Vahunter wrote:Everyone knows homosexuals didn't come from the moon or mars. Aliens are too smart to have them there. I take it that you gatlingun6 have never had a queer grab something of yours that he shouldn't have and end reult wasn't pretty for him. I don't know if DK has a problem with them or not but I do. It amazes me how a man would rather hear a fat man poot than a pretty girl sing. I think you may be a little angry that obama didn't keep his campian promises to the gays.
......ouch..... I bet that hurt..
'those who hammer their guns into plows , will plow for those who don't'
"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."...George Orwell
gatlingun6 wrote:Zephyp:
I think you are confused, the loser doesn't get to dictate who gets what. I think the people who would want to live in your dictatorship would actually be very small. I'm sure you could all be accommodated on an Island somewhere. I have many conservative friends, who when I showed them your post, said he can have his country.
The funny thing is you talk about freedom, but you only believe in it for yourself and like minded people. A strange country you would have, one where the mantra is we act alike, think alike, believe alike, and look alike. How drab. come to think of it your attitude is exactly like that of a former State called the Soviet Union. You see, the Soviet Union, as you do, demanded comformity. What a paradox! Your new country is straight out of Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451. Might your first national celebration be a countrywide book burning?
Respectfully, Jim
P.S.: What on earth is your problem with homosexuals. You act as if they descended on us from the Moon or Mars, when in actuality they are our familymembers, our friends, our co-workers, our neighbors, our co-squad members, our co-NRA members, our co-gun owners forum members, etc. I doubt there is anyone in America who does not have, or had a family member, co-worker, friend, etc., who was not a homosexual. BTW, when do most heterosexuals sit down and decide they will be attracted to the opposite rather than the same sex.
I've bolded a couple of statements above that you made. Note they are somewhat mutually exclusive. In America no one "loses" the thing you are referring to. Just because the liberals "won" (we won) doesnt mean they can run slipshod over the country or the Constitution. obama and any other democrat or liberal saying "we won" meaning they can push their own agenda is downright pathetic and infantile. He and the rest should be ashamed but that is of course wishful thinking. My idea of freedom is based solely and completely on the Constitution and the path set by our Founders. AND, if you are part of the group that goes around saying "hey, we won" so you can push your own agenda then you should also be ashamed.
Regarding homosexuality it is wrong and not by my definition but by God. If they want to live like that fine but the big problem I have is they are driven to push their lifestyle on every one especially our children. I have a big problem with that.
Having said all that, this is still America and I can like, hate, agree, disagree, etc, etc, etc, with anything or anybody I want to. That is until obama and his commie socialist friends make it illegal.
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
I'll have a more comprehensive reply for you later. But the fact is, virtually nothing has changed in my life since the last election. I do the same things I did before, go to the same places, travel to most places I want, Buy at places I choose, etc. I'm just amazed at how grown intelligent men are so afraid in this forum of all places! Oh I almost forgot, my heath care provider did change because my employer could not afford the huge increase in premiums the old provider wanted. So this year I will pay more for less coverage, but of course we know all is fine on that front!
Am I correct in thinking you totally opposed the Patriot Act? And traffic laws?,and tax laws? and housing codes? and auto safety standards? and all drug laws?, and work safety laws?, and anti-pollution laws?, and on and on. I hear you saying you would rather not live in any civilized place, just somewhere where everyone does whatever they want.
And I luv this stuff about the Free Market, when in fact there is no such thing. It's government that sets the market, where government works. You want your free market? Then go live in Helmand Province in Afghanistan, where you can do whatever you want provided you are the baddest ass around!!
Functioning government for the greater good as they saw it all happens to be a mark of civilization from the dawn of time!
OakRidgeStars wrote:How in the ham sandwich did this thread go from T.V.'s to gays?
