Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on August 09, 2002, 01:15:52 PM
-
I didnt want to post it in the other thread...
I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living.
"My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."
There have been quite a few of them.
Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo.
If you want the ceiling re-painted I’ll do my best.
It’s just that there always seems to be a lot of different fellows up here. I’m never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I’m the guy.
As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty ... your own freedom of tho ught ... your own compass for what is right.
Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." Those words are true again. . . I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that’s about to hijack your birthright to think and say what lives in your heart.
I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you . . . the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.
Let me back up a little. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media who’ve called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a " brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know, I’m pretty old ... but I sure Lord ain’t senile.
As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I’ve realized that firearms are not the only issue.
No, it’s much, much bigger than that.
I’ve come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.
For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else’s pride, they called me a racist.
I’ve worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.
Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country.
But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.
From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they’re essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that? You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"
But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we’d still be King George’s boys - subjects bound to the British crown.
In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules,
new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.
Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the country, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don’t like it."
Let me read a few examples.
At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.
In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs - the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not….need not. . . .tell their patients th at they are infected.
At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.
In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.
In New York City, kids who don’t speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R’s in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.
At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.
Yeah, I know . . . that’s out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes."
Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it’s a no-no now.
For me, hyphenated identities are awkward . . . particularly "Native-American. " I’m a Native American, for God’s sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux.
On my wife’s side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation native American . . . with the capital letter on "American."
Finally, just last month . . . David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.
As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn’t know the meaning of niggardly,’ (b) didn’t know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apo logize for their ignorance. "
What does all this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what
to say, so telling us what to do can’t be far behind.
Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America’s campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it?
Why do you, who’re supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?
Let’s be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe?
That scares me to death. It should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.
You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are - by your grandfathers’ standards - cowards.
Here’s another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they’ll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermi ne big-city mayor’s pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.
I don’t care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Democracy is dialogue!
Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don’t shoot me."
If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist.
If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist.
If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion.
If you accept but don’t celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.
Don’t let America’s universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.
But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer’s been here all along.
I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.
You simply ... disobey.
Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.
But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don’t. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.
I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King . . . who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.
Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam.
In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.
-
But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.
You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma.
You must be willing to experience discomfort. I’m not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have left their mark on me.
Let me tell you a story. A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black.
I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend. What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.
"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF I’M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF I’M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..." It got worse, a lot worse. I won’t read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.
Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.
"SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY ...."
Well, I won’t do to you here what I did to them. Let’s just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can’t print that." ‘‘I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner’s selling it.
Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T’s contract. I’ll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk. When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself... jam the switchboard of the district attorney’s office.
When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors . . . choke the halls of the board of regents.
When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl’s cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment . . . march on that school and block its doorways. When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you . . . petition them, oust them, banish them. When Time magazine’s cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month . . . boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.
So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a f ew great men, by God’s grace, built this country.
If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.
Thank you.
-
You beat me to it, Steve...
Charlton Heston
(http://www.prairiecentre.org/heston.gif)
-
Hortlund......
Slide a beer over to Hortlund
"Amen and cheers"
Masher
-
IIRC, David Duke was quite fond of that speech.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IIRC, David Duke was quite fond of that speech.
I doubt it:
"I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King .."
-
Sandman why are trying to say Heston's speech was racist and by implication he a racist himself? And dont go be an amazinhunk by saying the David Duke reference, isnt meant to imply just that.
Sad, you leftist must resort to such tactics. It will be a very bad day for you and your kind when people in wider society stop being afraid of the "racist" blackmail scare tactic.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I doubt it:
"I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King .."
Surprise!
http://www.duke.org/writings/heston.html
EDIT... My bad... Heston had a couple... There's one titled "Fighting the Cultural War" and another titled "Winning the Cultural War" I think.
-
IIRC, David Duke was quite fond of that speech.
As would many of the Founding Fathers I suspect.
Wab
-
But AKWabbit dont you know this country was founded by Gloria Steinem.....
Sandman will fill you in... :rolleyes:
-
Finally, just last month . . . David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.
As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn’t know the meaning of niggardly,’ (b) didn’t know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apo logize for their ignorance. "
First of all I am assuming Mr. Heston actually made this speech.... Not sure just assuming. Secondly Mr. Howard worked for Mayor Anthony A. Williams of DC. He did resign after the bruhaha but was reinstated soon after, when the idiots decided to read a dictionary.
Howard, 44, said yesterday that he never felt "victimized" but that the experience has given him "a certain awareness" he did not have before the incident occurred.
"I just feel very pleased that this whole thing has a silver lining," he said. "The silver lining is that this has led to a discussion that can help everyone understand each other better. . . . I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That's naive, especially for a white person, because a white person can't afford to be colorblind. They don't have to think about race every day. An African American does."
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Sandman why are trying to say Heston's speech was racist and by implication he a racist himself? And dont go be an amazinhunk by saying the David Duke reference, isn't meant to imply just that.
GRUNHERZ - why are you trying to say that David Duke is a racist by implicating that any association with him can make another person appear racist?
miko
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Sandman why are trying to say Heston's speech was racist and by implication he a racist himself? And dont go be an amazinhunk by saying the David Duke reference, isnt meant to imply just that.
Sad, you leftist must resort to such tactics. It will be a very bad day for you and your kind when people in wider society stop being afraid of the "racist" blackmail scare tactic.
What we liberal lefties would really like (this is our hidden agenda, so don't tell) is for people like yourself to look on everything with not only an open enough mind to accept the possibility that your conceptions may be wrong, but with a critical enough eye to look without blindly believing as well.
shhhhhhhhhh!
-
Originally posted by miko2d
GRUNHERZ - why are you trying to say that David Duke is a racist by implicating that any association with him can make another person appear racist?
miko
I don't much like the speech. The fact that Duke does simply validates my dislike of it.
-
Sandman,
To condemn an idea merely because someone with a differing point of view, or an actual criminal expressed an appreciation for it, does not make it a bad idea. It does not make the idea a dogma of the "legally challenged" either. Neither does it make it less truthful. To attempt to tar all with the brush of impropriety merely because one individual misuses an idea, concept or even tool is to practice an ancient but deplorable practice. It is called predjudice.
A doctor who is guilty of malpractice does not make all doctors bad. A pilot who flies drunk does not make all pilots drunkards and so on.
What makes you any better than they in that case? Hatred is a concept that has been more in vogue in more locations than ever before and is now being used in the defense of idealism? "Political corectness is neither correct nor an advocacy of politic action. Look up the definition of politic. Those who attempt to decide for others how they should live their lives, make their choices for them or attempt to cudgel them into a way of life not of their choosing is guilty of being a petty despot. It is diametrically opposed to the concept of freedom of thought and action. Why is this now a liberal tactic?
Midnight, Reread your own post with that same concept you wrote. Then reread the two speeches listed above. Are you not also coloring them and not looking at them "critically"? I suggest to you that you have allowed your own concept of true "correct left thought" has deluded you from objectivity. Heston was espousing truly liberal ideas, such as individual freedom, responsibility for self and obligation to others. To me those are liberal ideas, not conservative.
-
Note that I did not say... "I dislike that speech because Duke likes it."
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Note that I did not say... "I dislike that speech because Duke likes it."
No but you also did not say you liked it either. You just brought up the name of a well known klansman (hate merchant) and associated it with no other explanation. Obvious tactic, to smear by association.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandman,
Midnight, Reread your own post with that same concept you wrote. Then reread the two speeches listed above. Are you not also coloring them and not looking at them "critically"? I suggest to you that you have allowed your own concept of true "correct left thought" has deluded you from objectivity. Heston was espousing truly liberal ideas, such as individual freedom, responsibility for self and obligation to others. To me those are liberal ideas, not conservative.
You make some good points again Mav, but you seem to jump to some conclusions as well. The only criticism I made of the Heston speech was to clarify one of the "horrible examples" he mentioned.
I plan on looking into the other examples he mentioned as well. Yes I am biased in that I think they may not be the entire truth. If I find that they are I will be happy to share that with you as well. My point is, I plan on finding out.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Heston was espousing truly liberal ideas, such as individual freedom, responsibility for self and obligation to others. To me those are liberal ideas, not conservative.
Mav, have you lived on the Moon last twenty years? It is true - in the would outside US those ideas can be rightly called "liberal" but in US the right term is "libertarian".
They are as anti-"liberal" as they come. Every single point C.H. opposes it a part of US liberal agenda.
miko
-
Originally posted by Maverick
No but you also did not say you liked it either. You just brought up the name of a well known klansman (hate merchant) and associated it with no other explanation. Obvious tactic, to smear by association.
I thought it a rather nice bookend to bringing up the speech as if it were the gawdamn Gettysburg Address.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Mav, have you lived on the Moon last twenty years? It is true - in the would outside US those ideas can be rightly called "liberal" but in US the right term is "libertarian".
They are as anti-"liberal" as they come. Every single point C.H. opposes it a part of US liberal agenda.
miko
This just in... Heston was a democrat at one time. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't much like the speech.
Would you mind to elaborate? Are you in favor of PC?
-
I guess the key reason is that he begins the speech ranting about political correctness and then he finishes attacking the free speech of others that he finds objectionable.
It's hypocritical.
Hell... the song "Cop Killer" isn't about all police officers. It's about police corruption. I guess Heston had trouble making that distinction. Sure, there's anger in the lyrics. I guess Chuck missed the dispair.
-
Miko, David Duke is a widely recognized racist type in the USA.
-
I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense.
I shot the sheriff, and they say it is a capital offense.
Sheriff John Brown always hated me;
For what I don't know.
Every time that I plant a seed
He said, Kill it before it grows.
He said, Kill it before it grows.
I say:
I shot the Sheriff - Bob Marley
------------------------------------------------
So in anger
I challenged his right for the love of this maiden
Down went his hand for the gun that he wore
My challenge was answered in less than a heartbeat
The handsome young stranger lay dead on the floor
Just for a moment I stood there in silence
Shocked by the foul, evil deed I had done
Many thoughts raced through my mind as I stood there
I had but one chance and that was to run
El Paso - Marty Robbins
------------------------------------------------
Ice-T, "Cop Killer"
I got my black shirt on.
I got my black gloves on.
I got my ski mask on.
This toejam's been too long.
I got my twelve gauge sawed off.
I got my headlights turned off.
I'm 'bout to bust some shots off.
I'm 'bout to dust some cops off.
Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, f**k police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your family's grievin'
(f**k 'em)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even.
I got my brain on hype.
Tonight'll be your night.
I got this long-assed knife,
and your neck looks just right.
My adrenaline's pumpin'.
I got my stereo bumpin'.
I'm 'bout to kill me somethin'
A pig stopped me for nuthin'!
Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, f**k police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your mama's grievin'
(f**k her)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even.
Die, die, die pig, die!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police yeah!
Cop killer, better you than me.
I'm a Cop killer, f**k police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your family's grievin'
(f**k 'em)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even.
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police, break it down.
F**k the police, yeah.
F**k the police, for Darryl Gates.
F**k the police, for Rodney King.
F**k the police, for my dead homies.
F**k the police, for your freedom.
F**k the police, don't be a popsicle.
F**k the police, have some muthaf**kin' courage.
F**k the police, sing along.
Cop killer!
Cop killer!
Cop killer!
Cop killer!
Cop killer, what you're gonna be when you grown up?
Cop killer, good choice.
Cop killer!
I'm a muthaf**kin' cop killer!
Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, f**k police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your mama's grievin'
(f**k her)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even!
"This song came out originally on Body Count (1992), an album by a rap & heavy metal band of that name which Ice-T had been fronting. They had been playing a version of it in concert for a year, including as part of the 1991 Lollapalooza tour. The recorded version includes references to Rodney King, a black motorist whose beating by LAPD officers had been caught on videotape. Shortly after the record came out, a suburban jury acquitted the officers and riots broke out in South Central LA. Soon after that outbreak, a Dallas police group called for a boycott of the Ice-T record. Said Ice-T, who actually played a cop in the 1991 movie New Jack City, "I'm singing in the first person as a character who is fed up with police brutality. I ain't never killed no cop. I felt like it a lot of times. But I never did it." Soon, however, the offending song was removed from the record, and the next year, Warner Brothers dropped both the band and Ice-T as a solo artist. "
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I didnt want to post it in the other thread...
Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!
-
Now those lyrics are disturbing aren't they? But in Ice-T's own words he is portraying an angry young man and singing in the 1st person. If this is wrong, then Tommy Lee Jones is wrong for portraying Gary Gilmore. Tom Harmon should never have accepted the role in "The Deliberate Stranger". Alice Cooper should be vilified for wanting to blow up the school since it's out for summer. Playing a part is playing a part whether it be in song or in a movie. Time-Warner showed a complete lack of huevos on this one.
I support the police. I support schools. Chuck was right about standing up for what is right. He just picked the wrong fight.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!
So what is your problem? I dont remember ever even talking to you. Get a life and get out of my face.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
But in Ice-T's own words he is portraying an angry young man and singing in the 1st person.
SO WHAT?
[edit]
Damn that is just so /%#%# stupid and it pisses me off so &¤#¤ bad.
Here is an idea. Exchange the word "cop" for "jew" and then pretend that Ice-T is portraying an angry young nazi and singing in the 1st person.
Would that make it any less offensive?
-
Sandman_SBM: I guess the key reason is that he begins the speech ranting about political correctness and then he finishes attacking the free speech of others that he finds objectionable.
This has nothing to do with Free Speech. Federal government is not supposed to limit free speech according to our constitution. C.H. is not federal government - he is a private citizen having full right to limit speech to whatever he likes in his home, his website or his private company. As a co-owner of a business (that is what being a shareholder means) he brought to attention of other co-owners that their business was earning money from what he considered immoral lyrics.
GRUNHERZ: Miko, David Duke is a widely recognized racist type in the USA.
I kind of grasped that from the above exchange. I also spent a few hours since then reading his website looking for something I could outright deny. So far I failed. Would you care to take a look at it and point it out to me?
It is very easy to get labeled a racist here in US. I was labeled a racist myself for talking about "The Bell Curve" book.
-
Carefull there Miko, the Bell Curve book is like nitroglyceryn! :D but hey, songs about killing cops are ok. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
SO WHAT?
[edit]
Damn that is just so /%#%# stupid and it pisses me off so &¤#¤ bad.
Here is an idea. Exchange the word "cop" for "jew" and then pretend that Ice-T is portraying an angry young nazi and singing in the 1st person.
Would that make it any less offensive?
Who said it wasn't offensive?
It's very offensive!
And he has every right to sing it, write it, say it.
And BTW numb nut, The quote about the Ape was a Chuck Heston line from Planet of the Apes!
-
Originally posted by miko2d
This has nothing to do with Free Speech. Federal government is not supposed to limit free speech according to our constitution. C.H. is not federal government - he is a private citizen having full right to limit speech to whatever he likes in his home, his website or his private company. As a co-owner of a business (that is what being a shareholder means) he brought to attention of other co-owners that their business was earning money from what he considered immoral lyrics.
You're reading too much into it. It's not about the 1st Amendment.
It's hypocritical for Heston to disavow "cultural correctness" and then to attack Ice-T's "culturally incorrect" song.
-
Yep Miko the leftists in the USA just love to play the "racist" blackmail game, thats why they try to connect anything any white heterosexual male says and they disagree with as some form of racism or another. Thats what they do.
As for David Duke he is? a KKK guy and I think they go too far the other way so I am uncomfortable with him also.
I want a society where race is irrelevant, but I fear I see a society where race is becoming more and more relevant.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep Miko the leftists in the USA just love to play the "racist" blackmail game, thats why they try to connect anything any white heterosexual male says and they disagree with as some form of racism or another. Thats what they do.
Take heed, Midnight Target, Weazel and Elfenwolf. You too, Sikboy.
This is what we do. Let's play a game of racist blackmail.
Who goes first? :rolleyes:
-
midnight Target:Who said it wasn't offensive?
It's very offensive!
And he has every right to sing it, write it, say it.
Sure - as long as Heston is not obligated to participate in producing/selling it.
Sandman_SBM: It's hypocritical for Heston to disavow "cultural correctness" and then to attack Ice-T's "culturally incorrect" song.
Isn't it hyppocrytical for you to defend Ice-T's expression about police and sodomizing minors, but disawow Heston's expression about Ice-T's expression about police and sodomizing minors?
