their executive boards.
I would have thought that as a spy, she would just shut up and maybe hold a sign at a rally or two.
It looks' like this 'spy' might have been doing more harm to the NRA than good...It looks' like she became a major player in the anti-gun movement.
-
If the NRA weren't studying the enemy I'd want my membership dues back.
Give the man a cigar.
-
Funny that a group so bent on supposedly protecting people's rights is so easily willing to crap all over other people's rights, who disagree with them.
No, they are willing to keep protecting their rights, If guns werent allowed, what would it be? The NASRA (National Airsoft Rifle Assocation) ??? :rolleyes:
-
Crokrett is Davy Crockett. Maybe he knows what he's talking about. Any of you ever think about that?
Les
After reading many of his posts, I find that highly doubtful.
-
... makes me wonder what kind of nutballs the the anti-gun groups have spying on us.
lemme help you with that.
Name: crockett
Posts: 2686 (4.250 per day)
Position: Public Forums
Date Registered: November 16, 2006, 11:02:42 AM
Last Active: Today at 06:54:12 AM
-
LOL.. a democrat politician is upset about it... what about all the fake pro gun rights groups out there who pretend to be for gun rights and have gun rights sounding names but really only have about 100 anti gun members.. these groups are used to show agreement with every gun grabbing bill that comes down the pike.
I am talking about entire groups here! "American hunters and shooters ass."
This is a totally fake group and you can read here how they play it..
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-endorsed.html
Now.. it really doesn't get much worse than this.. these are the people behind the "organization" they are some of the worst democrat gun grabbers of all time.
http://www.gunlawnews.org/asha.html
LOL.. this is simply more of democrats normal feminine way of putting all their flaws on others.. they know how bad they are so they figure everyone else must be doing it too.. like klinton firing hundreds of judges because they didn't have his political stance and then the democrats going after Bush because he used the same test on about half a dozen of the worst.
One tiny little old lady "spying" on these groups compared to an entire democrat group pretending to be a gun advocate group and being used as "proof" that gun owners hate to own guns and really want more gun laws.
Mother jones would never out that group tho would they? They don't have to tho.. just read the links.
lazs
-
LOL.. a democrat politician is upset about it... what about all the fake pro gun rights groups out there who pretend to be for gun rights and have gun rights sounding names but really only have about 100 anti gun members.. these groups are used to show agreement with every gun grabbing bill that comes down the pike.
Laz raised my point. Most of these "grass roots" gun control efforts are professional activists with a check from the Joyce foundation and at best a few thousand members. At worst, they have a few dozen.
Then there is the false "pro gun" group -- The American Hunters and Shooters Association
AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsmen’s” group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA’s leadership is well documented. For instance, AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy. In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts anti-gun group. And one of the leading organizers of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits. (For more information, see Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom.) http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=232
AHSA just endorsed pro gun Obama. Guess us gun owners can now take AHSA's word and ignore Obama's past as easily as we can its founders and directors
The PR flack in me questions if the intel was worth the image hit, especially considering the media bias that will automatically make this much bigger than it deserves. But, the NRA didn't start this game and lags behind in successful deception.
Charon
-
My hatred of liberals and democrats grows each day. Phoney turds out of touch with the real world living in a fantasy la la land.
-
no doubt.. democrats are womanly.. it is like if a wife constantly accuses you of cheating.. you can bet she is doing everything in pants.
lazs
-
Its no big deal, competitor intelligence investigations are done all the time.
shamus
-
O boy,
I have seen the UAW doing it here! Why don't we do something about them?
-
I don't think anyone's rights were violated but I do believe they crossed up some lobbying laws. I wouldn't like to be a part of an organization that feels the need to be underhanded in their dealings either.
-
I don't think anyone's rights were violated but I do believe they crossed up some lobbying laws. I wouldn't like to be a part of an organization that feels the need to be underhanded in their dealings either.
How about an organization determined to overthrow the US Constitution?
-
I wouldn't like to be a part of an organization that feels the need to be underhanded in their dealings either.
LMAO
Are you part of mankind?
