• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

White House to Push Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
You my friend, shouldn't even be at this party. You obviously have an infatuation with Mr. Obama. I think you need to do some research, there is a lot more going on behind the scenes then some ignorant eyes see. Oh and by the way he DOES support going door to door pushing through and taking our guns. Knowledge is power and right now your looking weak! :lol:

Infatuated? I haven't heard or read(e) that one before.

I read enough.

Ok, if he supports going door to door and confiscating firearms than being the informed person that you are, I would like for you to provide a link. Being that I am ignorant and all:)

You are right, knowledge is power. So is reason, and understanding.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I can understand how the weak minded may have voted for him. But now? There's just no excuse for being stupid enough to keep supporting this bastard. Even the Mentally Retarded can figure this guy out.

1 + 1 != 11

It's like explaining fiscal policy to a monkey. Juxtaposing two numbers is not addition. People with IQs around room temperature can still add....

You threw it out there. Explain to me how voting for President Obama is weak minded. And don't give me any of the right-wing BS. Explain to me why weak-minded people voted for President Obama.

You are right about one thing, he is a bastard. We aren't all born to a two parent house.

I would recommend that the right get more voters out this time around. Apparently there are ten million (approximate) more (apparently mentally retarded) voters for Obama than there were for McCain.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
You are right about one thing, he is a bastard. We aren't all born to a two parent house.

His parents were married so he isn't a bastard in that sense, I am though.

Don't forget that many freedom lovers didn't vote for McCain either. You had two choices that were almost mirror images of each others politics. Many just didn't vote.

And then you have the fake "left" and "right" convincing people that they are the only choices and good folks like Ron Paul get shut out.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
His parents were married so he isn't a bastard in that sense, I am though.

Don't forget that many freedom lovers didn't vote for McCain either. You had two choices that were almost mirror images of each others politics. Many just didn't vote.

And then you have the fake "left" and "right" convincing people that they are the only choices and good folks like Ron Paul get shut out.

I knew that his father wasn't around. I didn't know that he was born with his mother and father together.

And many 'freedom lovers' voted for both McCain and Obama.

Many just didn't vote? The election of 2008 had the greatest voter turnout (in numbers) that any other election in history. Percentage to population it was the **(well, third or fourth) highest turn-out.

Don't make it like nobody showed up to vote. Also, 56% of the population voted, a number of those must be freedom loving, hell they must believe in the system to some degree, that they would go out of their way to get to the box and vote. If 56% of the potential voting population are not freedom lovers, then you are in trouble my friend. That would mean the majority of voting Americans do not believe in freedom.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

'Freedom voters'. "Fake left and right"...what the hell are these things supposed to mean? I don;t ask these questions to be an ass, I ask them because I want to know how a person concludes that someone is a freedom lover and not a freedom lover. What makes someone a fake left or a fake right?

Just a bunch of generalizations that actually don't mean crap. If you have a particular view, understanding or knowledge it must be derived from some thing.

I am sure that you can point out what makes President Obama not freedom loving, or what makes McCain not freedom loving, right? Or examples of fake left and fake right?

I am eager to read your response.
 
Last edited:

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
Having a deep, historically derived, political conversation with Beretta is like running in a hamster wheel. She is very weak historically, and didn't even know that the "solviet union" (That's how she spelled it repeatedly) was no longer the "solviet union", as she tried to use them as an example of a rebounding socialist economy, while not realizing that they are not a socialist country anymore.

You cannot attempt to reason with an individual who believes very firmly that "People need to be controlled", or that "personal/individual responsibility" is not a core human value, but a creation of the "religious people", except that "oh wait it isn't".

I have a firm understanding that from an educational standpoint he commentary, once flushed down the toilet, will end up in a more enlightened place than from whence it came.

Beretta is a semi-closet pro-socialist who will change her argument 40 times, then challenge you to a duel of wits.

Ignore her.