If Ice-T took pictures of Al Gore's nieces and photo-shoped them in pornographic images, they would still be considered child pornography and he would go to jail under current laws. Taking their names and singing graphic descriptions of the same vile acts does not apparently violate the law. But I can see how a person would not be willing to participate in distributing such material - even if it cost him a few bucks lost profit.
I think you missed a significant point here. The shareholders of Time-Warner present at the meeting had no idea what lyrics their company was distributing for their enrichment. According to C. Heston's account he just rose to the stage, read the lyric and left - without even making additional comments - as if he needed to to make his point!
Apparently many people were gratefull for being given such information based on which they could make their own informed decision.
So, how can you call providing literal factual information to ignorant people who were involved in the company "a hypocrytical attack"? He just read the same lyrics that the Ice-T was singing himself. For all practical purposes he spread that lyrics to the people who would have never heard it otherwise.
Yes, telling people simple truth about the content of the lyrics made some of them want to stop participating in it's distribution. Is that Heston's fault?
Heston disawows the fact that normal acts and expressions that have been normal for millenia are outlawed and presented as offencive and even punishable.
Heston did not present the Ice-T's lyrics as offencive - he just presented it. Quite a difference.
I am sure Heston would have defended Ice-T's right to create and offer for sale those lyrics without fear of prosecution, however disgusted he felt about them - he just would not want to participate himself or allow his associates to do so through lack of knowlege.
Sandman_SBM: Heston was a democrat at one time.
He is what? A hundred? Ok, I know he's 78 - still a lot. Sixty years ago democrats were quite different than than they are now. They did not think then that we needed to subcidise underclass procreation, needed to nationalise healthcare, increase taxes, institute Affirmative Action, etc.
GRUNHERZ: As for David Duke he is? a KKK guy and I think they go too far the other way so I am uncomfortable with him also.
OK, you've labeled him. I looked at the KKK website and they claim they are not racicts either... :) What does he say that you disagree with - could you find out? I am not implying that he does not say anything bad - just that his statements come with explanations and so far I found no flaw.
I read Hitler's "Mein Kamph" - a huge book, about 1000 pages and "Hitler's Table Talk" - even bigger tome (and even more revealing because not prepared and edited by him) of stenograms of his rumblings in private company of close associates. I can easily see where he comes from, but also logical and factual flaws in his premises and arguments.
If David Duke or his ilk are prospective future hitlers, shouldn't we be a bit more familiar with their arguments? I am not thinking of turning a nazi, but if I did consider joining KKK, would you have been able to dissuade me with logical arguments?
BTW - I read "The bell curve" for the same reason, I believed that one though. Even read twice as volumnous and much more mathematical A. Jencen's work to verify it. Somehow people who argue against both (and call me racist) never bothered to read either... :confused:
P.S. For those not thoroughly familiar with netiquette, using the name of Hitler in a thread is a subject to what's'his'name law only if the other side is likened to him - not the case here.
miko
-
Sandman you should be taken out and shot for making such statements. How dare you use the right to free speech in that manner. What we need in the USA is an organization to investigate and eliminate subversive expression.
-
Yes, bringing up David Duke cannot be considered a "racist" blackmail tactic.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This just in... Heston was a democrat at one time. :)
so was Reagan
I was a democrat (http://www.reagan.com/ronald/video/blame.avi)
-
I bet Heston forgets the combo to his gun safe
-
Wow, all this attention devoted to what an actor said. next thing ya know we'll be quoting Bono. I did like the Omega Man however. He wasn't pulsing any racist vibes in that one :)
Ive always considered Heston to be the MacArthur of B actors, the Churchill of campy sci fi. My sympathies to him. Too bad he has to suffer such a debilitating decline.
Charon
-
Partial Quote:
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ice-T, "Cop Killer"
I got my black shirt on.
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police!
F**k the police, break it down.
F**k the police, yeah.
F**k the police, for Darryl Gates.
F**k the police, for Rodney King.
F**k the police, for my dead homies.
F**k the police, for your freedom.
F**k the police, don't be a popsicle.
F**k the police, have some muthaf**kin' courage.
F**k the police, sing along.
Cop killer!
Cop killer!
Cop killer!
Cop killer!
Cop killer, what you're gonna be when you grown up?
Cop killer, good choice.
Cop killer!
I'm a muthaf**kin' cop killer!
Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, f**k police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your mama's grievin'
(f**k her)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even!
"This song came out originally on Body Count (1992), an album by a rap & heavy metal band of that name which Ice-T had been fronting. "
Ice T's prose rolls off the tongue like poetry:
What light through yonder window breaks?
Where the fuggin' biatch be?
Alas poor Yourek.... I knew the mutha fugga well...
I think the inherent violence in his lyrics is almost as distasteful as the language he uses to express that violence.
The largest cause of death for black males under 30 in america is murder, and an extremely small percentage of that statistic is due to police brutality.
It is time for us to look take responsibility for ourselves and look within... let's solve our own problems rather than to blame others.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Take heed, Midnight Target, Weazel and Elfenwolf. You too, Sikboy.
This is what we do. Let's play a game of racist blackmail.
Who goes first? :rolleyes:
Me, but only because I've been drinking...
Grunherz, the fact that you expressed fear at being called a racist proves you are aware of your racism. You are typical of racists who do a pre-emptive strike against racial fairness by claiming the only reason we needed slavery was to provide for the African Americans. If you don't send me five hundred dollars I am going to tell everyone you are a racist.
-
IceT is as much an "artist" as I am a Dumbacrat :rolleyes:
IceT thanks God for black poverty, poor school systems and ignorance of our youth everytime he checks his bank balance...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Take heed, Midnight Target, Weazel and Elfenwolf. You too, Sikboy.
This is what we do. Let's play a game of racist blackmail.
Who goes first? :rolleyes:
Actually you did when you posted this:
originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IIRC, David Duke was quite fond of that speech.
[/b]
-
“Mr. Heston, the 78-year-old actor and president of the National Rifle Association who in a long career has portrayed seemingly invincible characters like Ben-Hur, El Cid and Moses, said in a statement videotaped on Wednesday that his doctors told him recently that he had a neurological disorder whose symptoms may be consistent with Alzheimer's.”
CNN
Looks like Chuck is tackling another role. I’d be interested to know what Alzheimers group is funding him and how much he’s making.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
If you don't send me five hundred dollars I am going to tell everyone you are a racist.
Dude! You rolled doubles! you get to go again!
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep Miko the leftists in the USA just love to play the "racist" blackmail game
One of the biggest problems with the left, is that they had their glory years in the 60s when a lot of their issues were more relevant. It gets even worse. I mean Labor, Civil rights, the Environment, these were all issues that needed to be addressed in the past [edit] troll removed [/edit] But instead of realising the progress has been made, they cling to these same buzzwords. You'd think that after 40 years they would realise that tactics need to change if progress is going to be made.
-Sikboy
-
I stood up to my 3rd grade teacher once. She wanted me to recite the alphabet. I refused, and she made me stand in the corner for the rest of class. I have a lot in common with Jesus Christ, don't I? DON'T I?!!
Nothing against Mr. Heston, but anyone that has to compare themselves to Martin Luther King has an ego problem. If someone is worthy of such comparisons, someone else should make them. Just my opinion, of course.
-
Yep Sikboy when I listen to some of these people I get the feeling they think its still 1960.
Elfenwolf you are a child molestor.
-
He didn't compare himself to Dr. King...he said he learned a lot from him.
I lost a grandparent over the course of three long years to a series of minor strokes. She was over ninety. She lost her memories a few at the time and went through great periods of depression and weeping.
This was a lady who had a hard life but never complained. I never heard her speak disparagingly of someone else whose opinions were different from hers. She might disagree with them, but she didn't make insulting remarks about their intelligence. She practically raised me during the summertime. It was extremely painful for me to watch her die by degrees. At the end, I don't know if she even recognized me.
As much as I detest Bill Clinton, I would not wish that kind of death on him. I fail to see why some of you find Charlton Heston's predicament amusing. Death is going to claim us all. Therefore, we should be careful what we say about the suffering of other people. . . because we do not know what the Grim Reaper has in store for each of us.
Or do you really get that much enjoyment out of insulting others?
Shuckins
-
Don't get me wrong... I support and defend Heston's constitutional rights to be a hypocrite. :)
Shite... I only rolled a 1.
-
Here you go ladies. Just for you.
Btw, i hate to burst a bubble here, be he wasn't really Moses. I know, it must be a disappointment to lot of you....
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005B1ZD.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
-
The largest cause of death for black males under 30 in america is murder,
at he hand of other black males
the racist thing to do would be to ignore or encourage it. Seems to me chuck stand against the ice t types is not so much the wording but type of mind set in encourages. That crap is not a reflection on "society" or ice ts enviroment. Wheres he living? it damn sure aint the ghetto.
Tom Metzger (Fallbrook, CA own Hitler wanna) lost a multi million dollar judgement when the jury found that the literature and music he distibuted resulted in in the death of an Ethopian immigrant. Those who beat the guy to death had read liturature from toms group.
But suppose ice ts art was filled with rape the little jews or kill the the black cops. I am sure you hypocritical leftist would be out in front defending it as art.
Chuck never called for laws banning ice ts speech he used his right to free speech and right as a share holder to counter it.
On other hand leftist are the ones who consistantly are for laws against thought.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Here you go ladies. Just for you.
Btw, i hate to burst a bubble here, be he wasn't really Moses. I know, it must be a disappointment to lot of you....
Missed the point FD, what was it?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Take heed, Midnight Target, Weazel and Elfenwolf. You too, Sikboy.
This is what we do. Let's play a game of racist blackmail.
Who goes first? :rolleyes:
He's so clueless and predictable it's not worth the effort to read his demented rantings.
One of these days he might shuck off the brainwashing Slobodan gave him...then he might be able to think and speak coherently. :D
"Heston was espousing truly liberal ideas, such as individual freedom, responsibility for self and obligation to others. To me those are liberal ideas, not conservative."
__________________
Mav13,
Worst pilot in 13th TAS
As pointed out by miko2d your mistaking Libertarian values for liberal ones, and demonstrate perfectly why I hold the so called "conservative" fairy tale in such contempt.
-
The guy has always been a conservative, in a town crawling with lefty vermin. He gets credit for having the guts to do that, if nothing else.
-
Ohhh weazel that is soo clever. Maybe you should use your superior intellect to counter what I said instead of being a dick..
But wait I'm too much of a blabering neandertal to understand your superhuman left-wing line of uber thought. :rolleyes:
Anyway I say your post goes to prove that you left wingers are only capable of name calling and insults when challenged. That makes sense as most of your ridiculous ideas came from arrogant cowardly upper class liberals who think themselves above normal American people.
But again I better stop rambling to save you scrolling time. :p
-
In a fit of pique at the Cannes Film Festival, Spike Lee said I should be shot "with a .44 Bulldog" (the handgun used by the serial killer Son of Sam).
In response, I feel some irony. In '63, when I was marching for the freedom of black Americans, I was threatened by white men. In '99, active now for the freedom of all Americans, I'm threatened by a black man.
When Lee was still in diapers, I was working with Dr. Martin Luther King to break down the racist code in the Hollywood technical unions that denied blacks any place behind the cameras, paving the way for young filmmakers like Lee.
I want no apology from him; my character speaks for itself. As for his, he's responsible for that, of course. I wish him well on his next film.
CHARLTON HESTON
Los Angeles
-
The death of civility. The number of people who can even define the term is rapidly dwindling.
Why is that, do you think?
Regards, Shuckins
-
I was labeled a racist myself for talking about "The Bell Curve" book.
Selective memory Mike. You were called the rasist because of the conclusions you drew from the arguments, some of which included that particular book.
We've beaten that horse to death too. Book in question has been refuted on all levels, starting from using only statistic data that fits author's view, lack of standards in research and faulty logic.
I know that you like that book a lot. I'm sad to say, however, that it is a wrong works to base your view of the word on.
Drop me an e-mail at bartek@mindspring.com
let's take this discussion offline.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mielta, not much of a point.
Speach in question is a self-rightous rant of nostalgic person who can't get over the "days that passed".
Who is responsible for the way america is today ?
It isn't media, it isn't universities. It is american people. For they buy IceTs CDs. They are the ones who are not outraged at some things that Mr. Henson might consider outragious.
His stories of political correctness, had they been put into a short news clip, would be called "biased sound bite, so typical of today's media". There is always more to the story. I guess it's ok for most of you, since story supports your particular view of things.
To sum things up, i'll shorten the speach to one sentence for you:
"You are free to think what you want, but you must think my way".
Scores: ( out of 10 )
Level of nostalgia : 10 ( With Dr. King before it was fashionable !!! Oh my goodness. This really deserves 11 )
Coherence: 4 - Too jumpy. From topic to topic, lacking good structure.
Poor little abused me symptom/paranoia: 13 - look at all of them ganging up on me for everything i do / say. it's all because of the guns !!!
Value: 2 - Had the speach been given by someone not famous. Not a single person would turn a head.
On top of that, he was a toejamty actor. Republican nomination in 2004 maybe ?
-
Hmm easymo that clearly proves he is a racist!
I'm not sure how just yet, but Sandman, Elfenwolf, Weazel or Karnak will be here and show us in short order. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by weazel
He's so clueless and predictable it's not worth the effort to read his demented rantings.
Now, that is one hell of an open liberal mind at work.
Address his points one by one and say where you disgree and why. You may even try to argue that your point of view is more valid/true/commonsensical/reasonable than his.
As it is, you said completely nothing.
-
During the McCarthy Era, some Hollywood stars, such as Zero Mostel, were blacklisted for their alleged association with Communist organizations. Many members of the Hollywood elite came to their defense and spoke out boldly against this persecution.
This same Hollywood community awarded Charlton Heston with an oscar or two at the peak of his career. He was a well respected and loved member of that community.
I guess things have changed considerably in Hollywood in the last 40 years. Heston fell out of favor with the new generation of Hollywood actors when he dared to speak up for conservative political causes. No major acting roles have come his way in a long time. In effect, he has been blacklisted by the very community who protested that particular evil so vehemently during the 1950's.
A corporate worker who was denied a promotion or salary increase because of their political affiliations can sue their employer discrimination. Heston has no such recourse. After all, who could he sue?
So he has every right to discuss Hollywood's bias in a speech.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I find this interesting. The concepts I posted about earlier such as personal freedom in addition to personal responsibility were in fact liberal concepts. The fact that a political party that came along later (Libertarians) adopted them does not make them the property of that party. If believing in personal liberty makes me a conservative, then so be it. Please keep in mind that it was your decision to call me that, not mine weasel. I suppose I should be thankful that you would deign to instruct me in my beliefs. Perish the thought that I should have my own self image and concepts. How fortunate I am that I have you to tell me how I think and how wrong I am for thinking thus. And you are a liberal?????? Gee I thought liberalism was a way for INDIVIDUALS to think. Thanks for telling me it really means telling others how THEY should think. I was really misinformed. Damn my teachers for telling me it was MY responsibility to make decisions, think for myself and be responsible for my actions.
-
I think Admiral Akbar said it best when he said, "It's a trap!".
PS: GRUNHERZ, can you please make youy sig bigger? Thanks!:)
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Speach in question is a self-rightous rant of nostalgic person who can't get over the "days that passed".
Say what? The way I took it is:
"Say what you want and take the consequences"
In other words, fight for your views whatever the price.
Who is responsible for the way america is today ?
It isn't media, it isn't universities. It is american people. For they buy IceTs CDs. They are the ones who are not outraged at some things that Mr. Henson might consider outragious.
You're right. Heston is saddened by that and so am I. But still I am against any government censorship of anything.
The children are the exception, but this is mine and my wife's job to make sure that my kids do not see/hear what the ought not to, not the government's.
"You are free to think what you want, but you must think my way".
Obviously you took it differently. Read some previous posts. Miko (I think it was Miko) highlighted the difference.
Heston proposes a civil disobedience to protest what he deems offensive (including the consequences). He did not call the cops on them, did he?
You libs go the easy way. You highjack the courts to enforce your un-Constitutional PC, and let the governemnt do your work without you being exposed.
Same thing with income tax. Why steal and risk the consequences, let the dems do the work for you, and then you can call the victim selfish, and the thief virtuos.
