I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
well that did not last long, some adviser must have talked some sense into this candidate...can we classify this as a flip-flop??
----
State Sen. Randy Brogdon said Tuesday that a militia would instead be used as an auxiliary state force during emergencies because the Oklahoma National Guard falls under federal control.
Brogdon was among some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature and tea party leaders who had said creating a new volunteer militia could help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force.
Ahahaha.... the problem with these right wing nutcases is that they don't READ the Constitution:
Article II, Section 2.1: The President shall be the commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...
So that means the President can order their own militia to arrest their own state Legislature and Governor for sedition
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
who are you talking to?? there is a quote feature so everyone knows who you are referring to...who is making anything personal...and why is godfather applauding??
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
No offense (and I hate grammar police on message boards), but your paragraph/sentence structure makes it very hard to read... by the time I got done reading it, I really had no idea what you said. You might have made some good points, but it was lost in the jumping all around rambling sentences.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
who are you talking to?? there is a quote feature so everyone knows who you are referring to...who is making anything personal...and why is godfather applauding??
cause he was pointing out that a un-popular opinion is always looked upon as a bad or wrong opinion
that's all,
I enjoy reading the opionions on this thread but more often than not some people tend to label other people
for their opinion,when it get's personal it's not fun anymore....kinda
I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
who are you talking to?? there is a quote feature so everyone knows who you are referring to...who is making anything personal...and why is godfather applauding??
cause he was pointing out that a un-popular opinion is always looked upon as a bad or wrong opinion
that's all,
I enjoy reading the opionions on this thread but more often than not some people tend to label other people
for their opinion,when it get's personal it's not fun anymore....kinda
Godfather.
do you not think that it is the same on both sides? i might have an opinion different than that poster's and he would say i am wrong, so he can nct claim to be above prejudice either...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
No offense (and I hate grammar police on message boards), but your paragraph/sentence structure makes it very hard to read... by the time I got done reading it, I really had no idea what you said. You might have made some good points, but it was lost in the jumping all around rambling sentences.
he's (she) saying ...We on MT should quit the name calling and act like adults....or, It would be great if we could just be nice to each other...
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
No offense (and I hate grammar police on message boards), but your paragraph/sentence structure makes it very hard to read... by the time I got done reading it, I really had no idea what you said. You might have made some good points, but it was lost in the jumping all around rambling sentences.
he's (she) saying ...We on MT should quit the name calling and act like adults....or, It would be great if we could just be nice to each other...
i'm pretty sure that is not what they were saying....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
No offense (and I hate grammar police on message boards), but your paragraph/sentence structure makes it very hard to read... by the time I got done reading it, I really had no idea what you said. You might have made some good points, but it was lost in the jumping all around rambling sentences.
Same here. I completely lost interest after the first sentence.
People seem to forget that the responsibility lies with the writer to make himself or herself understood by the reader, and not the other way around.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Thanks to all who read it. I didn't want to directly quote anyone because I read all the comments, then ATTEMPT to cover as much as I can within my post. And yes, I was saying lets act civily, just read what I wrote, that's all. Some got it and some didn't; whatever. Understand about the sentence structure and the demand for the grammatic superlative, but I just get a little passionate when I get into all of this. It's been fun, and I think, again opinion, debate is the backbone to democracy. I believe in democracy and individuals writes. Along with that, I believe in responsiblity and respect. Yes we have rights, but I don't believe in exploiting them or using them to the detrement or infringment on others; period! I hope no one wishes ill will on anyone, and that we can represent Pearl Jam and all of it's employees who have helped provide this outlet to express ourselves, for right or for the wrong, and to challenge our beliefs, and to help give us all a little conviction, and be humbled that there is so much that we can do, and so much that will be what it will be not matter what we say or do.
There it is...Maybe I'll see you NewOrleans 'cause I'll be there...maybe we can shake hands or you can punch me in the face, but if there's beer afterwards, let's do it!
Al Queda ? try telling them about your Rights as a American btw we are talking about America right ?
Is not my primary right as an American to not have my democratic representation taken away by force? :? I just don't get it. Didn't our founding fathers fight so that we could have representation within a democratic system? If one minority group of people seizes power through force, how does that in ANY way resemble the principles upon which this country was founded?
he's (she) saying ...We on MT should quit the name calling and act like adults....or, It would be great if we could just be nice to each other...
Totally agree...Let's start wih abolishing the terms "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" when refering to people. State your position, not your team.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
he's (she) saying ...We on MT should quit the name calling and act like adults....or, It would be great if we could just be nice to each other...
Totally agree...Let's start wih abolishing the terms "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" when refering to people. State your position, not your team.
good luck with that one...i agree but its not going to happen like that..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
he's (she) saying ...We on MT should quit the name calling and act like adults....or, It would be great if we could just be nice to each other...