Troll spray is cheap. :lol:
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
http://guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html

There's a list of things that he has either done or supported that are in favor of gun control. Now it is true that while president he hasn't really done anything to try and take our guns, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't want to or wouldn't try if given a chance. I think with the way GITMO and cap-and-trade went down and with just how many congressmen have come out as not anti-gun (I wouldn't really call them pro-gun, but they aren't anti-gun either) that he knows better to try anything.

He has also never come out and said that he was for 2A. He has simply said that he isn't after our guns (as president) when he's talked about them the past 2 years. So until he starts truely doing 2A things (like pushing to remove the bad gun laws that are on the books and nominating a pro 2A person to head the ATF) people will continue to believe that he has an ulterior motive and that we can't let our guard down lest we get a knife in the back.

I think if he could have rounded up the votes you would have seen him jump on the bandwagon for a hi-cap magazine ban and push for other stricter things. Why do I think this? Because outside of the handguns in federal parks law he hasn't done anything to progress the return of 2A rights.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Having a deep, historically derived, political conversation with Beretta is like running in a hamster wheel. She is very weak historically, and didn't even know that the "solviet union" (That's how she spelled it repeatedly) was no longer the "solviet union", as she tried to use them as an example of a rebounding socialist economy, while not realizing that they are not a socialist country anymore.

Are you finished with your rant? Notice how this person attacks a misspelled word, but offers no substantive examples of where they might disagree. There is no reason, only absolutes with Slow. I figured any discussion would lead nowhere, particularly with an absolutist.


You cannot attempt to reason with an individual who believes very firmly that "People need to be controlled", or that "personal/individual responsibility" is not a core human value, but a creation of the "religious people", except that "oh wait it isn't".
Yes, I have stated that there are people who need to be controlled. I have offered examples, religious people--needing to be told what to believe and how to live their life.

Individual responsibility is not a core human value, it is a construct. And that construct is used as a tool by individuals and organizations, such as, religious organizations, and politicians to negate collective responsibility. I know that the notion of collective responsibility is foreign to you. Instead of considering the broader ramifications of your contribution to society you assume that the concept individualism you desperately cling to solely affect you, and it doesn't. You are not your own Universe.

I have a firm understanding that from an educational standpoint he commentary, once flushed down the toilet, will end up in a more enlightened place than from whence it came.
Are you saying that you are a plumber by trade? Just another example of some thing that you cling to Mr. Boast-a-lot. Asserting that you have a "firm understanding" and it is derived (?) from an "educational standpoint he(?) commentary." Instead of offering an in-depth explanation of any stance you take, you offer generalizations, insist that you are educated, and we can't forget your undying commitment to reminding every individual that you disagree with that they are wrong and you are right. As if there is some thing fundamental, or Divine about your understanding of what is 'right,' and 'wrong'.


Beretta is a semi-closet pro-socialist who will change her argument 40 times, then challenge you to a duel of wits.
"semi-closet." I have made it clear that there are aspects of Socialism that benefit the whole of society. There is nothing closeted about that, or about my stance.

Please share with us the forty examples you have of me changing my argument.


Troll spray is cheap.
It's not even cheap, it's free...it's called the 'ignore' button.
 
Last edited:

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
Are you finished with your rant? Notice how this person attacks a misspelled word, but offers no substantive examples of where they might disagree. There is no reason, only absolutes with Slow. I figured any discussion would lead nowhere, particularly with an absolutist.

Especially when said "Absolutist" provides substantiating evidence to everything he claims.

Bummah for you, sweet for me.


Yes, I have stated that there are people who need to be controlled. I have offered examples, religious people--needing to be told what to believe and how to live their life.

#1. Not the focus of your statement on control. Your approach was to signify that there is a distinction of classes wherein a higher caste can tell subordinates how to live and breath. This, you believe, is a necessity in a functional "social unit".

