Tolerance

ncwabbit · Dec 23, 2012

sharkey said:
I feel you there and have no answers. I have many gay friends and most (all?) of them are hardcore Obama supporters. Several are anti even though I carry. I think they have been trained to be vocal (gay pride) on politics. Most of my friends and family support our rights, it just seems the gays tend to be more anti. That is my personal experience, I suspect it is the norm.

Sharkey,
1) can you define your use of the adjective 'many' and quantify 'most of them' and 'several'?
2) can you tell me who 'trained (them sic) to be vocal'
3) can you delineate your comment of 'most of my friends'
4) can you tell me who you mean when you state 'our'
5) what 'rights' are you referring to
6) again, can you quantify who you mean when you say 'the gays'
7) finally, can you define how you, based on 'personal experience', came to the conclusion 'this is the norm'

Then mate, and only then, can your meaningless statements have any context to anybody else.

wabbit

ps: little harsh to wish someone a merry holiday then tell them they are going to be the first one shot?

cloudcroft · Dec 23, 2012

Citizen,

That's a theological (meaning OT) discussion and I can't think of ANY way to make it gun-related...so for my part, I will have to pass on going into that further.

cloudcroft · Dec 23, 2012

ncwabbit,

....it (what sharkey said) is just part of the process of defining sides (in any Culture War). It's just "business" so no offense was taken.

Placementvs.Calibur · Dec 23, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
Lincoln used slavery like Obama uses school shootings to further agendas. Lincoln did not care about slavery, and the war was not about slavery. Gun control is not about stopping any type of violence, it is and always has been about control of the people.

I don't know how accurate your statement is, being that there were abolitionist who signed the Constitution. However, I don't care to debate the past or my political beliefs with anyone on this site. To my recollection, this site is dedicated to those who value the Constitution (2nd Amendment), and to those who understand that it's not the Govt job to protect you. Also, for those who are of free mind to understand that carrying a firearm either concealed or openly is the best way to maintain individual liberties, and peace. I understand that values have been eroded, and that socialism is the current administrations agenda. I believe that the posts in reply to my topic portrays the real problem within our country and the Republican party. Although I think this country would be better served with a multitude of parties representing the people, that's not reality. What we , as those who value the Constitution should be doing is uniting under one flag and protesting just as the left has done. I'd like to ask those who've suggested i'm a Dem or a Libertarian, when was the last time you made a sign in protest of your cause. I live a stones throw from the Nations Capital (advantage) and was in attendance at every Tea Party protest.with respect to my original post: I'm ready to die for my Country in defense of the Constitution regardless of which Amendment.
Not a Lib: i don't think the legalization of all drugs is a policy, nor do i think pulling out of the Middle east is smart.NOT A DEM, thanks.

sharkey · Dec 23, 2012

cloudcroft said:
SNIP
As for you wishing ANYONE a Merry Christmas, of course you're just being sarcastic, since you demean the Bible. Still, it should be pointed out that you haven't a clue what Christmas is about (like most in America today, even many so-called "Christians" sadly) and so you aren't qualified to do that. Besides, it's clear that you have more serious concerns to address in the time you have left in life anyway. And frankly, considering your present course and consequently where you're going eventually, it's not going to matter.
SNIP

Co-existing with you and yours is not an option...so yes, color me INtolerant, with extreme prejudice.

Christmas is a pagan holiday so worship your tree. I'm well versed in Christianity and history and people who refused to give up their holidays when they converted.

The latter sounded like a threat to me. I guess based on your latest rant it could be a threat against your own life since you have nothing left to live for.

ETA: I guess telling you to worship your tree is harsh. Point is I know what Christmas is about, historically, Christianly, and Secularly. The plus is I don't get offended at Christmas trees, nativity scenes, etc. I prefer people say Merry Christmas over Happy Holidays even though I'm an atheist because culture is a unifier.

ETA2: I actually respect your comment about choosing sides.

Too many people are lukewarm.

Rev 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth

sharkey · Dec 23, 2012

ncwabbit said:
Sharkey,
1) can you define your use of the adjective 'many' and quantify 'most of them' and 'several'?
2) can you tell me who 'trained (them sic) to be vocal'
3) can you delineate your comment of 'most of my friends'
4) can you tell me who you mean when you state 'our'
5) what 'rights' are you referring to
6) again, can you quantify who you mean when you say 'the gays'
7) finally, can you define how you, based on 'personal experience', came to the conclusion 'this is the norm'

Then mate, and only then, can your meaningless statements have any context to anybody else.

wabbit

ps: little harsh to wish someone a merry holiday then tell them they are going to be the first one shot?

