Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

The OWS protestors were forcibly removed from Zuccotti Park last night. Whatever your stance on the OWS movement, the thing that stood out to me was that the press was banned from coverage. So what's the big deal for 2A?

His Excellency Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is the big deal. In one executive order, he bypasses the First Amendment. This is the same level of arrogance and disregard for our God-given rights that the Tea Party and the OWS can both agree on protesting.

Keep in mind this is the same Mayor that wants to eliminate the right of Americans to own a firearm. He's the one that creates propaganda like this regarding Virginia. Don't think for a moment that he's not puppeting the press behind reports on OWS.

Bloomberg , his money and his influence add up to a very dangerous trio of traits owned by an egomaniac that thinks due to to his station in life he has the right to force his views on the rest if us. No amount of dishonesty or bending of the truth matters to people like him as long as they can continue to push their views and get results.

I am not sure how camping in a public space and fouling up a park is speech. Standing on the sidewalk holding signs, having daily rallies, certainly within the first amendment, but occupying an area is not speech it is vagrancy. I have no love for Bloomyboy. I think he is a snobby, elitist, little leprechaun (he is really short!) that cares for precious few people but himself and his power. However having seen how the occupiers have behaved they have taken whatever validity they had in their issues and flushed it down the toilet. They have trashed the area they were at, have created serious public health hazards, and are becoming a refuge for the criminal minded individuals. This is not a free speech issue it is a tax payer/public health issue. I don't want a serious disease to break out in an urban center because these idiots could not figure out that defecating and urinating in public in large numbers can cause disease. They are sharing drinks/cigarettes/God only knows what else in cold wet unsanitary conditions--this is not good for the public at large not to mention their own health.

I love free speech. I think they should go home shower up, get well, and then find a place to encamp in a sanitary and legal manner and come back every day at 6am to protest and leave again by 9pm every night. That would be free speech, and that would be dedication.

mamabearCali wrote:I am not sure how camping in a public space and fouling up a park is speech. Standing on the sidewalk holding signs, having daily rallies, certainly within the first amendment, but occupying an area is not speech it is vagrancy. I have no love for Bloomyboy. I think he is a snobby, elitist, little leprechaun (he is really short!) that cares for precious few people but himself and his power. However having seen how the occupiers have behaved they have taken whatever validity they had in their issues and flushed it down the toilet. They have trashed the area they were at, have created serious public health hazards, and are becoming a refuge for the criminal minded individuals. This is not a free speech issue it is a tax payer/public health issue. I don't want a serious disease to break out in an urban center because these idiots could not figure out that defecating and urinating in public in large numbers can cause disease. They are sharing drinks/cigarettes/God only knows what else in cold wet unsanitary conditions--this is not good for the public at large not to mention their own health. I love free speech. I think they should go home shower up, get well, and then find a place to encamp in a sanitary and legal manner and come back every day at 6am to protest and leave again by 9pm every night. That would be free speech, and that would be dedication.

This is why your side lost the Culture War.

A demonstration of the John Birch society(the forerunner of the Tea Party):



Hodgepodge of leftists demonstration about the same time period:



Look at the differences. They matter, alot.

You know what Kruetz, that is just rude and wrong. How do you know where my family stood in those days--YOU DON'T!!! How do you know what they did and did not do about those situations where they live. YOU DON"T HAVE ANY CLUE!

It just so happens that my family were busy in their community doing things that actually made a difference to people who were treated so badly by society. While the people in your picture were busy brawling with the police, my family was making a difference in s. Texas by educating black children (at their own expense on their own property) and changing public policy in their town. Things which made a difference in people's lives and allowed people to have better lives.

You want to come out and call me a racist because I believe in limited gov't, and financial and personal responsibility--the unifying themes of the Tea party. Then that is your business, but that does not make what you say true or factual by any stretch of the imagination.

Hand pick all the pictures you like. I could bring you some nice arials of what the occupy Richmonder's did to Kanawha plaza. I could show you some nice footage of a OWS defecating on a lawn. But you know what--you can go find those too.

Kreutz wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I am not sure how camping in a public space and fouling up a park is speech. Standing on the sidewalk holding signs, having daily rallies, certainly within the first amendment, but occupying an area is not speech it is vagrancy. I have no love for Bloomyboy. I think he is a snobby, elitist, little leprechaun (he is really short!) that cares for precious few people but himself and his power. However having seen how the occupiers have behaved they have taken whatever validity they had in their issues and flushed it down the toilet. They have trashed the area they were at, have created serious public health hazards, and are becoming a refuge for the criminal minded individuals. This is not a free speech issue it is a tax payer/public health issue. I don't want a serious disease to break out in an urban center because these idiots could not figure out that defecating and urinating in public in large numbers can cause disease. They are sharing drinks/cigarettes/God only knows what else in cold wet unsanitary conditions--this is not good for the public at large not to mention their own health. I love free speech. I think they should go home shower up, get well, and then find a place to encamp in a sanitary and legal manner and come back every day at 6am to protest and leave again by 9pm every night. That would be free speech, and that would be dedication.