#2. Religion is not about "control", rocket scientist. Religion is about acceptance of a faith. People do not cling to religion to be told how or what to do. In fact, various faiths preach "free will" as part of their core message, and the ability to follow a specific religion, and to believe its message as a core part of their existence, as "faith". Maybe you have heard of it.

Individual responsibility is not a core human value, it is a construct.

When the numbers were inevitably low in regards to human population, and at the beginning of our being, people were not independently responsible for their own survival.

I see.

Your logic is astounding.

Astoundingly bad.


And that construct is used as a tool by individuals and organizations, such as, religious organizations, and politicians to negate collective responsibility.

Yes, because there are no individual actions. When people go on shooting sprees at schools, it is everyone elses fault. Stupid, bad society.

All we need is some more "social filtration" under your model, then all will be peachy keen.

No personal responsibility for ones own actions.

Gotcha Beretta.

I know that the notion of collective responsibility is foreign to you.

Oh but your sociological understanding is horridly weak padewan.

It is the composition of many individually responsible wholes electing to contribute through various means that creates a "society". Not a delusional belief that we are to dedicate ourselves to a collective whole as part of our fabricated being.

My oh my somebody missed out on Anthropology classes.

When the "Individually responsible" ones do well and contribute to society, you have a flourishing society.

When the "Collective Socialists" do well, digging in their collective mines, and handing out bread equally, the social structure collapses, as has been proven repeatedly throughout history, with more examples than a stick can be shaken at.


Instead of considering the broader ramifications of your contribution to society you assume that the concept individualism you desperately cling to solely affect you, and it doesn't. You are not your own Universe.

Ah no, young one.

I believe that my deep individual responsibility creates a better foundation from which to create a solid foundation for my social relationships.

Yours is based on "give it away, give it away, give it away now", which sad to say, is not only ethically and morally irresponsible as a whole, but hilariously unrealistic.


Are you saying that you are a plumber by trade? Just another example of some thing that you cling to Mr. Boast-a-lot. Asserting that you have a "firm understanding."

Oh that and the whole citing links, and various sources to back up my commentary while you provide literally, a bunch of nothing.

To be honest, it's quite sad to watch you do this to yourself.


and it is derived from a "educational standpoint he(?) commentary." Instead of offering an in-depth explanation of any stance you take, you offer generalizations, insist that you are educated, and we can't forget your undying commitment to reminding every individual that you disagree with that they are wrong and you are right. As if there is some thing fundamental, or Divine about your understanding of what is 'right,' and 'wrong'.

Ah yes Beretta, so long as you consistently call into question the tangibility and reality of facts, you can keep your circular debate going for years, convincing yourself of your positioning by twisting, skewing, or contorting the hard line. After all, if you can cloud the facts at hand, like the various links, quotes, and citations I have provided before, you can go on and on about whatever you like without addressing reality.

Hell you can just make your own!

Much like you had to twist and contort one of my posts to actually make it degrading, because by itself, it was not whatsoever.

Your character is in the limelight. Center stage.

"semi-closet." I have made it clear that there are aspects of Socialism that benefit the whole of society. There is nothing closeted about that, or about my stance.

Well let's see,....

-"Individual responsibility is not a core human fundamental" |MMhhmmm Check|
-"Socialist programs are beneficial" |Mmmmhhmm Gotcha...|
-"The 'Sloviet' Union is doing well and is a standing example of a recovering socialist economy" |mmhmm wow, gotcha|
-"People need to be controlled and told what to do." |Oh wow! This is so interesting...*lol*|

Please share with us the forty examples you have of me changing my argument.

Uh oh, fundamental reading problem detected. Beretta malfunction detected.

Please reread the statement I made utilizing the English language for appropriate translation instead of making your own.

Thanks!

It's not even cheap, it's free...it's called the 'ignore' button.

WOW,..you're fast! :lol:
 
Last edited:

Chaingun81

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
581
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
Move to Russia then. Quit sucking up all of our precious American air, and go spend the last of your days hanging out with your commie buddies in Russia (BTW, I don't give a crap what anyone says about Russia, they are a bunch of commies over there).