-
How about an organization determined to overthrow the US Constitution?
Last I checked it didn't say anything about keeping the guns out of kids (unsupervised that is, I learned to shoot when I was 12 or 13) and criminals hands? I'm not for more gun control. Simply for better enforcement of the rules already in place. Aparently thats still too much to ask from some.
-
Last I checked it didn't say anything about keeping the guns out of kids (unsupervised that is, I learned to shoot when I was 12 or 13) and criminals hands? I'm not for more gun control. Simply for better enforcement of the rules already in place. Aparently thats still too much to ask from some.
I was talking about the democratic party.
-
I was talking about the democratic party.
And our current president isn't moving us closer to a police state? Wire tapping, declaring anyone an enemy of the state, etc etc???
-
And our current president isn't moving us closer to a police state? Wire tapping, declaring anyone an enemy of the state, etc etc???
News flash for you, it was the democrat controlled congress that passed the most recent intrusion into your privacy. No longer do the democrats have the right to cry wolf on this issue.
-
Last I checked it didn't say anything about keeping the guns out of kids (unsupervised that is, I learned to shoot when I was 12 or 13) and criminals hands? I'm not for more gun control. Simply for better enforcement of the rules already in place. Aparently thats still too much to ask from some.
It shouldnt have to say it. By according everyone the same rights we are all granted the same protections. Removing rights from even a single person or bestowing special rights on even a single person erodes the freedoms of all others. Thats why it is so important to maintain strength in all branches of our government but still limit the size of the government overall.
-
Ummm...Duh. Thats why I'm so upset. I haven't once said YEAH DEMOCRATS! have I? You trolls sure are touchy, huh? :rolleyes:
-
Ummm...Duh. Thats why I'm so upset. I haven't once said YEAH DEMOCRATS! have I? You trolls sure are touchy, huh? :rolleyes:
Your posts obviously put you out in left field. Not all those to the left are democrats not are all democrats to the left. However most are and I'm willing to bet you support Obama for prez which would make you a democrat.
-
WRONG! :rofl
GO RON PAUL!
And yes I do lean left, but I don't think of myself as being too far off center. Some guys on here scare me how far out to the right they go and think of themselves as the norm.
And further, your insinuations that a vote for Obama somehow makes a person less of a person is somewhat disturbing. I'd like to think we could keep talking this out civilly but I've learned my lesson about thinking we'll get many of those here in the O'Club.
::Back to your regularly scheduled topic::
-
bongaroo.. I have noticed that none of you lefty socialists think you are TOOOOO far left.. Just reasonable guys who want... change.. everyone will get along and agree or they will be killed or incarcerated..
For their own good of course.
Osamabama is dangerous for our rights. People who vote for him are dangerous to people who are individualists and.. yes.. libertarians. Libertarian is not just about letting you smoke pot.
lazs
-
Ron Paul is an idiot. I read a pamplet in Austin during a speech during 1 weekend, the guy is a nutt. He wanted to take away all welfare (which I support), secure our borders, BUT get rid of our military COMPLETELY. :huh :huh :huh
Seems like every + I saw in him came with a -
-
Lazs, I believe you'll find that your christian conservative right has inhibited your freedoms a whole lot more than the left ever has. Obama is exactly what this country needs. It's about time we wise up and use our brains instead of our brawn.
just reasonable guys who want... change.. everyone will get along and agree or they will be killed or incarcerated..
That's a whole lot of drama!
-
bongaroo.. I have noticed that none of you lefty socialists think you are TOOOOO far left.. Just reasonable guys who want... change.. everyone will get along and agree or they will be killed or incarcerated..
For their own good of course.
Osamabama is dangerous for our rights. People who vote for him are dangerous to people who are individualists and.. yes.. libertarians. Libertarian is not just about letting you smoke pot.
lazs
And the people who voted Bush in a second time didn't mind throwing our rights down the crapper in the name of "security".
Oh holy crap! You assume I'm a libertarian just because I am for legalization??? Wow. I mean, your post is pretty useless to the conversation but thanks for typing my forum name correctly once, that made me smile.