Here's how:
zephyp » Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:08:57 wrote:I say we divide the US into 2 sovereign countries. One for people who think like me. . . . The other country can have all the illegals, welfare abusers, druggies, homos, atheists, hippies, porn kings, etc.
gatlingun6 » Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:27:03 wrote:
The funny thing is you talk about freedom, but you only believe in it for yourself and like minded people. . . . P.S.: What on earth is your problem with homosexuals. You act as if they descended on us from the Moon or Mars, when in actuality they are our familymembers, our friends, our co-workers, our neighbors, our co-squad members, our co-NRA members, our co-gun owners forum members, etc.
Vahunter » Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:50:04 wrote:Everyone knows homosexuals didn't come from the moon or mars. Aliens are too smart to have them there. . . . I don't know if DK has a problem with them or not but I do.
zephyp » Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:06:33 wrote:Regarding homosexuality it is wrong and not by my definition but by God. . . .
It's amazing how often you assume something that is in no way true. So you thought I was writing about liberals versus conservatives? I guess you forgot that's your world view not mine. You're the one who sees a bipolar world or U.S. I see it as it is where most of us are neither liberal or conservative. Most of us are pragmatists, which combines a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Most of us are not rigidly locked into a sloganeering view of life that is meaningless.
My reference to splitting the country went back to a time when a group of men tried to do exactly that! You do remember our very own Civil War don't you? And yes! someone did lose. I understand that it's wishful thinking on your part to think you can carve a new America out of the existing one. Just wanted to make sure you knew it ain't never going to happen!
I won't comment on your religion. You are free to have whatever religion beliefs or lack of religious beliefs that suits you. However, this is a secular country ruled by the consent of and the laws written by men, not by a particular God. The fact that we are not a theocracy is one reason religion flourished in the U.S. If you want to live in a Theocracy there are other choices in the world. Btw my religion for the record does not teach hate. Certainty it does not teach hatred of homosexuals, or any other group.
But you are right, the beauty and sometimes the curse of America is we are free to hate. However for me it's counterproductive, since hate takes more from the hater than the object of one's hatred! I see you are still fixated on calling Wall Street, and corporations like Microsoft, John Deere, Goldman Sachs, Berkshire Hathaway, and Apple (all with CEOs and other executives who are President Obama's friends) commies and socialists. You still don't know that your over use of those terms is meaningless since they bear no semblance to reality. It's going to be a very long four years and possibly eight for you!
To me it is plain and simple. Comrade Obama and his committee of appoints czars are attempting to destroy our constitutional rights and turn us into a socialist state. Below is a list of the 10 points of the communist manifesto. To some degree I will and I am sure we could debate that we have to some degree obtained 6 of the 10 points. Some of you may feel, that I am chicken little yelling the sky is falling. But remember he has already tried to control the press but excluding Fox news because they are critical of his policies. This topic started as outcry over banning old tv, but what really is about is government control. I just pray that we can reverse the direction this country is heading in the upcoming 2010 elections.
10 point program
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
graybeard321 wrote:To me it is plain and simple. Comrade Obama and his committee of appoints czars are attempting to destroy our constitutional rights and turn us into a socialist state. Below is a list of the 10 points of the communist manifesto. To some degree I will and I am sure we could debate that we have to some degree obtained 6 of the 10 points. Some of you may feel, that I am chicken little yelling the sky is falling. But remember he has already tried to control the press but excluding Fox news because they are critical of his policies. This topic started as outcry over banning old tv, but what really is about is government control. I just pray that we can reverse the direction this country is heading in the upcoming 2010 elections.
10 point program
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Count me in your group Brent.
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
Graybeard: In light of one of my New Year's resolution to when I disagree to not be disagreeable, all I can say is: "YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS"! Either I should modify this one, or just forget it. Apparently you had no reservations at all about posting pure” GARBAGE"! I used to think, that outrageous, silly, inaccurate, fanciful, bogus, false, and thoughtless statements sink of their own meritless weight. Man was I ever wrong! Enough is enough!
If there is so much government control, how can you freely use the government created internet to write and say whatever you want. If you lived in say China, or Iran do you think you could write such an anti-government screed without an inevitable visit by the State Secret Police? Do you really think the so-called free market system would have developed an internet without a central controller?
