1. #76
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Hey, maybe you and "Dickey" can line Mexican women and children up and shoot them with machine guns as they come across the border.
    You guys make me sick.
    Or we could just actually try to enforce immigration laws. Unless we only enforce the ones that suit us. Now, could someone please pass the toilet paper?
    "Yeah, but as I've always said, this country has A.D.D." - Denis Leary

    http://www.lettertogop.com/

  2. #77
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Or we could just actually try to enforce immigration laws. Unless we only enforce the ones that suit us. Now, could someone please pass the toilet paper?
    They need to be totally revamped, especially the work visa programs. The vast majority of immigrants just want to earn a decent living and support their families. The vast majority of opposition is driven by whites who are scared to death of becoming a minority for the first time. I hear it nearly every day.

  3. #78
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Hurrah soldier! That is, until he brings his knife to your house because he thinks you're not flying the flag properly. I just love people who wrap themselves in the flag while wiping their asses with the Constitution.
    Flag hell. I'm worried he'd be coming for anything because he just wants it. What is pathetic is how many people on these forums who take an oath to uphold the Constitutions of their respective states and of the US believe this guy is doing the right thing.

    All for a piece of cloth that is probably made in China.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #79
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    All for a piece of cloth that is probably made in China.
    And has stood for many things that are wrong in the past and present, as well.
    Flag hell. I'm worried he'd be coming for anything because he just wants it. What is pathetic is how many people on these forums who take an oath to uphold the Constitutions of their respective states and of the US believe this guy is doing the right thing.
    No doubt. Screw nationalistic fervor! Give me my rights, any day. Anyone can follow a damned flag...it takes comprehesion to really understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And understanding the Constitution and what it means is required to protect it...and that's hard to do when you're worshipping a flag. That's been made painfully obvious in the last few years, and the righties are too infatuated with being "patriots" to even notice or care.

  5. #80
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ffscm72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greenwood, DE, USA
    Posts
    516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    And has stood for many things that are wrong in the past and present, as well.

    No doubt. Screw nationalistic fervor! Give me my rights, any day. Anyone can follow a damned flag...it takes comprehesion to really understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And understanding the Constitution and what it means is required to protect it...and that's hard to do when you're worshipping a flag. That's been made painfully obvious in the last few years, and the righties are too infatuated with being "patriots" to even notice or care.
    Well stated.
    "Courage is the resistance to fear, the mastery of fear, not the lack of fear." Mark Twain
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Uknown

  6. #81
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman
    ...it takes comprehesion to really understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And understanding the Constitution and what it means is required to protect it...and that's hard to do when you're worshipping a flag. That's been made painfully obvious in the last few years, and the righties are too infatuated with being "patriots" to even notice or care.
    So, do tell exactly what sort of understanding is required...I'm curious to hear this.
    After all, most people (yourself included, I'm sure, O Great Learn-ed Scholar) don't realize that probably a good 80% (at least 75%) of what the Federal Gov't is and does these days is "un-Constitutional".

    As for painful obviousness, well, it's painfully obvious to me that the "righties" are busy violating the Constitution under the guise of "patriotism and protection from terror", the lefties are doing it under the guise of "social progress", but in the end you're both doing the exact same thing and both sides are wrong for doing it.

    I would respond more to yours and scfire's tirades, but quite frankly I just find you guys laughable. You're both so hardcore "left" that you think Hillary would make a great candidate...for the Republican Party. If you leaned any further left, you'd be horizontal.
    Because of this, everybody's a "rightie" by comparison to yourselves, and thus deserving of lambasting as part of the "right-wing fascism machine".
    Kinda hard to take you guys seriously when you have attitudes like that, you know?
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  7. #82
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    So, do tell exactly what sort of understanding is required...I'm curious to hear this.
    After all, most people (yourself included, I'm sure, O Great Learn-ed Scholar) don't realize that probably a good 80% (at least 75%) of what the Federal Gov't is and does these days is "un-Constitutional".
    What moonbat source do you have to support this statement? Next thing you'll tell me you shouldn't have to pay taxes since you don't get paid in money. I've heard all the government is wrong nonsense for decades. Somehow no one with any sense has ever challenged the actions of the Federal Government and the "un-constitutional" activity.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #83
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Somehow no one with any sense has ever challenged the actions of the Federal Government and the "un-constitutional" activity.
    Sure they have. The NRA, for example, on Second Amendment issues. The problem is that the "checks and balances" somehow went awry over the years...and now the Supreme Court seems to think they're involved in "rubber stamping" legislation, rather than using judicial review powers to overturn new legislation that runs contrary to the Constitution.
    Nowadays, if you tell the Government "Hey, you can't do that, it's un-Constitutional!" They reply with: "We're the government, we do what we want. Supreme Court?" Supreme Court: "Oh, yeah, whatever the legislature says, goes."