-
neither of you is saying much. What "change" is osamabama gonna give us that I need? I need less taxes and less government. Republicans promise it but don't deliver.. they still beat out the lefty socialist democrats who are in the pockets of anti gun billionaires and unions of every kind.
I don't want their help and I don't want them to force me to help anyone else. On a day to day basis.. lefty democrats make more laws that affect me than any that republicans have made... whenever I see an utterly insane and intrusive new law.. I know a democrat is behind it. Telling me what I can eat and what new safety apparel I have to have for every facet of my life.
Telling me that only their bodyguards can be trusted with guns.
lazs
-
Laz,to me your the ultimate libertarian,you love your freedoms and want to protect them.It's the one and only thing I agree with you on,and it's fundamental. :aok
-
In my opinion these anti-gun groups are an anti-constitutional organization and that the NRA has the moral right to spy on them.
-
hazzer.. thank you... I guess you can agree with me and then not really want freedom.. it confuses me but...
I mean, how can you agree with me on libertarian (individualist in my case) values but disagree with everything else I say? I have no opinions that are not rooted in freedom.
lazs
-
hazzer.. thank you... I guess you can agree with me and then not really want freedom.. it confuses me but...
I mean, how can you agree with me on libertarian (individualist in my case) values but disagree with everything else I say? I have no opinions that are not rooted in freedom.
lazs
I'd say your wishes for all cities to implode and burn have nothing to do with freedom. That's where you always loose me at least.
-
bongie... I have no wish to see cities burn and explode. I am saying that if we do have a terrorist dirty bomb happen or a biological type attack.. It will happen in the big cities which are all blue voters and.. A few million less blue voters is just a silver lining to the cloud.. not to mention the conversion from blue to red by the survivors.
I am just looking at the bright side of the inevitable.
lazs
-
A few million less blue voters is just a silver lining to the cloud..
That is over the line.
-
In my opinion these anti-gun groups are an anti-constitutional organization and that the NRA has the moral right to spy on them.
So you think one constitutional right trumps other constitutional rights? Does that mean these groups now have the right to spy on the NRA because the NRA broke their constitutional right to freedom of speech & privacy?
-
That is over the line.
Yup. As I said, he always looses me on the "yea! a bunch of people with different ideaologies are dead, woo woo!"
-
The NRA did not violate their constitutional rights. That's laughable.
You must be one of those guys with the new, improved, elastic Constitution that stretches to cover any cockamamie idea you happen to be swooning over at the moment.
-
The right to privacy belongs to individuals, not public organizations.
-
The NRA did not violate their constitutional rights. That's laughable.
You must be one of those guys with the new, improved, elastic Constitution that stretches to cover any cockamamie idea you happen to be swooning over at the moment.
Maybe you should read the context of the post and one it was a reply too. We happen to have a right to privacy and a right to freedom of speech.
NRA uses lobbyist to pander to the govt to protect their own rights, at the same time they are violating others right to "freedom of speech" and "right to privacy" by having a spy in their organization. The NRA had this person in a high position which gives them added benefit on how to lobby the govt to block the anti-gun groups.
That is a violation of their rights..
-
The right to privacy belongs to individuals, not public organizations.
Then the same could be said for the NRA.. the right to bare arms belongs to individuals and militia's not public or private organizations if you want to go by those terms.
-
Maybe you should read the context of the post and one it was a reply too. We happen to have a right to privacy and a right to freedom of speech.
NRA uses lobbyist to pander to the govt to protect their own rights, at the same time they are violating others right to "freedom of speech" and "right to privacy" by having a spy in their organization. The NRA had this person in a high position which gives them added benefit on how to lobby the govt to block the anti-gun groups.
That is a violation of their rights..
Baloney. As a free citizen I can belong to any public organization I want for any reason I want. They have the right to reject my membership but at the risk of a discrimination suit.
-
Baloney. As a free citizen I can belong to any public organization I want for any reason I want. They have the right to reject my membership but at the risk of a discrimination suit.