1) Does it matter if it's 4 or 40? It's not relevant.
2) My guess is pride events, but I'm speculating and maybe reaching. I already put that in there. Do you have an organization in mind?
3) I know it was late and I rambled but the thought/statement should have been clear. I can only expand it more. Most people I know (friends, family, associates, work acquaintances) support our rights to own firearms. The vast majority of people I know like guns.
4)Our = Adults/Americans/Earthlings. Our excludes people like cloudcroft who are seen as a threat to freedom. (Nothing personal)
5)We were talking about the 2cd Amendment were we not? Do I need to define every single word one by one or was my post that ambiguous?
6)The gays is me lumping most people who are homosexual into a stereotype that reflects my personal experiences.
7)No. Experiences are created over a lifetime. You may be of a different opinion.

If you read his post about not co-existing with people like me come Civil War II or Culture War I it sounded like he made the first threat. I only see 4 scenarios to that statement.

1)He plans on exiling himself.
2)He plans on exiling those he disagrees with.
3)He plans on killing everyone he disagrees with (most likely)
4)He plans on killing himself.

The actual chances of him and I meeting during an armed conflict are almost nil. Should it happen I'd like to get the first shot off (beats me being dead).

sharkey · Dec 23, 2012

TNTTNT187 said:
Please try not to pervert my statement for your twist. As I stated it's about the Constitution and the American way of life. As your will see in the near future the liberals will be trying to change laws that are based on the 2nd. Amend. rights as well as the American way of life.

Your avatar says live free or die. You're focusing on one amendment and forgetting the rest. You're not free and the American way of life is a lie. Wake up Neo. A lot of people who talk about freedom have no concept of the word and want to control others.

ETA. I make that assement on the totalitary of your post including the statements you were responding to.

sharkey · Dec 23, 2012

Placementvs.Calibur said:
I don't know how accurate your statement is, being that there were abolitionist who signed the Constitution. However, I don't care to debate the past or my political beliefs with anyone on this site. To my recollection, this site is dedicated to those who value the Constitution (2nd Amendment), and to those who understand that it's not the Govt job to protect you. Also, for those who are of free mind to understand that carrying a firearm either concealed or openly is the best way to maintain individual liberties, and peace. I understand that values have been eroded, and that socialism is the current administrations agenda. I believe that the posts in reply to my topic portrays the real problem within our country and the Republican party. Although I think this country would be better served with a multitude of parties representing the people, that's not reality. What we , as those who value the Constitution should be doing is uniting under one flag and protesting just as the left has done. I'd like to ask those who've suggested i'm a Dem or a Libertarian, when was the last time you made a sign in protest of your cause. I live a stones throw from the Nations Capital (advantage) and was in attendance at every Tea Party protest.with respect to my original post: I'm ready to die for my Country in defense of the Constitution regardless of which Amendment.
Not a Lib: i don't think the legalization of all drugs is a policy, nor do i think pulling out of the Middle east is smart.NOT A DEM, thanks.

And I don't want open borders but I still claim Libertarian over Republican.

It's been years since I held a sign. I was with the (GASP) Phoenix Anarchists and Women in Black protesting the Mesa police killing Tasia Patton. It really struck a chord with me and showed the reality of the American way of life. That you are desposable and the police are rarely charged for murder/manslaughter where a citizen would be. She was a 17 year old passenger in a stolen SUV. I felt the police were justified in killing the driver but not her as she was not a threat to them. For all they knew at the time she was a hostage.

ETA: Sign protests are pretty much pointless. They're about as effective as posting on an internet forum.

sharkey · Dec 23, 2012

cloudcroft said:
ncwabbit,

....it (what sharkey said) is just part of the process of defining sides (in any Culture War). It's just "business" so no offense was taken.

It was. We can agree on something.

ncwabbit · Dec 23, 2012

cloudcroft said:
ncwabbit,
....it (what sharkey said) is just part of the process of defining sides (in any Culture War). It's just "business" so no offense was taken.

trust me mate, i personally do not care if you were offended or not...his ambiguous use of unsubstantiated stereotypical and rhetorical BS as flat out statement of fact(s) should insult each and every member on this public forum.

I suggest you read his response to my initial post that you are standing up for...

wabbit

ps mate, your comments to citizen are condescending and bother me almost as does the use of ambiguous mis-information...especially since as you state: quote 'part of the process of defining sides...' unquote!! especially on a thread named 'tolerance'

sharkey · Dec 23, 2012

ncwabbit said:
trust me mate, i personally do not care if you were offended or not...his ambiguous use of unsubstantiated stereotypical and rhetorical BS as flat out statement of fact(s) should insult each and every member on this public forum.

I suggest you read his response to my initial post that you are standing up for...

wabbit

ps mate, your comments to citizen are condescending and bother me almost as does the use of ambiguous mis-information...especially since as you state: quote 'part of the process of defining sides...' unquote!! especially on a thread named 'tolerance'

So which side are you on?
You're upset I stereotyped gays and mad that I "threatened" him. You're a bigger walking contradiction than I LOL

P.S. I wished him a Merry CHRISTMAS, not holiday since you like semantics.

ncwabbit · Dec 23, 2012

starky, i feel truly sorry for your past issues which apparently caused the religious, racial and apparent homophobic hatred you are espousing...

while this country has its faults and i recognize such bigotry exists, i do not tolerate nor have to be associated w/those that openly preach such rhetoric as well as what i suspect practice it.

therefore, i will not entertain any further discussion about your meaningless rhetoric

wabbit

Citizen · Dec 24, 2012

cloudcroft said:
Citizen,

That's a theological (meaning OT) discussion and I can't think of ANY way to make it gun-related...so for my part, I will have to pass on going into that further.