On top of that, he was a toejamty actor. Republican nomination in 2004 maybe ?
Have to partly agree on the "actor" part. He is an old school "theatrical" actor, not my first choice for the movie, but hech Rosie O'Donnell is a so called actress.
On 2004, nah, he's too straight for it.
One of these days, we just HAVE TO take it off-line. We'll need a lot of booz for this one. Last man standing... what do you say?
I'm taking Funked as my second, who's yours?
:)
-
>The death of civility. The number of people who can even define
>the term is rapidly dwindling.
>
>Why is that, do you think?
True, blame it on societies natural progression towards the future and the ever changing music and art trends each year to cater to the millions of yuts in the civilized world as they try to set their initial premark on life. Blame it on human nature as well as humans advances. Mr Heston, I suspect is truly a man of antiquity and I suspect that he admires and has been inspired but much of what was great from the past. Yet hes an artist so hes torn with forward thinking at the same time. Typical an artist who is torn, not unusual at all or so in his own way. Personally I like civility as its the glue of society I believe though as we move towards the future some lack of it is probably required in order to grow and break the rigidities of the past. All in all its just my opinion. Now I gots to go buy me some more smokes and maybe an iceecreemy bar, yum yum.
Oh and also an icecream cone to go with that.
-
Heh Thrawn, I was planning on editing it last night but got distracted. Thanks for the reminder. :D
-
Protests and counterprotests, even countercounterprotests, were scheduled. The glove was tossed down by the Committee Against Silence, a hastily assembled agglomeration of liberals, leftists and the blacklisted, which announced a public protest outside the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion the night of the Oscars, March 21. Charlton Heston appeared on Good Morning America, flummoxing interviewer Aaron Brown with a defense of Kazan and McCarthyism because There Was a Cold War Going On. "This was very serious stuff," Heston intoned to Brown. "We were fighting a war." --------------------------------
The right seemed to be winning the PR war because Hollywood, predominantly Democratic and liberal, was largely silent. The film community, where the blacklist played out on its most visible terrain, is ever a company town, and was running scared. "I'd say that fear is still rampant in Hollywood," assesses Norma Barzman (Luxury Girls, Never Say Goodbye), who was blacklisted along with her husband, Ben (The Boy With Green Hair, Back to Bataan), and forced to move to Europe for their livelihood. Barzman, canvassing the town for names and cash for the trade-paper protest, found that the big names would not call back, or offered their dough silently. She laughs when recounting a conversation with a television producer who was willing to donate, but not openly. "Norma," he confided, "I'll give you money but I'm in the middle of a deal. You understand."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you agree with, him or not, you have to admit the guy was right out there with his beliefs. The leftys, on the other hand, where covering their own ass, as usual.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
at he hand of other black males
the racist thing to do would be to ignore or encourage it. Seems to me chuck stand against the ice t types is not so much the wording but type of mind set in encourages. That crap is not a reflection on "society" or ice ts enviroment. Wheres he living? it damn sure aint the ghetto.
Tom Metzger (Fallbrook, CA own Hitler wanna) lost a multi million dollar judgement when the jury found that the literature and music he distibuted resulted in in the death of an Ethopian immigrant. Those who beat the guy to death had read liturature from toms group.
But suppose ice ts art was filled with rape the little jews or kill the the black cops. I am sure you hypocritical leftist would be out in front defending it as art.
Chuck never called for laws banning ice ts speech he used his right to free speech and right as a share holder to counter it.
On other hand leftist are the ones who consistantly are for laws against thought.
No the racist thing to do would be to ASS-U-ME that race is the main determining factor in your conclusions.
Metzger wrote a PERSONAL letter to the skinheads in Portland that instructed them on how to attack minorities:
On November 12, 1988, skinheads from the Portland Oregon group, East Side White Pride, attacked three Ethiopian immigrants with a baseball bat and steel-toed boots. One of the immigrants - Mulugeta Seraw - was killed. Investigation into the murder resulted in three convictions and revealed close connections between the skinhead gang and White Aryan Resistance.
Among the most critical of these links was a letter to the skinheads signed by Metzger, stating in part: "Soon you will meet Dave Mazzella, our national vice-president, who will be in Portland to teach you how we operate and to help you understand more about WAR…." In fact, Mazzella did instruct the gang - including how to attack people of color. He would later explain that "Tom Metzger said the only way to get respect from skinheads is to teach them how to commit violence against blacks, against Jews, Hispanics, any minority. The word will spread, and they'll know our group is one you can respect."
Chuck did the same thing in going to the shareholders of Time Warner that he raled against in the beginning of his speech.
Interesting how you played down the actual role of Metzger in the attacks.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Tom Metzger (Fallbrook, CA own Hitler wanna)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
not to be confused with Tom Metzger (Pasadena, MD own fighter-pilot wanna-be)
just keeping things cleared up here... now back to your BBS right vs left battle of the twit.. err wits already in progress...
Lonz
-
Watch the Bill Moyers Documentary about the trail. The legal experts that discussed it said that Metzgers newspaper and telephone message service and other racist products are what convinced the jury. Mezzalla was a proven liar who had a deal with the portland police to get out of violent crimes he was accused of. The guys who were convicted had committed numerous violent acts prior to ever hearing of Metzger or mazzella. They read a copy of Metzger letter it had no instruction. They used his newspaper and a video tape from a speech to show "instruction".
I dont need play down anything. A jury found him guilty. The only point here is the hypocrtical lying left. You are the typical leftist hypocritical liar that throws out racist and nazi as a sorta trump to prop up your weak arguements. Much like you are doing now.
I made no assumptions, black people kill black people you can look it up on your own. Now the reasons / solution are social.
Chuck used the tools he had to combat and confront what he sees as wrong. Unlike leftists he didnt run to big poppa Federal government for a solution.
He used his freedom of speech. Leftist use the government to stiffle speech which they dont like.
Or they call you a racist........
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Chuck did the same thing in going to the shareholders of Time Warner that he raled against in the beginning of his speech.
Actually I think he was a shareholder himself. I believe that was a shareholders meeting and he was using his first amendment right to free speech. Though I don't believe the song should be censored, nor do I like the song.
:p
-
he didnt censor the song you can still buy/download/ listen to it all ya want. he convinced time warner to drop his contract.
But chuck didnt do this alone Time Warner had plenty of folks writing them and pressuring them to do something. Chuck may have even played up his roll in the whole thing.
-
MT:
"Chuck did the same thing in going to the shareholders of Time Warner that he raled against in the beginning of his speech."
I know I'm a blathering neandertal and all but please try your inellectually superior leftist best to explain what in the hell does Heston's speech have to do with a racist (AGAIN!) possibly inciting a crime?
Why are you lefties constantly trying to tie Hestons speech to racism over and over again? Is what he said so terrifying that the racist blackmail tactic simply must be used?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Heston fell out of favor with the new generation of Hollywood actors when he dared to speak up for conservative political causes. No major acting roles have come his way in a long time. In effect, he has been blacklisted by the very community who protested that particular evil so vehemently during the 1950's.
Regards, Shuckins
Shuckins, please don't paint Charlton Heston as a martyr who has been denied movie roles because of his politics or I'll paint Jane Fonda as being equally ostercized by the movie industry for HER outspoken political beliefs. Anyway James Garner, Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and I'm sure many others have held conservative viewpoints without losing movie roles. Sheeesh, Shuckins, this is the first irresponsible statement I've ever read from you- most of us offer one irresponsible statement per post.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Elfenwolf you are a child molestor.
GRUNHERZ, if I am a child molestor then you are a RACIST child molestor. At least I'm not so racist I refuse to molest children of color. Where in the hell is my five hundred dollars, you racist?
-
So you are saying any form of racism is worse than child molestation?
Your $500? I think Jesse Jackson has all the "racism" money these days, call him.
-
"Now, that is one hell of an open liberal mind at work.
Address his points one by one and say where you disgree and why. You may even try to argue that your point of view is more valid/true/commonsensical/reasonable than his.
As it is, you said completely nothing.
Care to define "liberal", and the thought process you use to arrive at the conclusion that the label fits a person?
Then direct me to where Groinhurtz made any "points" in this thread.
I don't see the questions, all I see is the usual pathetic right wing nonsense blaming every problem in America on the "liberal" boogeyman.
Chuck made a pretty good speech, if he's a "conservative" why doesn't he babble the usual "conservative" platitudes while speaking?
I say it's because he appears smart enough to recognize roadkill when he sees or smells it, unlike so many Americans who have bought into the fairy tale called "conservatism".
The typical response from "conservatives" is to yell "A LIBERAL, GET HIM BOYS!" when anyone disagrees with the ignorant roadkill fed to them by the carpet baggers in Washington.
You so called "conservatives" should pretend his speech is a mirror and honestly judge your own reflection in it before you judge anyone else......do you have the intestinal fortitude to act as he did....to champion an unpopular cause regardless of personal consequences.....the courage to speak out if it's the *right* thing to do?
Judging from the impressions I have formed from responses to other threads, *most* of you so called "conservatives" will find yourselves lacking if your capable of personal honesty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't try to instruct you in anything maverick, I just pointed out your incorrect assumption....and why I find the so called "conservative" mindset repugnant.
-
"Sandman why are trying to say Heston's speech was racist and by implication he a racist himself? And dont go be an amazinhunk by saying the David Duke reference, isnt meant to imply just that."
Exactly which part of my "point" do you not understand?
-
I'm fully aware Duke is a racist, and my moniker isn't sandman.
Why should I answer a "point" addressed to him? :rolleyes:
Hell.....mietla can search this forum back to day one and I seriously doubt he will find *any* rational contribution from you.
I hear there are therapists who are able to help people who have been "conditioned" sort out the difference between reality and fantasy.
For your own well being you might consider finding one.
-
The Extremism, Racism, Sexism, Legal Woes, and Gun Industry Ties of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/study.html).
The more blatant racists all seem to like Heston's Cultural War speeches.
Why is that?
-
Once again your post includes nothing but name calling and of course avoiding the actual argument, perhaps mietla should do a search on you.
And again Sandman is saying Heston is a racist....
You just cant stop... Cant you?
-
Elfenwolf,
Go back and read my entire post. The point I was trying to make is that the Hollywood community has changed. The Hollywood actors with conservative political viewpoints you have mentioned are all either dead or at the tail-end of their active careers. The only one of them who has made any big-budget pictures in recent years is Clint Eastwood.
How many of the younger actors in Hollywood can you name that have conservative values? Make a list. Then compare it to the list of those that espouse liberal values. Do these lists reflect an accurate reflection of the political makeup of the population at large?
Jane Fonda!? You are joking aren't you? She was ostracized not only by Hollywood but the American public. Can anything Heston has done or said compare to the infamous trip to North Vietnam, or the repulsive things she said about American prisoners of war who returned home and told tales of being tortured for refusing to cooperate with the propaganda campaign she and the North Vietnamese whipped up? Her own father disowned her after that little episode of insanity.
Why the hostility towards this man? What particular thing is it that he stands for that brings out such virulent scorn by some of those on the political left? The speech itself mentions defending freedom of speech, civil disobedience, and non-violent protest...all doctrines embraced by the left during the 1960's, and by most conservatives as well. When it comes right down to it, the two extremes of the political spectrume are more alike than they care to admit.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you are saying any form of racism is worse than child molestation?
.
No, GRUNHERZ, but what I CAN say is that in this thread YOU are the one who first used the word "Racisim" and YOU are the first to use the phrase "child molestor." In fact- scroll back. Every one of your posts in this thread contains some of these words. Actually YOU are the one who called ME a child molestor- all I did was LOL and respond to a roll-the-dice challange issued by Sandman. As for which is worse?? LOL You seem to think they're equal in insult value but I hope you don't actually believe being racist is comperable to being a pedophile because we already know you're a racist... now send me my money you pig.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Elfenwolf,
Go back and read my entire post. The point I was trying to make is that the Hollywood community has changed. The Hollywood actors with conservative political viewpoints you have mentioned are all either dead or at the tail-end of their active careers. The only one of them who has made any big-budget pictures in recent years is Clint Eastwood.
How many of the younger actors in Hollywood can you name that have conservative values? Make a list. Then compare it to the list of those that espouse liberal values. Do these lists reflect an accurate reflection of the political makeup of the population at large?
Jane Fonda!? You are joking aren't you? She was ostracized not only by Hollywood but the American public. Can anything Heston has done or said compare to the infamous trip to North Vietnam, or the repulsive things she said about American prisoners of war who returned home and told tales of being tortured for refusing to cooperate with the propaganda campaign she and the North Vietnamese whipped up? Her own father disowned her after that little episode of insanity.
Why the hostility towards this man? What particular thing is it that he stands for that brings out such virulent scorn by some of those on the political left? The speech itself mentions defending freedom of speech, civil disobedience, and non-violent protest...all doctrines embraced by the left during the 1960's, and by most conservatives as well. When it comes right down to it, the two extremes of the political spectrume are more alike than they care to admit.
Regards, Shuckins
Shuckins, I respect Charlton Heston as an advocate of his cause, the NRA. I understand Mr. Heston can't be objective because his position within the organization requires him to be totally subjective. He is an advocate and were he to be less extremist in his opposition to gun control he would be an ineffective advocate.
He is a spin doctor, an idealogue and a demigod for his cause and he'll promote the NRA agenda at every turn- I have no hostility towards Charlton Heston but rather admiration for the strong leadership he offers to his cause.
However, what recent Hollywood roles did Charelton Heston miss out upon because of his political point of view? Did his political viewpoint cause him to lose the casting call to Russell Crowe in Gladiator? Hey, he was right there in the final cut for the lead in Spiderman, but Toby McGwire is a socialist so he got the nod. Yeah, that's it. I wonder how "Cable Guy" would have been had they casted Chuck instead of Jim Carey the Commie in the lead? Personally I think Charleton Heston would have been perfect in "Dude Wheres My Car" but they gave the part to Adam-Whatever the kid's name is. Sorry, but Chuck's last casting call was against Rodney Dangerfield in "Back To School," and Chuck couldn't do his own stunts like Rodney could.
-
Typical "conservative" argument...misdirection and lies.
Your straw man has no stuffing, similar to your argument, all you need to do is throw a Bill Clinton comment in to make it complete. :rolleyes:
Still waiting for an answer mietla, your silence leads me to believe you don't have one......just like the so called "conservative" political party.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Once again your post includes nothing but name calling and of course avoiding the actual argument, perhaps mietla should do a search on you.
And again Sandman is saying Heston is a racist....
You just cant stop... Cant you?
-
Lets just see how truthful Chuck was:
At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.
Here is that directive: Looks like a reasonable explanation of the Schools policy regarding consenual sex. http://www.antioch-college.edu/survival/html/sopp.html
In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs - the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not….need not. . . .tell their patients that they are infected.
The JAMA says - Implementation of the current national policy at the local level poses significant human rights burdens on HCWs (Health Care Workers), but does not improve patient safety. (in other words New Jersey is correct)
-
"New Jersey is correct"?
This is absurd on so many levels. A policy desicion is just that, a policy desicion. No right or wrong there, just a political desicion. Then people like you and me decide whether they think that is a good policy or not...the "right or wrong" is in the eyes of the beholder...like it always is.
I dont know about you Midnight, but when I go to the dentist, I'd sure as he** would like to know if he has HIV or not.
Maybe the dentist has the right to continue to practice..eh "dentistry" even though he is HIV positive...I dunno what your laws say about that. But it is also my right to choose whether I would want to be treated by him or not.
-
Oh COME ON...that is simply ludicrous.
Lets see then what rules a college student must keep in mind if he wants to make out with his new found love:
CONSENT
1. For the purpose of this policy, "consent" shall be defined as follows:
the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual behavior.
See (4) below when sexual behavior is mutually and simultaneously initiated.
Because of the importance of communication and the potential dangers when misunderstanding exists in a sexual situation, those involved in any sexual interaction need to share enough of a common understanding to be able to adequately communicate: 1) requests for consent; and, 2) when consent is given, denied or withdrawn.
Note: Recognized American and international sign languages are considered a form of verbal language for the purpose of this policy.
2. When sexual behavior is not mutually and simultaneously initiated, then the person who initiates sexual behavior is responsible for verbally asking for the consent of the other individual(s) involved.