Totally agree...Let's start wih abolishing the terms "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" when refering to people. State your position, not your team.
I'm in...
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
he's (she) saying ...We on MT should quit the name calling and act like adults....or, It would be great if we could just be nice to each other...
Totally agree...Let's start wih abolishing the terms "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" when refering to people. State your position, not your team.
I don't agree.
"LIberal" and "Conservative" are stating your positions (viewpoints).
"Democrat" and "Republican" are stating your teams (parties).
Speaking as someone who's seen the word "liberal" go from being a respected term to basically a four letter word when describing someone, why would calling someone a "liberal" or "conservative" be tantamount to "name-calling"?
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
he's (she) saying ...We on MT should quit the name calling and act like adults....or, It would be great if we could just be nice to each other...
Totally agree...Let's start wih abolishing the terms "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" when refering to people. State your position, not your team.
I don't agree.
"LIberal" and "Conservative" are stating your positions (viewpoints).
"Democrat" and "Republican" are stating your teams (parties).
Speaking as someone who's seen the word "liberal" go from being a respected term to basically a four letter word when describing someone, why would calling someone a "liberal" or "conservative" be tantamount to "name-calling"?
Define liberal and conservative... I suggest we shouldn't use those terms becuase everyone has a different definition and it is not applied consistently. I think we learned that in the other thread where prfctlfts laid out his definition of a liberal, and a lot of "liberals" said "that's not me". All these "liberals" actually had a lot in common with prfctlfts.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Instead of worrying about the terms, perhaps it's more important to simply not generalize about them or the people you think they incorporate. A good rule for all - be specific and detailed and we won't have any issues.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I guess that's what happens when you have an opinion that's not popular. You all, I am not calling out one specific quote, prove my point everytime you rebut my post. Sorry, but I was not vague. If you actually read, than you would read the specifics. I love the labeling of incoherent followed by fortune cookie one liners; pretty impressive...from a chimps standards. The whole Jim Bunning thing really is a laugh when you try to tell me what's up and you have no idea what you are talking about. All there really is is hate and discontent; hate and discontent. You don't prove a point, you attack. I don't know why I even try, I guess it's because I care and because I hope that maybe I could get an imtelligable point to challenge my thinking, not hate and vitrial. You guys are really good at that, but like I said in a previous post, not the circle to exemplify the thought of freedom and civility. I can hear it now,"Hey ass hole, you support the raising of arms against our own government, giving involits the means to incite violence and kill". The whole point of the original post was about the Ok. tea party/militia ordeal and the implementation of a state run militia group. If voted by the Ok. powers, I expressed my opinion that the right was theres, of course if voted by those powers. I went on to express opinion of the true purpose of the article, which was just opinion, saying that it was not ALL about the titled article, but to shed negative light on the ownership of guns; and all of this has happened. You attack and try to shred opinions that are not yours, and you hide in your trees, asking for truth, I guess advocates of freedom, haven't quite put my finger on that one yet though. But I'll be the target, I don't care. You are more comfortable assuming, hating, and trying to destroy. It's sad that I have to spell it all out again, my view, but hey, I haven't got the program enabling me to put pretty shapes and colors in substitute for words, thoughts, and unpopular views, and all that stuff, like you know. You know, people who can't argue points make issues personnal, that's what you have done (if this dosen't apply, no worries). I'd love there to be a truce, but don't think that would happen unless I just went away; I'm not. However, here is the olive branch. You can continue to make it personnal, or try to keep the opposition of opinions civil, or just agree to disagree. Or we can keep going round and round, just putting out there.
I'm guessing this was addressed to me...anyway, please don't take things personally...this is a message board...folks are going to disagree...that's natural...
as for your post...I had to read it three times...and still had some trouble deciphering the code...
Is there talk of taking peoples guns away? Why the gun rallies in dc today? Why are people getting their panties in a bunch if there’s no talk of taking their guns?
Nice to have a gun rally in our nations capitol near the anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing.
This shit is scary. Way back you used to be arrested for “in sighting a riot.” Now it seems ok to stir trouble up.
Ok you can carry guns in national parks. That scares me too. Kids and women disappear in parks. Why not make it ok to carry guns in ONE national park and let them all have a shoot out? Watch them kill one another off.
Because of this ruckus there’s going to be a home grown terrorist attack soon. I wish they’d put a lid on these rallies, but it’s freedom of speech. But really to me all this is is people getting all stirred up. Somethings’s going to blow.
