PDA

View Full Version : MSNBC flips the fuck out over man with a gun at town hall



Pages : [1] 2

Eyrothath
08-13-2009, 14:02
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f876GOd_CKM

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! :lmao:

OMFG, he has a gun strapped to his leg!! "YOUR SAYING A GUY HAS A GUN!!??!" This guy does not look like he's going to use it.. MSNBC is full of fucktards..

Funny how they are making a big deal out of this, it makes them all look like morons... Obviously they don't know what the second amendment is, they act like carrying a gun is ILLEGAL..

Bissen
08-13-2009, 14:08
This from the field reporters own mouth.

"Apparently the law allows this man to be here"

Fuck. This planet needs an extreme makeover...

Hubbell
08-13-2009, 14:11
'Why cant we get rid of him NOW??'

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 14:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f876GOd_CKM

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! :lmao:

OMFG, he has a gun strapped to his leg!! "YOUR SAYING A GUY HAS A GUN!!??!" This guy does not look like he's going to use it.. MSNBC is full of fucktards..

Funny how they are making a big deal out of this, it makes them all look like morons... Obviously they don't know what the second amendment is, they act like carrying a gun is ILLEGAL..

you are just a dopey fucker , ain't you?

did you watch the entire interview or just a partial clip?

why couldn't the gun guy answer one simple question...when asked why he openly wore a gun carrying the sign with the paraphrased quote he did, directly asked what political statement he was making with the protest...the fucking coward couldn't/didn't answer

rather than openly say he was sending the message that our elected leaders should fear the citizens, he wussed out and hemmed and hawed and said nothing coherent

as for Matthews freaking out, it was the third time he asked the same, simple question and the guy dodged it...simply asked why wear a loaded gun to a presidential function with the history of our presidents...and guns...

no one argued his legal right to wear/carry it, Matthews made a point of that , "you can chew gum in church too...it's legal", etc...

be outraged the gun advocate was inarticulate and i'm with you, but you can't say the guy was not given every chance to explain himself on national Tv with no bullshit, and blew the chance

OP should just have a shotgun lollipop and stfu, imo

Bissen
08-13-2009, 14:13
Also. LULZ!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Eyrothath
08-13-2009, 14:14
Here is the guy later on during the day on Chris Matthews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA

Bissen
08-13-2009, 14:17
you are just a dopey fucker , ain't you?

did you watch the entire interview or just a partial clip?

why couldn't the gun guy answer one simple question...when asked why he openly wore a gun carrying the sign with the paraphrased quote he did, directly asked what political statement he was making with the protest...the fucking coward couldn't/didn't answer

rather than openly say he was sending the message that our elected leaders should fear the citizens, he wussed out and hemmed and hawed and said nothing coherent

as for Matthews freaking out, it was the third time he asked the same, simple question and the guy dodged it...simply asked why wear a loaded gun to a presidential function with the history of our presidents...and guns...

no one argued his legal right to wear/carry it, Matthews made a point of that , "you can chew gum in church too...it's legal", etc...

be outraged the gun advocate was inarticulate and i'm with you, but you can't say the guy was not given every chance to explain himself on national Tv with no bullshit, and blew the chance

OP should just have a shotgun lollipop and stfu, imo


It's legal. End of story. He doesn't have to explain jackshit doc.

Besides. He might wind up being considered an illegal combatant and his ass put in gitmo if he said stuff like that. It is afterall The united states of FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hubbell
08-13-2009, 14:19
Here is the guy later on during the day on Chris Matthews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA

I refuse to watch Chris Matthews. Almost refuse to watch Olbermann too but atleast he's funny cause you think he's gonna stroke out at any minute.

Bloodthorne
08-13-2009, 14:22
lol @ this.

"it's legal to carry a gun"

"OMFG HE HAS A GUN, GUARDS GET EM!"

the fuck. United States of Epic Fail... USEF... has a nice ring does it not?
anyway, typical americans being idiots and making elephants out of flies.

Bissen
08-13-2009, 14:22
Here is the guy later on during the day on Chris Matthews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA

fucking hypocrite journalist. Stay the FUCK on subject.

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 14:26
Na Doc I have to go with Eyrothath. The guy handled himself very well. You don't say anything radical when a grown man is squealing like a pig over a simple thing like him wearing a gun.

Here is where Mathews gets totally owned. First he flips and keeps talking over the man trying to get him to say something rash. The man keeps his calm and puts Mathews in his place with his "we made new history today" comment. Then Mathews asks him in seven different ways if he is a birther and the man say no to all of them.

