• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Something that has happened (not hypothetical)

:roflmao: Classic. And I don't care who takes offense to it, the whole "The sheriff is near" thing cracks me up every time!
 
"Hell I was born here, and I was raised here, dagnabit Im gunna die here. And no croker croker bushwager hornwaller gunna butcher crocker."

"Gabby Johnson is right"
 
mike17l said:
So Chris, let me get this right.

Earlier you said that morality should not be legislated, which I agree with.

But you think that redistribution of wealth should be legislated. The rich should be forced to help the poor. While I agree that they should help, I think it is absurd that they should be forced to help. Helping the poor is a morality issue and as such, should not be legislated.
Click to expand...

See, here is the root of the problem that you and KJUN have with me...

I have never advocated higher taxes, more welfare, a "redistribution of wealth"(another concept you like to hurl around but obvisouly do not fully comprehend), or "forcing" anybody to help anybody else. These are not things I have ever declared I wanted, nor have I ever stated that I thought it would help.

You assume that because I voted for Obama over McCain, that I believe Obama to be some sort of Messiah, destined to save the country and the world. I never claimed that. I thought than and still believe that he is a better choice than McCain. But that's it. Your assumptions created friction...

And now, here, you assumeed that I would fall for your bait and get into an argument with you where I would lose my temper and act a fool like I did 2 months ago. Again, your assumptions cause friction...

Why don't you stop assuming, stop trying to bait me into an argument, and either get over the friction that your assumptions have created, or ignore them?

And while you're at it...get a dictionary. Learn what socialism really is. I'll give you a hint...it has a LOT more to it than public health care. Start with the removal of civil rights and freedoms, like your boy GW tried during his administration...you know..."National Homeland Security"...where the ".gov" decided they could track your internet, tap your phone calls, read your emails, and decide for you when, where, and how you were allowed to travel based on your heritage, your interests, and your parents, and nothing more...

Than...learn what "redistribution of wealth" means. It has nothing to do with increasing taxes for stronger social programs. A redistribution of wealth would be what your buddy KJUN up there said works great in theory...Every man works to his ability, and recieves to his needs. Redistribution of wealth involves a loss of personal monetary freedoms and gains, the loss of progression and capitalism. It has nothing to do with higher taxes, and a re-defined tax bracket system.

And as a point of clarification...regulating big business so they cannot fraudulently operate at a loss while stealing investments from the public under false pretenses does not reduce capitalism...it reduces fraud and thievary. Big difference...

Next...learn how to actually read what people write, and comprehend the words they use, instead of reading the first sentence, assuming you know the rest, and forming conclusions based on your wrong assumptions. It makes these conversations go a lot more smoothly...

When you've finished with all of that...start another thread, and we'll see how well you've done...
 
tyflier said:
So...you run around here hurling the insult "socialist" at anyone and everyone that disagrees with you yet...you believe that the theory and ideals of both Socialism and Communism are something that you support, it's just the practice that bothers you?

That actually makes a lot of sense. You seemed to support GW stripping the American peole of their basic civil rights in the name of protection. That didn't seem to bother you at all. You evidently suppotred McCain over Obama, even though you yourself have to admit that electing McCain President would have been as bad opr worse than electing GW to a third term.

I've always known that you were a socialist at heart KJUN. Your greed makes you a capitalist, but your heart, soul, and your desire to control everyone around you is pure communist...
Click to expand...

Chris, do you twist everything into deranged nonsense on purpose. What I said was that I think the THEORY is great. Although you might live in an imaginary world, I'm stuck in the real one. I don't have delusions that humans can't carry out the theory and make it work in practice. In practice, it is evil. It doesn't work. It never has. It never will. I go with the type of government that DOES work in practice.

If you call greed wanting to keep what you EARN and nothing else, then I guess that term fits me. It, however, is NOT what the word means! Greed is wanting something you DON'T earn. The non-leaders that support socialism are the greedy ones. They want MORE than they earn by taking it from those that DO earn more. Thievery. I separate out leaders from nonleaders because the leaders are "more equal than the sheeple." They never share as much as they make the REST of us share. Practice versus theory again.

I define greed as wanting MORE than you earn by stealing it from others. If you want to take from harder workers and give to those that don't work as hard, then THAT is greed. That is the opposite of what I believe it. Wanting to keep what you EARN is just plain RIGHT to me. It's why, after all, you EARNED it instead of being GIVEN it.

