John Cuthber Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Do you guys have a consensus on the meaning of "a good POTUS"? 'cause as far as I can see, you are not going to agree on the answer to he OP without one. (I doubt that you will agree, even if you can say what is "good" in this context, but I'm certain you won't agree until you have that definition.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) AKA Sooners, i.e. where being an illegal immigrant is the state motto (short version: Sooners illegally crossed borders to claim lands to homestead.) So you hate the first amendment and are proud of it. Wow. Good thing this didn't happen with the original Sooners, eh? See above. Illegal search and seizure. So you hate the fourth amendment, too. That sort of explains hating the Constitution What are these "bold steps"? What laws have been passed? Cite, or I'll assume you're just making stuff up again. It IS racist. Road signs also have shapes to tell you what they mean, so that the language isn't crucial. Sounds like the 14th amendment means nothing to Oklahoma, either. Actively subverting the constitution is pretty un-American, if you ask me. Yet you seem proud of it. This is Oklahoma's stand on the issues, not mine; although i agree with them. i don't want to subvert our constitution in any way although I see what I believe to be subversion from the liberal left. Edited August 27, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 This is Oklahoma's stand on the issues, not mine; although i agree with them. i don't want to subvert our constitution in any way although I see what I believe to be subversion from the liberal left. So, you don't see any of this as subversion of the US constitution, even where it's been pointed out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) What are these bold steps you allude to? I am alluding to nothing, merely conveying what I read that is coming from Oklahoma. Edited August 27, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I am alluding to nothing, merely conveying what I read that is coming from Oklahoma. If you are quoting someone else you should put it in quotes or use the quote function, and you should also name the source of the quote. It is very confusing (and against the rules) to not do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) I certainly hate to upset the liberal mind Stop lying. This is Oklahoma's stand on the issues, not mine; although i agree with them. In which case, it actually IS your stand on the issues. Ahhh... rigney, my friend. How I sometimes wish you actually listened / paid attention to the seriously ignorant nonsense you so often spout off. i don't want to subvert our constitution in any way And yet you agree with the parts of the Oklahoma law that subvert the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments. You can't have it both ways, buddy, yet you're trying to live in a world where hot equals cold and purple equals cheese. I also wish you and people like you would stop asserting such dumb hateful things toward "liberals" and "the left." We're not communists during a red scare and you're not Joseph McCarthy... not yet, anyway... although we've been trending in that direction for far too long now, IMO. Edited August 27, 2012 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 This is Oklahoma's stand on the issues, not mine; although i agree with them. i don't want to subvert our constitution in any way although I see what I believe to be subversion from the liberal left. Then it is your stand. And once again, vague accusations but nothing of substance. How, in your view, has the left subverted the Constitution? You know who else was proud of trying to subvert the US constitution? The Communists of the Soviet Union. Hitler, too. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 So, you don't see any of this as subversion of the US constitution, even where it's been pointed out? Point out anything you wish, but I see the liberal left as wanting to change everything for which our constitution stands. Hope and Change, what a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I see the liberal left as wanting to change everything for which our constitution stands. How specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Point out anything you wish, but I see the liberal left as wanting to change everything for which our constitution stands. Hope and Change, what a joke. No no, let's not change the focus. I asked if you thought what you pointed out as coming out of Oklahoma was subverting the US constitution. Do you think those laws they passed are constitutional? These are actual laws they've passed, not made-up laws you claim are "bold steps to take away our guns". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Point out anything you wish, but I see the liberal left as wanting to change everything for which our constitution stands. Hope and Change, what a joke. The republicans are the ones trying to suppress votes; the dems want those rights for all. That's a couple of amendments on the side of the left. The right, not the left, is the side that wants to suppress your practice of religion if you're not a Christian. That's first amendment. The right, not the left, is the one trying to prevent equal protection for some people who can't get married in most states and cannot get federal benefits even if they can (where is marriage in the Constitutional powers, anyway?