Ok, I haven't posted here for a while due to working 12 hours a day for the past few months, but something needs to be said here. So let me get this straight, you see some benefits in socialism, you prefer collective responsibility over personal responsibility, you talk about greater good of the soceity over individual good, you talk about how people need to be controlled and YET you call Russians a bunch of commies???

Well, I happen to be from Russia, was born and raised and lived there for 24 years of my life and still go back at least once a year for a couple of weeks, so I happen to know a thing or two about Russia and Russians. Let me say, that after a failed experiment of socialism (and yes, Soviet union was socialistic first and foremost, communism was a utopical goal of socialism), most of Russians are NOTHING like communists. There are old people who miss the old days, but that's about it.

Sure, Russia has lots of nationalistic and totalitarian streaks, but it's NOT communist. In fact people grasp ideas of capitalism and if not for corruption (which is also a legacy of huge socialist bureacratic machine and collective (ir)responsibility), Russia would be moving toward capitalism even faster.

You like collective responsibility? Well, I guess you've never had a real job with any range of real responsibilities and clear business goals then. Any manager will tell you this simple truth - if everybody is responsible, nobody is. Same with collective property and anything else collective. Control is also a slippery slope. The only people who need to be controlled are those convicted of crimes and mentally incapacited.

You are in denial that obama is anti-gun and pro gun control? Well, he is, face it. He is not doing anything about it only because he is a typical populist and a political prostitute and will do whatever to get his a$$ reelected. Nobody fully knows what he really believes in, but you can have a prettty good idea looking at people whom he surrounded himself with BEFORE he went far into politics. Rev. wright is a good example. Bunch of socialist looneytoons.

I think you have some sort of unhealthy fixation on obama, that's ok, a lot of women do. Don't know why, but I guess being a young well spoken (with a teleprompter that is) mixed man helps to be "hip" and "cool". Nothing to do with him being an absolute ZERO in pretty much everything except populism. He is a joke, not that McCain or Bush were any better.

And before you put me into "right wing nut" category and disregard everything I said like you do with everyone else here, cool off and think (if you are capable of thinking). I wasn't raised on these ideals. My parents and people I grew up with were not "right wing nuts". I was taught many different things and lived trough a regime change so I have a pretty good prospective of things and certainly don't get preoccupied with partisan ideals here.

There are plenty of things I can argue with conservatives over (bible beating and pro-lifing being a good start), but as far as economy and social values go, liberals are dead wrong. I've seen one country fail under socialist ideas, I'm seeing Europe following the same path, US is really the last resort. Don't screw it up with your silly beliefs.

I'm done, back to work.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Ok, I haven't posted here for a while due to working 12 hours a day for the past few months, but something needs to be said here. So let me get this straight, you see some benefits in socialism, you prefer collective responsibility over personal responsibility, you talk about greater good of the soceity over individual good, you talk about how people need to be controlled and YET you call Russians a bunch of commies???

Well, I happen to be from Russia, was born and raised and lived there for 24 years of my life and still go back at least once a year for a couple of weeks, so I happen to know a thing or two about Russia and Russians. Let me say, that after a failed experiment of socialism (and yes, Soviet union was socialistic first and foremost, communism was a utopical goal of socialism), most of Russians are NOTHING like communists. There are old people who miss the old days, but that's about it.

Sure, Russia has lots of nationalistic and totalitarian streaks, but it's NOT communist. In fact people grasp ideas of capitalism and if not for corruption (which is also a legacy of huge socialist bureacratic machine and collective (ir)responsibility), Russia would be moving toward capitalism even faster.

You like collective responsibility? Well, I guess you've never had a real job with any range of real responsibilities and clear business goals then. Any manager will tell you this simple truth - if everybody is responsible, nobody is. Same with collective property and anything else collective. Control is also a slippery slope. The only people who need to be controlled are those convicted of crimes and mentally incapacited.