3. The person with whom sexual contact/conduct is initiated shall verbally express his/her willingness or must verbally express consent, and/or express his/her lack of willingness by words, actions, gestures, or any other previously agreed upon communication.
Silence and/or non-communication must never be interpreted as consent.
4. When sexual behavior is mutually and simultaneously initiated, then the persons involved share responsibility for getting/giving or refusing/denying consent by words, actions, gestures or by any other previously agreed upon communication.
5. Obtaining consent is an on-going process in any sexual interaction. Verbal consent should be obtained with each new level of physical and/or sexual behavior in any given interaction, regardless of who initiates it. Asking "Do you want to have sex with me?" is not enough. The request for consent must be specific to each act.
6. If someone has initially consented but then stops consenting during a sexual interaction, she/he should communicate withdrawal of consent verbally (example: saying "no" or "stop") and/or through
physical resistance (example: pushing away). The other individual(s) must stop immediately.
7. In order for consent to be meaningful and valid under this policy:
a) the person not initiating must have judgment and control unimpaired by any drug or intoxicant administered to prevent her/his resistance, and/or which has been administered surreptitiously, by force or threat of force, or by deception;
b) the person not initiating must have judgment and control unimpaired by mental dysfunction which is known to the person initiating;
c) the person not initiating must not be asleep or unconscious;
d) the person initiating must not have forced, threatened, coerced, or intimidated the other individual(s) into engaging in sexual behavior.
8. To knowingly take advantage of someone who is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, prescribed or over-the-counter medication is not acceptable behavior in the Antioch community.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!
...You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, Damn you! Golly-geen you all to hell!
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The Extremism, Racism, Sexism, Legal Woes, and Gun Industry Ties of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/study.html).
The more blatant racists all seem to like Heston's Cultural War speeches.
Why is that?
I read the article, and even checked out a couple more articles. I don't know Sandman... seems kind of a stretch making Ted Nugent out to be a racist, despite what the article quotes him saying. I think it was meant to be humorous. I thought it was, anyway. Written words can be misleading, because often the same word in a language has different meanings when spoken, i.e. inflections, or extra weight given to syllables, tone, intent, etc...
The other example, of the guy using the word Nip to refer to Japanese. In what context was he speaking? That term is only associated with WWII, to the best of my knowledge. I rarely here it. When was the last time you heard it?
These two are outspoken, and I'm sure, colorful characters...but I didn't read anything connotating racism on their part.
Violence Policy Center is a lobby group diametrically opposed to the NRA. They use terms like "gun culture" to describe American traditions such as hunting and target shooting. They refer to semi-auto rifles as assault weapons, because they look like military weapons. They see training children in the proper use of firearms, as an introduction to mayhem in our schools, and, as having the ulterior motive of boosting profits to the "gun" industry. Their comparison of Eddie Eagle to Joe Camel, to get kids hooked on guns, was when I had to come back and make this post.
I guess you can tell, I'm a member of the NRA, however I also critically examine this organization, and don't always agree with some of their ideas. I am a member because I truly believe, they are the only entity powerful enough to call some of our legislators to task, when they try to circumvent our Constitution...and our laws.
Les
-
Some of you guys sure love to hear yourselves talk, all the while saying absolutley nothing.
-
Sandman,
Read the article on the NRA. Nice objective, unbiased piece of journalism, judging by the tone and the adjectives used. The authors tried to tie every idiot in the country to the NRA. You don't think they could possibly have their own agenda do ya? ;)
By the way, Ted Nugent is an idiot. We can both agree on that.
Shake the stem of any organization as large as the NRA and a few racists are gonna fall out; NAACP, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Sierra Club, you name it.
Unfortunately for the NRA, it has a lot of enemies that attempt to convince the American public that the membership of the NRA is made up of extremists. And it isn't. Stereotyping is generally frowned upon by the mainstream media, but they routinely use it themselves whenever discussing the NRA. Most of the members live in rural areas of the country who feel that they are being squeezed into a mold by the dominant urban culture of the United States; a culture that has become so divorced from country life and the shooting sports that it may as well have developed on another planet.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Elfenwolf I am as much a racist as you are a child molestor.
And Sandman was the first to bring in racism to the discussion, or do you expect us think the David Duke reference was not an attempt to paint Heston as a racist?
Or will you pull a weazel defense on this point Elfenwolf:
"I'm fully aware Duke is a racist, and my moniker isn't sandman.
Why should I answer a "point" addressed to him?"
And waezel your last response is at least the second or third post in a row where you avoid criticizing the arguments and just continue with the insults and smart bellybutton superiority. Forgive me if I start to believe you have nothing constructive to say and begin scrolling a bit more myself....
-
Grunherz, I felt Sandman's David Duke reference was meant to explain why he didn't like Chuck's speech- because an extremist like David Duke did and Sandman is 180 degrees in opposition with anything David Duke says. Really, I thought SM explained it clearly and you're reading more into it than is actually there. It was a good speech actually, and his speech writers and editors did a fine job on writing it.
Shuckins, I don't have the time nor the inclination, nor do I wish to wreck a fine Sunday morning on the subject, to go into my contempt for Hanoi Jane Fonda. However, many leftists feel she's no more extremist than Charlton Heston is. Sorry, I read your entire post, but the role reference jumped out at me. Basically I agree our values and culture are changing and I'll agree it's not changing for the better. Of course EVERY older generation throughout mankind's history has lamented the loss of old values and traditions as the younger generation has emerged. I guess we're typical.
Rude, blab blab blab blab blab blab blab. Yak yak YAK yak? blab blab blab. Yak yak yak yak YAK yak yak, you yak yakker.
Hortlund, don't worry. these "Rules of Copulation" are basically ignored here in America. Actually they're pretty laughable- how in the Hell could a guy ever get laid if the girl wasn't passed out drunk? Sheeesh, we'd ALL still be virgins.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Sandman,
Read the article on the NRA. Nice objective, unbiased piece of journalism, judging by the tone and the adjectives used. The authors tried to tie every idiot in the country to the NRA. You don't think they could possibly have their own agenda do ya? ;)
Of course it's biased. The bait doesn't stink unless it's biased. :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lets just see how truthful Chuck was:
The JAMA says - Implementation of the current national policy at the local level poses significant human rights burdens on HCWs (Health Care Workers), but does not improve patient safety. (in other words New Jersey is correct)
So despite aids infected dentist killing a few people the real tragedy would be the human rights infringement on the dentist?
So if people were given the information necessary to decide whether they want an aids infected dentist to put his hands in their mouth and choose to go to another dentist this is the true tragedy far out weighing the risk of death? Not matter how great the odds you are saying that folks dont have the right to decide whether they want the risk or not?
Typical liberal babble. putting the feelings of some "special class" over the real life effect it may have on people.
The left loves aids and aids infected folks. They use them to show the rest of us how compassionate they are. Never do they hold the aids "victim" (as if it some kinda crime that was commited against them) to task for the behavior that put them at risk. Then they blame others for not wanting to take a "risk" themselves.
Humans rights burden :rolleyes:
-
Psssttt, don't tell anyone but....David Duke is a "conservative" Republican, you should be proud of him since he is one of your political brethren. :rolleyes:
It's funny how the so called "conservative" political movement appeals to and attracts so many nutbags isn't it?
Yes I insulted you, I'm surprised you recognized it.
I consider the word "conservative" an insult more vulgar than most any other, the reason being that liars are one of the things I detest most.....and since the "conservative" political movement is founded on lies......
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Elfenwolf I am as much a racist as you are a child molestor.
And Sandman was the first to bring in racism to the discussion, or do you expect us think the David Duke reference was not an attempt to paint Heston as a racist?
Or will you pull a weazel defense on this point Elfenwolf:
"I'm fully aware Duke is a racist, and my moniker isn't sandman.
Why should I answer a "point" addressed to him?"
And waezel your last response is at least the second or third post in a row where you avoid criticizing the arguments and just continue with the insults and smart bellybutton superiority. Forgive me if I start to believe you have nothing constructive to say and begin scrolling a bit more myself....
-
Grunherz, I felt Sandman's David Duke reference was meant to explain why he didn't like Chuck's speech- because an extremist like David Duke did and Sandman is 180 degrees in opposition with anything David Duke says. Really, I thought SM explained it clearly and you're reading more into it than is actually there. It was a good speech actually, and his speech writers and editors did a fine job on writing it.
Elfenwolf:
Thank you for the reasoned explanation of how you took that, I respect that. I just saw it as bit more because in my personal experience many on the left often try to immediately equate such positions as held by Heston with extreme things like racism and bigotry rather than to actually debate them.
I will even chance an honest to you!
weazel:
I still wait for a worthy response from you..... Or will we all get yet another spate of insults and superior hate filled indignation from you as has so far been the case?
-
Well, why were the dentist's patients so willing to have unprotected sex with him? Because that's just about the only way you can catch HIV from a dentist- oh, you could also share a needle with him, I guess. but catching HIV from a cavity being pulled? I doubt it.
The Right hates AIDS and AIDS-infected persons. They think they're sick perverts who are getting exactly what they deserve. They are so terrified of AIDS they fear getting the disease through hand shaking, sharing a pizza or swimming in a public pool. Then they blame the Left that HIV-infected people are allowed to remain in society.
-
Elf, retorics aside. Do you agree that it should be my choice?
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Grunherz, I felt Sandman's David Duke reference was meant to explain why he didn't like Chuck's speech- because an extremist like David Duke did and Sandman is 180 degrees in opposition with anything David Duke says. Really, I thought SM explained it clearly and you're reading more into it than is actually there. It was a good speech actually, and his speech writers and editors did a fine job on writing it.
Some of the statements regarding the culture war fit rather nicely within the agendas of the White Aryan Resistance, StormFront, KKK, etc...
To Heston's credit, it's not his fault that the white supremist and white seperatist groups have usurped all notions of pride in our own caucasian heritage.
Still, when racist groups start turning you into a poster boy for their own agenda, it's probably a good time to step back and shut the hell up.
FWIW, I agree with Heston on some points. Celtic pride is just as valid as African pride.
I don't think he spoke about affirmative action in this speech, but I agree with him on that issue as well. It's racially prejudicial and wrong.
I disagree with him WRT to Antioch Ohio. I understand completely that the school put the rules in place to protect the school from litigation. It's not about the students.
2nd Amendment scholars? Do they work for the NRA? The entire argument about the 2nd Amendment only exists because it's so poorly written. If it weren't, we wouldn't need "scholars" to understand it. We also wouldn't need the NRA.
WRT to Ice-T... Why is it that everyone gets there panties in a wad if a rapper sings about committing a crime, but no one ever worries about actors portraying criminals? Hell... Heston and the rest probably did more for Body Count album sales than they could have dreamed for. Of course... we gotta keep an eye on those militant gangsta rappers. Afterall, the majority of rap and hip hop albums are purchased by white people.
WRT the sexual harrassment issue with elementary school kids. Again... it's not about sex. It's about litigation. The safest thing the school can do is turn 'em in. Let the courts sort it out and decide if it's silly. End result is that there's no fiscal impact to the school.
Oh... and I like this. "When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you ... petition them, oust them, banish them." I wonder what Chuck thinks of the Bush regime. Or maybe this is just another right wing rant about Bill's noodle.
Grun... you have the nasty habit of jumping to a particular conclusion and then demanding an argument over your conclusion. I didn't particularly feel like playing this round.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
What, to know this dentist's medical history? Not unless there's a legitimate chance your health would be jeopardized. I'm not sure an HIV- infected dentist is a health risk to a patient. My Cousin died of AIDS several years ago. When he got too sick to live on his own he lived with us. We took no more precautions with sharing cups, dishes, whatever than we would with anybody and we were at virtually no risk of getting HIV from him. How could you be at risk from a dentist?
edit for spelling grr
-
not quite elfie
there have been cases where people caught aids and died from dentist. The most famous 1 i believe the dentist purposely infected a child.
But sharp needles and and instruments and cuts in the mouth not matter how small you claim the risk to be dont I have right to know that risk? or if it puts my child at risk?
its like your going to a chiropractor to have your neck cracked.
They stick and cut ya.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
not quite elfie
there have been cases where people caught aids and died from dentist. The most famous 1 i believe the dentist purposely infected a child.
But sharp needles and and instruments and cuts in the mouth not matter how small you claim the risk to be dont I have right to know that risk? or if it puts my child at risk?
its like your going to a chiropractor to have your neck cracked.
They stick and cut ya.
Uh...If the patient bleeds then that's OK- it's if the dentist bleeds it too could be cause for concern.
Seriously tho Wotan, if the dentist deliberately infected someone with HIV then don't you see the difference between accidental infection and a planned murder? All this tells me is that AIDS can kill people. Now how many dental patients have contracted HIV due to dentists' visits- taking away the one premedated murder of the child you mentioned?
-
Maybe you missed my question...
Elf, retorics aside. Do you agree that it should be my choice?
-
dont i have the right to decide whether to take the risk?
Uh...If the patient bleeds then that's OK- it's if the dentist bleeds it too could be cause for concern.
no toejam elfie thats why i mentioned sharp stuff
he could slip sneeze whatever and cut himself. Then what? I go home have sex with the wife she gets pregnant we all end up hiv family.
You think hes gonna wake ya up and tell he just infected ya with aids? or let ya leave hoping you dont test positive for years and wont remember that trip to the dentist?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Maybe you missed my question...
Elf, retorics aside. Do you agree that it should be my choice?
Steve, assuming there has never been a case of accidental HIV transmission from a dentist to a patient then no, it's none of your business rather a dentist has HIV, Diabetes, Gout or whatever. I could make the arguement that a dentist who suffered an epeleptic seizure in med school should disclose that information to his patients before a HIV-positive dentist should as a potential seizure while he's drilling in my teeth is a more real threat than catching HIV is.
However, you have the right to ask your dentist whatever you want. Just don't expect the American Dental Association to demand its membership expose which communicable diseases they may be carrying.
-
Elf, can't remember her name, but yes, there have been accidental HIV cases from dentist to patient contact. One particular clinic had multiple incidents, IIRC. It was about 5-10 years ago, and the woman has since died... may have to dig that up.
Weazel-
So much venom, so little time...
-
kieran is correct look at the quote midnight commie posted
In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs - the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not….need not. . . .tell their patients that they are infected.
so the several deaths are less important then the human rights burdens on HCWs (Health Care Workers).
I contend that I should be the one making that descion whether it hurts the feelings of a aids infected dentist and even if it causes him/her to loose buisness.
-
I searched the Internet for info on this and basically there's been one case where a dentist transmitted HIV to a patient, and even that one is dubious. I found lots of sites from dentists guaranteeing they don't have HIV though, so I'm sure the free enterprise system will provide any who want with HIV-free dentists. There has to be a transfer of blood to catch HIV (just like Hepatitis) and the odds of that happening are extremely remote, given the guidelines enacted in dental care for patient (and doctor's) safety.
So- basically the idea you can catch AIDS from your dentist is a myth. And so, asuming in the absence of information to the contrary other than MT's alcohol-sodden recolection of several people getting HIV from their dentists, I repeat- No, I don't believe a dentist, doctor, butcher or short order fry cook should have to disclose what diseases he/she may or may not have unless it poses a risk to your health. The ironic thing is that you stand a lot better chance of catching some fatal disease from a short order fry cook than you do from a dentist. Think about THAT next time you enjoy a Grand Slam Breakfast at Denny's.
-
Ya know I'm tired tonight so I went to bed, closed my eyes and was drifting off to dreamland when a sudden thought jarred me instantly awake- Am I being trolled here? You guys seriously believe there's even the remotest of chances you could get HIV from your dental hygenist?? Sheeesh, my dentist dresses like a combination bee keeper- arc welder. She's been doing my teeth for six years now and I have no idea what color her hair is, what she looks like without the mask and face shield and in fact I wouldn't recognize her if I saw her on the street.
Steve, how can you say "rhetorics aside?" This whole issue was raised by Charlton Heston's speech and his speeches are full of rhetoric, as are all peoples' in the public limelight. But yes- rheteroic aside, your risk is so miniscule as to be acceptable. In fact the odds are ten thousand times greater that a plane will land on your house tonight rather you than contract HIV through a dental visit. Sweet dreams. :)
-
Elf, do you agree with the following statements?
1) HIV is a fatal decease to which science has no cure.