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Point out anything you wish, but I see the liberal left as wanting to change everything for which our constitution stands. Hope and Change, what a joke. No, the joke is baseless assertions stated as fact. From the evidence presented, I must conclude that only believe these things because you want to . There is a relevant Winston Churchill quote here...I think most of you already know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Here is a statement President Obama made after the recent shooting in Aurora, CO. Many say this is the most direct statement he's made regarding gun control since he's been in office: "I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation. That hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller. These steps shouldn't be controversial, they should be common sense." rigney, do you 1) disagree with what the president said here? Do you 2) think we should let criminals and mentally unstable people have the access they currently do to weapons, particularly assault rifles? And do you 3) think taking measures to prevent criminals and mentally unstable people infringes on everyone else's 2nd amendment rights? Please answer 1-2-3. These should be simple enough questions for yes or no answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 There is a relevant Winston Churchill quote here...I think most of you already know it. "Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room." ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 "Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room." ?? I was thinking about "“Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have”" Or was it the one about being able to count on Americans to do the right thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I was thinking about "“Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have”" Or was it the one about being able to count on Americans to do the right thing? Those are both applicable but I was hinting at The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. People cast their ballot at the voting booth out passion or fervor for issues that don't matter or don't exist. For anyone who watches South Park: (American comedy cartoon, probably not funny to people not living in the US) I get the "Theytookerjubs!" vibe from the beligerent anti-Obama crowd sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Indeed, otoh "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". BTW, I think Southpark is funny and I'm not living in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Here is a statement President Obama made after the recent shooting in Aurora, CO. Many say this is the most direct statement he's made regarding gun control since he's been in office: rigney, do you 1) disagree with what the president said here? Do you 2) think we should let criminals and mentally unstable people have the access they currently do to weapons, particularly assault rifles? And do you 3) think taking measures to prevent criminals and mentally unstable people infringes on everyone else's 2nd amendment rights? Please answer 1-2-3. These should be simple enough questions for yes or no answers. A normal person cannot disagree with the statement, although it is a bit late in coming. And access to what weapons are you speaking? Unscrupulous or mentally deranged people wanting to purchase firearms don't give a rats ass what you, I, the police or government think about it, and don't go to legitimate dealers anyway, but to some shady character charging ten times the price. And should these nuts kill indiscriminately as has happened in the past several shootings, there should be a speedy trial and the bastard(s) hanged if the faint of heart can stand it. All illegal fire arms should be confiscated and destroyed when ever and where ever they are letigametly found and the perp fined and perhaps even jailed. Assult weapons such as AK 47s are by design sem-automatic, much as a 38, 44,45 etc, and are not machine guns. But again, you can't keep them out of the hands of nuts or perps if they want to buy one. As many have stated time and time again, guns do not kill people, only psychopaths and wackos kill people. So, remember this when government wants to confiscate our guns. Fact is though, should all guns be taken away from sane and legitimate owners, only perps, nuts and the police will have them. If that should happen, good luck. Edited August 27, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Rigney - Why can't you address the questions directly? Must you always evade and side track? Q: Do you prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream? A: You liberals don't get to mandate your preferences for ice cream flavor! Q: Uhh... er... okay... Yeah, but I just wanted to know if you prefer vanilla or chocolate. A: And look at this guy who clearly hates the constitution and all it stands for! Q: Yeah... Never mind. I'd have more luck talking to a wall, I think. Those are both applicable but I was hinting at... I knew that was the one you meant. I was trying for humor with my recommendation. Edited August 27, 2012 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Rigney - Why can't you address the questions directly? Must you always evade and side track? Q: Do you prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream? A: You liberals don't get to mandate your preferences for ice cream flavor! Q: Uhh... er... okay... Yeah, but I just wanted to know if you prefer vanilla or chocolate. A: And look at this guy who clearly hates the constitution and all it stands for! Q: Yeah... Never mind. I'd have more luck talking to a wall, I think. I knew that was the one you meant. I was trying for humor with my recommendation. It's much more fun knowing that it aggravates you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 A normal person cannot disagree with the statement, although it is a bit late in coming. And access to what weapons are you speaking? Unscrupulous or mentally deranged people wanting to purchase firearms don't give a rats ass what