You are in denial that obama is anti-gun and pro gun control? Well, he is, face it. He is not doing anything about it only because he is a typical populist and a political prostitute and will do whatever to get his a$$ reelected. Nobody fully knows what he really believes in, but you can have a prettty good idea looking at people whom he surrounded himself with BEFORE he went far into politics. Rev. wright is a good example. Bunch of socialist looneytoons.

I think you have some sort of unhealthy fixation on obama, that's ok, a lot of women do. Don't know why, but I guess being a young well spoken (with a teleprompter that is) mixed man helps to be "hip" and "cool". Nothing to do with him being an absolute ZERO in pretty much everything except populism. He is a joke, not that McCain or Bush were any better.

And before you put me into "right wing nut" category and disregard everything I said like you do with everyone else here, cool off and think (if you are capable of thinking). I wasn't raised on these ideals. My parents and people I grew up with were not "right wing nuts". I was taught many different things and lived trough a regime change so I have a pretty good prospective of things and certainly don't get preoccupied with partisan ideals here.

There are plenty of things I can argue with conservatives over (bible beating and pro-lifing being a good start), but as far as economy and social values go, liberals are dead wrong. I've seen one country fail under socialist ideas, I'm seeing Europe following the same path, US is really the last resort. Don't screw it up with your silly beliefs.

I'm done, back to work.

Nope, I did not say that I prefer collective responsibility over personal responsibility.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Especially when said "Absolutist" provides substantiating evidence to everything he claims.

Bummah for you, sweet for me.




#1. Not the focus of your statement on control. Your approach was to signify that there is a distinction of classes wherein a higher caste can tell subordinates how to live and breath. This, you believe, is a necessity in a functional "social unit".

#2. Religion is not about "control", rocket scientist. Religion is about acceptance of a faith. People do not cling to religion to be told how or what to do. In fact, various faiths preach "free will" as part of their core message, and the ability to follow a specific religion, and to believe its message as a core part of their existence, as "faith". Maybe you have heard of it.



When the numbers were inevitably low in regards to human population, and at the beginning of our being, people were not independently responsible for their own survival.

I see.

Your logic is astounding.

Astoundingly bad.




Yes, because there are no individual actions. When people go on shooting sprees at schools, it is everyone elses fault. Stupid, bad society.

All we need is some more "social filtration" under your model, then all will be peachy keen.

No personal responsibility for ones own actions.

Gotcha Beretta.



Oh but your sociological understanding is horridly weak padewan.

It is the composition of many individually responsible wholes electing to contribute through various means that creates a "society". Not a delusional belief that we are to dedicate ourselves to a collective whole as part of our fabricated being.

My oh my somebody missed out on Anthropology classes.

When the "Individually responsible" ones do well and contribute to society, you have a flourishing society.

When the "Collective Socialists" do well, digging in their collective mines, and handing out bread equally, the social structure collapses, as has been proven repeatedly throughout history, with more examples than a stick can be shaken at.




Ah no, young one.

I believe that my deep individual responsibility creates a better foundation from which to create a solid foundation for my social relationships.

Yours is based on "give it away, give it away, give it away now", which sad to say, is not only ethically and morally irresponsible as a whole, but hilariously unrealistic.




Oh that and the whole citing links, and various sources to back up my commentary while you provide literally, a bunch of nothing.

To be honest, it's quite sad to watch you do this to yourself.




Ah yes Beretta, so long as you consistently call into question the tangibility and reality of facts, you can keep your circular debate going for years, convincing yourself of your positioning by twisting, skewing, or contorting the hard line. After all, if you can cloud the facts at hand, like the various links, quotes, and citations I have provided before, you can go on and on about whatever you like without addressing reality.

Hell you can just make your own!

Much like you had to twist and contort one of my posts to actually make it degrading, because by itself, it was not whatsoever.

Your character is in the limelight. Center stage.



Well let's see,....