No. Its not at all a theological discussion. Its entirely secular. You pounced on the OP for being tolerant of a number of social issues that are recently the subject of political debate in the direction of government regulation.

Do you consider it government's place to regulate social mores/morality?

cloudcroft · Dec 24, 2012

In a word: Yes...but you'd have to be a Christian to understand why. And that requires a theological response, not secular.

So I'm not talking about our present (and increasing secular) government as it (and by extension America) has no moral "credentials" to do so, so it's pointless to discuss something that probaly can't happen. America can't even lecture OTHER nations on moral issues -- even though it regularly does -- let alone its own citizens. Consequently, how can it regulate them?

But it's also true that ALL laws are SOME form of "legislated morality" so in that sense, our government ALREADY DOES "regulate social mores/morality."

Still, that's not what I'm talking about at all, so again, that would be a theological discussion...and an exercise in futility given where America is nowadays and where it's going.

P.S. What can I say to the other poster except "You siwwy wabbit..."

sharkey · Dec 24, 2012

Cloudcroft,

While I disagree with your views and would be on the opposite side of you in a "Culture War" you have my respect.

From the posts you've made on this thread you stand by your convictions and understand Christianity better than most. I don't hear compromise or whitewashing from you.

I wish more people were honest with themselves. They claim to be religious yet reject the basic tenets and commandments of their God.

OldCurlyWolf · Dec 25, 2012

Placementvs.Calibur said:
Pres. Lincoln tackled the most pressing social topic of his time, slavery. He didn't concern himself with drug use, which was common, because the government had yet to intervene. I'm not condoning the current status of the most recent findings of our courts/will of Americans, I'm merely concerned with the erosion of the2nd Amendment. If that wasn't clearly stated in my original post then it is now. Let it be known that we have the right to own what the left wants to ban regardless of what the current Pres wants or what the media portrays.

Lincoln did not give a da** about slavery. The emancipation proclamation Was strictly a tactic toward a strategy.
Learn your history either better or from better sources.

cloudcroft · Dec 25, 2012

sharkey,

Yes, at least we have one thing in common: We detest the tepid & lukewarm (sometimes such people are called "moderates" which sounds only slightly better).

OldCurlyWolf,

I think Lincoln DID care, but he also recognized the realities (re: race) of the times: "Can't we all just get along" was NOT going to fly! ;-)

Citizen · Dec 25, 2012

cloudcroft said:
In a word: Yes...but you'd have to be a Christian to understand why. And that requires a theological response, not secular.

So I'm not talking about our present (and increasing secular) government as it (and by extension America) has no moral "credentials" to do so, so it's pointless to discuss something that probaly can't happen. America can't even lecture OTHER nations on moral issues -- even though it regularly does -- let alone its own citizens. Consequently, how can it regulate them?

But it's also true that ALL laws are SOME form of "legislated morality" so in that sense, our government ALREADY DOES "regulate social mores/morality."

Still, that's not what I'm talking about at all, so again, that would be a theological discussion...and an exercise in futility given where America is nowadays and where it's going.

P.S. What can I say to the other poster except "You siwwy wabbit..."

Oh, quit the contrived argument already. You're talking to a very religious person. Insofar as men are immortal souls inhabiting bodies, everything people think and do is spiritual in nature. So, there. Now you can't talk about anything on this forum without getting into a theological discussion.

We make distinctions in order to facilitate understanding, not avoid discussion.

On the subject of avoidance, thanks for the dodges. I'm no longer suspicious you want to use government to force your ideas on others--I'm convinced.

Regarding legislating mores, of course government legislates mores. But, it doesn't take a law degree to recognize to recognize there is very broad and long-standing agreement that murder, rape, arson, robbery, and fraud are wrong, not only by agreement but also by the easily grasped destructiveness.

Citizen · Dec 25, 2012

cloudcroft said:
In a word: Yes...but you'd have to be a Christian to understand why. And that requires a theological response, not secular.

Oh? Christians have a monopoly on religious understanding?

eye95 · Dec 25, 2012

No, but they kinda have a better understanding of the Christian Bible because they read and study it all, not, like some militant atheists, just enough to sound like they know it when they mock it.

Caveat: I have nothing against atheists. I believe that God allows you that choice. He grieves over it, but allows it. I find militant atheists despicable because they (ironically, intolerantly) mock the faith of others. (See an earlier post of mine for an explanation of how I am convinced that militant atheists are actually theists resisting, not God's existence, but his authority.)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Tolerance

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member