you, I, the police or government think about it, and don't go to legitimate dealers anyway, but to some shady character charging ten times the price. And should these nuts kill indiscriminately as has happened in the past several shootings, there should be a speedy trial and the bastard(s) hanged if the faint of heart can stand it. All illegal fire arms should be confiscated and destroyed when ever and where ever they are letigametly found and the perp fined and perhaps even jailed. Assult weapons such as AK 47s are by design sem-automatic, much as a 38, 44,45 etc, and are not machine guns. But again, you can't keep them out of the hands of nuts or perps if they want to buy one. As many have stated time and time again, guns do not kill people, only psychopaths and wackos kill people. So, remember this when government wants to confiscate our guns. Fact is though, should all guns be taken away from sane and legitimate owners, only perps, nuts and the police will have them. If that should happen, good luck. The phrase “Live by the sword, die by the sword” seems particularly relevant. Fear seems to be the prime motivator for the imagined need of such instruments of death, how often, I wonder is the actual need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 A normal person cannot disagree with the statement, although it is a bit late in coming. And access to what weapons are you speaking? Unscrupulous or mentally deranged people wanting to purchase firearms don't give a rats ass what you, I, the police or government think about it, and don't go to legitimate dealers anyway, but to some shady character charging ten times the price. And should these nuts kill indiscriminately as has happened in the past several shootings, there should be a speedy trial and the bastard(s) hanged if the faint of heart can stand it. All illegal fire arms should be confiscated and destroyed when ever and where ever they are letigametly found and the perp fined and perhaps even jailed. Assult weapons such as AK 47s are by design sem-automatic, much as a 38, 44,45 etc, and are not machine guns. But again, you can't keep them out of the hands of nuts or perps if they want to buy one. As many have stated time and time again, guns do not kill people, only psychopaths and wackos kill people. So, remember this when government wants to confiscate our guns. Fact is though, should all guns be taken away from sane and legitimate owners, only perps, nuts and the police will have them. If that should happen, good luck. emphasis added You should be able to back this up, instead of making it up. But this came up in the Yay, GUNS! thread. Here's what I found then in the several recent gun-spree killings, were any of the weapons or ammunition illegally obtained? The alleged perp in the Aurora incident got his legally. Loughner (Tucson) bought his Glock at a gun store. Seung-Hui Cho (Va Tech) purchased legally and even got his 10-round magazines on ebay. So, to whom are you referring that are not going through legal venues? Hmm, that's odd. All legal. No shady dealers overcharging them. A big problem that I (and probably others) have with this kind of discourse is that just saying something does not make it true. No matter how much you want it to be true, or how much it damages your worldview for it not to be true. Sure, having all whackos getting their weapons illegally is reassuring, perpetuating the myth that the part of the system us upstanding folks use is fine, but it just isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Wait... so buying alcohol on ebay is illegal but buying gun ammunition is not 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) emphasis added You should be able to back this up, instead of making it up. But this came up in the Yay, GUNS! thread. Here's what I found then Hmm, that's odd. All legal. No shady dealers overcharging them. A big problem that I (and probably others) have with this kind of discourse is that just saying something does not make it true. No matter how much you want it to be true, or how much it damages your worldview for it not to be true. Sure, having all whackos getting their weapons illegally is reassuring, perpetuating the myth that the part of the system us upstanding folks use is fine, but it just isn't the case. Just what isn't the case friend? No way would I try Bull S-ing you, since you're much too smart for me. Come to Cleveland, Oh. and get your world wide view of the sad situation here, if you have the stomach for it. No mamby pamby stuff at all. Personally I don't like it, but crooks and felons seem to relish in it. Maybe you could help us? By the way, your:Hmm, that's odd. All legal. No shady dealers overcharging them? is your statement, not mine. I specifically said 10 times the price. Edited August 27, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 "As many have stated time and time again, guns do not kill people, only psychopaths and wackos kill people. " Not really. People get killed in accidents too. "Fact is though, should all guns be taken away from sane and legitimate owners, only perps, nuts and the police will have them. If that should happen, good luck." Oh My God! How terrible that would be! Oh, hang on, that's the situation where I live. Odd as this may seem to many people across the pond, it's not actually a big problem. Any nutter waving a gun about on the street will very probably get shot by the police. Many of the crooks with guns are content with shooting one-another. It's not ideal, but it doesn't bother me much. Sometimes some poor soul gets caught in the crossfire. The culprits are generally (alas, not always) caught + held to account. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-19047312 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now