This is why your side lost the Culture War.

A demonstration of the John Birch society(the forerunner of the Tea Party):



Hodgepodge of leftists demonstration about the same time period:



Look at the differences. They matter, alot.

Always trying to group racists with then tea party......... NOT THE SAME.

mamabearCali wrote:You know what Kruetz, that is just rude and wrong. How do you know where my family stood in those days--YOU DON'T!!! How do you know what they did and did not do about those situations where they live. YOU DON"T HAVE ANY CLUE!

It just so happens that my family were busy in their community doing things that actually made a difference to people who were treated so badly by society. While the people in your picture were busy brawling with the police, my family was making a difference in s. Texas by educating black children (at their own expense on their own property) and changing public policy in their town. Things which made a difference in people's lives and allowed people to have better lives.

You want to come out and call me a racist because I believe in limited gov't, and financial and personal responsibility--the unifying themes of the Tea party. Then that is your business, but that does not make what you say true or factual by any stretch of the imagination.

Hand pick all the pictures you like. I could bring you some nice arials of what the occupy Richmonder's did to Kanawha plaza. I could show you some nice footage of a OWS defecating on a lawn. But you know what--you can go find those too.

I see you still cannot see the forest for the trees.

You know what Kruetz, that is just rude and wrong. How do you know where my family stood in those days--YOU DON'T!!! How do you know what they did and did not do about those situations where they live. YOU DON"T HAVE ANY CLUE!

Did I ever claim to know? No.

It just so happens that my family were busy in their community doing things that actually made a difference to people who were treated so badly by society. While the people in your picture were busy brawling with the police, my family was making a difference in s. Texas by educating black children (at their own expense on their own property) and changing public policy in their town. Things which made a difference in people's lives and allowed people to have better lives.

Thats nice. I genuinely do not care. Because its irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You want to come out and call me a racist because I believe in limited gov't, and financial and personal responsibility--the unifying themes of the Tea party. Then that is your business, but that does not make what you say true or factual by any stretch of the imagination.

When I did I call you a "racist"? When did I mention race? Guilty conscience mayhaps?

Hand pick all the pictures you like. I could bring you some nice arials of what the occupy Richmonder's did to Kanawha plaza. I could show you some nice footage of a OWS defecating on a lawn. But you know what--you can go find those too.

Actually, I didnt "hand pick" that; i wanted a picture of a Birch society protest because A) It actually is the forerunner of the TP; the Birchers were supposed to be a grass roots Conservative movement; an antithesis of the "cuntry club republicanism" as Buckley called it.and B) I may have perhaps incorrectly assumed most here would know about them. As for hand picking, I entered "John Birch protest" into google image search, and thats what I got.

the signs don't even matter; I want you to look at their orderly demeanor, their clothes, their obvious upper middle class prosperity.

Now, here is the POINT you have missed with your unasked for life story and how it relates to the culture war of the late 60's and your own old fashioned ideas.

Now, back to each picture:

The Birchers are clean, orderly, and law-abiding. They have flags of course. You would fit right in. They are likely respected members of the community; most if not all would have homes and jobs.

The rioters in Chicago were definitely not law abiding, violent, likely unemployed, probably had no permanent ties to a residence like a mortgage, were rabidly indoctrinated by Marxist professors, and most importantly, willing to bleed and spill blood; as evident by the fact they did.

Now, here is the key; which side can better effect their desired change?

The group hand-tied by obeying laws, rules, and easily cowed with fear of prison? Cant make those mortgage payments or keep our job and Buick from jail can we? Plus, golly jeepers, what would the neighbors say?

So, the Bircher....or his descendant, the Tea Partier will toe the line. Always.

The leftist radical, who is at best marginally employed or if lucky enabled by rich parents, has no such concerns, a week or two in jail for destruction of property isnt a deterrent at all. He has time to be politically active (ie cause trouble).

Young and eager to prove his mettle, he'll throw rocks or start fires. Scars are just trophies to brag about to the other crapwads at the commune.

The leftist radical will always jump right over the damned line. Thats the difference.