*~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*
Define liberal and conservative... I suggest we shouldn't use those terms becuase everyone has a different definition and it is not applied consistently. I think we learned that in the other thread where prfctlfts laid out his definition of a liberal, and a lot of "liberals" said "that's not me". All these "liberals" actually had a lot in common with prfctlfts.
I still don't agree.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are general terms. There's variations within those particular ideas - there are classical liberals and social liberals, and then there are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. There's even overlap, but the liberalism of Thomas Jefferson intertwines with the conservatism of John Adams to a different degree than the liberalism of FDR intertwines with the conservatism of Barry Goldwater.
If "liberal" and "conservative" were the only set terms used to describe everyone, then I would agree - stop using them. However, to simply call everyone "liberal" or "conservative" without considering the various nuances of the political philosophies involved is incorrect.
Hence, we should not just blanketly drop the terms any more than we should drop the term "Christian" to define a set of religious beliefs even though not everyone in that camp agrees on everything the term might bring up.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Is there talk of taking peoples guns away? Why the gun rallies in dc today? Why are people getting their panties in a bunch if there’s no talk of taking their guns?
It's favorite boogeyman of the right wing - they like to brand "liberals" and "Democrats" and "socialists" as having this ulterior agenda of taking away people's guns - when nobody on the left is actually saying any such thing. This is all a made up fantasy by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to scare people into supporting their causes.
Nice to have a gun rally in our nations capitol near the anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing.
I wonder if these so called militias would feel the same way if it were a large group of *African-American" males marching on DC heavily armed. I'll bet you they'd all be screaming to have them jailed or prosecuted.
Because of this ruckus there’s going to be a home grown terrorist attack soon. I wish they’d put a lid on these rallies, but it’s freedom of speech. But really to me all this is is people getting all stirred up. Somethings’s going to blow.
We've already seen a series of attacks on various figures who are traditional targets of the right wing fringe hate groups - abortion doctors, police officers, government buildings, and now members of Congress and even their families. Death threats against the current President have jumped 400x since the previous one.
I fear it's only a matter of time.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Is there talk of taking peoples guns away? Why the gun rallies in dc today? Why are people getting their panties in a bunch if there’s no talk of taking their guns?
It's favorite boogeyman of the right wing - they like to brand "liberals" and "Democrats" and "socialists" as having this ulterior agenda of taking away people's guns - when nobody on the left is actually saying any such thing. This is all a made up fantasy by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to scare people into supporting their causes.
Nice to have a gun rally in our nations capitol near the anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing.
I wonder if these so called militias would feel the same way if it were a large group of *African-American" males marching on DC heavily armed. I'll bet you they'd all be screaming to have them jailed or prosecuted.
Because of this ruckus there’s going to be a home grown terrorist attack soon. I wish they’d put a lid on these rallies, but it’s freedom of speech. But really to me all this is is people getting all stirred up. Somethings’s going to blow.
We've already seen a series of attacks on various figures who are traditional targets of the right wing fringe hate groups - abortion doctors, police officers, government buildings, and now members of Congress and even their families. Death threats against the current President have jumped 400x since the previous one.
I fear it's only a matter of time.
Why do you fan the flames of hate And racism ? It does not matter who has a gun as far as color goes....ok?..it's a right for all Americans.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
So your okay for armed Groups to be outside the voting places? Personally I don’t think it’s okay.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Voting polls are not the same as demonstrations. According to your link the police say it was ok they were not breaking the law..the Black Panthers did break the law........ No one should be at the polls to intimidate
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Define liberal and conservative... I suggest we shouldn't use those terms becuase everyone has a different definition and it is not applied consistently. I think we learned that in the other thread where prfctlfts laid out his definition of a liberal, and a lot of "liberals" said "that's not me". All these "liberals" actually had a lot in common with prfctlfts.
I still don't agree.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are general terms. There's variations within those particular ideas - there are classical liberals and social liberals, and then there are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. There's even overlap, but the liberalism of Thomas Jefferson intertwines with the conservatism of John Adams to a different degree than the liberalism of FDR intertwines with the conservatism of Barry Goldwater. If "liberal" and "conservative" were the only set terms used to describe everyone, then I would agree - stop using them. However, to simply call everyone "liberal" or "conservative" without considering the various nuances of the political philosophies involved is incorrect.
Hence, we should not just blanketly drop the terms any more than we should drop the term "Christian" to define a set of religious beliefs even though not everyone in that camp agrees on everything the term might bring up.
Our thoughts on this are not far off at all. The bold in your statement is what I'm getting at. It just seems unfortunate that so many of us are cast into those oversimplistic categories and that seems to become something that divides us when really many of our basic thoughts on most subject's are quite similar.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Comments
Ahahaha.... the problem with these right wing nutcases is that they don't READ the Constitution:
Article II, Section 2.1: The President shall be the commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...