Blixa
08-13-2009, 14:34
you are just a dopey fucker , ain't you?

did you watch the entire interview or just a partial clip?

why couldn't the gun guy answer one simple question...when asked why he openly wore a gun carrying the sign with the paraphrased quote he did, directly asked what political statement he was making with the protest...the fucking coward couldn't/didn't answer

rather than openly say he was sending the message that our elected leaders should fear the citizens, he wussed out and hemmed and hawed and said nothing coherent

as for Matthews freaking out, it was the third time he asked the same, simple question and the guy dodged it...simply asked why wear a loaded gun to a presidential function with the history of our presidents...and guns...

no one argued his legal right to wear/carry it, Matthews made a point of that , "you can chew gum in church too...it's legal", etc...

be outraged the gun advocate was inarticulate and i'm with you, but you can't say the guy was not given every chance to explain himself on national Tv with no bullshit, and blew the chance

OP should just have a shotgun lollipop and stfu, imo

Bullshit. He probably wanted to point that fucking idiots like MSNBC are hating on his personal rights which he did pretty well. Why would he have to explain himself? He was even given permission to be there by the owners of the property, if it's too dangerous for the president, he should not go there, as simple as that. "getting rid of him RIGHT NOW"... fuck you msnbc, seriously, fuck you.

Badem
08-13-2009, 14:39
WTF is a 'Birther'?

I strongly advocate teh right to bear arms, I mean if people were allowed to carry guns then all these feral youths running around would think twice about casuing shit

fuck can you imgaine the 40M robbery in London if everyone was llowed to bear arms?

the robber in street shoots at guard to solicite his escape

people in crowd pull out and fire back at the faggotboy.

obvs you would ahve to go throught eh mental health shit and log X amount of hours at an authorised range in order to retain permit to bear arms

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 14:39
lmao...

i said it, and Matthews said it, N OONE is/was arguing the legality of what the guy did

no one, read what i typed, and listen to Matthews again....all said it was legal

now, can anyone quote me what the guy said was his point/reason/political statement for wearing an open gun and holding the sign (with the paraphrased quote) on the grounds of a church for this function?

please do...i am truly eager to hear it...i watched the interview last night, hoping the guy would articulate the position, he did not

THAT was my point, he showed up to a healthcare debate function, with that sign and an open firearm, no problem...he's allowed and well within his legal rights, he was not arrested or anything...but when given the national spotlight...what was his point?

that he didn't like the federal reserve?...really?

how simple do i have to make it, kiddies?

Largion
08-13-2009, 14:41
Guns are bad and should be illigal and a healthcare system like we have here in Sweden is great.

Bissen
08-13-2009, 14:43
lmao...

i said it, and Matthews said it, N OONE is/was arguing the legality of what the guy did

no one, read what i typed, and listen to Matthews again....all said it was legal

now, can anyone quote me what the guy said was his point/reason/political statement for wearing an open gun and holding the sign (with the paraphrased quote) on the grounds of a church for this function?

please do...i am truly eager to hear it...i watched the interview last night, hoping the guy would articulate the position, he did not

THAT was my point, he showed up to a healthcare debate function, with that sign and an open firearm, no problem...he's allowed and well within his legal rights, he was not arrested or anything...but when given the national spotlight...what was his point?

that he didn't like the federal reserve?...really?

how simple do i have to make it, kiddies?

His point was to get attention to the governments general agenda to take liberties away. He said this.

And I'd say he pretty much succeeded getting that attention.

Badem
08-13-2009, 14:45
wait, but you side with the Music industry and openly accept bias in your judges judging crimanl cases

so who cares about the guns and stuff, if you end in in front of the beak about soemthign your fucked if they other people can bribe the judge better than you can, you legal system is corrput

Bissen
08-13-2009, 14:47
wait, but you side with the Music industry and openly accept bias in your judges judging crimanl cases

so who cares about the guns and stuff, if you end in in front of the beak about soemthign your fucked if they other people can bribe the judge better than you can, you legal system is corrput

I don't get the connection to this thread. Nor do comprehend your post, word for word.

Blixa
08-13-2009, 14:52
lmao...

i said it, and Matthews said it, N OONE is/was arguing the legality of what the guy did

no one, read what i typed, and listen to Matthews again....all said it was legal

now, can anyone quote me what the guy said was his point/reason/political statement for wearing an open gun and holding the sign (with the paraphrased quote) on the grounds of a church for this function?

please do...i am truly eager to hear it...i watched the interview last night, hoping the guy would articulate the position, he did not

THAT was my point, he showed up to a healthcare debate function, with that sign and an open firearm, no problem...he's allowed and well within his legal rights, he was not arrested or anything...but when given the national spotlight...what was his point?

that he didn't like the federal reserve?...really?

how simple do i have to make it, kiddies?