-"Individual responsibility is not a core human fundamental" |MMhhmmm Check|
-"Socialist programs are beneficial" |Mmmmhhmm Gotcha...|
-"The 'Sloviet' Union is doing well and is a standing example of a recovering socialist economy" |mmhmm wow, gotcha|
-"People need to be controlled and told what to do." |Oh wow! This is so interesting...*lol*|



Uh oh, fundamental reading problem detected. Beretta malfunction detected.

Please reread the statement I made utilizing the English language for appropriate translation instead of making your own.

Thanks!



WOW,..you're fast! :lol:

As per your M.O., you scratch at the surface.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Especially when said "Absolutist" provides substantiating evidence to everything he claims.

I have never claimed that what I assert is absolute.


#1. Not the focus of your statement on control. Your approach was to signify that there is a distinction of classes wherein a higher caste can tell subordinates how to live and breath. This, you believe, is a necessity in a functional "social unit".
And yet a higher caste tells subordinates how to live and breath. Possibly a product not of Socialism, or Democracy, but rather a human construct? Funny how you don't realize that we are in a class system that where 2% of the population has the power and exerts that power over the other 98% of the population. Yet, we do not have a 'functional' social unit. So much for your 'freedom.'

#2. Religion is not about "control", rocket scientist. Religion is about acceptance of a faith. People do not cling to religion to be told how or what to do. In fact, various faiths preach "free will" as part of their core message, and the ability to follow a specific religion, and to believe its message as a core part of their existence, as "faith". Maybe you have heard of it.
So, when God commands people, through the Bible, to obey the sabbath, they are not being controlled? Let me guess, they are merely being devoted, sure. In fact, most Christian faiths preach 'free will,' yes, it contributes to negating collective responsibility.

I see, so you assert that a belief in something as being a core part of existence makes it a fact? Faith is not fact. Faith is a construct.


When the numbers were inevitably low in regards to human population, and at the beginning of our being, people were not independently responsible for their own survival.
That would be the case if when the human populations were low humans did not naturally form tribes. Typically, humans relied on groups in order to survive.

I see.

Your logic is astounding.

Astoundingly bad.
Do you know the difference between logic and reason?


Yes, because there are no individual actions. When people go on shooting sprees at schools, it is everyone elses fault. Stupid, bad society.
I never stated that there are no individual actions.

All we need is some more "social filtration" under your model, then all will be peachy keen.

No personal responsibility for ones own actions.

Gotcha Beretta.
One more example of your absolutist inclination.



Oh but your sociological understanding is horridly weak padewan.
Then enlighten me sir.

It is the composition of many individually responsible wholes electing to contribute through various means that creates a "society". Not a delusional belief that we are to dedicate ourselves to a collective whole as part of our fabricated being.
You said a lot here, please, elaborate.

My oh my somebody missed out on Anthropology classes.
I would enjoy reading your anthropological studies that show human were individualistic, and were not concerned with forming a cohesive group.

When the "Individually responsible" ones do well and contribute to society, you have a flourishing society.
That's assuming the individual, by nature, is inclined to contribute to the extent that would be required of them to aid in the flourishment of a society. What is interesting about humans and the extent of contribution is that religious people tend to contribute more; but I am sure it has nothing to do with their belief, but rather their natural inclination to contribute.

When the "Collective Socialists" do well, digging in their collective mines, and handing out bread equally, the social structure collapses, as has been proven repeatedly throughout history, with more examples than a stick can be shaken at.
Ok, start shaking your stick.






I believe that my deep individual responsibility creates a better foundation from which to create a solid foundation for my social relationships.
First mistake, you believe. Second, 'better,' 'solid.' So, you believe that this occurs, but you are unable to prove that it does...or are you?

Yours is based on "give it away, give it away, give it away now", which sad to say, is not only ethically and morally irresponsible as a whole, but hilariously unrealistic.
First mistakes, 'ethically,' 'morally,' and then asserting that there is some whole. Second, I did not state that anything needed to be given away.