2) Science does not know all the possible ways HIV spreads between individuals. (For example, it is known that the HIV virus is present in an infected persons saliva, but there is no confirmed cases of the infection spreading through an exchange of saliva). One of the known ways the decease spreads between individuals is by blood.
3) In a normal dental procedure, there is no transfer of blood between the patient and the dentist.
4) In case of an accident, there is a risk of blood being transfered between the patient and the dentist.
5) In case of such an accident as described under 4), the risk of the patient getting infected by HIV is greater if the dentist is HIV postive than if he is not.
-
Great thread.
Elfenwolf- Blah, blah
Hortlund -Blah, blah
Sandmamm- Blah, blah, I Like Hilary
Hortland- Blah, blah
Sandmamm-Blah, blah , Creamo’s a meaney, Im right then, see?!
Hortland -Blah, blah
Shukins- By the way, Ted Nugent is an idiot. We can both agree on that.
Mietla –(Add good short meaningful point here)
It's as absurd as Shukins arguing with Uncle Ted, a bonified rock star and business millionaire about being a idiot.
Carry on, but it has lost any point yesterday.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The entire argument about the 2nd Amendment only exists because it's so poorly written. If it weren't, we wouldn't need "scholars" to understand it. We also wouldn't need the NRA.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Yes, that's sooooooooooo confusing. :D
-
from Wotang:
kieran is correct look at the quote midnight commie posted
LOL, that quote was from Hestons speech....
:rolleyes:
-
And people wonder why I don't vote for Republicans and Democrats. Each party wants the bigger knife. :rolleyes:
Masher
-
so sandman and tahgut.... why is it ok, free speech wise, to have lyrics like cop killer because you are "angry" about some feelings they have but it is criminal and not free speech to use words like cupcake or studmuffingot (if you are white or hetro) when you are angry about certain behaviors of some black people or homosexuals? Oops... is "black people" ok anymore? I heard "mellinan superior" was the new term but it's all so confusing. Would you oppose lyrics that promoted "kill all the cupcake rioters" if the white guy could prove the injustice of having his property burned or that he was angry?
Charleton Heston is one of the clearest thinkers I have ever heard. I would not like to argue with him. I think why tahgut and sndman hate his speech is a combination of.... they are trained to hate it because of their leftist suport system.... peer pressure and .... like all lefties.... a basic dishonesty. some of the more moronic lefties lack the common sense gene but I don't think this is the case with them.
lazs
-
fd ski: Selective memory Mike. You were called the rasist because of the conclusions you drew from the arguments ["The Bell Curve" book], some of which included that particular book.
We've beaten that horse to death too. Book in question has been refuted on all levels...
I've read the refutations too. I have not been convinced by them but that is besides the point.
The worst that could happen is that I am wrong and difference is not 1.2 but - say, 0 standard deviations. I can't see how (even mistakenly) believing that one number is closer to reality than another one could be considered racism?
Racist is a person who makes decision about people based on fact of their race rather than qualifications. My whole point is that only qualifications should matter in all interactions.
weasel: As pointed out by miko2d your mistaking Libertarian values for liberal ones, and demonstrate perfectly why I hold the so called "conservative" fairy tale in such contempt.
Mav's views are definitely "liberal" - everywhere in the world except in US where that word is used for different purposes.
Libertarians should have bitten the bullet, adopted the right name and brough the right meaning back to it rather than coming up with a confusing substitute.
I call my vews "liberal" in russian or in close company - it's just when I am talking to a general american audience I have to call them "libertarian" to avoid misunderstanding. It's not a matter of Mav's mistaking something but of his using the correct slang...
miko
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so sandman and tahgut.... why is it ok, free speech wise, to have lyrics like cop killer because you are "angry" about some feelings they have but it is criminal and not free speech to use words like cupcake or studmuffingot (if you are white or hetro) when you are angry about certain behaviors of some black people or homosexuals? Oops... is "black people" ok anymore? I heard "mellinan superior" was the new term but it's all so confusing. Would you oppose lyrics that promoted "kill all the cupcake rioters" if the white guy could prove the injustice of having his property burned or that he was angry?
Charleton Heston is one of the clearest thinkers I have ever heard. I would not like to argue with him. I think why tahgut and sndman hate his speech is a combination of.... they are trained to hate it because of their leftist suport system.... peer pressure and .... like all lefties.... a basic dishonesty. some of the more moronic lefties lack the common sense gene but I don't think this is the case with them.
lazs
A song with the lyrics you mention would be, and should be absolutely legal. I personally wouldn't buy it, nor would I buy "Cop Killer". No need to prove anger either. That song might just be depicting an angry white man.
Mr. Heston's speech is OK. The examples he cites are suspect and only semi-truthful.
No Hortlund you do not have the right to know if your dentist is HIV positive, or has Aids.
HIV Infection
Lack of HIV transmission in the practice of a dentist with AIDS. H.W. Jaffe, J.M. McCurdy, M.L. Kalish, et al. Annals of Internal Medicine 121 (December 1, 1994): 855-59.
In a study of the practice of a dentist with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), no evidence was found of either dentist-to-patient or patient-to-patient transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
from
This Site (http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/prevrpt/Archives/95fm3.htm)
-
The examples he cites are suspect and only semi-truthful
Suspect and semi-truthful? Is that when you wish he was lying or makings stuff up, but realize that he's telling the truth?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
from
This Site (http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/prevrpt/Archives/95fm3.htm)
I hate those bastards at odphposophsdhhs and thier liberal agenda
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No Hortlund you do not have the right to know if your dentist is HIV positive, or has Aids.
Well...in Sweden I do. :)
And believe me I'm thankful for that too.
You do whatever you want on the other side of the atlantic.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You do whatever you want on the other side of the atlantic.
That's why we have the Monroe Doctrine :)
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Suspect and semi-truthful? Is that when you wish he was lying or makings stuff up, but realize that he's telling the truth?
No, that is where some of what he says is truthful, and some is half truths and some is just opinion.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so sandman and tahgut.... why is it ok, free speech wise, to have lyrics like cop killer because you are "angry" about some feelings they have but it is criminal and not free speech to use words like cupcake or studmuffingot (if you are white or hetro) when you are angry about certain behaviors of some black people or homosexuals?
lazs
Lazs, Exactly what would the charges be if you use words like "cupcake" or "queer?" Unless you're directing these words at someone to start an altercation (assault) you can say whatever you damn well please. Marshall Mathers?? Alan Iverson?? They used the word "studmuffingot" in their rap lyrics and took alot of heat for it too. In fact M&M got boycotted by gay and womens' groups over his lyrics. Listen to a recording of a KKK rally. They use all the words you site plus many more But illegal? Not hardly Lazs. Poor taste is still legal.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well...in Sweden I do. :)
And believe me I'm thankful for that too.
You do whatever you want on the other side of the atlantic.
You all enjoy your next witch hunt too. Remember, "a duck floats on water!".
-
Creamo,
I stand corrected. You are absolutely right. Ted Nugent's success as a rock star and his wealth clearly indicate that he cannot POSSIBLY be an idiot.
What WAS I thinking?! You da man!
Regards, Shuckins
P.S. I know you probably didn't mean to, but you misspelled my name. That's ok. I didn't take it personal. :D
-
The dentist acknowledged that he had not followed recommended infection control procedures.
It would have been silly of him to follow "infection control procedures" - they are just a nuisance formality anyway. The law clearly states that infection cannot be passed from from human to human in dentist's office... At least in New Jersey.
miko
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Elf, do you agree with the following statements?
1) HIV is a fatal decease to which science has no cure.
2) Science does not know all the possible ways HIV spreads between individuals. (For example, it is known that the HIV virus is present in an infected persons saliva, but there is no confirmed cases of the infection spreading through an exchange of saliva). One of the known ways the decease spreads between individuals is by blood.
3) In a normal dental procedure, there is no transfer of blood between the patient and the dentist.
4) In case of an accident, there is a risk of blood being transfered between the patient and the dentist.
5) In case of such an accident as described under 4), the risk of the patient getting infected by HIV is greater if the dentist is HIV postive than if he is not.
Steve, I searched the Internet for hours yesterday searching for information on HIV transmission from a dentist to a patient and hey, it just doesn't happen. In fact I found several references to dentists who are afraid of getting bit by an HIV- infected patient, but in total I found ONE reference to HIV transmission between a health care provider and his patient- and that one wasn't confirmed.
From a pracitical standpoint no, it's none of your business what diseases your dentist may or may not have. However, I found many websites from dentists attesting to their negative HIV medical status so- also from a pratical standpoint- it shouldn't be a problem to find an HIV free dentist in your area.
Now if you had asked that question in a rhetorical sense then I would be more inclined to agree with you. But as a pracitical concern no, it's a non-issue. Basically it's a battle flag Mr. Heston ran up the pole just like his comments on "cop killer." I can't agree with Government probing into the health histories of its citizens in absence of a legitimate reason any more than I can agree with Government restrictions on free speech.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
In fact M&M got boycotted by gay and womens' groups over his lyrics.
And that really hit him hard in the pocketbook, since Feminists and Homosexuals were his core target audiance. Between that and losing revenue to Napster, I hear that Eminem was forced to sell 4 of his 12 alter-egos just to have enough money for food.
I wonder what James Cagney would have thought about todays hip-hop "gangstas" No really, I do.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
And that really hit him hard in the pocketbook, since Feminists and Homosexuals were his core target audiance. Between that and losing revenue to Napster, I hear that Eminem was forced to sell 4 of his 12 alter-egos just to have enough money for food.
I wonder what James Cagney would have thought about todays hip-hop "gangstas" No really, I do.
-Sikboy
Well gee, Sikboy, I guess Charlston Heston, Tipper Gore and you all agree- free speech needs limits placed upon it by the Government rather than by the pressure of society.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Well gee, Sikboy, I guess Charlston Heston, Tipper Gore and you all agree- free speech needs limits placed upon it by the Government rather than by the pressure of society.
No, I think James Cagney and I *Might* agree (I've yet to ask him, once I die, I'll get right on that) that people who adopt "anti-heroic" personas for the purpose of entertaining are pretty fun to listen too (or watch). I find little distinction between Ice-T or Ice Cube and Cagney's Tom Powers or Edward G. Robinson's Rico Bandello. Or if you'd prefer, Brando, Pachino, and DeNiro's Don Corleone (Vito, Michael, and young Vito) I'm sure that some people find a big difference, but I don't
-Sikboy
-
Ok.. I'm a little confused here. The liberals on this board don't believe in affirmitive action nor do they believe in political correctness . It appears that they believe in the second amendment.
How do you liberals feel about "hate crimes"? I mean... are hate crimes only possible iagainst certain groups? Are other violent crimes considered... ah.. if not love maybe "dispationate"? Isn't welfare and other government programs a form of "affirmitive action"?
I think it a little dishonest for you guys to say that lyrics that promoted blowing a cupcake out from under his stolen TV set with a .50 caliber during a riot is fine with you but that like "cop killer" you just wouldn't purchase it. This is basic dishonesty. You certainly know that the leftist lawyers would attack such a recording and come up with every for of litigation possible to stifle it. I know you are not so stupid as to think that the two lyrics would be treated the same.
Apparently... there is nothing in the Heston speech that the liberals (leftists) on this board dissagree with.
As for the aids thing.... I have hep C. I tell everyone who may be affected. There is no known case of it being sexualy transmitted but I tell every future partner. I would wish the same. I think that the dental info form that we all fill out in the waiting room should have a lline that says "I wish to be informed if any of the personel involved with my treatment have HIV or aids" yes or no. I'm all about choice.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
people who adopt "anti-heroic" personas for the purpose of entertaining are pretty fun to listen too (or watch). -Sikboy
So Sikboy, would you please tell the court exactly what was "fun" in the lyrics to Cop Killer?
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
So Sikboy, would you please tell the court exactly what was "fun" in the lyrics to Cop Killer?
Although I'm not a big fan of that song (due to its unoriginality, any lack of any real storytelling, which was a halmarck NWA , the prototypical gangsta rap ensable) the "Fun" part is this: Many people, my own little white self included, have a part of us that wishes to indulge in our rebelious nature. But because we are so uptight and law abiding, there is NO WAY IN HELL that we could even THINK about knocking over a gas station. Instead, we indulge this inner desire, by watching "anti-heros" on the big screen, or listening to them in music (Rock and Roll in general seems to me to be founded on rebellion). I love watching Scarface yell "Say 'ello to my lil friend" and blow the hell outta a room full of people. The final scene in "True Romance" is amazing, when judged by the shear number of projectiles flying. It wasn't the fact that Gangsters were blasting cops that made it so interesting, but rather the genearal lawlessness of it.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Apparently... there is nothing in the Heston speech that the liberals (leftists) on this board dissagree with.
As for the aids thing.... I have hep C. I tell everyone who may be affected. There is no known case of it being sexualy transmitted but I tell every future partner. I would wish the same. I think that the dental info form that we all fill out in the waiting room should have a lline that says "I wish to be informed if any of the personel involved with my treatment have HIV or aids" yes or no. I'm all about choice.
lazs
Lazs, there was nothing in the Heston speech except the same old conservative lament that we're losing our values as a society. Actually on the issues Mister Heston DID raise in support of his lament- the right to know the medical history of his dentist, for instance- I disagree with him and, in fact, have cited my reasons clearly.
Mister Heston's speech was designed to play upon the fears of his constituents in the NRA and generate more donations, first and foremost. In this respect Mister Heston is the best thing that's happened to the NRA and he's worthy of respect as an advocate for their cause. But please, don't take everything a speechwriter writes as gospel truth. The idea is to use inuendo and half truths to inflame the masses into opening their pocket books for more money to "lobby" (read "bribe") the politicans.
Simply because Mister Heston advocates a conservative organization like the NRA rather than a more liberal organization like Planned Parenthood doesn't put him above the emotional blackmail used to generate support for his cause. This is how the game is played so take what you read with a grain of salt.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. I'm a little confused here. The liberals on this board don't believe in affirmitive action nor do they believe in political correctness . It appears that they believe in the second amendment.
While Affimative Action may not be needed to the extent it once was, I think it still has a place in some limited circumstances. And PC while it may have gone too far in many cases has been necessary in changing the mindset of a very biggoted world. I bet you don't think twice when you hear someone described as a "mail carrier" anymore.
How do you liberals feel about "hate crimes"? I mean... are hate crimes only possible iagainst certain groups? Are other violent crimes considered... ah.. if not love maybe "dispationate"? Isn't welfare and other government programs a form of "affirmitive action"?
How do conservatives feel about "hate crimes". I'm pretty sure Liberals are against them.
Hate crimes are those crimes perpetrated against an individual solely due to race, religion, sexual orientation etc.
I suppose that if a Gay man went around killing Hetero men because of their orientation it could be listed as a "hate crime".
I think it a little dishonest for you guys to say that lyrics that promoted blowing a cupcake out from under his stolen TV set with a .50 caliber during a riot is fine with you but that like "cop killer" you just wouldn't purchase it. This is basic dishonesty. You certainly know that the leftist lawyers would attack such a recording and come up with every for of litigation possible to stifle it. I know you are not so stupid as to think that the two lyrics would be treated the same.
Just as there are Conservatives who would attack "Cop Killer" there will be Liberals attcking the "Riot Song" (catchy title). Whats hypocritical about that? Are we expected to speak for all Liberals in the Country when we post?
Apparently... there is nothing in the Heston speech that the liberals (leftists) on this board dissagree with.
As for the aids thing.... I have hep C. I tell everyone who may be affected. There is no known case of it being sexualy transmitted but I tell every future partner. I would wish the same. I think that the dental info form that we all fill out in the waiting room should have a lline that says "I wish to be informed if any of the personel involved with my treatment have HIV or aids" yes or no. I'm all about choice.
lazs
I have made direct reference to some parts of the speech that I found were less than accurate. I also have no problem with there being a question re. Aids on an admitting form. I would have a problem with any law requiring that there be a question.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Many people, my own little white self included, have a part of us that wishes to indulge in our rebelious nature. But because we are so uptight and law abiding, there is NO WAY IN HELL that we could even THINK about knocking over a gas station. Instead, we indulge this inner desire, by watching "anti-heros" on the big screen, or listening to them in music (Rock and Roll in general seems to me to be founded on rebellion). I love watching Scarface yell "Say 'ello to my lil friend" and blow the hell outta a room full of people
-Sikboy
Sikboy, How long have you been obsessed with violence? How many times a day do you think about violence? Are your violent thoughts directed exclusively to authority or are you also violent towards women? How can you guarantee you will never act out your ultra-violent fantasies? What did you think about the character of Patrick Bateman in "American Psycho?"