Mark my words in our lifetime what is now even the fringe of the fringe in leftist town will be normalized in society as large; expect a nine year old marrying a transgendered gerbil; it will go that far. You people will of course be reduced to protesting the fact its a gay trans-species marriage. Remember, the left takes a mile you fight over an inch, and thats why your side lost.

A shame too, its been downhill ever since.

I don't like gerbils. Their tails are freaky. Hamsters are much cuter.

Kreutz wrote:
I see you still cannot see the forest for the trees.

I see that you are hopelessly committed to the left wing mantra.

It just so happens that my family were busy in their community doing things that actually made a difference to people who were treated so badly by society. While the people in your picture were busy brawling with the police, my family was making a difference in s. Texas by educating black children (at their own expense on their own property) and changing public policy in their town. Things which made a difference in people's lives and allowed people to have better lives.

Kreutz wrote:Thats nice. I genuinely do not care. Because its irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You missed the point. The civil rights accomplishments did not happen because people rioted. The riots were a distraction and caused alot of trouble where there needed to be none. They happened because law abiding middle class farmers, doctors, teachers (like my family), and others stood up and said "This is not right" in a consistent and clear voice for many years in their communities and in this nation.

You want to come out and call me a racist because I believe in limited gov't, and financial and personal responsibility--the unifying themes of the Tea party. Then that is your business, but that does not make what you say true or factual by any stretch of the imagination.

Kreutz wrote:When I did I call you a "racist"? When did I mention race? Guilty conscience mayhaps?

Yeah you did---when you equated what I believe to what was on the signs. No Kruetz not a guilty concience--try righteous indignation and disgust.

Hand pick all the pictures you like. I could bring you some nice arials of what the occupy Richmonder's did to Kanawha plaza. I could show you some nice footage of a OWS defecating on a lawn. But you know what--you can go find those too.

Kreutz wrote: Actually, I didnt "hand pick" that; i wanted a picture of a Birch society protest because A) It actually is the forerunner of the TP; the Birchers were supposed to be a grass roots Conservative movement; an antithesis of the "cuntry club republicanism" as Buckley called it.and B) I may have perhaps incorrectly assumed most here would know about them. As for hand picking, I entered "John Birch protest" into google image search, and thats what I got.

the signs don't even matter; I want you to look at their orderly demeanor, their clothes, their obvious upper middle class prosperity.

The Tea Party really does not have a fore-runner. This particular grass roots organization came from disgust at Washington bail-outs and healthcare. There have been many grass roots movements through the years of various political bents. And yes, what is on the signs does matter.

Kreutz wrote: Now, here is the POINT you have missed with your unasked for life story and how it relates to the culture war of the late 60's and your own old fashioned ideas.

Now, back to each picture:

The Birchers are clean, orderly, and law-abiding. They have flags of course. You would fit right in. They are likely respected members of the community; most if not all would have homes and jobs.

The rioters in Chicago were definitely not law abiding, violent, likely unemployed, probably had no permanent ties to a residence like a mortgage, were rabidly indoctrinated by Marxist professors, and most importantly, willing to bleed and spill blood; as evident by the fact they did.

Now, here is the key; which side can better effect their desired change?

The group hand-tied by obeying laws, rules, and easily cowed with fear of prison? Cant make those mortgage payments or keep our job and Buick from jail can we? Plus, golly jeepers, what would the neighbors say?

So, the Bircher....or his descendant, the Tea Partier will toe the line. Always.

The leftist radical, who is at best marginally employed or if lucky enabled by rich parents, has no such concerns, a week or two in jail for destruction of property isnt a deterrent at all. He has time to be politically active (ie cause trouble).

Young and eager to prove his mettle, he'll throw rocks or start fires. Scars are just trophies to brag about to the other crapwads at the commune.

The leftist radical will always jump right over the damned line. Thats the difference.

Mark my words in our lifetime what is now even the fringe of the fringe in leftist town will be normalized in society as large; expect a nine year old marrying a transgendered gerbil; it will go that far. You people will of course be reduced to protesting the fact its a gay trans-species marriage. Remember, the left takes a mile you fight over an inch, and thats why your side lost.

A shame too, its been downhill ever since.