Do you and others ever tire of using honest, dedicated, and decent hard working Americans who just happen to work for government as your personal whipping boys? I don’t understand savaging fellow citizens who for a multiplicity of reasons serve their nation. In all large organizations malfeasance occurs; however, does that justify painting government workers with the broadest of brushes? I guess you do it because they are easy targets, who do not fight back.
When did you become so concerned by the nickname “Czar” that was probably coined by President Nixon, and picked up by the Press. The term has nothing to do with Russia, or any ideology, nor is there anything illegal in the name. President George Bush (43) had 30 to 40 “Czars”. The press noted in May, 2007 that President Bush even wanted to create a “war czar”, who would have been a czar of czars reporting directly to the President! Fortunately LTG Lute and % retired General Officers who were approached about the job all respectfully declined the offer. Some of President Obama's Czars are actually holdovers from the previous administration.
Why did you imply some ideological relationship between the “czar “and “commie”? Czars were Russian royalty, e.g. Tsar Alexander. The Russian word tsar simply represents the Latin Caesar. Communists opposed Tsars, who claimed their authority descended from God, so your allegation is illogical. If anything your line is actually the opposite of what you intended. You really implied that the President is anti- Bolshevik, a” White Russian”, a royalist, an anti-communist! This confused reasoning is fairly typical of ideologues.
Why so much detail? Because nonsense when repeated and not exposed for what it is can become true to the casual reader. Propagandists know that the truth does not matter, and that repeating a mantra creates a new truth. In effect they create their own reality. Any political strategist will tell you that in politics the truth does not matter. To paraphrase probably Senator H. Johnson (Republican circa 1918): In a political war the first casualty is the truth!
Based on your evidence were you equally concerned by the other well known commie Presidents? You know - Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush? Or does commie only apply to our most recent President? Why not stop the intellectual dishonesty and just state the real reason for your anti-Obama rhetoric? You can’t delegitimize a President who was legally elected by the American people.
Your dislike, disagreement, disgust, disdain, and disrespect for the President is obvious. It’s equally obvious that it’s personal. As shown in great detail, your accusations amount to nothing but hot air. You simply resurrected old rhetoric used by some libertarians, Birchers, other nativist individuals and organizations since the 1950s. The ideology paints Americans, who do not follow the same ideology as they as Godless commies! Unpatriotic traitors who actively seek America’s destruction!
It’s an ideology of hate, and personal destruction; wherein there isn’t the slightest interest in reasoned debate. But you know what? That’s fine, this is America. You can say what you want, however you want, and I’ll surely defend your right to say it.
How did I reach these conclusions? Easy, it took 2 clicks of the mouse and less than 2 minutes to find the list you copied and pasted in your post. Strangely, you omitted why the author thought America was moving towards a socialist State. But, not strange at all when you consider that every shred of evidence predated Barack Obama’s Presidency. Hell, most of them predate his birth! Take a look.
Point 1 goes to the 14th Amendment, zoning laws, school and property taxes as communist leaning laws and regulations. This Amendment was enacted in 1868 and is commonly called the Equal Protection Clause. I presume you would repeal the 14th Amendment? I just know you protested long and loud when the Supreme Court stopped the FL recount in 2001. How outrageous! The Supreme Court used this commie inspired amendment to steal the election for George Bush. Btw I couldn’t find any Obama zoning, or school and property taxes actions.
Point 2 is directed towards the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913, and the Social Security Act enacted in 1936. So you oppose income taxes? I’m guessing you would repeal the Social Security Act. Your anger at President Reagan had to be palpable when he bailed out Social Security to the tune of $160 billion by raising pay roll taxes. But wait! You and Karl Marx agreed about Social Security. He saw Social Security as part of the old capitalist system, a ploy, a palliative to hold back the forces of communism. How confused can you get? Since Presidents Taft, T Roosevelt and FD Roosevelt spanned the years in point 2 they too must have been part of the commie plot. How did President Obama become part of this since he had yet to be born?