-
Ever since I was dropped on my head as a child.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Ever since I was dropped on my head as a child.
-Sikboy
LOL The prosecution rests. Anyway my wife needs the computer to visit her chat rooms.
-
I just came across this excellent brief Pauley Shore gave before the Supreme Court on Roe vs Wade. As soon as I get home I'll be sure and dig it up so we can have four pages of debate on the unique perspective he brings to the table.
I also hear Brittney Spears is going to be on Face the Nation this weekend.
Charon
-
That was almost funny.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. I'm a little confused here. The liberals on this board don't believe in affirmitive action nor do they believe in political correctness . It appears that they believe in the second amendment.
Yes... I do believe that we have a second amendment. We can argue about how it is interpreted in another thread. :)
How do you liberals feel about "hate crimes"? I mean... are hate crimes only possible iagainst certain groups? Are other violent crimes considered... ah.. if not love maybe "dispationate"? Isn't welfare and other government programs a form of "affirmitive action"?
Hate crime are possible by any group. Certainly, other crimes can be considered dispassionate ones. The bank robber that shoots a guard isn't necessarily committing a hate crime.
Is welfare a form of affirmative action? Good question. Have to think about that one.
I think it a little dishonest for you guys to say that lyrics that promoted blowing a cupcake out from under his stolen TV set with a .50 caliber during a riot is fine with you but that like "cop killer" you just wouldn't purchase it. This is basic dishonesty. You certainly know that the leftist lawyers would attack such a recording and come up with every for of litigation possible to stifle it. I know you are not so stupid as to think that the two lyrics would be treated the same.
Actually, we don't know that. And... I like how you fit that little insult in there. If we disagree, we are stupid?
Apparently... there is nothing in the Heston speech that the liberals (leftists) on this board dissagree with.
Not true. Read above... SB, MT, EW and I have all pointed at the parts we don't like.
As for the aids thing.... I have hep C. I tell everyone who may be affected. There is no known case of it being sexualy transmitted but I tell every future partner. I would wish the same. I think that the dental info form that we all fill out in the waiting room should have a lline that says "I wish to be informed if any of the personel involved with my treatment have HIV or aids" yes or no. I'm all about choice.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
That was almost funny.
It would have been more funny if that dude from that boy band hadn't testified before congress on the evils of mining in Tennessee or whatever it was.
I remember two years ago today, I was working on a research project for a house staffer on the Russian Naval Deployment to the Med (Scheduled for Dec 2000) when the Kursk blew up. CNN, in thier wisdom, looked over many very capable experts on the Soviet and Russian Navy, and these submarines in general so that they could interview Tom Clancey and find out what he had to say about it :rolleyes:
-Sikboy
-
This same high level of genetic concordance was also seen when the C.D.C. compared viral samples taken from a Florida dentist who died of AIDS with samples taken from five of his patients who tested positive for HIV and who had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (39, 40). Two independent research groups reached the same conclusion after examining the HIV gene sequences of these six individuals: the dentist had almost certainly infected his patients in the course of those invasive procedures, although the experts could not say exactly how those infections had occurred (41-44).
Read it for yourself (http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html)
Well, Elf?
-
Lack of HIV transmission in the practice of a dentist with AIDS. H.W. Jaffe, J.M. McCurdy, M.L. Kalish, et al. Annals of Internal Medicine 121 (December 1, 1994): 855-59.
In a study of the practice of a dentist with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), no evidence was found of either dentist-to-patient or patient-to-patient transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The authors studied the practice of a Miami, Florida, dentist with AIDS to determine whether dentist-to-patient or patient-to-patient transmission of HIV had occurred. The dentist acknowledged that he had not followed recommended infection control procedures. Researchers interviewed the dentist's former employees and reviewed the medical records of the dentist and 6,474 of his former patients. Of these patients, 1,279 (19.8 percent) were known to have been tested for HIV infection, and 24 of those (1.9 percent) were HIV positive. Four other patients with HIV infection were identified through case-finding activities. These 28 HIV-positive patients were interviewed, and 19 acknowledged having engaged in drug use or in sexual behaviors that could have resulted in HIV infection. Analysis of genetic sequences from the dentist and 24 of the patients with HIV infection did not indicate that the virus strains were linked.
-
..148 posts over a Charlie thread? Sheesh!
Back on topic, whether you like him or hate him (for his politics), Charlton is a Damn good American! And Sandman has Charlton mixed up with his own personal politics as usual, as Heston was one that FOUGHT for racial equality.
Growing up hunting, shooting and fishing in the north woods of Michigan, Charlton Heston found in America's outdoors tradition a respect for individual freedom and personal responsibility that would guide him through life. While studying at Northwestern University, he married fellow acting student Lydia Clarke and, after serving three years in the Army Air Corps during World War II, they moved to New York's theatre district. Since then, Heston has starred in more than 70 motion pictures, nearly as many theatre productions, and innumerable television shows and appearances. Among his many achievements, Heston won an Academy Award for Best Actor in BEN HUR, a second Oscar for the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, as well as similar international citations, was elected six times as president of the Screen Actors Guild, served as the first Chairman and President of the American Film Institute and authored five books.
Throughout his richly varied and duty-conscious life, Charlton Heston has never shied away from public service. The Michigan actor, conservative spokesman and patriot achieved the rank of Staff Sergeant with the 11th Air Force during World War II, serving for two years in the Pacific Theatre. In the early sixties, by then a major star, Heston campaigned for racial equality throughout the Southwest, well before that was a popular stance. In 1963 the noted performer headed a contingent from the arts community for Dr. Martin Luther King's march on Washington, DC, an event that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Later, as president of the Screen Actors Guild, Heston worked once again with Dr. King, helping black Americans gain entry into the Hollywood technical work force.
Heston has lent his time, talent and energy to a number of federal agencies including the USIA and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture. He's done chores for every branch of the armed services, films for a variety of governmental departments and, in 1982, traveled to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to film a documentary designed to wage war against agricultural failure and the resulting famine.
In 1984, the tireless activist went to Ethiopia on behalf of the Red Cross, where he reported on the
political and economic impact of widespread famine. Heston also visited Afghanistan guerilla camps to see for himself how Afghan freedom fighters were faring in their struggle against Soviet aggression.
He remains a strong voice in behalf of NATO, and has traveled to France, Belgium and Germany on assignment for the multi-national defense organization.
In 1981, Heston was named co-chairman of President Ronald Reagan's Task Force on the Arts and Humanities. The following year he was in Mexico City for the State Department as an observer at
the UNESCO Conference on the arts. Heston has served as the official US delegate to numerous film festivals and undertaken assignments to cultural embassies in England, Egypt, Nigeria, Australia and West Berlin. The widely traveled film star has been a member of the National Council on the Arts, and was the first chairman and president of the American Film Institute.
In recent years, Heston has been no less active on the stage and screen, starring in the 1996 feature film ALASKA, giving an acclaimed performance as the Player King in Kenneth Branagh's HAMLET,
and performing with his wife, Lydia, in LOVE LETTERS, a two-person romantic comedy that's been
among the couple's favorites for years.
In 1997 Heston was a recipient of the prestigious Kennedy Center Honors for lifetime achievement in
the performing arts, one of just 105 individuals ever to receive, as the national cultural center describes it, "America's equivalent of a knighthood in Britain, or the French Legion of Honor, the quintessential reward for a lifetime's endeavor."
Charlton Heston's impact on the American political scene has been as powerful as his undeniable film presence. Heston often has testified before state agencies and congressional committees and he remains a tireless and feared campaigner for those who share his political philosophy. He currently
serves as President of the National Rifle Association.
Charlton and Lydia Heston live a busy but informal life on a ridge in Beverly Hills that Heston describes as "a modest home attached to my wife's state of the art photographic studio." Lydia's career as a photographer is burgeoning, with several exhibitions scheduled. Charlton Heston has two books planned for this year.
Among Mr. Heston’s memorable film roles are The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, El Cid, Touch of
Evil, The Naked Jungle, The Greatest Story Ever Told, Planet of the Apes, Will Penny, The Hawaiians, Earthquake, The Battle of Midway, Antony & Cleopatra, Omega Man, Skyjacked, The
Mountain Men, Mother Lode, Treasure Island, Tombstone and the upcoming Town & Country.
-
look... I'm a constitutionalist and a libertarian for the most part... I mind my own busisenss but.... I feel that when you endager others it is their right to know it. I am not sure about aids any more than anyone else here is but I think we would all admit that there is a distinct possibility that using sharp objects around open wounds is quite possibly risky. Fine... don't tell anyone but if anyone get's aids from a dentist that hid the fact then charge the dentist with premeditated murder. If he discloses it then... so what? Go to him or not.... up to you. BTW... dentists have no problem with asking yu on their form weather you have any blood transmitted disease. If I said no... and then they got hep c I would feel terrible and expect and deserve, legal reprecussions.
mail carrier? no... I don't laugh out loud or get upset when I here it but I don't get upset at mailman either. I don't say ms and I open doors for women... I don't care who doesn't like it (yes I say "mailman")I do crack up when I hear "personhole" for "manhole. I think calling someone an African american means that he is neither at worst and simply different from everyone else at best. Who really cares if a bigot says "cupcake"? PC was never needed and at best it is just embarassing and confusing... at worst... devisive... but it is a small evil and a good source of amusement.
hate crimes? No... all crimes are simply crimes. kill a black child because you "hate" it or kill my child because you enjoy killing.... the effect is the same and the penalty should be the same. And I don't mean "life in prison" with parole eligble at 20 years with 1/3 of that cut off for good behavior.
The second amendmant is quite clear. It will need to be changed in order to get a different "interpretation". There are not many ways to change the constitution but if you wish it to be by revolution then put me down on the other side and you will get a much needed lesson in why the amendmant was put there in the first place.
elf is correct... the speech was simply a money raiser but.... I have read a lot of things that Mr Heston has written and he is a very bright and interesting guy. I also find that I agree with him about 99% of the time.
lazs
-
the scary part is most of the posts in this thread happened over the weekend... :eek:
-
MT-
Comes down to whose report you want to believe, doesn't it?
-
Weazel-
So much venom, so little time...
Should say:
Unable to provide a rebuttal to the truth. ;)
-
Truth or no truth, your venom towards conservatives and the constant stream of viscious remarks towards them is the source of my comment.
Need proof for that?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
MT-
Comes down to whose report you want to believe, doesn't it?
Without going into it any deeper, Yes.
-
MT-
Now here's why I say this... sure, on the surface your link seems to explain there is no connection- except, explain the amazing coincidence of these patients all contracting AIDS from a dentist who would later die from the disease? Further, how much do we really know about the disease? If we truly understood it perfectly, does it not follow we would have a cure?
The fact is, in our society, the concerns of the few so often outweight the needs of the many.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The second amendmant is quite clear. It will need to be changed in order to get a different "interpretation". There are not many ways to change the constitution but if you wish it to be by revolution then put me down on the other side and you will get a much needed lesson in why the amendmant was put there in the first place.
lazs
I disagree. If the 2nd Amendment were "quite clear," there would be no need for "2nd Amendment Scholars" nor would there be any argument over the founder's intent.
I see your point on hate crimes, but there's great distinction given to intent when the courts try murder cases. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
MT-
Now here's why I say this... sure, on the surface your link seems to explain there is no connection- except, explain the amazing coincidence of these patients all contracting AIDS from a dentist who would later die from the disease? Further, how much do we really know about the disease? If we truly understood it perfectly, does it not follow we would have a cure?
The fact is, in our society, the concerns of the few so often outweight the needs of the many.
The link I posted shows the number of patients tested and the number testing HIV positive. There is no proof (according to my source) that ANY contracted the disease from the dentist.
add: 24 out of 6474 patients tested positive. Without bothering to look I'm guessing this is not an abnormal ratio for that part of the country (Miami). Of those, 19 either admitted to concensual homosexual sex, or drug use. That leaves 5 (6 because 1 was found later) And the genome test on these were false.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Read it for yourself (http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html)
Well, Elf?
Kieran Yeah, I read that yesterday but the piece itself said the evidence was inconclusive. I also read MT's link. Now you say it's "who you believe?" OK, for argument's sake let's say this Florida dentist infected six people with HIV. So accepting this as a truth then what do we know about dentists and HIV?
We know there has never been any other transfer of HIV from dentist to patient. Not among the presumably thousands of HIV positive dentists working on presumably millions of patients. Oh, one DELIBERATE infection was sited, but we're talking about alledged "accidental" transfer, and for the past 21 years there hasn't been one documented case you can show me- except this one.
What are the odds that of the only six cases of "accidental" infection of patients with the HIV virus they all came from the SAME dentist? Does this suggest the idea of getting infected by an HIV-positive dentist is a widespread one, or does this suggest that maybe, just maybe, given the presumably thousands of HIV positive dentists working on presumably millions of patients, that the transmission of the disease wasn't quite as accidental as we might be led to believe? The dentist himself admitted to shoddy sanitation practices which suggests some culpubality for negligence, at least. Why have no other HIV positive dentists "accidentally" given HIV to a patient- let alone SIX of them? That would be like winning Powerball six weeks in a row.
Almost every website I checked out said the same thing- no substantiated cases of ACCIDENTAL HIV infection from a dentist. If this is the best case you can find, Kieran, then assuming its validity it raises the issue of just how accidental the infection was. Now admit that to find this site you had to surf quite a few sites that bolstered my argument, didn't ya? :)
-
Are you kidding? I hit that one in five minutes, tops. I didn't bother to look for more, as I merely wanted to prove my claim regarding the case of the dentist with numerous HIV cases.
Now, since you want to play proof... can you prove the dentist was negligent? Or intentional? That case is as thin as the the case for accidental infection, is it not?
Anyway, it strays from the point; patients should be allowed the same background information required of them.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
patients should be allowed the same background information required of them.
Uh...Why? You are a patient. A doctor needs your medical history to diagnose and treat you. Why do you need HIS medical history? Dentists advertise being HIV negative on the Internet anyway, so if you want a certified HIV free dentist you can ask for and find one. I really don't understand why this is such a hot button issue given all we've learned about HIV and AIDS. Am I missing something here?
-
Keep this thread going and You're gonna need a bigger boat....
Tronsky
-
Patients also have to give personal information to doctors in case there is a possibility of AIDS infection, or if there is a nick (and it does happen), the doctor will know if he/she should be concerned. Hey, that door swings both directions if you ask me.
With all that we know about AIDS?! All that we know about AIDS is that we don't know all all there is to know about AIDS. I don't care if a person with AIDS mows my grass, fixes my food, or interacts with me in any way BUT if there is the possibility that guy or gal holding a sharp object may jab me and create a body fluid contact situation, you bet I want to know ahead of time what their status is WRT AIDS or HIV. Furthermore, I don't think that is in the LEAST unreasonable.
THIS is what chaps me most about the liberal viewpoint; you are ready to deny me the right to make up my own mind, or the privilege to take whatever precautions for my own health I deem necessary. Maybe I would visit such a dentist, maybe I wouldn't, but it would be MY choice. :mad:
Question for you; is a dentist allowed to deny me as a patient if I have HIV?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I disagree. If the 2nd Amendment were "quite clear," there would be no need for "2nd Amendment Scholars" nor would there be any argument over the founder's intent.
Sandman, we got "Scholars" on everything!! So I'm not sure being clear or not clear is the only criteria.
And if we can get people to struggle on what the defination of the word "is" is, then surely it's not a stretch to see that it's not hard to find an arguement over the founder's intent.
I know the "is" reference is a bit of a cheap shot, but it does illustrate how folks do need to argue over the trivial (as stated in the "is" example) as well as the more weighty issue of the founding fathers intent, even if it were crystal clear.
Different times, and different agendas will always cause folks to interpet differently what the founding fathers intent may or may not have been.
Cobra
-
What's the record for the largest number of posts in a single thread?