Maybe you should go join the girl scouts then.. :D
-
Maybe you should go join the girl scouts then.. :D
If I were gay they'd be afraid not to let me in. ;)
-
If I were gay they'd be afraid not to let me in. ;)
ROFL... boy he sure walked inta that one AK... LOL
-
bongie and mojav... What are you going on about? I didn't kill anyone nor did I advocate it. People are gonna die.. better it be blue voters than red so far as I am concerned.
You are just looking for something to be upset about. It has nothing to do with what I believe in so far as individual freedom. I would allow you and your blue voters one hell of a lot more freedom than they allow me. I would not sick the police on em in case they didn't buckle up in their own car or wear a lifejacket in their own boat or a helmet on their own motorcycle. I would not tell them what to eat or smoke or what kind of healthcare they had to get. I am not the one telling people what kind of guns they can own or what kind of school they are forced to pay for.
lazs
-
Maybe you should read the context of the post and one it was a reply too. We happen to have a right to privacy and a right to freedom of speech.
NRA uses lobbyist to pander to the govt to protect their own rights, at the same time they are violating others right to "freedom of speech" and "right to privacy" by having a spy in their organization. The NRA had this person in a high position which gives them added benefit on how to lobby the govt to block the anti-gun groups.
That is a violation of their rights..
In no way did this spy violate that groups Freedom of Speech. You're really reaching on that one.
Where in the constitution does it guarantee a right to privacy? If there was a right to privacy guaranteed in the US Constitution then every celebrity in this country would have already sued the paparazzi for violating their constitutional rights.
The NRA lobbys Congress to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of ALL Americans.....including you. ;)
-
yep.. and I see none of the left wingers who are wringing their hands over the evil NRA are even a tiny bit upset about an entire fake organization set up by the left... the links were given in several posts.
lazs
-
I believe organizations and people who try and strip others of their constitutional rights are themselves unconstitutional.
And the right to bear arms is a constitutional right here in America.
So how would even a gun grabbing, flag burning, Liberal describe an organization that was trying to take away any other right under the constitution? And yet they fail to see their own hypocrosy. Even a communist group is more American as long as they support the Constitution. They have the right to Political expression as long as they dont violate the Constitution. Thats why a lot of foreigners dont understand us, and its because theyv never read our Constitution and dont understand the power of the document in American life.
These gun rights enemies want to re-write the thing just to suit their rediculous world view. And they have lost their minds if they think it would reduce crime, and even then, it still wouldnt give them the right to re-write the US Constitution.
-
People are gonna die.. better it be blue voters than red so far as I am concerned.
lazs
I need to start compiling these gems into a log. "Laz: rabble-rouser of the reds"
If I went on national TV and said: "people are going to die. I hope its the conservatives and not the liberals." I think a lot of people would be rightly upset. Your position on this is untenable.
-
I need to start compiling these gems into a log. "Laz: rabble-rouser of the reds"
If I went on national TV and said: "people are going to die. I hope its the conservatives and not the liberals." I think a lot of people would be rightly upset. Your position on this is untenable.
I don't think lazs is too concerned about upsetting people. It really is pragmatic, if some will die as a result of terrorism then let it be those not inclined to fight terrorism. Fewer will then die in the long term.
-
Fighting terrorism? We all agreed to go to Afghanistan to get the ones that attacked us and the country that harboured them. Still only have a few of them as far as the leadership goes. Why is that? When did we take the focus off?
I have yet to be convinced for one minute that Iraq was a threat and believe it has weakened our chances of success in Afghanistan. Iraq was a monumental mistake.
-
Fighting terrorism? We all agreed to go to Afghanistan to get the ones that attacked us and the country that harboured them. Still only have a few of them as far as the leadership goes. Why is that? When did we take the focus off?
I have yet to be convinced for one minute that Iraq was a threat and believe it has weakened our chances of success in Afghanistan. Iraq was a monumental mistake.
BZZZZZZRT. Hijack alert!
....and what has that little missive to do with the NRA and art of disinformation between politically polarized groups competing for the attention of the public?