    That's a simplified version, but I think it captures the gist very nicely.
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  9. #84
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    They need to be totally revamped, especially the work visa programs. The vast majority of immigrants just want to earn a decent living and support their families. The vast majority of opposition is driven by whites who are scared to death of becoming a minority for the first time. I hear it nearly every day.
    LMAO!!! So does the American Worker. You post this kind of stuff and then I think about you view of Iraq. Rather inconsistent don't you think?

  10. #85
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    They need to be totally revamped, especially the work visa programs. The vast majority of immigrants just want to earn a decent living and support their families. The vast majority of opposition is driven by whites who are scared to death of becoming a minority for the first time. I hear it nearly every day.
    Well, then, I fully encourage you to vote for the representatives who will change the laws the way you would like to see them changed, and hope that at least 51% of the voting public agrees with you. I'd like to see the visa programs changed, if for no other reason than the fact that keeping check on expired visas seems to be next to impossible for whatever reasons.

    I could imagine it gets old listening to the racist remarks you hear everday; maybe you should hear what some immigrants who entered this country through the proper channels have to say about other "immigrants" who jump a fence and go hide at their cousin's house. Justice for all, or just some? Law is law, and that's something I learned from you.

    And that's the reason that, perhaps for once and likely never again, I'm obligated to agree with a lawsuit the ACLU is seeking against knife guy. He didn't think things through, and he's going to probably get a slap on the wrist in criminal court for the same reasons flag burners get fined for not having permits for open burning. But in civil court . . . . Eeeeshh, poor knife guy.

    Of course, the other 99% of cases when the ACLU Inc. is suing law enforcement agencies after I.C.E. raids for doing their jobs, or ruining the careers of Border Agents who stop drug runners from entering the country, I'm going back to disagreeing whole-heartedly.
    "Yeah, but as I've always said, this country has A.D.D." - Denis Leary

    http://www.lettertogop.com/

  11. #86
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GodSendRain View Post
    Well, then, I fully encourage you to vote for the representatives who will change the laws the way you would like to see them changed, and hope that at least 51% of the voting public agrees with you. I'd like to see the visa programs changed, if for no other reason than the fact that keeping check on expired visas seems to be next to impossible for whatever reasons.

    I could imagine it gets old listening to the racist remarks you hear everday
    ; maybe you should hear what some immigrants who entered this country through the proper channels have to say about other "immigrants" who jump a fence and go hide at their cousin's house. Justice for all, or just some? Law is law, and that's something I learned from you.

    And that's the reason that, perhaps for once and likely never again, I'm obligated to agree with a lawsuit the ACLU is seeking against knife guy. He didn't think things through, and he's going to probably get a slap on the wrist in criminal court for the same reasons flag burners get fined for not having permits for open burning. But in civil court . . . . Eeeeshh, poor knife guy.

    Of course, the other 99% of cases when the ACLU Inc. is suing law enforcement agencies after I.C.E. raids for doing their jobs, or ruining the careers of Border Agents who stop drug runners from entering the country, I'm going back to disagreeing whole-heartedly.

    It sure does get old listening to racist remarks everyday. That is why I turn off the TV every time I see Al Shaprton.

  12. #87
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    I am thankful for the 3rd Amendment every day. Keeps me from having to put up with soldiers sleeping in my bed and eating my food.......
    Last edited by MarcusKspn; 10-08-2007 at 01:17 PM.