It's been said several times that he doesn't need a damn reason to exercise his rights. And his point was obviously to bring attention to fucking idiots like MSNBC hating on him for exercising his rights. He did a good job on this it seems.

Badem
08-13-2009, 14:55
fucking journalists like stirring up the shit as bad news sells as scary shit sells more

think he woiuld have been on it if he had been dressed as a woman while wielding a 15 inch rubber cock?

Largion
08-13-2009, 15:03
fucking journalists like stirring up the shit as bad news sells as scary shit sells more

think he woiuld have been on it if he had been dressed as a woman while wielding a 15 inch rubber cock?

Well in the US news they would have to blur it so noone could see what it was. :lmao:

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 15:03
His point was to get attention to the governments general agenda to take liberties away. He said this.

And I'd say he pretty much succeeded getting that attention.

he got the attention, and will live the rest of his life with Secret Service attention as well

again, it's given that he was within his Rights, NO ONE is arguing/denying that

my point is that he blew it as far as having his chance on a national stage to articulate his position...he failed in epic fashion

again, the paraphrased quote on his sign and being openly armed makes a political statement, when given the chance to articulate it...he failed to do so, and instead cowardly squirmed around it, imo

he had the balls to do it in the first place, but not to say it when he had the microphone...THAT is my only problem here, and from the Matthews interview it is quite clear he was being given the chance to say so...

(same with his dodging the birther bit, listen closely to that part of the interview)

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 15:05
It's been said several times that he doesn't need a damn reason to exercise his rights.

no one was asking him to justify exercising his right, bullshit strawman there and you know it

all that was asked was his statement by doing so...which he failed to answer

if it had been Matriel(or any other jarhead), we would have seen a proper advocate sound off

Badem
08-13-2009, 15:07
hey Doc, wanna go to one of these with some WMD and see what the fuck tehy say?

I will wear the Dennis Rodman outfit with the pimp pumps, you go as whatever

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 15:12
I think he articulated him self very well.

These points can easily be picked up from what he said. He thinks that it is irrelevant whether he has a gun or does not. It is none of their business. In NH people easily carry everywhere they go. No NH residents were surprised so why do you presume he needed a reason to carry?

Second he pointed out that some times you need to show the other end of it to get people to compromise. The dems are pretty good at it when they scream on top of their lungs that healthcare is a right and all must be insured or we might have the revolution of the poor.

Plus his last message was very clear. He is there advocating a armed, peaceful and informed society.

Badem
08-13-2009, 15:15
who cares? I dont

I am all for allowing people to retain arms but sooner or later some psycho is gonna start killing people then what happens?

oh thats right you jsut ignore it or blame some random black man

Blixa
08-13-2009, 15:19
no one was asking him to justify exercising his right, bullshit strawman there and you know it

all that was asked was his statement by doing so...which he failed to answer

if it had been Matriel(or any other jarhead), we would have seen a proper advocate sound off

He said "If you don't exercise your rights, you're gonna lose them" and I think that's fair enough, really. He was being very polite and brought his points over well, I really don't get what your problem is.

doomahx
08-13-2009, 15:22
Anyone that pays ANY attention to TV news needs to get their head examined. Red, blue, left or right.

Badem
08-13-2009, 15:23
some people are just fucking Douches and whine about anything

doomahx
08-13-2009, 15:25
some people are just fucking Douches and whine about anything

It's true.

The people that bitch and moan about the media are just as annoying as the people that actually buy into the stuff.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 15:32
I think he articulated him self very well.

These points can easily be picked up from what he said. He thinks that it is irrelevant whether he has a gun or does not. {{it IS relevant in the context of a political protest involving the POTUS, especially with the content of the sign}} It is none of their business.{{he was being asked in a TV interview, so he was being given the chance to express himself completely and in context...yes?}} In NH people easily carry everywhere they go. No NH residents were surprised so why do you presume he needed a reason to carry? {{ have you EVER fucking been to NH? i wenbt to people's homes to fix their TVs all over the state, based from Portsmouth, and i have NEVER seen anyone wear a pistol openly except for a cop...that was in the course of 7 years...NEVER...i call bullshit}}

Second he pointed out that some times you need to show the other end of it to get people to compromise.{{ a point of Truth there, be so outrageous that it skews the curve of the average...part of a political strategy}}The dems are pretty good at it when they scream on top of their lungs that healthcare is a right and all must be insured or we might have the revolution of the poor. {{ strawman indeed....do show me the clips, especially the ones with guns and the quote "time to water the Tree of Liberty"}}

Plus his last message was very clear. He is there advocating a armed, peaceful and informed society.

he was stating his belief that an armed society is proper in his view, such was NOT the message of his protest...and if it was, he failed to articulate it

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 15:38
Yes I was to NH. In my brief stay there I noticed several people walking around with holsters even in bars.