-
bongie... My idea of homeland security is an armed populace.. your beloved blue voters would like to remove the right of all of us to have firearms. To me.. any peoples who would try to take that right away from me deserve whatever happens to em.
They don't have the guts to do it themselves tho. If you tried to do it yourself I would have to laugh in your face.. if you persisted I would have to hurt you. If you were really determined I would have to kill you.
This is the exact same thing you would have done to me by your idea of a blue state. You would kill me to disarm me if I resisted. Hell.. you would have me killed for resisting wearing a seatbelt..
And that is the difference.. I would kill to keep rights.. you would kill to take them away. That is the reason that less blue voters is better than less red ones.
It is, as has been said, pragmatic. There is no wish for any of this to happen.. I do wish that you would go away and leave me alone but... I know better than that.. next week you will be telling me what kind of medical care I can have and then.. because "you" pay for it.. what I can eat and how often I go to your doctors.
lazs
-
It's intolerable to admit that certain people fighting for the derailing and degradation of the Constitution, rather than those who do less of it, would be the better loss of the two for the Constitution's sake... But it's not intolerable to back those people who are fighting tooth and nail for degrading ALL living citizen's quality of life? Who are you guys kidding?
-
Everyone will die Moot. It's not intolerable to prefer those who bring it on themselves suffer it before those who don't.
-
moot.. that was my point. I don't want to see anyone die.. I would much rather they stopped trying to take away my individual freedoms..
I have a feeling that they won't do that tho... not till they are dead.
lazs
-
Yeah that post was for Bong & co. Maybe they can start a new thread about it, but I doubt it could stay open long enough to be useful debating it.
-
bongie... My idea of homeland security is an armed populace.. your beloved blue voters would like to remove the right of all of us to have firearms. To me.. any peoples who would try to take that right away from me deserve whatever happens to em.
They don't have the guts to do it themselves tho. If you tried to do it yourself I would have to laugh in your face.. if you persisted I would have to hurt you. If you were really determined I would have to kill you.
This is the exact same thing you would have done to me by your idea of a blue state. You would kill me to disarm me if I resisted. Hell.. you would have me killed for resisting wearing a seatbelt..
And that is the difference.. I would kill to keep rights.. you would kill to take them away. That is the reason that less blue voters is better than less red ones.
It is, as has been said, pragmatic. There is no wish for any of this to happen.. I do wish that you would go away and leave me alone but... I know better than that.. next week you will be telling me what kind of medical care I can have and then.. because "you" pay for it.. what I can eat and how often I go to your doctors.
lazs
Damn, that was a great post. Freakin gun grabbin liberals...
great post.
<S!>
-
well.. it is more than guns but guns are probly the most important thing.. can't really do anything if you are dead or helpless.
Nope.. it is about control... It is about crushing anyone who would be an individual.. You can ruin a persons life and well.. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. these days simply because he won't wear a seatbelt or won't eat the things you feel he needs to.. You make him pay for inferior education for people who are here illegally... We are forced to pay for more and more things that we not only don't want but that are unconstitutional to begin with.
Who are these people? well.. they are the same 70's hippies that we all laughed at when they tried to force everyone to do what they wanted.. now they run the EPA and OSHA and a bunch of nanny groups and they use their own private police forces to crush anyone who would try to live as an individual.
I suppose they are getting their revenge. They do seem to be winning.. we all seem to have a new mindset that says "hey.. him not doing this or that costs me money so I have the right to force him"
Money or "do it for the children" "if it will save just one life" all catch phrases of the new left.. all excuses to take away liberty and individual freedom and allow people to smugly remove freedom from their fellows and feel.. well.. superior... morally superior if nothing else. The end justifies the means comrade.
It is evident in the fact that boroda and the your-0-peeans on this board are laughing at us and saying how now... even they.. are more free than us..
one can only hope the pendulum will swing.. that soon.. we will not be ruled by a few major populations centers full of metrosexual city taxi riders.
lazs
-
I wonder how many Democrat veterans that have given there life for your freedoms would hang there head in shame knowing that you feel they are better off dead. You can't have a debate with someone if you are not willing to listen, Laz you have your mind made up and no amount of proof is going to sway you otherwise.