  13. #88
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    Sure they have. The NRA, for example, on Second Amendment issues.
    Can you tell me what great restrictions have been placed on owning firearms? As far as I can tell, just about anything that isn't a military weapon is pretty much legal.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #89
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GodSendRain View Post
    Of course, the other 99% of cases when the ACLU Inc. is suing law enforcement agencies after I.C.E. raids for doing their jobs, or ruining the careers of Border Agents who stop drug runners from entering the country, I'm going back to disagreeing whole-heartedly.
    If you're referring to the Ramos and Campean incident, you realize there is more to the story than that.
    Last edited by scfire86; 10-08-2007 at 04:57 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #90
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5

    Default

    ..........
    Last edited by ChicagoAnthony; 11-12-2008 at 10:44 PM.

  16. #91
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoAnthony View Post
    who cares if he flew the american flag below the mexican one. I would venture to say making that illegal is against the first amendment. So therefore the law itself is inherently un-American. That definetly was some hillbilly **** to do. Don't think that would happen where I live.
    That's the point. It wasn't (and still isn't) illegal.

    It is perfectly legal to fly the US flag below any other flag you choose. You can fly it upside-down, sideways, or burn it at will. It's all perfectly legal and protected under the 1st Amendment. In short, the physical flag is far less important that what it stands for.

    The only illegal act in this whole incident was the yahoo who showed up with a knife, cut down someone else's property, and then stole it.

    The sad thing is that there are still plenty of people out there -- probably some on this very forum -- who still don't understand who did and who did not break the law in this incident.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  17. #92
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Can you tell me what great restrictions have been placed on owning firearms? As far as I can tell, just about anything that isn't a military weapon is pretty much legal.
    I thought you said you lived in CA? How can you live here yet be so ignorant of the ways in which the "right to bear arms" is just about damn near obliterated in this state?
    Wouldn't surprise me if you lived in or around San Francisco... remember, the city that said it was banning private guns anywhere within the city limits? Excepting of course the cops and criminals... but you as a law-abiding citizen, could own a gun, you just couldn't have it anywhere within the city limits, or face arrest.

    Let's see...military weapons... The M9 pistol, which is the "standard-issue" sidearm of the US military, is publicly available as a Beretta 92FS. Likewise, the "former" first choice of the military, the Colt 1911, is still publicly available as well, and in many different variations from many different manufacturers. You're not a real gun manufacturer these days until you're producing a 1911 knockoff...
    Oh, but wait...we can ban weapons based not upon function, but upon appearance... a semi-automatic-only version of an M-4 carbine (of which there are 50 billion "civilianized" models available through 20 million manufacturers) is an "evil automatic assault weapon"... not because of its action (semi-auto, burst, or full-auto), nor its lethality (the 5.54mm/.223 round has an absolutely abysmal record in battle, requiring several shots to even put an enemy down)... in California, we ban it based upon a pistol grip, and a muzzle brake or flash suppressor, and the fact that it can carry more than 10 rounds per magazine.
    Never mind that a guy can have 20 mags on him, thus making the "10-round limit" a mere inconvenience...nope, it looks nasty, so it must be a deadly weapon of carnage.
    .50 calibre rifles were banned here a couple years ago on the basis that they were capable of killing from long range (1000+ yds). Well, so's a .308 Winchester (a very popular hunting calibre), which was the most common calibre round used by snipers prior to the introduction of the Barrett 82A1 back in the 80s, and by line infantry in the form of the M1 and M14 up until the late 1950s/early 60s. The British I believe have a sniper rifle chambered for .300 Win Mag, which is a new calibre quickly becoming a popular hunting calibre as well.
    These are all "military" weapons, and in fact, one might argue that since the military is the origin of guns in general, that all guns are, at their essence, military weapons.
    The Founding Fathers whole idea on the 2nd Amendment was to allow the populace to keep and bear weapons to act as a final "check and balance" upon the Government.

    Let's talk about the 4th Amendment... Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure. Well, the USA Patriot Act puts a pretty damn big hole in that one, and as I recall, the Patriot Act and its recent renewal were both bipartisan works of "art", with support from both sides. Again--we give up freedom, the right to privacy in our personal lives and affairs, for an appearance of security, and as has been attributed to many sources--Franklin, Paine, et al: "Those who give up their essential liberties for the feeling of security, deserve neither."
    Now, if one of the Founding Fathers wrote that, what do you think their intent was? There cannot be any clearer expression of intent excepting if they wrote it in the common tongue: "Give up your rights cause you're a pansy scared of your own shadow, and you deserve the 姧-whoopin that's coming."