Doc admit it you are just a dem partisan. The man explained why he was there and why he had the sign. If you don't like his explanation because you can only see radical republicans in anyone who opposes dems it is hardly our problem to remedy that.

88Chaz88
08-13-2009, 15:40
Massive fucking walls of text incoming folks!

Sqarak
08-13-2009, 15:40
Here in Belgium I get annoyed when media focus themselves on irrelevancies like some random's guy opinion about a car-accident that a friend told him about while they were peeing together in a bar. The US media however, is still far ahead of the game.

Fine the guy wearing a gun in public. It was legal, it might have looked threatening, but why the fuck have three people discuss the whole thing like it was anything more than it was. Fuck, you people are simply being bombarded by irrelevancies.

88Chaz88
08-13-2009, 15:41
Here in Belgium I get annoyed when media focus themselves on irrelevancies like some random's guy opinion about a car-accident that a friend told him about while they were peeing together in a bar. The US media however, is still far ahead of the game.

Fine the guy wearing a gun in public. It was legal, it might have looked threatening, but why the fuck have three people discuss the whole thing like it was anything more than it was. Fuck, you people are simply being bombarded by irrelevancies.

But I also heard the man was homosexual and watched Seinfeld on tuesdays!

jonyak
08-13-2009, 15:42
Here in Belgium I get annoyed when media focus themselves on irrelevancies like some random's guy opinion about a car-accident that a friend told him about while they were peeing together in a bar. The US media however, is still far ahead of the game.

Fine the guy wearing a gun in public. It was legal, it might have looked threatening, but why the fuck have three people discuss the whole thing like it was anything more than it was. Fuck, you people are simply being bombarded by irrelevancies.

thats how the gov't keeps there minds off the real issues.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 15:47
Yes I was to NH. In my brief stay there I noticed several people walking around with holsters even in bars.

{{o'rly?...where?..sure as fuck not in Portsmouth, which has a town ordinance against it except on private property!}}

Doc admit it you are just a dem partisan. {{fuck you bitch...i've been a registered Independent since 1979, how about you?}} The man explained why he was there and why he had the sign. If you don't like his explanation because you can only see radical republicans in anyone who opposes dems it is hardly our problem to remedy that.

again...he NEVER explained the threat form the sign text...watch it again

Badem
08-13-2009, 15:51
i would watch but i am deaf and cant hear them talking , plus they speak real strange too

Blixa
08-13-2009, 15:58
again...he NEVER explained the threat form the sign text...watch it again

lol, the sign text is your problem now? Well, he even left the blood-part out making it rather clear that this is not a current threat anyways, but an explanation to as why he really used that sign at the rally you can find in this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Tas00WZ0Q

It's rather an amateur vid and not exactly of hq, but the interviewer does a way better job than MSNBC.

Sqarak
08-13-2009, 16:05
again...he NEVER explained the threat form the sign text...watch it again

TBH that Hardball fatass was asking the wrong questions. It was his right to wear a gun and apparently he was also allowed so by the owners of the private property.

A more relevant question could have been: "Given the general mood at that place, wouldn't you think it might have seem threatening and blabla". Maybe from there a more indept conversation might have started about the guys motivations.
Instead the old fatass kept screaming like a hysterical bitch. He was as bad as O'Reilly and just came over as being as incompetent and unprofessional.

Incanam
08-13-2009, 16:06
The true non-partisan response:

Be pissed off at MSNBC for blowing the thing out of proportion. The guy in that interview is like a liberal Bill O'Reiley.

I don't like Bill O'Reiley. A douche is a douche, doesn't matter if he's a liberal or conservative.


But, I'd have to agree with Doc in that he(the gun) didn't expound his quote. Yes, he didn't have to. But, if he wants to get his point across, I don't see why he didn't. Nobody is saying, he was required to respond. Just that he had the opportunity and chose not to.



And then my personal views:
This forum taught me a while back to not care about gun rights. Neither side has any proof of anything (No...they really don't). But, I do think it very stupid to bring a gun to a public event which the President will also attend. I see no need for it.

Unless his goal was to just get on the media...but then nothing happened.


It's all very stupid.

Badem
08-13-2009, 16:08
would have been ok if he had turned up with his truck full of liquid fertiliser and some 'other' stuff?

jonyak
08-13-2009, 16:09
pro gun nuts are stupid.