Point 3 speaks to the Inheritance Tax, again circa 1916. Unless I’m mistaken that rate is 0% this year. Unless you are in that exceptionally small group where that tax applies, guess who will ultimately make up for the lost tax revenue. You got it, we do. If you are in that small group, then kudos for legally ripping off the average working stiff! I guess I agree with that avowed commie, Sir Winston Churchill, when he said : Estate taxes are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich”.
Point 4 goes back to a 1958 Executive Order, Public Law 99-570 promulgated in 1986, and the 1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill. With these, you add three more commie leaning Presidents: Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton. I guess I never realized how many fifth columnists occupied the White House.
Point 5 takes aim at the Federal Reserve and fiat money. Since the Fed was created in 1913, while President Nixon took us off the Gold Standard how does this involve President Obama, or communists? Would you eliminate the Fed and return us to the Gold Standard?
The remaining points: 6 through 10, sees you opposing virtually every Federal function. From the Departments of Labor, Commerce, and Agriculture to the BATF, the Bureau of Land Management, and virtually everything in between.
Apparently you are more of an anti-federalist than anything else. If this was 1847 I’m sure you would vote not to ratify the new Constitution. You would have happily strangled what is now the world's oldest constitutional republic at birth.
How about getting rid of all this foolishness and just give the real reason, or reasons you detest the President?
Respectfully
Jim
Reasoned debate is never personal
wylde007 wrote:We tried that once. Almost exactly that.
Time to try again?
Right. I forgot. I think it is time to try again. Only this time lets let both sides win. The left gets their own country and the right theirs. I say we let them go ahead and have CA, WA, OR, NY, and anything north of NY. We get the rest...AND the best part is if they want to go from CA to NY they get to pay a toll or go via Canada....if they let them.
And what will you do with the majority of us who are neither left, nor right? Would you force them to make a choice? I would not want to live in either country since both would be boring as all get out!
Respectfully
Jim
Vahunter wrote:Everyone knows homosexuals didn't come from the moon or mars. Aliens are too smart to have them there. I take it that you gatlingun6 have never had a queer grab something of yours that he shouldn't have and end reult wasn't pretty for him. I don't know if DK has a problem with them or not but I do. It amazes me how a man would rather hear a fat man poot than a pretty girl sing. I think you may be a little angry that obama didn't keep his campian promises to the gays.
......ouch..... I bet that hurt..
GS78 why should I be angry? Whatever President Obama does or does not do to advance Gay rights is irrelevant. Suffice to say opponents of Gay rights are on the wrong side of history. Slowly but surely, since we are not really a revolutionary people, Gays will come to enjoy all the Constitutional protections the rest of us enjoy. Less you think I'm wrong, I suggest you look at the Gay rights opinions of Americans 30 and under.
In 20 years, probably less, people will say what on earth was that argument about! Like the little Dutch fella with his finger in the dike, you can bet once the first crack appears, and they have, the damn will soon break!
I don't want to get personal, but to answer your question: No! I have not had a homosexual grab anything of mine. From what I've read and heard from relatives, friends and acquaintances who are homosexuals one of their biggest fears is making advances of any kind towards heterosexual individuals. However do you mean we should hold an entire class of people accountable for the actions of one? Do you treat all identifiable groups this way?
Let me see, a man fondles a woman or otherwise makes an unwanted advance. Your standard says she should now harbor a dislike of all men, well at least those who are heterosexual men? Huh? Where is your logic?
Respectfully
Jim
Reasoned debate should never be personal
No lie lasts forever
gatlingun6, you may not believe that this country is heading towards socalism, but i know that i am not alone in my belief. That is the great thing about our country we all have the right to our opinions. Obama did not start the trip to socalism, but he is leading us further down the path.
graybeard321 wrote:gatlingun6, you may not believe that this country is heading towards socalism, but i know that i am not alone in my belief. That is the great thing about our country we all have the right to our opinions. Obama did not start the trip to socalism, but he is leading us further down the path.
