Why am I not surprised you don't know anything about our "civil war" either.
We didn't rush into that mother fucker at all, it had been brewing for at least 2 decades.
Rope, Tree, Journalist...…...
- Thread starter 308pirate
- Start date
Why am I not surprised you don't know anything about our "civil war" either.
We didn't rush into that mother fucker at all, it had been brewing for at least 2 decades.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Depends how you read it. I've seen people pull a motor from a tree with a rope. It would make a nice interest story.
???
Well sunshine, all I did was ask a couple of questions and old mate went off like a stabbed rat.
Anyone who truly believes can debate like an adult, those who know they're talking out their arse tend to resort to bluster and insult to cover their inadequacies.?
And there it is, you're not interested in intellectual discussion. All you want is to show how superior you are, by evidently putting words in people's mouths.
Nowhere did I say there is no room for compromise. All I said is that innate, God given rights are not subject to compromise.
So kindly go fuck yourself.
?????
You didn't have to implicitly say there is no room for compromise, your instant antagonism to a different viewpoint said it all.
You are a rigid, closed minded dogmatist who resolutely denies anyone else the right to disagree with your your narrow, anachronistic world view.
There are no "god given" rights, only those that civilized people agree on to make the world work without constant conflict.
I have tried to discuss this with you rationally but apparently all you have to offer is animus, acrimony and insult, making my point for me.
You decided that I was an enemy simply because I asked you questions about which you obviously felt uncomfortable.
My apologies for stepping on your delicate sensibilities.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
That was not an unconditional apology. You can fix that by removing the emoticons.
Actually, that's how tyrannies work.
We killed a bunch of British soldiers over that very same argument 240 years ago. We're not above doing so again to anyone who thinks rights are arbitrary and can be given and taken at the will of a majority.
If you think that's a threat, then it is.
Today's media is accurately depicted in the movie, V for Vendetta. Spewing false garbage to change or sway the public opinion to fit their own twisted agenda. The modern media is nothing but a propaganda machine. They are not the enemy of the gov. They are the enemy of the citizens of this great nation. Fuck them all.
When It Feels Like the World is Against You, Here Are 10 Things You Can Do to Find Your Smile
When It Feels Like the World is Against You, Here Are 10 Things You Can Do to Find Your Smile
Citizens must decide which things to believe, which things to believe in, and which things are worth fighting for.....
Your results may vary.
Your results may vary.
I don't know why I'm banging my head on this wall but I'm going to try.
You seem to have the bull by the balls matey.
Tyranny doesn't work by free people getting together and rationally working things out.
Tyranny works by imposing one point of view onto an unaccepting population by force. As you espouse above.
Mate, seriously, when you get to the bottom of the hole, stop digging.
This is the crux of our disagreement. From the very founding of this country, the concept of God-given rights has been the bedrock upon which our Constitution was written.
Even before the Constitution was written, the Articles of Confederation as weak as it was, recognized the rights of the people in Article IV. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation was a limitation on the powers of the Central government. Which was why it had weaknesses.
That's why, a Constitutional Convention was convened in order to hammer out a compact between the 13 States to form a "more perfect union." The term "state" in the 18th century was synonymous with "country." We were not merely, thirteen separate provinces that told King George III where to go but thirteen countries.
Embodied in our desire for freedom was the recognition that all men were created in the image of God, slavery not withstanding. And before you wag your finger at the founding fathers for the practice of slavery, keep in mind that a lot of countries and religions were practicing slavery. It is still practiced today in other parts of the world. They have a fancy name for it and call it "human trafficking."
Almost 300,000 white boys died so others would be freed later on.
Back to our God-given rights. That very concept was addressed in the Declaration of Independence to King George III.
The Committee for writing the Declaration were, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston. Jefferson was chosen for his way with words to put pen to paper. I say all this because the concept of God-given rights wasn't the result of the genesis of one man. Well before the summer of 1776 the pilgrims left Holland and earlier, England, just because they didn't want the King telling them that only he could interpret the bible for the masses.
In part, the Declaration states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
This was like a poke in the eye to George III. He and his predecessors were raised with the idea that only they could tell the people what to believe in the bible. Only he could tell the masses what their rights were. Heck the Magna Carta, in its first version had a list of rights for just the barons, not the people in whole or in part.
Edward I hated the Magna Carta. He called it the "Magna Farta."
With that said, there can be NO compromise when it comes to our rights. The leftists in this country like to talk about compromise when it comes to guns.
A true compromise is when both parties give up something and both give something. Ever since the Cruikshank decision of 1876, evil people have been taking from the freedom lovers and we're damn tired of it. When the leftists want to outlaw certain guns and devices, have we seen them give us something back in return? No.
There will be no compromising with the leftists in the US just has there has been no compromise with the leftists in other parts of the world. They have not and will not, ever, give us anything in return for infringing upon our God given rights. Until you recognize that our rights come from the King and Creator of the universe, there can be no agreements between people like you and me.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
His issue comes from the standpoint that there is no God. Therefore our rights can't be from God but are just a common acceptable agreement between people. Therefore he's willing to "compromise" since these rights are just a " compromise" to begin with.