My side lost---interesting view of history. Quite limited though. Your knowledge of history seems to get shady about anything before 1950. You think that ANY of this is new. No. This is the same old same old repackaged again and again. Since time began people have experimented with strange lifestyles and have tried to rework the human race into whatever they thought was favorable. All of the crazy stuff you mentioned it has all happened before. It is George Benard Shaw desire to see useless people euthanized, it is the Nazi experiments with the master race, it is Margret Sanger's racism all over again in a shiny new package. It is the US forcing "unworthy people" to be sterilized. Lets go back further. It is the Romans living large while burying their infants alive. It is greeks lamenting "unworthy births," and having young boys as lovers. It is this very scene visited and revisited again and again throughout history. It is as old as history itself. Every time--it is defeated why--because destruction eventually destroys itself and those who choose to live in that manner don't live very long and don't pass their ideals on the next generation.

You said that the right wingers will *always toe the line. Perhaps we just count our liberty and our families more dear than to throw them into the gutter for something that can be accomplished by other means. We sell our liberty at a high price.

Something else you have missed in your little tirade about how I am old fashioned and how that loses every time. Those people who happen to survive their young leftist days don't often remain leftist. What happens? Youthful exuberance, and foolishness gives way to real life and OMG maybe I would like to live to old age and not be eating ramen noodles everyday. There are exceptions to that of course, but those are few and far between. Those old fashioned Ideals I have--who had them first? Would that be those crazy 60's radicals that grew up (my father at minimum), how about before that--ever heard of the roaring 20's (my great grandparents). They were the ones that passed on ideals to me like sanctity of life, the importance of family, personal responsibility, all those old fashioned ideals which you seem so ready to throw into the trash heap of history. Like I said, your view of history is short.




P.S. Additionally if you want more examples of groups of individuals trying out alternative lifestyles/attempting to alter the human race throughout history (and how and when the practice began to fail) I can certainly give them to you. I gave the examples I did out of brevity because to list even the most well known of them even in a short manner would be a very large post indeed.

Just a little video on who the real racist are and it sure the hell ain't the TEA Party

Kreutz wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:You know what Kruetz, that is just rude and wrong. How do you know where my family stood in those days--YOU DON'T!!! How do you know what they did and did not do about those situations where they live. YOU DON"T HAVE ANY CLUE!

It just so happens that my family were busy in their community doing things that actually made a difference to people who were treated so badly by society. While the people in your picture were busy brawling with the police, my family was making a difference in s. Texas by educating black children (at their own expense on their own property) and changing public policy in their town. Things which made a difference in people's lives and allowed people to have better lives.

You want to come out and call me a racist because I believe in limited gov't, and financial and personal responsibility--the unifying themes of the Tea party. Then that is your business, but that does not make what you say true or factual by any stretch of the imagination.

Hand pick all the pictures you like. I could bring you some nice arials of what the occupy Richmonder's did to Kanawha plaza. I could show you some nice footage of a OWS defecating on a lawn. But you know what--you can go find those too.

I see you still cannot see the forest for the trees.

You know what Kruetz, that is just rude and wrong. How do you know where my family stood in those days--YOU DON'T!!! How do you know what they did and did not do about those situations where they live. YOU DON"T HAVE ANY CLUE!

Did I ever claim to know? No.

It just so happens that my family were busy in their community doing things that actually made a difference to people who were treated so badly by society. While the people in your picture were busy brawling with the police, my family was making a difference in s. Texas by educating black children (at their own expense on their own property) and changing public policy in their town. Things which made a difference in people's lives and allowed people to have better lives.

Thats nice. I genuinely do not care. Because its irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You want to come out and call me a racist because I believe in limited gov't, and financial and personal responsibility--the unifying themes of the Tea party. Then that is your business, but that does not make what you say true or factual by any stretch of the imagination.

When I did I call you a "racist"? When did I mention race? Guilty conscience mayhaps?

Hand pick all the pictures you like. I could bring you some nice arials of what the occupy Richmonder's did to Kanawha plaza. I could show you some nice footage of a OWS defecating on a lawn. But you know what--you can go find those too.

Actually, I didnt "hand pick" that; i wanted a picture of a Birch society protest because A) It actually is the forerunner of the TP; the Birchers were supposed to be a grass roots Conservative movement; an antithesis of the "cuntry club republicanism" as Buckley called it.and B) I may have perhaps incorrectly assumed most here would know about them. As for hand picking, I entered "John Birch protest" into google image search, and thats what I got.

the signs don't even matter; I want you to look at their orderly demeanor, their clothes, their obvious upper middle class prosperity.

Now, here is the POINT you have missed with your unasked for life story and how it relates to the culture war of the late 60's and your own old fashioned ideas.

Now, back to each picture:

The Birchers are clean, orderly, and law-abiding. They have flags of course. You would fit right in. They are likely respected members of the community; most if not all would have homes and jobs.