You know I thought about formulating a reply, or whether to reply at all. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Freedom and liberty do not exist without freedom of thought, opinions and speech. That's why I would want no part of of DK division of this GREAT NATION. If division were possible that initial harmony of thought, and ideology would last about a nanosecond. While everyone has an opinion on most everything I don't think you can run a country based on opinions alone because opinions may be based on reason, something unstated, or nothing at all. In short, I just feel that way. So what do we call an unreasoned opinion?
In our day to day discourse we see certain people and factions throwing all manner of words always in a pejorative manner. Words such as liberalism, conservatism, socialism, Marxism, communism, libertarianism, totalitarianism, etc. The 'isms" is a part of this labeling desire that we all have. So we debate back and forth who are the followers of these "isms". In so doing, we create a reality that does not exist. A reality where emotions rule over reason. That's not a revelation, or some stunning reasoned conclusion on my part. It's a well known phenomenon.
Consequently when I hear, or see an "ism" two questions come to mind. First, what's the evidence supporting the "ism" claim. Second, exactly what are we talking about? How and who defined this "ism"? Is it a classical "ism" definition? Since all the "isms" speak to political and economic theories. If I went to school textbooks would I find the same definition of the "ism"?
So I would ask, exactly what do you mean by socialism? Could you please comprehensively define socialism?
@Jim - my guess would be that of all the folks here you could probably provide the best definition of socialism, liberalism, and a couple other isms I dont care for.
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
gatlingun6 wrote:The funny thing is you talk about freedom, but you only believe in it for yourself and like minded people. A strange country you would have, one where the mantra is we act alike, think alike, believe alike, and look alike. How drab. come to think of it your attitude is exactly like that of a former State called the Soviet Union. You see, the Soviet Union, as you do, demanded comformity.
Sorry to butt in here, however, when the current administration is showering countries with money to help with global warming, they are trying to give away health care to everyone at the expense of taxpayers, (while holding meetings behind closed doors, leaving out Republicans, and patting themselves on their back about how "transparent" they are, ignoring the fact that the majority of the US doesn't want this legislation) pushing cap and trade, furthering more government spending, and trying to "level the playing field" by interfering with the free market and now trying to dictate the pay for people working in banks that were bailed out - *who* exactly is demanding conformity??
The role of our federal government as this country was founded was primarily to create a framework for the states to operate and to provide national security...NOT to tell me which doctor I can or can't see, or which health care option I need to be covered by. I've read Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451, and while an entertaining read, I've yet to read anything that Zephyp has authored that would indicate he wants any control over anyone elses lives - his argument is that we're heading in EXACTLY THAT DIRECTION.
If you're OK with the folks in the blue areas dictating how you live your life, fine. I, however, (and many others) are *not* okay with having this stuff crammed down our throats, and I'm confused at how, if you've actually researched any of the above points, can be A-OK with the government dictating more and more aspects of you life as well? It's not just a red/blue, Democrat/Republican, rich/poor thing - there are lots of people on both sides of those that would like a little less government in their daily life...
CCFAN: Two things: One the proposed Federal Budget is out so point to the line item that spells out what country or countries we have given money to for global warming and in what amounts?
Two: The Constitution you claim to revere was written totally behind closed doors, so what's your problem? Or do you prefer anarchy?
zephyp wrote:@Jim - my guess would be that of all the folks here you could probably provide the best definition of socialism, liberalism, and a couple other isms I dont care for.
Well one thing is for sure, you can obviously provide the definitions for fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism and, Fright Wing Extremism. In fact it seems you are also well versed in the language of that other ism, terrorism. Obviously those are the isms you luv since your words in toto betray you. Everyone knows its true: As Samuel Johnson said the last refuge of the scoundrel is patriotism!
Respectfully, Jim
It's not personal you know, it is what it is
I take it that you gatlingun6 have never had a queer grab something of yours that he shouldn't have and end reult wasn't pretty for him. I don't know if DK has a problem with them or not but I do. It amazes me how a man would rather hear a fat man poot than a pretty girl sing.
I think you may be a little angry that obama didn't keep his campian promises to the gays.
Count me in your group Brent.