Atheism < 1% of the population used to further an agenda.
Atheism < 1% of the population used to further an agenda.
Your first sentence I agree with. However, the comparison of internet forum blabber to words published by members of the press have implications I do not think you intended. The second sentence is so thoughtless that I shall take it up below. The third and fourth are absolute non-sequiturs I am supposing you have thrown in to let everyone know you are on the right side of something that is completely undefined in this conversation. How the hell did you manage to elevate this guy and his t-shirt to totalitarian dictatorship??? It's so out of place I'm not exactly sure what it is you are doing, but damn that is really pulling the lint of victim-hood out of the crack of your ass and taking a pretty deep sniff.
The observation of an imminent threat (to everyone on the plane, no less) and Mr Sidman's subsequent attack on the first amendment is precisely the bullshit @308pirate is calling out. You have followed Mr. Sidman's lead (at least as his sister represents him) and I must call you out on it. Funneling the words on this guys t-shirt into the realm of "existential threat" is complete horseshit. That incident was purely a play at silencing someone found to be distasteful.
I will assume you are situated in the least offensive and most defensible position here, plain (though likely willful) ignorance. So, to continue the point others have made above...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
—The Declaration of Independence
These words, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, are so familiar that it is easy to assume their meaning is obvious. But because of shit like this I must stand corrected over such an assumption. Jefferson's right to the pursuit of happiness is an elaboration to the right of liberty. Mr Jefferson meant we have a right to certain preconditions that will allow us to enjoy such a pursuit. This includes freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and a free market. The Bill of Rights is a pretty straightforward read. An understanding of it is bolstered by reading a bit of Jefferson and Locke. Scanning the Magna Carta will also help.
Whether or not you are happy or are so broodingly unhappy you are about to slit your own throat with a pen knife is completely beside the point. It just means you are free to go about your way. And if someone's speech or religion offends you, well that is just too bad and you are 100% equally free to whine about it.
Of course we are surrounded by idiots and innumerable victims-in-waiting. As such, with respect to the 1A and impermissible speech the courts have labored over defining a "true threat". There are only a few tests proscribed so I hope you may google your way to understanding this concept. The reason I won't belabor "true threats" here is because you have to be a fucking jackass to not be able to tell the difference.
Would you evaluate the worthiness of constitutional protections upon someone's religion based on how "stupid" you find it to be? I sure as fuck hope not.
The unfettered expression of ideas is a cornerstone of liberal democracy; it is a prime political value on which our Republic is constructed. To demand authorities remove this guy from the plane is a call to herd all of us into the shelters of heavy law enforcement and harmless speech -> speech as narrowly and randomly defined by whatever faggy sensibilities are offended at any given moment.
Whether me or anyone else thinks this guys t-shirt is stupid or not is entirely irrelevant. I hope you consider the larger point.
Last edited:
For the sake of comparison, help me understand rights in any system outside of those defined by God (or any analogues such as Jefferson's Creator or a state religion)? Unless I am sorely mistaken, by doing so you immediately remove the US Constitution (and all of its underpinnings), the Declaration of Independence, The English Bill of Rights (1689), the Magna Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (gasp!), and the entire fucking foundation of Liberalism... So please help me out here.
Secondly, help me understand any system of rights not evolved immediately following violent conflict and not supported by violent conflict. Again, this would remove each of the aforementioned from the conversation. So what remains on your list? I'm humbly looking for some instruction here.
Last edited:
Anytime I see someone cry out for freedom from religion, I know I'm dealing with a humanist fucktard who really means to eradicate all traces of religion from the public sphere and public discourse.
They are not even worth my contempt, let alone respect or consideration.
They are not even worth my contempt, let alone respect or consideration.
I'm a Canadian, and I SUPPORT this message!
Using rhetoric, and calling it logic, is typical of the type. Note that any attempts by others to appeal to logic is met with rhetoric and feelings ie ‘let’s compromise and be reasonable’. That sort of slime.
The inclination toward atheism is arrested development, a childish resentment of authority. Therefore, resolute principles are called ‘dogma’ and ‘anachronistic’.
Engaging with gammas is futile, as they will only respond with tantrums if their views are not elevated to a pedestal.
They are controlled by their fears. Of what doesn’t much matter to anyone, least of all themselves.
For the more visual learners, it’s akin to urinating on an airblade hand dryer.
Hi Moses,
I don't recall seeing any references in the bible to the rights and freedoms we were discussing, but perhaps it's down to the subjective viewpoint of the individual reader.
Let's get something straight though, I am not the one who introduced religion to this discussion, that was 308pirate.
I simply made the observation that freedom of expression needs to be protected, even for those saying things with which we disagree.
It was after this that 308 chimed in with his assertion that schools not teaching religion is a "socialist perversion".
At the mere mention by me that things are different here, he lost the plot entirely and went on the attack and things went downhill from there.