-
Laz have I once told you "give up your weapons!" ???
Your justifications for wanting half (I'd wager the nation is fairly evenly split conservative/liberal) of your fellow citizens dieing is appaling. They have professionals to help you work out those issues, non-violently even!
-
The NRA is scared; the anti-gun groups finally have a chance to cause some real change in this country, not only with the change in Washington, but also at the Supreme Court level.
Honestly, I could care less either way. I don't own any guns, don't plan on owning any guns, and consider some of the legal owners of firearms not competant enough to own them. Keep the law as it is, or strip gun owners of their firearms; it just doesn't affect me.
-
The NRA is scared; the anti-gun groups finally have a chance to cause some real change in this country, not only with the change in Washington, but also at the Supreme Court level.
Honestly, I could care less either way. I don't own any guns, don't plan on owning any guns, and consider some of the legal owners of firearms not competant enough to own them. Keep the law as it is, or strip gun owners of their firearms; it just doesn't affect me.
Let's let the responsible folks have 'em and enforce the laws we have to keep them out of the hands of crazies and felons. Win-win.
-
The NRA is scared; the anti-gun groups finally have a chance to cause some real change in this country, not only with the change in Washington, but also at the Supreme Court level.
Honestly, I could care less either way. I don't own any guns, don't plan on owning any guns, and consider some of the legal owners of firearms not competant enough to own them. Keep the law as it is, or strip gun owners of their firearms; it just doesn't affect me.
And once you've been stripped of your right to own a firearm, what's to stop the government from removing your other rights? Will it affect you if the government can come into your home and search whenever they want for whatever they want without your knowledge or consent and for no probable cause? Will it affect you when the government tells you, you can no longer speak out against the government in any way because if you do it will be considered treason and you'll be put in prison, or worse? Will it affect you when the government takes over ALL media outlets and will only show you what they want you to see?
It's a historic FACT that once a society is disarmed and no longer has the means to resist the government, the government WILL assert more and more control over the population it governs with NO regard to the will or rights of the governed, and it's ALWAYS been justified as for the good of everyone.
Sorry but I'll keep my guns and I'll fight anyone to the death if need be to keep them. I don't care if it's a private citizen or the entire US Government, you want my guns, you better be ready to kill me for them, and if you are, well I'm not going out alone.
-
And once you've been stripped of your right to own a firearm, what's to stop the government from removing your other rights? Will it affect you if the government can come into your home and search whenever they want for whatever they want without your knowledge or consent and for no probable cause? Will it affect you when the government tells you, you can no longer speak out against the government in any way because if you do it will be considered treason and you'll be put in prison, or worse? Will it affect you when the government takes over ALL media outlets and will only show you what they want you to see?
It's a historic FACT that once a society is disarmed and no longer has the means to resist the government, the government WILL assert more and more control over the population it governs with NO regard to the will or rights of the governed, and it's ALWAYS been justified as for the good of everyone.
Sorry but I'll keep my guns and I'll fight anyone to the death if need be to keep them. I don't care if it's a private citizen or the entire US Government, you want my guns, you better be ready to kill me for them, and if you are, well I'm not going out alone.
True! What scares me is our rights are under attack and we don't seem to care; and we still have our guns!
-
mojave... Any veteran that fought for my freedoms I owe a great debt to... If he now wants to remove my freedoms then that is another thing entirely. He has no right and is no better than the enemy he fought (for my rights) in the past.
A once great person who did great things and then becomes a child molester is still just a child molester in my opinion.
I have not said I want him dead.. I have not asked that half the population die.. you guys keep making that up. I have not even asked that a few blue cities be vaporized but... let's face it.. that is where the metrosexual blue voters hang out.. is the big cities and.. again... lets face it.. anyone who wishes to damage us is going to not waste a perfectly good nuke on rural areas.. they will vaporize blue cities.
vaporized blue cities are no longer full of blue voters who think that my individual rights can be voted away.
lazs
-
Wake up Laz. The blue voters aren't looking to get you or anyone else vaporized. Red senators are voting to give up your rights or aren't fighting back hard enough against a Red administration that is just as happy taking them away to protect you "security".