The rioters in Chicago were definitely not law abiding, violent, likely unemployed, probably had no permanent ties to a residence like a mortgage, were rabidly indoctrinated by Marxist professors, and most importantly, willing to bleed and spill blood; as evident by the fact they did.

Now, here is the key; which side can better effect their desired change?

The group hand-tied by obeying laws, rules, and easily cowed with fear of prison? Cant make those mortgage payments or keep our job and Buick from jail can we? Plus, golly jeepers, what would the neighbors say?

So, the Bircher....or his descendant, the Tea Partier will toe the line. Always.

The leftist radical, who is at best marginally employed or if lucky enabled by rich parents, has no such concerns, a week or two in jail for destruction of property isnt a deterrent at all. He has time to be politically active (ie cause trouble).

Young and eager to prove his mettle, he'll throw rocks or start fires. Scars are just trophies to brag about to the other crapwads at the commune.

The leftist radical will always jump right over the damned line. Thats the difference.

Mark my words in our lifetime what is now even the fringe of the fringe in leftist town will be normalized in society as large; expect a nine year old marrying a transgendered gerbil; it will go that far. You people will of course be reduced to protesting the fact its a gay trans-species marriage. Remember, the left takes a mile you fight over an inch, and thats why your side lost.

A shame too, its been downhill ever since.

mamabearCali wrote:I see that you are hopelessly committed to the left wing mantra.

Please do enlighten me to the content of this "mantra" because I don't even know it.

You missed the point. The civil rights accomplishments did not happen because people rioted. The riots were a distraction and caused alot of trouble where there needed to be none. They happened because law abiding middle class farmers, doctors, teachers (like my family), and others stood up and said "This is not right" in a consistent and clear voice for many years in their communities and in this nation.

The riots did matter; it backed up what all those law abiding people by showing their side was capable of force; which in the end is all that matters.

Yeah you did---when you equated what I believe to what was on the signs. No Kruetz not a guilty concience--try righteous indignation and disgust.

When did I do that? Its no secret the TP is full of racists, but when did I state you were a 1960's era Bircher?

The Tea Party really does not have a fore-runner. This particular grass roots organization came from disgust at Washington bail-outs and healthcare. There have been many grass roots movements through the years of various political bents.

Its thankfully petered out, but yes it does have a forerunner.

And yes, what is on the signs does matter.

Actually, it really doesn't.

My side lost---interesting view of history. Quite limited though. Your knowledge of history seems to get shady about anything before 1950.

You do realize we're discussing the 1960's right?

You think that ANY of this is new. No. This is the same old same old repackaged again and again. Since time began people have experimented with strange lifestyles and have tried to rework the human race into whatever they thought was favorable. All of the crazy stuff you mentioned it has all happened before. It is George Benard Shaw desire to see useless people euthanized, it is the Nazi experiments with the master race, it is Margret Sanger's racism all over again in a shiny new package. It is the US forcing "unworthy people" to be sterilized. Lets go back further. It is the Romans living large while burying their infants alive. It is greeks lamenting "unworthy births," and having young boys as lovers. It is this very scene visited and revisited again and again throughout history. It is as old as history itself. Every time--it is defeated why--because destruction eventually destroys itself and those who choose to live in that manner don't live very long and don't pass their ideals on the next generation.

Wtf?

You said that the right wingers will *always toe the line. Perhaps we just count our liberty and our families more dear than to throw them into the gutter for something that can be accomplished by other means. We sell our liberty at a high price.

No, that is not it at all. A nice excuse, but no, you have things to lose and have fear, so you will stay in your place. You may bluster a bit, but when even threatened with a shove, you cave. "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" ring a bell? That forever lasted until the National Guard showed up. Poof, resistance gone. Change enforced.

Something else you have missed in your little tirade about how I am old fashioned and how that loses every time. Those people who happen to survive their young leftist days don't often remain leftist. What happens? Youthful exuberance, and foolishness gives way to real life and OMG maybe I would like to live to old age and not be eating ramen noodles everyday.

Something you forget is the demographics of this country have shifted substantially; the only demographic that is graying is the white one; the other racial backgrounds are only getting younger, and typically come from left leaning households, typically vote Dem down the line, and so and and so forth.

Oh, and their young already outnumber ours.

The math doesn't work for your approach to just wait for the youngins to just grow out of it.

P.S. Additionally if you want more examples of groups of individuals trying out alternative lifestyles/attempting to alter the human race throughout history (and how and when the practice began to fail) I can certainly give them to you. I gave the examples I did out of brevity because to list even the most well known of them even in a short manner would be a very large post indeed.