So that means the President can order their own militia to arrest their own state Legislature and Governor for sedition
Godfather.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No offense (and I hate grammar police on message boards), but your paragraph/sentence structure makes it very hard to read... by the time I got done reading it, I really had no idea what you said. You might have made some good points, but it was lost in the jumping all around rambling sentences.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
cause he was pointing out that a un-popular opinion is always looked upon as a bad or wrong opinion
that's all,
I enjoy reading the opionions on this thread but more often than not some people tend to label other people
for their opinion,when it get's personal it's not fun anymore....kinda
Godfather.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Godfather.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Same here. I completely lost interest after the first sentence.
People seem to forget that the responsibility lies with the writer to make himself or herself understood by the reader, and not the other way around.
There it is...Maybe I'll see you NewOrleans 'cause I'll be there...maybe we can shake hands or you can punch me in the face, but if there's beer afterwards, let's do it!
SIncerely,
A He
But "Shoot 'em!" to the people we disagree with is okay? :?
Is not my primary right as an American to not have my democratic representation taken away by force? :? I just don't get it. Didn't our founding fathers fight so that we could have representation within a democratic system? If one minority group of people seizes power through force, how does that in ANY way resemble the principles upon which this country was founded?
Totally agree...Let's start wih abolishing the terms "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" when refering to people. State your position, not your team.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I don't agree.
"LIberal" and "Conservative" are stating your positions (viewpoints).
"Democrat" and "Republican" are stating your teams (parties).
Speaking as someone who's seen the word "liberal" go from being a respected term to basically a four letter word when describing someone, why would calling someone a "liberal" or "conservative" be tantamount to "name-calling"?
Define liberal and conservative... I suggest we shouldn't use those terms becuase everyone has a different definition and it is not applied consistently. I think we learned that in the other thread where prfctlfts laid out his definition of a liberal, and a lot of "liberals" said "that's not me". All these "liberals" actually had a lot in common with prfctlfts.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I'm guessing this was addressed to me...anyway, please don't take things personally...this is a message board...folks are going to disagree...that's natural...
as for your post...I had to read it three times...and still had some trouble deciphering the code...
Is there talk of taking peoples guns away? Why the gun rallies in dc today? Why are people getting their panties in a bunch if there’s no talk of taking their guns?
Nice to have a gun rally in our nations capitol near the anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing.
This shit is scary. Way back you used to be arrested for “in sighting a riot.” Now it seems ok to stir trouble up.
Ok you can carry guns in national parks. That scares me too. Kids and women disappear in parks. Why not make it ok to carry guns in ONE national park and let them all have a shoot out? Watch them kill one another off.
Because of this ruckus there’s going to be a home grown terrorist attack soon. I wish they’d put a lid on these rallies, but it’s freedom of speech. But really to me all this is is people getting all stirred up. Somethings’s going to blow.
I still don't agree.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are general terms. There's variations within those particular ideas - there are classical liberals and social liberals, and then there are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. There's even overlap, but the liberalism of Thomas Jefferson intertwines with the conservatism of John Adams to a different degree than the liberalism of FDR intertwines with the conservatism of Barry Goldwater.
If "liberal" and "conservative" were the only set terms used to describe everyone, then I would agree - stop using them. However, to simply call everyone "liberal" or "conservative" without considering the various nuances of the political philosophies involved is incorrect.
Hence, we should not just blanketly drop the terms any more than we should drop the term "Christian" to define a set of religious beliefs even though not everyone in that camp agrees on everything the term might bring up.
It's favorite boogeyman of the right wing - they like to brand "liberals" and "Democrats" and "socialists" as having this ulterior agenda of taking away people's guns - when nobody on the left is actually saying any such thing. This is all a made up fantasy by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to scare people into supporting their causes.
I wonder if these so called militias would feel the same way if it were a large group of *African-American" males marching on DC heavily armed. I'll bet you they'd all be screaming to have them jailed or prosecuted.
We've already seen a series of attacks on various figures who are traditional targets of the right wing fringe hate groups - abortion doctors, police officers, government buildings, and now members of Congress and even their families. Death threats against the current President have jumped 400x since the previous one.
I fear it's only a matter of time.
I dunno, maybe because the right wing blowhards continue to cast armed black men as dangerous radicals and terrorists?
I don't think it's OK for armed white men to be within striking distance of President Obama either, right?
here is a real hate group....why no post on this?
Our thoughts on this are not far off at all. The bold in your statement is what I'm getting at. It just seems unfortunate that so many of us are cast into those oversimplistic categories and that seems to become something that divides us when really many of our basic thoughts on most subject's are quite similar.
"With our thoughts we make the world"