    As for the "Freedom of Expression"--well, the guy putting the flag above another was one form of expression. The guy taking it down was another. *shrug*
    It's kind of hard to believe that just a couple decades ago, such a disagreement would've been handled by "stepping out back" and little more than a bloodied nose for the loser, and the issue subsequently forgotten. Hell, maybe the guys might've become drinking buddies after that. Nowadays it's got to be settled in lengthy, drawn-out court cases filled with flatulating, self-important fools.

    You argue against "might makes right"...well, history doesn't tend to support that assertion. Then again, while the pen is mightier than the sword, the guy with 500 swords merely comes along and takes the pen...history is, after all, written by the victors.
    Last edited by the1141man; 10-08-2007 at 09:49 PM.
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  18. #93
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    That's the point. It wasn't (and still isn't) illegal.

    It is perfectly legal to fly the US flag below any other flag you choose. You can fly it upside-down, sideways, or burn it at will. It's all perfectly legal and protected under the 1st Amendment. In short, the physical flag is far less important that what it stands for.

    The only illegal act in this whole incident was the yahoo who showed up with a knife, cut down someone else's property, and then stole it.

    The sad thing is that there are still plenty of people out there -- probably some on this very forum -- who still don't understand who did and who did not break the law in this incident.
    I think what is lost in this whole discussion is the fact that said Mexican was flying the flag to protest the immigration raids. Imagine we actually enforce our laws. He was making a statement, one that I dare say angered one hillbilly a whole bunch. And I applaud that man for standing up for his country.

  19. #94
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    As for the "Freedom of Expression"--well, the guy putting the flag above another was one form of expression. The guy taking it down was another. *shrug*
    Now, that's laughable. One is a law-abiding citizen. The other is a criminal. Apparantly, you arent able tell the difference.
    The rest of the crap you posted is the standard attempt at redirect we've come to expect from guys like you. Never anything of substance.

  20. #95
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ffscm72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greenwood, DE, USA
    Posts
    516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    I thought you said you lived in CA? How can you live here yet be so ignorant of the ways in which the "right to bear arms" is just about damn near obliterated in this state?
    Wouldn't surprise me if you lived in or around San Francisco... remember, the city that said it was banning private guns anywhere within the city limits? Excepting of course the cops and criminals... but you as a law-abiding citizen, could own a gun, you just couldn't have it anywhere within the city limits, or face arrest.

    Let's see...military weapons... The M9 pistol, which is the "standard-issue" sidearm of the US military, is publicly available as a Beretta 92FS. Likewise, the "former" first choice of the military, the Colt 1911, is still publicly available as well, and in many different variations from many different manufacturers. You're not a real gun manufacturer these days until you're producing a 1911 knockoff...
    Oh, but wait...we can ban weapons based not upon function, but upon appearance... a semi-automatic-only version of an M-4 carbine (of which there are 50 billion "civilianized" models available through 20 million manufacturers) is an "evil automatic assault weapon"... not because of its action (semi-auto, burst, or full-auto), nor its lethality (the 5.54mm/.223 round has an absolutely abysmal record in battle, requiring several shots to even put an enemy down)... in California, we ban it based upon a pistol grip, and a muzzle brake or flash suppressor, and the fact that it can carry more than 10 rounds per magazine.
    Never mind that a guy can have 20 mags on him, thus making the "10-round limit" a mere inconvenience...nope, it looks nasty, so it must be a deadly weapon of carnage.
    .50 calibre rifles were banned here a couple years ago on the basis that they were capable of killing from long range (1000+ yds). Well, so's a .308 Winchester (a very popular hunting calibre), which was the most common calibre round used by snipers prior to the introduction of the Barrett 82A1 back in the 80s, and by line infantry in the form of the M1 and M14 up until the late 1950s/early 60s. The British I believe have a sniper rifle chambered for .300 Win Mag, which is a new calibre quickly becoming a popular hunting calibre as well.
    These are all "military" weapons, and in fact, one might argue that since the military is the origin of guns in general, that all guns are, at their essence, military weapons.
    The Founding Fathers whole idea on the 2nd Amendment was to allow the populace to keep and bear weapons to act as a final "check and balance" upon the Government.