Oh, I would love to hear them. Tell me of all the people/movements who changed history and societies by being law abiding and non confrontational. I suspect I am in for a very short post indeed.

Blood alone moves the wheels of history missy. A quote form Il Duce; who incidentally took power by force. And in turn had it taken from him, by force.

Interesting inference from all that: It is a disadvantage to be a responsible citizen because you have too much to lose by rioting in the streets. And it is certainly true that demographics are shifting in this country in no small part because us WASPs are being out-propagated. I'll give you some credit for insight there, Kreutz.

But I'm still worried about you. You don't know any better than to argue with a pregnant lady that carries a gun. Bless your heart.

Kreutz wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I see that you are hopelessly committed to the left wing mantra.

Please do enlighten me to the content of this "mantra" because I don't even know it.

The tea party=racist mantra--- that has 0 basis in fact.

The riots did matter; it backed up what all those law abiding people by showing their side was capable of force; which in the end is all that matters.

Hmmm you did not like that argument so much when it was a marine removing a OWS protestor.

When did I do that? Its no secret the TP is full of racists, but when did I state you were a 1960's era Bircher?

The "tea part is full of racists" typical leftist liberal rant. Absolutely untrue, but perhaps if you keep shouting it long enough you can try to make people believe it.

Its thankfully petered out, but yes it does have a forerunner.

Sure and if that is the case then I will say that the forerunner of the OWS crowds is the useful idiots that Stalin used to gain power and then massacred millions.

And yes, what is on the signs does matter.

Actually, it really doesn't.

Maybe words don't matter to you but the do to everyone else here.

You do realize we're discussing the 1960's right?

Sorry gave you too much credit then to know the roots of those things that happened the 1960's had their start earlier. My mistake.

You think that ANY of this is new. No. This is the same old same old repackaged again and again. Since time began people have experimented with strange lifestyles and have tried to rework the human race into whatever they thought was favorable. All of the crazy stuff you mentioned it has all happened before. It is George Benard Shaw desire to see useless people euthanized, it is the Nazi experiments with the master race, it is Margret Sanger's racism all over again in a shiny new package. It is the US forcing "unworthy people" to be sterilized. Lets go back further. It is the Romans living large while burying their infants alive. It is greeks lamenting "unworthy births," and having young boys as lovers. It is this very scene visited and revisited again and again throughout history. It is as old as history itself. Every time--it is defeated why--because destruction eventually destroys itself and those who choose to live in that manner don't live very long and don't pass their ideals on the next generation.

Wtf?

Precisely--you don't have seem to have any knowledge of the roots of experimentation with the human genome, with the roots of alternative lifestyles and how far back these things go.

No, that is not it at all. A nice excuse, but no, you have things to lose and have fear, so you will stay in your place. You may bluster a bit, but when even threatened with a shove, you cave. "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" ring a bell? That forever lasted until the National Guard showed up. Poof, resistance gone. Change enforced.

So now not only am I a racist (as I am a participating member of a local Tea party) I am in favor of segregation too.....Yeah you have lost all perspective and are grasping at straws. You might be interested to know that the people chanting those slogans were----wait for it---democrats. As far as it being an excuse--go ahead and throw yourself and your freedom in the trash for stupid stuff if you want--but wiser heads know how to get stuff done without that unneeded drama 98% of the time.

Something you forget is the demographics of this country have shifted substantially; the only demographic that is graying is the white one; the other racial backgrounds are only getting younger, and typically come from left leaning households, typically vote Dem down the line, and so and and so forth.

Oh, and their young already outnumber ours.

The math doesn't work for your approach to just wait for the youngins to just grow out of it.

Well according to you I don't have to wait for that. They are going to throw themselves and their families in the ditch to go and rabble rouse. So they are not going to live long enough to make much more than a bit of noise.

P.S. Additionally if you want more examples of groups of individuals trying out alternative lifestyles/attempting to alter the human race throughout history (and how and when the practice began to fail) I can certainly give them to you. I gave the examples I did out of brevity because to list even the most well known of them even in a short manner would be a very large post indeed.

Oh, I would love to hear them. Tell me of all the people/movements who changed history and societies by being law abiding and non confrontational. I suspect I am in for a very short post indeed.

Blood alone moves the wheels of history missy. A quote form Il Duce; who incidentally took power by force. And in turn had it taken from him, by force.

You have a very short view of history. Additionally what I offered to show you was that those who tear the fabric of society by playing with societal norms failed. I did not say that people have not used force to alter their world. Of course they have. Those that tried to tear up what was already in existence and was strongly rooted in a society usually lost and if they made a run at success they only did so at the cost of millions of lives and eternal infamy and their success was often short lived.