Oh that and the whole citing links, and various sources to back up my commentary while you provide literally, a bunch of nothing.
A bunch of nothing...that you can't help but respond to.

To be honest, it's quite sad to watch you do this to yourself.
So you were lying before? When did you start and stop? I am not concerned about the perception of most people. What concerns me is how you obviously could delve into issues yet you continue to scratch the surface with attacks, and oversimplifications.




Ah yes Beretta, so long as you consistently call into question the tangibility and reality of facts, you can keep your circular debate going for years, convincing yourself of your positioning by twisting, skewing, or contorting the hard line. After all, if you can cloud the facts at hand, like the various links, quotes, and citations I have provided before, you can go on and on about whatever you like without addressing reality.
The tangibility and reality...are they distinctly different? What is the 'hard line,' absolutist?



Much like you had to twist and contort one of my posts to actually make it degrading, because by itself, it was not whatsoever.

Your character is in the limelight. Center stage.
Are you still upset about that. Don't worry little buddy, you'll be alright. I took it down.

Well let's see,....

-"Individual responsibility is not a core human fundamental" |MMhhmmm Check|
-"Socialist programs are beneficial" |Mmmmhhmm Gotcha...|
-"The 'Sloviet' Union is doing well and is a standing example of a recovering socialist economy" |mmhmm wow, gotcha|
-"People need to be controlled and told what to do." |Oh wow! This is so interesting...*lol*|
Yea, you are going to have to link me to those quotes. I am sure they are taken out of context. And you should know, we don't and shouldn't be taking things out of context, right?


Uh oh, fundamental reading problem detected. Beretta malfunction detected.

Please reread the statement I made utilizing the English language for appropriate translation instead of making your own.

Thanks!
not sure what this is supposed to mean. I will place it in the rather large diversion pile that you have accumulated over these past months.


WOW,..you're fast! :lol:
Just bored.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I knew that his father wasn't around. I didn't know that he was born with his mother and father together.

Bastard doesn't mean he has to be present, even though some still debate he was or wasn't. They were married.

'Freedom voters'. "Fake left and right"...what the hell are these things supposed to mean? I don;t ask these questions to be an ass, I ask them because I want to know how a person concludes that someone is a freedom lover and not a freedom lover. What makes someone a fake left or a fake right?t

Just a bunch of generalizations that actually don't mean crap. If you have a particular view, understanding or knowledge it must be derived from some thing.

My view and understanding come from a lot of research and personal experience and from actually loving freedom and understanding the constitution and from where the constitution came from. Not as a 'living breathing document"

I am sure that you can point out what makes President Obama not freedom loving, or what makes McCain not freedom loving, right? Or examples of fake left and fake right?

Really have to go there? Too much to list, both parties want to be involved in our lives and control what we want to do. One really wants my money, the other really wants to tell me what I can do with my body. (over simplified) I think they both should go to hell.

I am eager to read your response.

Have you not paid attention to anything I have believed in? The left and right are false beliefs in this country. We been over this before. Both the left and right are on the same train toward tyranny. Look how far "left" our country has come when someone will state views not even as strong as JFK a "leftist" hero, they are considered extreme right.

I say freedom lovers because many don't vote, about 1/2 the population are fed up with politics. Many that do vote are voting for the "lesser" of what they believe to be two evils. Some choice. I say hardcore McCain or Obama voters are not freedom lovers they want to direct others what to do in their lives, that is not the purpose of government.

Oh yea by the way I owe nothing to society as a whole that is a bunch of socialist propaganda, that tries to do away with human nature. You once said you look forward to the demise and fall of government, good luck trying to get healthcare, welfare, unemployment and social security. When people are struggling to eat good luck in getting someone to share with you what they have suffered to get for themselves.

********************************


---Moderator Response--

This discussion has strayed far
beyond connection to OC or RKBA.
Thank you for your input.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top