    Let's talk about the 4th Amendment... Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure. Well, the USA Patriot Act puts a pretty damn big hole in that one, and as I recall, the Patriot Act and its recent renewal were both bipartisan works of "art", with support from both sides. Again--we give up freedom, the right to privacy in our personal lives and affairs, for an appearance of security, and as has been attributed to many sources--Franklin, Paine, et al: "Those who give up their essential liberties for the feeling of security, deserve neither."
    Now, if one of the Founding Fathers wrote that, what do you think their intent was? There cannot be any clearer expression of intent excepting if they wrote it in the common tongue: "Give up your rights cause you're a pansy scared of your own shadow, and you deserve the 姧-whoopin that's coming."

    As for the "Freedom of Expression"--well, the guy putting the flag above another was one form of expression. The guy taking it down was another. *shrug*
    It's kind of hard to believe that just a couple decades ago, such a disagreement would've been handled by "stepping out back" and little more than a bloodied nose for the loser, and the issue subsequently forgotten. Hell, maybe the guys might've become drinking buddies after that. Nowadays it's got to be settled in lengthy, drawn-out court cases filled with flatulating, self-important fools.

    You argue against "might makes right"...well, history doesn't tend to support that assertion. Then again, while the pen is mightier than the sword, the guy with 500 swords merely comes along and takes the pen...history is, after all, written by the victors.
    Touche'! good points
    "Courage is the resistance to fear, the mastery of fear, not the lack of fear." Mark Twain
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Uknown

  21. #96
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    I thought you said you lived in CA? How can you live here yet be so ignorant of the ways in which the "right to bear arms" is just about damn near obliterated in this state?
    More name calling. What a surprise.

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    Wouldn't surprise me if you lived in or around San Francisco... remember, the city that said it was banning private guns anywhere within the city limits? Excepting of course the cops and criminals... but you as a law-abiding citizen, could own a gun, you just couldn't have it anywhere within the city limits, or face arrest.
    And it failed or was overturned. I don't remember and could care less. Since I don't have sexual problems I don't get to concerned over firearms and my ability to own them.

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    Let's see...military weapons... The M9 pistol, which is the "standard-issue" sidearm of the US military, is publicly available as a Beretta 92FS. Likewise, the "former" first choice of the military, the Colt 1911, is still publicly available as well, and in many different variations from many different manufacturers. You're not a real gun manufacturer these days until you're producing a 1911 knockoff...
    Oh, but wait...we can ban weapons based not upon function, but upon appearance... a semi-automatic-only version of an M-4 carbine (of which there are 50 billion "civilianized" models available through 20 million manufacturers) is an "evil automatic assault weapon"... not because of its action (semi-auto, burst, or full-auto), nor its lethality (the 5.54mm/.223 round has an absolutely abysmal record in battle, requiring several shots to even put an enemy down)... in California, we ban it based upon a pistol grip, and a muzzle brake or flash suppressor, and the fact that it can carry more than 10 rounds per magazine.
    Never mind that a guy can have 20 mags on him, thus making the "10-round limit" a mere inconvenience...nope, it looks nasty, so it must be a deadly weapon of carnage.
    .50 calibre rifles were banned here a couple years ago on the basis that they were capable of killing from long range (1000+ yds). Well, so's a .308 Winchester (a very popular hunting calibre), which was the most common calibre round used by snipers prior to the introduction of the Barrett 82A1 back in the 80s, and by line infantry in the form of the M1 and M14 up until the late 1950s/early 60s. The British I believe have a sniper rifle chambered for .300 Win Mag, which is a new calibre quickly becoming a popular hunting calibre as well.
    These are all "military" weapons, and in fact, one might argue that since the military is the origin of guns in general, that all guns are, at their essence, military weapons.
    The Founding Fathers whole idea on the 2nd Amendment was to allow the populace to keep and bear weapons to act as a final "check and balance" upon the Government.
    So you're going to compare assault style weapons that can fire dozens of rounds either semi-automatically or easily converted to automatic capability with bolt action rifles and pistols. Well done.