Curious, Shuckins
-
I think the reason we still have guns is a reflection that the Second Amendment is indeed crystal clear, and even revisionist history is going to struggle big-time to redefine such a clearly stated line.
-
Originally posted by Cobra
And if we can get people to struggle on what the defination of the word "is" is, then surely it's not a stretch to see that it's not hard to find an arguement over the founder's intent.
To assume that something IS something, is to give it some sort of universal Aristotalist "essence". Thomist Aristotalism is centruies dead. And so is the body of Christ.
The miracle of transubstancatiion. It might look, smell, feel and taste like a piece of bread, but after mass, it's essence becomes the body of Christ. It seems like it IS bread, but secretly due to the miracle it IS the body of Christ.
You see someone you know from a distance. You know it IS "Ted". Then Ted comes up to you and pulls off a mask. Oh, it turns out it IS Ralph.
Blah, blah blah...perspective..yadda yadda..quantum states, relativity..blah
-
Obfuscation.
-
Eschew obfuscation!
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Obfuscation.
IS it?:D
-
LOL!
-
Risks
HIV. . .
The Centers for Disease Control has:
Documented 32 cases of occupationally transmitted HIV in health care workers, including 12 nurses.
Investigated another 69 cases, including 14 nurses.
These are reported cases. Many exposures go unreported for fear of discrimination or loss of confidentiality.
Had some time to kill... (http://www.nursingworld.org/dlwa/osh/wp2.htm)
And consider this as well...
In general, the AMA Code of Medical Ethics states that physicians are free to choose whom to serve (see Principles of Medical Ethics, Principle VI), but that "physicians have an obligation to support continuity of care for their patients" (Opinion 8.115, "Termination of the Patient-Physician Relationship"). Once a patient-physician relationship has been established, the physician should not neglect a patient (see Opinion 8.11, "Neglect of Patient"). Opinion 8.115 provides guidance on how physicians should proceed in circumstances when it is necessary to terminate the patient-physician relationship.
In short, this means a doctor can end patient-physician relationships anytime, so long as continuous care is provided, and in turn means a doctor can terminate an HIV positive patient, and even refuse care in the first place.
-
LOL Thrawn! :)
Cobra
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You all enjoy your next witch hunt too. Remember, "a duck floats on water!".
So if Ive understood this correct,
laws prohibiting HIV infected dentists from treating patients without first informing them of their infection =witch hunt?
The PC hysterics never cease to amaze me...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I disagree. If the 2nd Amendment were "quite clear," there would be no need for "2nd Amendment Scholars" nor would there be any argument over the founder's intent.
Disagree.
As Cobra pointed out, you even have people trying to redefine "is".
A lawyer will argue any point if there's a penny in it for him.
The clarity of the 2nd merely enrages those that oppose firearms; they simply can't accept it. Thus the argument.
The intent as written is very clear. Further, anyone who has done a little research on the other written commentary on arms by the folks that actually wrote the Bill of Rights has no doubt about their intent.
For example, Jefferson:
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365
Pretty clear what Jefferson thought, eh?
-
Take a look at the way Madison originally framed the 2nd in a speech to the House of Representatives, June 8, 1789,
James Madison Proposes the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives (http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/madprobll.htm#propose)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Not too confusing to me. There's more than sufficient evidence to devine the intent of those who wrote.. and passed... the 2nd.
-
What, still not convinced?
"The great object is, that every man be armed ....Every one who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry: During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 386, Jonathan Elliot, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888)
-
Don't like Patrick Henry????
How about Sam Adams? Pretty piviotal figure in starting the whole dang Revolution thing.. one would think his view would count........
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams:During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, (1788), Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
-
Still no?
Hamilton then?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8
Richard Henry Lee maybe?
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …" - Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)
Enough yet?
-
sb said... "I disagree. If the 2nd Amendment were "quite clear," there would be no need for "2nd Amendment Scholars" nor would there be any argument over the founder's intent.
I see your point on hate crimes, but there's great distinction given to intent when the courts try murder cases. I'm not sure what the right answer is."
We can all read let the "scholars" who, as toad so elequently pointed out, have an agenda, try to twist it. I think even a cursory look at the federalist papers will make it even clearer for you if need be...
On hate crimes... to your credit you claim to not know what the right answer is. maybe I don't either but... A simple test is... do we wish to have some people treated differently under the law because of their race, religion sexual preferance or beliefs than others? Or, put another way.... should some peoples race or beliefs be more protected under the law than others? I say that should be obvious. life in prison is allways life in prison. 10 years should be ten years and the death penalty is the death penalty.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Kieran
THIS is what chaps me most about the liberal viewpoint; you are ready to deny me the right to make up my own mind, or the privilege to take whatever precautions for my own health I deem necessary. Question for you; is a dentist allowed to deny me as a patient if I have HIV?
Kieran, I never even knew I was a "liberal" until I started posting on the bbs here. Is it liberal to respect an individual's right to keep personal information personal in light of there being no risk to people he comes in contact with, either professionally or personally? Sorry, but you failed to show a legitimate health risk by using an HIV positive dentist.
<> and Thanks all for the spirited debate, was fun. Oh and Toad, quit dancing around the issue and tell us what you REALLY think- Are you in favor of gun control or not???
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Oh and Toad, quit dancing around the issue and tell us what you REALLY think- Are you in favor of gun control or not???
I know, all he does is post things from guys I've never heard of. I mean Patrick Henry? WTF? Wasn't he the drummer for White Lion or something?
-Sikboy
-
A civilian shouldn't be allowed to own an ASSAULT RIFLE, IMO. Other than that, if you NEED an armory of Handguns, Shotguns (best for Home defense anyways) and HUNTING rifles, enjoy.
Oh, I own a Heckler & Koch USP .45 and shoot it once a week (400 rounds) and do NOT belong to the NRA.
Karaya2
-
I think this is what they had in mind. :rolleyes:
-
Me? I'm a simply a Constitutionalist. I believe in the 2nd just as much as I believe in the 1st and all the rest.
Here's something I find really interesting.
James Madison Proposes the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives (http://www.jmu.edu/madison/madprobll.htm)
"It is clear that Madison truly thought that a bill of rights was not necessary except to mollify those who thought it was required, to preclude another constitutional convention and to encourage the final two states to ratify the Constitution.
In later years, his letters revealed no great pride of authorship. In a letter of 1821 he referred to "those safe, if not necessary, and those politic, if not obligatory, amendments."
In his speech to Congress the best he could say of a bill of rights was that it was "neither improper nor absolutely useless." This is, certainly, faint praise."
Seems that Madison must have thought these rights were "self-evident" eh? ;)
-
Toad.
Now let's hear from the leftie 2-nd Ammendment "scholars".
-
I've never quite understood how the 2nd Amendment became a left/right issue.
-
The Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Questions
1. Does the historical evidence support the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms?
2. If the Second Amendment does create an individual right, how broad is the right? Does it include the right to possess arms that would be useful to a militia today--hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc.? Or does it create only a right to possess arms that would have been used by a militia in 1791--muskets? Or is the right answer somewhere between these extremes?
3. The Second Amendment speaks of the right to bear arms. Does this suggest, for example, that there is no right to possess weapons that could not be carried, such as cannons?
4. If the underlying concern that inspired the Second Amendment--fear of an abusive federal government oppressing states and their citizens--no longer exists, should that affect how we interpret the Amendment?
5. What is the argument for choosing what provisions of the Bill of Rights we will give full effect?
6. If the test for whether a provision of the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the 14th Amendment is whether the right in question is "fundamental to the American scheme of justice" what conclusion should we come to with respect to the right to keep and bear arms?
7. Which of the following regulations of firearms is constitutional?: (1) an age restriction, (2) a four-day waiting period for purchase of a firearm, (3) a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons.
Not so obvious is it?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1. Does the historical evidence support the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms?
Of course it does. See Toad's posts above. Who can better interpret the meaning of a text than the people who wrote it.
Originally posted by midnight Target
2. If the Second Amendment does create an individual right, how broad is the right? Does it include the right to possess arms that would be useful to a militia today--hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc.? Or does it create only a right to possess arms that would have been used by a militia in 1791--muskets? Or is the right answer somewhere between these extremes?
[/b/
Arms, not ordnance. 1791 musket was the state of the art killing machine at the time.
Originally posted by midnight Target
3. The Second Amendment speaks of the right to bear arms. Does this suggest, for example, that there is no right to possess weapons that could not be carried, such as cannons?
Cannon is an ordnace I believe.
Originally posted by midnight Target
4. If the underlying concern that inspired the Second Amendment--fear of an abusive federal government oppressing states and their citizens--no longer exists, should that affect how we interpret the Amendment?
No longer exists ???? Ha. You are surely jesting. Just because they don't kill you for no reason does not mean that they are not oppressive.
Personally, I consider a property theft to be an oppression.
But, sure, I agree that it could be worse.
Originally posted by midnight Target
5. What is the argument for choosing what provisions of the Bill of Rights we will give full effect?
Not sure what you mean
Originally posted by midnight Target
6. If the test for whether a provision of the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the 14th Amendment is whether the right in question is "fundamental to the American scheme of justice" what conclusion should we come to with respect to the right to keep and bear arms?
You don't mean that we should pick and choose based on the opinion polls, do you?
Originally posted by midnight Target
7. Which of the following regulations of firearms is constitutional?: (1) an age restriction, (2) a four-day waiting period for purchase of a firearm, (3) a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons.
Age.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not so obvious is it?
It is to me.
-
Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4
North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9
Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11
from http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
-
Ah, MT.. I THOUGHT that ground had been plowed before!
The old UMKC Law School page! That's a lesson plan, you know.
US vs Emerson
US vs Miller
Quilici vs Morton Grove
answer most of your questions.
Then there's the recent the 5th Circuit Court decison:
"VII. Conclusion...
We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."
There really isn't anything to debate to my way of thinking. YMMV.
-
Reading the above from the State's Constitutions some seem obviiusly to maintain individual rights while some seem to point more to the militia, and some are ambiguous:
Definitely Individual Right to Bear Arms:
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). (clearest of them all surprisingly enough)
Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777).
Militia:
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780).
North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, MT.. I THOUGHT that ground had been plowed before!
The old UMKC Law School page! That's a lesson plan, you know.
US vs Emerson
US vs Miller
Quilici vs Morton Grove
answer most of your questions.
Then there's the recent the 5th Circuit Court decison:
"VII. Conclusion...
We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."
There really isn't anything to debate to my way of thinking. YMMV.
Thanks Toad, I figured that out. My point was that there still seems to be room for argument. The 5th Circuits decision also upheld a federal restriction on the right to bear arms as "reasonable". So I guess we're left with "You got the right" and "we can restrict it".
-
You are going to post them all right?
Here's the one I like right now:
Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
My point was that there still seems to be room for argument.
[/b]
About what? Certainly not the individual's right to bear arms. Give that one up, fer pete's sake! It was clear when Madison proposed it, it's still just as clear.
Originally posted by midnight Target
The 5th Circuits decision also upheld a federal restriction on the right to bear arms as "reasonable". So I guess we're left with "You got the right" and "we can restrict it".
They just agreed with Miller vs US. Is that what you're referring to?
Here's some nice snips I found:
Quotes from U.S. v. Emerson Ruling
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10331
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
The following are exact extracts from the above-mentioned ruling.
Issued October 16, 2001
Miller Does Not Support Collective Right Model
We conclude that Miller does not support the government's collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government's position. Nor does the government cite any other authority binding on this panel which mandates acceptance of its position in this respect. We turn, therefore, to an analysis of history and wording of the Second Amendment for guidance. In undertaking this analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment.
{snip}
There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, "the people" have "rights" and "powers," but federal and state governments only have "powers" or "authority", never "rights."
{snip}
Several other Supreme Court opinions speak of the Second Amendment in a manner plainly indicating that the right which it secures to "the people" is an individual or personal, not a collective or quasi-collective, right in the same sense that the rights secured to "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments, and the rights secured by the other provisions of the first eight amendments, are individual or personal, and not collective or quasi-collective, rights. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2805 (1992); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1937 (1977);(26) Robertson v. Baldwin, supra (see quotation in note 17 supra); Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How) 393, 417, 450-51, 15 L.Ed. 691, 705, 719 (1856). See also Justice Black's concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1456 (1968).(27)
It appears clear that "the people," as used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual Americans.
{snip}
The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard.
{snip}
Taken as a whole, the text of the Second Amendment's substantive guarantee is not suggestive of a collective rights or sophisticated collective rights interpretation, and the implausibility of either such interpretation is enhanced by consideration of the guarantee's placement within the Bill of Rights and the wording of the other articles thereof and of the original Constitution as a whole.
{snip}
In sum, to give the Second Amendment's preamble [A well regulated militia...] its full and proper due there is no need to torture the meaning of its substantive guarantee into the collective rights or sophisticated collective rights model which is so plainly inconsistent with the substantive guarantee's text, its placement within the bill of rights and the wording of the other articles thereof and of the original constitution as a whole.
{snip}
Turning to the history of the Second Amendment's adoption, we find nothing inconsistent with the conclusion that as ultimately proposed by Congress and ratified by the states it was understood and intended in accordance with the individual rights model as set out above.
{snip}
We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.
{snip}
We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.
******************
Now what part of the 2nd can one logically argue about?
-
Like I said... all this supporting documentation for something that is "crystal clear." :rolleyes:
-
It's a documentation on how the chipping away process works.
We start with something which is "crystal clear".
Some judge dude A says; "The right is clearly unconditional and absolute, but actually, there may be some question about the caliber of the gun". Some time later a judge dude B says. "Based on the discovery of judge dude B, it is not clear to me whether the length of the barrel is restricted".
Give it a time and a bunch of activist judges/"scholars" with an agenda, and everything is questionable, based not on the original text and intent, but on the "precedent" created by motivated judges. Each one of them uses the others as established "scholars" and what starts to matter, is their opinions, to hell with the original text and author's clear intents corroborated by numerous and crystal clear works by authors.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Like I said... all this supporting documentation for something that is "crystal clear." :rolleyes:
Yeah, I know what ya mean.. all that documentation on "the Sun comes up in the East" stuff is the same way. :D
Hey, if you want to close your eyes, no problemo. The 5th Circuit ruling should be a large wake-up for those that have trouble with the clarity. But folks that don't want to agree can still claim they don't agree.
It' just that US Circuit Judges carry a bit more weight in these matters than private citizens.
But then, what do US Circuit Judges have to do with law, anyway, right? We should always just ignore those guys.
-
The 5th Circuit decision is clear, but if you are saying that they ended the argument then I disagree. Reasonable people still have issues with abortion, yet the Supreme Court ruled on that 30 years ago.
Don Higginbotham suggests that James Madison’s phrasing of the Second Amendment—which Higginbotham characterizes as "heavy in emotional content but thin in substance"—was primarily intended as a sop to Antifederalists. Why were Antifederalists concerned that the relationship between the federal government and state militias, as outlined in the Constitution, might result in an oppressive standing army? Did the Second Amendment still their fears, or did subsequent historical developments merely make this concern a nonissue? Did the use of state militias in the nineteenth century (or as the National Guard in the twentieth) bear out the Antifederalist claim that such bodies worked against the oppression of citizens?
Like I said room for argument. The 2nd Amendment is probably the most ambiguously written of them all. Maybe the framers did that on purpose?
-
Gotta laugh, MT. Look at how Madison presented the 2nd to the House of Representatives.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;.. "
Ambiguous? Not hardly. Note the semicolon. Why do you use a semi-colon?
"INDEPENDENT CLAUSE; INDEPENDENT CLAUSE.
· Use a semi-colon to separate two independent clauses."
But hey, people can claim whatever they want to claim now, right? Despite the writings of all the guys that actually wrote, debated and voted FOR the 2nd which are quite clear.
"subsequent historical developments "... The old "Times change" argument? Go ahead.. make it. Watch what happens to the First and the other amendments if "times change" actually became a valid reason. If "times change", why that's what the Constitutional amendment process is all about isn't it?
Funny you don't see the antis going for an Amendment isn't it? They just try to twist the meaning of the 2nd until it suits them. What the heck was the definition of "is" again?
It says what it says.. what Madison wrote. If you don't like it, you can try to ignore it and throw stuff up to obfuscate it.. but that doesn't change what it says.