Since you did not understand my historical post from above (greeks/romans/etc). I will just give one strong example as clearly as I can to why tearing apart societal norms is a losing effort. The principals of the Magna Carta (the basis of our codified human rights) had been part of English society for hundreds of years before they were codified--often referred to in the literature of the time as the common law. Kings generally understood these principals and abided by them as can be seen in their coronation ceremonies, and what we have of their laws and edicts. William the Conqueror came and did not want to abide by those principals which had led England through many a conflict and king-ship. In order to enforce his way of doing things (basically doing just as he pleased whenever he pleased with no thought to common law) he literally had to slash and burn a good portion of his own country. However this amount of cruelty did not ensure lasting success. His son, who was just as nasty as he was and even more immoral, tried to do the same. He was killed in a "hunting accident" not long into his reign. His successor quickly re-instituted those principals which the people believed to be the societal norm. Several successive kings tried to set aside what would become Magna Carta, but they met with precious little success. The Two Kings that came the closest to doing so were King Henry the VI and King Kenry the VII, but even they could not do so entirely and had to bow to certain portions of that law, at least in appearance. Lets skip ahead a few centuries. The Magna Carta which had underpinnings in English common law for centuries before it's codification in 1215 has had such a unifying force that it is the basis of our declaration of independence and even our constitution. Kings and despots and even foolish presidents have tried to undo and make the people forget who they were--but it has not worked.

Now you made reference to seeing children marry gerbils here in western culture and other rather odd lifestyle choices. Let me assure you that as strong as magna carta was, the idea that marriage is at minimum between humans is even more strongly ingrained into human society. Additionally the idea that it is between a man and a woman is also part of the fabric of society in such a way that the left will not be able to have more than a passing victory here and there on this issue. Opposition to interracial marriage was not so solidly ingrained, nor segregation, nor racism. In fact those were the aberrations of what had been a societal norm for human history. People have always married people of other cultures and shapes and colors and most of the time it did not matter your ancestry (now the class you were in often did matter very much). Is it any wonder that those things have melted away--they were the aberrations--not the norm.

Now I am going to end this history lesson here, because it is becoming too long and I have other things to attend to.

dorminWS wrote:But I'm still worried about you. You don't know any better than to argue with a pregnant lady that carries a gun. Bless your heart.

priceless, and oh so true!

dorminWS wrote:Interesting inference from all that: It is a disadvantage to be a responsible citizen because you have too much to lose by rioting in the streets. And it is certainly true that demographics are shifting in this country in no small part because us WASPs are being out-propagated. I'll give you some credit for insight there, Kreutz.

I don't make stuff up for fun; its true. I actually do understand where the Mama and her kind are coming from, but I am extremely puzzled by the fact they don't understand they lost 50 years ago and now they're fighting to snatch back one or two crumbs. Why bother?

In regards to the WASPS....the WASPS literally handed it all over without a fight. Historically unprecedented actually.

But I'm still worried about you. You don't know any better than to argue with a pregnant lady that carries a gun. Bless your heart.

I'm married to one. A very cranky one.

I fear nothing.

dorminWS wrote:
And it is certainly true that demographics are shifting in this country in no small part because us WASPs are being out-propagated.

WASP's are being out propagated, partly because of single, minority, and usually inner city, women have incentive to give birth to babies. The more babies they make, the more money they are paid. Of those babies, the ones that live to see 18, and refrain from committing felonies will instinctively vote for Democrats (assuming they can be bothered to vote, at all). The bulk of them are also likely to pitch tents in city parks to protest "greed", primarily for the purpose of taking advantage of free food.

SHMIV wrote:

dorminWS wrote:
And it is certainly true that demographics are shifting in this country in no small part because us WASPs are being out-propagated.

WASP's are being out propagated, partly because of single, minority, and usually inner city, women have incentive to give birth to babies. The more babies they make, the more money they are paid. Of those babies, the ones that live to see 18, and refrain from committing felonies will instinctively vote for Democrats (assuming they can be bothered to vote, at all). The bulk of them are also likely to pitch tents in city parks to protest "greed", primarily for the purpose of taking advantage of free food.