How can someone be so shallow and weak-minded to even want benefits given to them that they don't earn? That is the question I don't understand.
 
tyflier said:
I have never advocated higher taxes, more welfare, a "redistribution of wealth"(another concept you like to hurl around but obvisouly do not fully comprehend), or "forcing" anybody to help anybody else. These are not things I have ever declared I wanted, nor have I ever stated that I thought it would help.
Click to expand...

Nah, I now see the problem. You aren't reading your own posts! THAT'S the problem. You might want to start. Apparently someone else is posting under your account. ;)
 
And while you're at it...get a dictionary. Learn what socialism really is. I'll give you a hint...it has a LOT more to it than public health care. Start with the removal of civil rights and freedoms, like your boy GW tried during his administration...you know..."National Homeland Security"...where the ".gov" decided they could track your internet, tap your phone calls, read your emails, and decide for you when, where, and how you were allowed to travel based on your heritage, your interests, and your parents, and nothing more...
Click to expand...

I don't remember this happening at all... It may have been while I was in Afghanistan, fighting under the man that I helped put in office for a second term. I have also fought under the new man, and I can tell you, I enjoyed serving under Bush more than Obama.
 
Outcast said:
I don't remember this happening at all... It may have been while I was in Afghanistan, fighting under the man that I helped put in office for a second term. I have also fought under the new man, and I can tell you, I enjoyed serving under Bush more than Obama.
Click to expand...
Aaron, I'd really like to hear why...I don't think I've ever heard from anyone who had served under both.
 
I personally felt that Bush respected the troops. I didn't really feel that from Obama, he came off as more of a TV face than a president... still does in my opinion.
 
And I feel that George W. had little genuine respect for anything (unlike his father). Fortunately, feelings don't need to be justified or supported with evidence.
 
And, you feel Obama respects anything?
I haven't seen any sign that his "change" is anything other than "We now have an African American president.", that and the deficit has only gotten larger, by exponential rates compared to the way it was before Bush left office.
 
Outcast said:
I don't remember this happening at all... It may have been while I was in Afghanistan, fighting under the man that I helped put in office for a second term. I have also fought under the new man, and I can tell you, I enjoyed serving under Bush more than Obama.
Click to expand...
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think that's because that's how George Bush wanted you to feel; like you were participating in a war that was worthy of fighting, and that the nation supported you in battle. Obama's convictions toward the war are clearly less than Bush's and it's no surprise that shows in his personality..One of the main reasons he was elected in fact, as most Americans found his will much stronger than Bush's, but his demeanor more passive. I find it to be a good thing, and a sign that some things are indeed changing for the better.
 
My little brother served in Afghanistan for multiple tours, and he doesn't "feel" as you do. But that doesn't matter either.
 
I did have a nice, long response to Ricky, but my computer crapped out and the mood for arguing has left me, so its gone now... its probably for the better.
 
Roy Munson said:
And I feel that George W. had little genuine respect for anything (unlike his father).
Click to expand...

Odd.....most serious supporters of the second amendment have a lot dislike for Bush #1 than Bush #2. In fact, Bush #1 killed his chance for re-election when he screwed the 2A and those that supported him for his first election. I say its odd just because I haven't seen that particular view among my normal peers - I don't say its odd because I want to disagree with the statement. It just struck me as odd.

Ricky87 said:
Please don't take this the wrong way,
.....
Obama's convictions toward the war are clearly less than Bush's and it's no surprise that shows in his personality.
Click to expand...

More deaths. More money. New Country...........all for a war he doesn't have convictions about being "right"...and you say that's a good direction. OK. How could anyone take that the wrong way?

Ricky87 said:
Please don't take this the wrong way,
......One of the main reasons he was elected in fact, as most Americans found his will much stronger than Bush's, but his demeanor more passive.
Click to expand...

Trusth one thing (strong will). Outward appearance a lying mask (passive). In other words, acting one way while being another way. That's a good thing in an elected official? OK. How could that be taken the wrong way?

Ricky87 said:
Please don't take this the wrong way,
.....I find it to be a good thing, and a sign that some things are indeed changing for the better.
Click to expand...

Better? Better? War without conviction? One face for the public masking your real intentions? Better I ask you? HA!

Unless you really DO want anarchy, how could those statements NOT be taken the "wrong way?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top