-
OK then how about this:
Name one gun control law that has been declared unconstitutional because it violated the individuals right to keep and bear arms?
-
VICTOR D. QUILICI vs. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 6, 1982, Decided
"Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, ... "
So far... I repeat, so far... this hasn't been overturned but the opposition to the ruling is based on the "equal protection" clause of the 14th. Stay tuned. :D
Fortunately all those State Constitutions you mentioned above mostly agree with the Federal 2nd. 46 States (I think) they consider in line with the Federal 2nd.
-
Toad, I am astonished!
From the ruling on that same case:
Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.
Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment.
seems pretty clear to me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK then how about this:
Name one gun control law that has been declared unconstitutional because it violated the individuals right to keep and bear arms?
United States v. Emerson, US Supreme Court
We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia. However, for the reasons stated, we also conclude that the predicate order in question here is sufficient, albeit likely minimally so, to support the deprivation, while it remains in effect, of the defendant's Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the indictment on Second Amendment grounds.
United States v. Lopez, US Supreme Court - Congress outlaws guns near schools using its powers to regulate interstate commerce. Court finds this unConstitutional.
Klein v. Leis, Ohio Supreme Court - Ohio law restricting concealed carry permits are ruled unConstitutional.
-
Originally posted by Dune
United States v. Lopez, US Supreme Court - Congress outlaws guns near schools using its powers to regulate interstate commerce. Court finds this unConstitutional.
Lopez was NOT a 2nd amendment holding:
"The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined."
Klein v. Leis, Ohio Supreme Court - Ohio law restricting concealed carry permits are ruled unConstitutional.
Hardly a 2nd amendment case if it hasn't reached the federal level. And it still hasn't been decided:
"On April 25, 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an emergency stay, reinstating restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons. With the ongoing assistance of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, the office of the City Solicitor of Cincinnati is appealing the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court."
-
Oh, and Emerson is NOT a gun control law either.
-
Now MT.. let's show the whole of what you clipped there.
"The second amendment provides that "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia.
In an attempt to avoid the Miller holding that the right to keep and bear arms exists only as it relates to protecting the public security, appellants argue that "the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is joined with language expressing one of its purposes in no way permits a construction which limits or confines the exercise of that right." They offer no explanation for how they have arrived at this conclusion. Alternatively, they argue that handguns are military weapons. Our reading of Miller convinces us that it does not support either of these theories. As the Village correctly notes, appellants are essentially arguing that Miller was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Such arguments have no place before this court. Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.
Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
OK, look at the key points.
They clearly state that "that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia." OBVIOUSLY THEY AGREE THAT THE 2ND COVERS "MILITIA ARMS"... NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO BE IN A MILITIA.
They only state that HANDGUNS are not covered, citing Miller.
So the difference between this and the 5th Circuit decision is that the 7th AGREES on the right to have militia type arms.. they just disgree that handguns fit that category.
Pretty clear to me still. Even though I think they're wrong on handguns. :D
-
Still doesn't qualify as a "Gun control law struck down on 2nd amendment grounds". Hell, it wasn't even struck down.
-
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Perhaps everyone has read that wrong...
Maybe it should be "The right of the people to keep and bear (=HAVE) arms shall not be infringed".
This would be a powerful statement against those who strive to forcefully amputate someone against their will.
-
"Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970)."
I think that's why Morton Grove was allowed to stand.
The State Constitution allowed it.
-
interesting to me that gun ownership is such a left/right thing. Don't know why that is. perhaps some of you lefties could explain?
All firearms should be legal. using them (like driving a car) badly or to take away someones rights should be punished. I believe that if a man kills 20 kids with an AK then he should be punished. If he is let out of prison.... He should be handed back his weapon and his right to vote etc.. If you think he needs to stay in prison then it is the court system that needs overhauling not the firearms laws.
It is fortunate tho that so many who oppose private (or any kind) of gun ownership are so ignorant of firearms. They constantly make ridiculous claims for firearms and will ban guns based on looks rather than utility or function. I have a perfectly legal mini 14. It is not black so it is not an "assault rifle". They don't even know what they really want (other than to make it impossible for law abiding citizens to own or use firearms).
I have never take anyone out shooting for their first time who did not thourouly enjoy themselves. Most expressed interest in buying a firearm of their own afterwards. I had to advise some of them that the one they wanted was no longer legal. How can liberals condone banning firearms that they know nothing about?
but to me it all boils down to this.... The second ammendmant is the only one that guarentees the rest of the constitution.
lazs
-
Funny thing is laz, I agree. I enjoy shooting (although I have limited experience), and I think the right to own a firearm should be protected.
None of the above has anything to do with the fact that the 2nd amendment is still ambiguous, and that there still has NEVER been a gun control law struck down because of the second amendment.
-
Ah, MT.. you're dodging the issue. The 2nd itself stands; it has merely been chipped away at by folks with an agenda that refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Let common sense be your guide:
1. Look at the writings about personal arms by the very folks that planned and fought the Revolution, wrote the Declaration of Independence, wrote and voted on the Constitution, wrote and voted on the Bill of Rights. That evidence is undeniably clear... to say other wise is foolish.
2. Look at the way Madison presented the 2nd to the House of Represenatives. It couldn't be more clear.
3. Look at the actual 2nd. Only quibblers would argue with the meaning.
The definition of "militia", at that time and at the present time is not in doubt. Further, you have writings of those there at the time that tell you what they meant by "militia". See Richard Henry Lee.
Further, there are definitions of "arms" from that time that are clear.. see Webster.
So, the only folks that would argue this are the folks that would defend the parsing of "is" into a new and twisted meaning; in short, people not worth knowing.
4. Consider Madison's later commentary that he felt the Bill or Rights wasn't really necessary.. that the Constitution already covered these items sufficiently. Madison clearly thought that the Right to Bear Arms was so intrinsic, so universally understood, that it didn't even need to be enumerated. Obviously, he was wrong. Without the Bill of Rights even the things covered by the 1st would have been seriously compromised by now.
5. Look at the State Constitutions of the 46 states that have very similar clauses to the 2nd.
So now you want to "back door it" instead of meeting the issue head-on. To wit: "Some gun control laws have passed. What infringement on the 2nd has been overturned?"
I don't think anyone has made the case that the 2nd hasn't been infringed upon. But that in no way makes the 2nd ambiguous or invalid.
Why can you not yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire? Does this infringement invalidate the entire First Amendment? Of course not.
Doesn't this seem to be "abridging the freedom of speech" guaranteed in the First? So, does this mean the First is "confusing" or "ambiguous? Why haven't these type of restrictions been struck down? Is there room for argument on the First?
I feel only the deliberately obtuse, those with an agenda against firearms can find the 2nd ambiguous given the five items I started with.
But thanks for the interesting discussion (you have to be playing Devil's Advocate here... you're smart enough to evaluate the historical evidence that's available from the founders. I hope. ;) )
-
I have to admit a little bit of DA. This is one issue that I am pretty 'conservative' about. Well not really conservative, like laz, constitutional.
I still see room for debate, and that is the reason this whole discussion started.
The SC held in 1939 that 'Militia' was the key, and that there was no 'individual' right to bear arms. Now that opinion seems to be changing. If there is no room for debate, why has there not been a consensus on this issue even by the courts?
You make a good historical case Toad. I might even agree with your conclusions. There are still many that do not. If it is as simple as you claim, the debate should be limited to the extremes. You and I both know that that is not the case.
-
MT It's no use- no matter how hard we try we just can't get around that damn second amendment thingie. On behalf of PETA, however, I thank you for your efforts in abolishing firearms. Unfortunately between Charlton Heston and Toad it looks like the slaughter of our forest creatures will continue anabated.
Although little can be done to save the animals of the forest from 2nd amendment gun nuts, we can shift our focus to another species whose slaughter goes virtually unnoticed by mainstream America and of which the implements of said slaughter are NOT constitutionally guaranteed. I speak of the fish...and the implement of its death, the fishing pole.
We start out asking that fishermen simply register their fishing poles. Innocious enough, in the beginning. Then we make fishermen show ID whenever they buy hooks smaller than a size 8. We call for an outright ban on the Saturday Night Special of fishing poles- the cheaply built, easily concealable Popiel Pocket Fisherman. We make it a felony to posess a fishing pole shorter than 36".
We start an anti-fishing pole media blitz. Maybe have people who have lost an eye from a wayward cast give testimonials, have women speak out who have lost their husbands to the fishing bug. We make it harder to get fishing licenses and ban people from fishing who have ever been convicted of cruelty to animals. We require background checks by the FBI and a mandatory two week "cooling off period" before someone can buy a new fishing pole. We ban fishing from boats except in streams smaller than eight feet wide. We search our kids' school lockers for illegal, or "sawed off," fishing poles. We outlaw posession of fish hooks by minors. Finally we ban fishing poles altogether.
If every one of us liberals could engender the same support for fishing pole controls as we have for gun controls we could eventually stop the slaughter of innocent fish. Hey, we damn near have outlawed most guns and THEY have constitutional protections in place. Imagine what a bunch of us do-gooders could do to ban fishing poles if all we have to deal with is some cracker like Rowland Martin instead of Charlton Heston and the Second Amendment.
-
The historical evidence leaves no doubt for those that look at it objectively without a pre-determined agenda. End of story. :D
As I was walking this morning, I was thinking about this issue. What it really does affect the way I vote.
Basically, I wasn't impressed with either Bush or Gore... I think they're both far less than this nation deserves. However, I picked Bush basically because of the Supreme Court judge issue.
Who would appoint judges to the SC that would be most likely rule in a strict constructionist, pro-Constitution manner? To protect not just the 2nd, but ALL of our rights as the founder's intended us to have them?
At that basic level, there was no doubt in my mind that Bush was a better choice in this regard.
As I've said before, the Supremes (IMO) have the greatest power to shape this nation. The President merely proposes. The Congress merely disposes. But the Supremes RULE.
So, when I vote.. I vote by who'll put in SC judges mostly likely to be strict Constructionist.
That's how deeply I view these issues.. not just the 2nd alone.
Moral of the story? If you want my vote... convince me that you're a strict constructionist... or at least more so than the other guy. :)
-
well.... I gotta thank toad for saving me from digging around again in all the federalist papers and such and having to copy it all down...thanks toad...ya got it all straight and VERY well organized. Glad to see your not just another pretty face.
But... the gist of the thing is.... The 2nd is pretty darn clear to any english speaker out there and much less complex than a lot of other writings that are not scrutinized. I gotta ask again.... Why is it a left/right issue? Why would anyone wish to disarm themselves or others or... why would anyone wish to remove this valuble check against big brother?
Vote from the rooftops.
lazs
-
Who says it's a left- right issue?? Wsnpr may be described as "leftist" yet he owns firearms and is an avid shooter. I've been called "leftist" yet I own several guns and come from a hunting-shooting background. MT is a so-called leftist and he owns guns also. Lazs, leftists, rightsts, whatever, I doubt any of us are opposed to the safe and responsible ownership of firearms.
Where the difference is that us Leftists try to prevent whackos from getting their hands on guns. We feel felons have forfeited their right to own guns- the Right feels gun ownership is a right that ALL have. Us from the Left are concerned with drive-by shootings and we want to get guns off the street. The Right doesn't have a problem with black on black crime and, in fact, it was the right wing Iran Contra guys that armed the street gangs in the first place.
The Left wants background checks, mandatory gun safety classes and gun locks to go with every firearm purchase- the Right thinks ANY person should have full and immediate access to whatever firearm we may desire regardless of our intent. They oppose background checks and, in fact, the Right WANTS people shooting each other so they have an excuse to continue taking away our rights.
So you see, Lazs, the Left and the Right want the same thing, basically- the right of people to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately the Right wants to arm our criminals and nut burgers while the Left wants to keep our streets safe. Understand now bud? :)
-
Yer trolling again, Elf? Shame.
-
Sorry Toad, I'm bored.
-
S'ok... I am too! ;)
But try a diver next time.. the top water just doesn't work as well lately.
-
LOL Yeah, these waters are getting fished out. Anyone have a link to Bigweek? I've never been there.
-
I don't think the insane or children or people currently incarcerated should have firearms but everyone else should be free to have any firearm they wish. What you do with em is the issue.. unlike the left... I can't figure out intent. It really is that simple. anything else and you end up with a bunch of silly hard to interpret laws.. sorta like we got now. A "background" check should be simply.... are you insane? are you underage? If you are standing at the counter then youy are not currently incarcerated. If the person standing at the counter is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm.... then what the hell is he doing out of prison?
lazs
-
Try AGW Elfie. I've had some good success there. Seems there's this guy named jedi............
-
What's AGW MT? Ya got a link by chance?
-
alt.games.warbirds
here - http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/index.php?s=
Enjoy
-
Sheeesh, it's the same group of morons who post here! I'll use an alias...
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
LOL Yeah, these waters are getting fished out. Anyone have a link to Bigweek? I've never been there.
Point your newsreader to:
news.bigweek.org
This should be fun...
-
Elfenwolf: ...the Left and the Right want the same thing, basically- the right of people to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately the Right wants to arm our criminals and nut burgers while the Left wants to keep our streets safe.
I thought that it was Left's position that once a violent felon served out his prison term, he is not a criminal anymore but a member of society enjoying all the rights and liberties.
Why would you consider such person dangerous? And how long? All his life? So how come that incorrigible dangerous person was released in the first place? Shouldn't he have been executed as the Right insist? Or at least stayed in prison for life?
You can hardly unleash a criminal into society and give him equal rights with the rest of us just so that you could deny some rights to lawfull citizen because there can be a former criminal among them. On the other hand, that's exactly what you do...
If a criminal is in prison or has been executed, violent mentally-ill patients are under proper supervision and illegal aliens are out of the country, what need is there for a background check?
miko
-
miko c'mon, man. I know you're only responding to my troll because you know I'm bummed out over the loss of this fishery. I appreciate it, bud. You are most kind. <
> and thank you, but I'm the one who overfished this stream so I only blame myself. In hindsight I should have praticed catch and release, but that is against the nature of a Troll.
-
miko I agree with ya.. if the guy is released then he is no longer dangerous or at least... he is given a real chance.. give em his damn gun and voting rights back. Heck, the left, as you say, should espouse that since if he really is dangerous he will vote to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Pole after pole of criminals in prisons show that they want stricter gun control laws so that thier careers are not so dangerous.
I think that the "convicted of a felony" thing is out of hand to anyones mind tho and just a flimsy excuse to deny another segment of society the right to defend themselves or shoot recreationaly. most of these so felonies have nothing to do with violence or guns. Even worse... now if any woman has filed a complaint against you for "spousal" abuse... you can't own a gun.
and SB... Arizona just struck down a gun control law as being unconstitutional.. Arizona tried to say that the right to carry concealed firearms was not guarenteed by the second. It was struck down.
lazs
-
Lazs, I'm cruising through Dixon today. Anty place there I can buy you a beer at say maybe 1 this afternoon?
-
Last call for Lazs...last call for Lazs...I'm leaving for Petaluma at ten thirty, will be back through Dixon between 2:30-3:00. I'll stop at that vegetable stand North of Interstate 80, that big silver one. I'll be in a white Honda Civic.
-
damn... missed your post. Had a houseful of 20 year old women too! Yeah, really.. my daughter had my granddaughter with her and her friends were all over hangin out... also had a freind (since the sixties) over that I haven't seen in a year or so ( he drives nostalgia front engined dragsters).. woulda been a party.. I coulda picked u up so that you wouldn't have to be seen in a civic. For authentic dixon flavor I coulda sent my mexican girlfriend over to pick you up in my ellll caminooo..
But... I am just down the street so why not email me and I will give u my phone number so that you can get in touch with me in the future?
lazs
-
You're kidding me Lazs! I stopped at that Pedrick Road fruit stand and saw some guy who was just standing around and when I said "Lazs?" he said "Yeah?" so I thought it was you! Damn, I bought him beers and a hamburger, loaned him twenty dollars and gave him a ride out to the railroad tracks. Ya know I wondered why you showed up with a backpack and no car and I vowed not to bring up your lack of hygene here on the O'Club, but actually I'm glad that guy wasn't you. But damn, that guy sure knew more about WW2 airplanes than me.
-
happens a lot elf.. it was no doubt that insipid laz or "lazer" guy. glad he finally profited by pretending to be me.
lazs