Demographics are a really really complex issue--which I read about--but it is very complex. What is known right now is that these factors have influenced demographics around the world. Every demographic (especially in 1st world nations) is have in general less children than they did two generations ago. It has to do with the disintegration (especially among the poor inner city) of the family unit. The push for birth control and the use of permanent sterilization as a means of normal birth control. The uptick of divorce. The uptick of consumerism. The push for two income households. The rise of secularism--you know when people took their scriptures seriously that "children are a blessing" they had a few more. The removal of household industry from the home and shifting it to the public sector thus children appear at least in the beginning to be much more of a burden than a blessing. It is a problem, a big problem for everyone.

Now, if we want to know why there are becoming more people with darker toned skin than lighter toned skin--well I am of English/Scottish/German decent and I married a swarthy man of Sicilian decent--my children have darker skin than me (especially in the summer). My BIL is a swarthy Italian (but slightly lighter skin toned than my husband) and he married a beautiful Hispanic lady--their children will likely be darker than him, but lighter than her. My sister is blond haired and blue-eyed, the man she loves (and will likely marry) is from Brazil and has darker skin. So again their children will likely be darker than her lighter than him. This all has precious little to do with their political point of view, every single adult I mentioned is more or less conservative in nature, irrespective of their skin color. I am not sure why this is being categorized as WASP vs everyone else. This is conservative philosophy vs liberal (really progressive) philosophy that has precious little to do with melanin, and perhaps you might not have noticed it, but in the last two elections conservative philosophy has won out. I am not saying it will always do so, but it is far from dead and buried 50 years ago.

Point taken, MamaBear.

Wow. This thread took a turn somewhere into racist, gerbil-mating chicks with guns and almost got Godwin'd with a Il Duce reference....

My point:

I don't care what race you are (as long as you are not harming anyone). I don't care about your sexual orientation (as long as you are not harming anyone). I don't care about your religious beliefs (as long as you are not harming anyone).

What I do care about is the subversion of the core ideals behind the formation of this Nation, the ideals put forth in the Constitution. (Note I did not say the Articles of Confederation.) There is absolutely intent by those with power to subvert the very fabric of this Nation. It is not just the Democrats - the Republicans play a part as well. That said, it's the Democrats that are currently "more in power" so we see more of the activity that worries me.

Yes, this nation was founded by white mostly Protestants - but it's not a WASP nation. (Look up the Maryland Toleration Act.) Too often, people say this is a "Christian" nation when they mean Protestant. The Catholics, Jews, and Deists all have a critical role in forming this nation. To overlook that is, IMO, blasphemous to the American Way.

I don't care if you are homosexual and want to get married. I know that runs counter to many of you here. I believe the whole "sanctity of marriage" line is bullshit when you get idiots like Newt Gingrich carrying on affairs and cavorting about instead of standing by his wife. I believe it's bullshit when you have "pastors" and Congressmen conducting illicit homosexual affairs. If you're' gay, you're gay. If you want to get married, then do so, but live according to the vows you make.

But back to my OP - Wonder why these points are brought up time and again by candidates? It's not so much to differentiate since they pretty much all toe the same line. It's to get the electorate riled up about trivial issues while they pass laws to take away our freedom of speech (free speech zones?!?! WTF?), our freedom of press (press passes revoked at will by the NYPD?!?!), our freedom to bear arms (Chicago? Washington DC? Etc.?!?!), our freedom to assemble (sorry, can't group more than two to protest the government!), the freedom of a fair, speedy trial without illegal search and seizure (Patriot Act?!? War Against Drugs?!?!), the freedom to hold private property (eminent domain for about any "public purpose"?!?!), and so on.

Pull your collective heads out of your asses.

Mindflayer wrote: But back to my OP - Wonder why these points are brought up time and again by candidates? It's not so much to differentiate since they pretty much all toe the same line. It's to get the electorate riled up about trivial issues while they pass laws to take away our freedom of speech (free speech zones?!?! WTF?), our freedom of press (press passes revoked at will by the NYPD?!?!), our freedom to bear arms (Chicago? Washington DC? Etc.?!?!), our freedom to assemble (sorry, can't group more than two to protest the government!), the freedom of a fair, speedy trial without illegal search and seizure (Patriot Act?!? War Against Drugs?!?!), the freedom to hold private property (eminent domain for about any "public purpose"?!?!), and so on.

Pull your collective heads out of your asses.

I go where the thread topic wanders--seems to be more fun that way.

And I am with you on all of that! However where I think we disagree is whether or not Zuccotti Park protestors are being persecuted for exercising their God given rights vs actions that are not God given rights. Freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc does not include the freedom to destroy public property, nor to squat and live on any public land you see fit. It does not mean you can create public health hazards by treating the sidewalk like a toilet. It does not mean you can disrupt (or attempt to disrupt) the train system of a city or try and keep people from going to work.