I am well aware that America is a far more religious country than Australia and I usually avoid the subject of religion because so many believers seem unable to discuss it without getting angry when confronted by someone who doesn't share their beliefs. As above.
I do enjoy theological discussions with those capable of doing so rationally, my favourite debating partner is an old mate who is also a Jesuit priest in his 70s, but it was neither my intention nor my desire to do so here.
So as a final comment on this wild digression that stemned from my original post, let me say this, the fact that someone may think differently to someone else is not an attempt to pervert or attack them or their beliefs, they are simply different and it is those who practice intolerance of those who are different from them that started this particular argument.
I do NOT want any public school to teach my child "religion." I'm no interested in my tax money going to any violation of the First Amendment. I am not interested in "religion" to begin with.
I want my child raised and taught in the faith I embrace, which is the orthodox Lutheran faith. That's why we sent our children to our parish school.
If I wanted my kids raised to be a pagan in perspective and outlook, I would have sent them to public schools.
I want my child raised and taught in the faith I embrace, which is the orthodox Lutheran faith. That's why we sent our children to our parish school.
If I wanted my kids raised to be a pagan in perspective and outlook, I would have sent them to public schools.
It's not about a simple difference of opinion or different view point. The leftest media in this country is going on TV and every other means of receiving "news" and out-right LYING to us. They ARE the democrat party, or communist party.
A differing opinion does not even begin to explain what is going on here.
A differing opinion does not even begin to explain what is going on here.
There is very little discernible difference between the Democrat party and the Communist party. Both parties list the exact same bullet points as achievements, and the exact same set of bullet points as goals and agenda. I believe the only difference is the spelling of their names.
My reference to a difference of opinion was purely in relation to the bigotry of those posters who are totally intolerant of the fact that others think differently to them, that anyone who doesn't share their narrow, "my way or the highway" xenophobia is somehow evil or perverted.
It was not a comment about whether your media was biased or not.
I know media companies peddle their own viewpoints and biases, the same happens here. We have some that push Right wing propaganda and some that push Left wing propaganda, and thankfully a couple who are more interested in facts, untainted by political bullshit.
My view is simply that we have to allow both to avoid the polarization that leads to extremes.
There was no freedom of expression in Nazi Germany and there is none in Xi's China, and that is where suppression of dissent or differences leads.
I don't want to live under fascism any more than I want to live under communism.
There are many in Australia who share this xenophobic view of difference. They insist that the Left are after our few remaining guns, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was the Conservative Right that took most of them from us in the first place.
My only advice to you is to do as I do: if you don't like the line a particular media outlet peddles, don't read it.
Your post just goes to show that you don't have a fucking clue whats going on here. The media here is the Nazi party directly lead by Goebbels himself. They are trying to destroy America. You keep talking like it's just about differing opinions, disagreements between gentlemen. Not even close. Its fucking war and they are playing to win and crush us. They're pissed because we fucked up their plans to make us a communist country and will say and do anything to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
What pisses me off the most are these dipshits here (USA) that think like you, and think everything is just business as usual, just politics. The left is playing for keeps so you better open your eyes and start paying attention. In the mean time they brainwash our kids to make them afraid, they control the daily stream of information that gets to the general public that just casually watch the news at night and just except what they're telling you is fact and don't take the time, or have time seek and hunt for the truth.
Nothing xenophobic about about trying to fight these fuckers that want throw the Constitution in garbage because it's standing in the way of their "progress"
ETA: I need to type faster lol
What pisses me off the most are these dipshits here (USA) that think like you, and think everything is just business as usual, just politics. The left is playing for keeps so you better open your eyes and start paying attention. In the mean time they brainwash our kids to make them afraid, they control the daily stream of information that gets to the general public that just casually watch the news at night and just except what they're telling you is fact and don't take the time, or have time seek and hunt for the truth.
Nothing xenophobic about about trying to fight these fuckers that want throw the Constitution in garbage because it's standing in the way of their "progress"
ETA: I need to type faster lol
Last edited:
You're a right idiot
You don't know what xenophobia, fascism, or communism mean.
You don't understand our Constitution and you certainly don't understand the difference between government oppression and individuals exercising their prerogatives and personal power to silence who they want.
No one in this country has to give anyone else a platform to speak, no matter whatever the fuck you think we should or shouldn't do.
Get the fuck out of here
More like, "the ink wasn't dry on the Constitution" but yeah, it was a long time in the making.
"The media is the Nazi party, who are pissed off that you stopped them from forming a communist government"
That's about the most confused and contradictory comment I've seen yet.
This is getting tediously repetitive but I'll try again since you apparently missed it every other time I've said it.
Ready? I'll type it slowly so you can keep up.
My difference of opinion reference was in regard to my interaction with 308pirate, not, that is NOT about the media.
K?
bla bla bla dimacrats do what they want to do and ain't nothing no one can do about it republicans have not the back bone for a fight they spent all there energy not passing things while they had the chance . and are now left hopping they get the chance again in 2020 . lazy and worthless both parties are two sides of the same corrupt coin desperately in need of replacing .