No matter how hard you try to justify it or make it seem insignificant your lack of compassion for your fellow countryman is disgusting.
-
No matter how hard you try to justify it or make it seem insignificant your lack of compassion for your fellow countryman is disgusting.
He's saying he wants others' quality of life to stay up rather than drop as it does under socialist trends. And IIRC Lazs is nowhere near calling the 'red' politicians ideal.
-
The blue states elect the blue Presidents that nominate extremely liberal judges to the SC that are approved by the blue Senators.
As a result you get incredibly bad rulings that remove your rights in a fashion no red administration has managed.
Kelo v City of New London, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, allows a city to take the seaside home your grandfather built under eminent domain simply because the city feels it can get more tax revenue by putting a hotel there.
THAT'S what blue gets you... the loss of your property rights.
Gonzales v Raich, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, stretched the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allow the Feds to restrict the use of medical marijuana even though a particular state has made that use legal.
That's what blue gets you... the loss of your state's sovereignity over minor matters.
Vote blue and get a longer, fatter Federal nanny state shoved up your anal vent. Again.
-
Only giving counter to his argument. Wouldn't be an argument otherwise.
-
The blue states elect the blue Presidents that nominate extremely liberal judges to the SC that are approved by the blue Senators.
As a result you get incredibly bad rulings that remove your rights in a fashion no red administration has managed.
Kelo v City of New London, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, allows a city to take the seaside home your grandfather built under eminent domain simply because the city feels it can get more tax revenue by putting a hotel there.
THAT'S what blue gets you... the loss of your property rights.
Gonzales v Raich, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, stretched the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allow the Feds to restrict the use of medical marijuana even though a particular state has made that use legal.
That's what blue gets you... the loss of your state's sovereignity over minor matters.
Vote blue and get a longer, fatter Federal nanny state shoved up your anal vent. Again.
And yet time and time again the land developers who are pushing for your grandparents home on the beach are donating to the republicans and voting Red. :rolleyes:
Another point of issue. Voting republican is no longer voting for fiscally responsible candidates. They take your surplus you could use for paying down the national debt and somehow start running the country into even more debt. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I'd be a republican if they'd get away from that christian evangelical crap and went back to a fiscally responsible platform.
-
The developers MAY be Republicans. Point is that since the beginning of this nation those people have been held in check by eminent domain. The liberals on the SC removed that check. Blue Pres, Blue Senate... Liberal SC. A liberal SC is the most dangerous factor in the whole US government when it comes to your rights.
A President proposes ideas, the Congress disposes the money and gives life to ideas but the Supreme Court makes ALL the rules. It is, by far, the strongest branch of government.
Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are fiscally responsible. As Laz has often pointed out though, the things the Republicans waste money on usually end IE: Iraq. The things the Democrats spend money on never end and the amount of money needed continually increases: IE: Welfare state.
-
I passed high school social studies, I know how important the SC court is to protecting our constitutional rights. Claiming that only liberals are a threat to those rights is incorrect.
This is getting way OT.
have a nice day.
-
The blue states elect the blue Presidents that nominate extremely liberal judges to the SC that are approved by the blue Senators.
As a result you get incredibly bad rulings that remove your rights in a fashion no red administration has managed.
Kelo v City of New London, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, allows a city to take the seaside home your grandfather built under eminent domain simply because the city feels it can get more tax revenue by putting a hotel there.
Which court ruled for eminent domain on this, Toad? Was it a city Municipal court?
-
The Supreme Court of the United States. Google Kelo v City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. These are your liberal justices.
-
Claiming that only liberals are a threat to those rights is incorrect.
They are clearly the greatest threat to your rights. The threats posed by the right pale to insignificance in comparison.
-
They are clearly the greatest threat to your rights. The threats posed by the right pale to insignificance in comparison.
Thats just horrible logic.
-
Thats just horrible logic.
An argument which you're going to support with evidence or at least demonstration by principle..
-
LOL
:noid :noid :noid