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    Let's talk about the 4th Amendment... Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure. Well, the USA Patriot Act puts a pretty damn big hole in that one, and as I recall, the Patriot Act and its recent renewal were both bipartisan works of "art", with support from both sides. Again--we give up freedom, the right to privacy in our personal lives and affairs, for an appearance of security, and as has been attributed to many sources--Franklin, Paine, et al: "Those who give up their essential liberties for the feeling of security, deserve neither."
    Now, if one of the Founding Fathers wrote that, what do you think their intent was? There cannot be any clearer expression of intent excepting if they wrote it in the common tongue: "Give up your rights cause you're a pansy scared of your own shadow, and you deserve the 姧-whoopin that's coming."
    I actually agree with that. I am very concerned over the powers granted via the Patriot Act and its infringment of the 4th Ammendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    As for the "Freedom of Expression"--well, the guy putting the flag above another was one form of expression. The guy taking it down was another. *shrug*
    It's kind of hard to believe that just a couple decades ago, such a disagreement would've been handled by "stepping out back" and little more than a bloodied nose for the loser, and the issue subsequently forgotten. Hell, maybe the guys might've become drinking buddies after that. Nowadays it's got to be settled in lengthy, drawn-out court cases filled with flatulating, self-important fools.
    Nozz answered this one perfectly. One is law abiding, one isn't, and you can't tell the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    You argue against "might makes right"...well, history doesn't tend to support that assertion. Then again, while the pen is mightier than the sword, the guy with 500 swords merely comes along and takes the pen...history is, after all, written by the victors.
    To quote the immortal Olson Johnson, "who can argue with that?"
    Last edited by scfire86; 10-09-2007 at 12:13 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #97
    Forum Member
    AZFF25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571

    Default

    scfire86 wrote...."Since I don't have sexual problems I don't get to concerned over firearms and my ability to own them."



    What does owning firearm's have to do with having sexual problems?
    Did you take your Viagra today?


    AZFF
    Last edited by AZFF25; 10-09-2007 at 04:10 AM.
    __________________
    "Too many freaks and not enough circuses!"

  23. #98
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    And it failed or was overturned. I don't remember and could care less. Since I don't have sexual problems I don't get to concerned over firearms and my ability to own them.
    Hypotheticl alert:

    I can see that firearm concerns are not your problem. Well, some guy taking down a flag is not my problem. So what?

    (See how that works both ways?)

    Well, there is the attitude rebounded and a dose of the doctor's medicine. It seems as though every single person is supposed to care more when the First Amendment is broken. The only issue is that the Bill of Rights is not a list of race results; the 10th is just as important as the 1st. But don't feel badly, we all play favorites with them at times.

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man
    It's kind of hard to believe that just a couple decades ago, such a disagreement would've been handled by "stepping out back" and little more than a bloodied nose for the loser, and the issue subsequently forgotten. Hell, maybe the guys might've become drinking buddies after that. Nowadays it's got to be settled in lengthy, drawn-out court cases filled with flatulating, self-important fools.
    You are probably right about that.
    "Yeah, but as I've always said, this country has A.D.D." - Denis Leary

    http://www.lettertogop.com/

  24. #99
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Now, that's laughable. One is a law-abiding citizen. The other is a criminal. Apparantly, you arent able tell the difference.
    The rest of the crap you posted is the standard attempt at redirect we've come to expect from guys like you. Never anything of substance.
    Well thank god that law abiding veteran did the right thing.

  25. #100
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    One is a law-abiding citizen. The other is a criminal.
    Nozz, you need to be a bit more specific for the slower readers. I'll break it down for them:

    One is a law-abiding citizen.
    That one would be the owner of the bar and the flag. An American citizen who broke no laws.

    The other is a criminal.
    That would be "Jim, the Bearded Veteran." Presumably also an American citizen who committed multiple crimes including -- at the very least -- vandalism and theft (arguably armed robbery). Jim needs to be locked up.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. American Flag Etiquette
    By Diane E in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-23-2007, 01:04 PM
  2. 911 Flag Missing
    By SSTONER in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-02-2006, 05:26 AM
  3. June 14 --Flag Day
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-16-2006, 05:06 PM
  4. Helmet stickers
    By jrudolph in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-09-2006, 04:38 PM
  5. Flag mounting on apparatus...please help
    By SCOOBY14B in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-26-2001, 12:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register