Blixa
08-13-2009, 16:11
But, I'd have to agree with Doc in that he(the gun) didn't expound his quote. Yes, he didn't have to. But, if he wants to get his point across, I don't see why he didn't. Nobody is saying, he was required to respond. Just that he had the opportunity and chose not to.

In the vid I posted, you can see the reason why he didn't explain it; because there really was no real explanation as to why the quote mattered specifically to the health care debate: The guy said in the interview I posted that he just didn't have time to make a new quote sign and he thought it fits with the general direction the government is going which includes the health-care debate.

Badem
08-13-2009, 16:19
who really give s a shit about polotics?

Incanam
08-13-2009, 16:20
In the vid I posted, you can see the reason why he didn't explain it; because there really was no real explanation as to why the quote mattered specifically to the health care debate: The guy said in the interview I posted that he just didn't have time to make a new quote sign and he thought it fits with the general direction the government is going which includes the health-care debate.

Right, but he didn't say how health care was leading us in that direction. If he doesn't explain his ideas, they'll sound like irrational fear (Obama is a Socialist!) or like fear-mongering (Obama is a Socialist! Our Rights are being taken!). That may be what he is trying to say, but he didn't really distinguish himself from the crazies, other than the fact that he wasn't yelling. Indeed, I applaud his calmness. But nonetheless, I as a viewer, have no idea why he feels the way he does.

doomahx
08-13-2009, 16:23
who really give s a shit about polotics?

I used to care but then I came to the realization that it doesn't matter who is in power.. as long this is a 2 party system it will always be more of the same shit.

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 16:24
Kinda funny but he can just say to prove the point that you can bring a gun and not kill everyone.

I have to agree with doc tho that primary motivation for even wearing a gun in the first place is to put the fear of god into our beloved government and to protect one self.


Right, but he didn't say how health care was leading us in that direction. If he doesn't explain his ideas, they'll sound like irrational fear (Obama is a Socialist!) or like fear-mongering (Obama is a Socialist! Our Rights are being taken!). That may be what he is trying to say, but he didn't really distinguish himself from the crazies, other than the fact that he wasn't yelling. Indeed, I applaud his calmness. But nonetheless, I as a viewer, have no idea why he feels the way he does.Actually for anyone one informed he will make a lot of sense even if they disagree with him. He is there because of the way the country is turning out to be. Healthcare is not the start of it. When pushed on to tell when he thinks it all went wrong he said with the creating of federal reserve.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 16:25
TBH that Hardball fatass was asking the wrong questions. It was his right to wear a gun and apparently he was also allowed so by the owners of the private property.

A more relevant question could have been: "Given the general mood at that place, wouldn't you think it might have seem threatening and blabla". Maybe from there a more indept conversation might have started about the guys motivations.
Instead the old fatass kept screaming like a hysterical bitch. He was as bad as O'Reilly and just came over as being as incompetent and unprofessional.

so you didn't actually listen to the interview, did you?

if you had, you might have noticed Matthews asking that exact question

@ Blixa - will watch your clip after work and respond, thanks for finding it

Badem
08-13-2009, 16:26
can we jsut go back to Swaords and axes instead of Guns?

be so much more fucking fun honestly

Nevron
08-13-2009, 16:43
so you didn't actually listen to the interview, did you?

if you had, you might have noticed Matthews asking that exact question

@ Blixa - will watch your clip after work and respond, thanks for finding it

He did well in explaining why he used the sign he used, and better explained why he carried in the video Blixa posted.

Badem
08-13-2009, 16:48
but why carry the sign? if you dont like your government then plant sedition and rebel, convince the plebs the government is not needed

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 16:49
can we jsut go back to Swaords and axes instead of Guns?

be so much more fucking fun honestly

w00t...sign me up

much better when you have to be in arms reach of your enemy, separates the men from the cowards who close their eyes when they squeeze the trigger

ah well, one can Wish, eh?

Badem
08-13-2009, 17:05
indeed, brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'whites of their eyes'

though accident units would be flooedd with Limb Dismemberment instead of GSW lol

Bissen
08-13-2009, 17:12
but why carry the sign? if you dont like your government then plant sedition and rebel, convince the plebs the government is not needed

You said it your fucking self :lmao:

Badem
08-13-2009, 17:27
meh I meant more in a V for Vendetta style than walking with a sign

Vessol
08-13-2009, 17:28
again...he NEVER explained the threat form the sign text...watch it again

That's because Chris Matthews inferred it as a threat.

You've never read Jefferson, have you? You don't understand the context. Doesn't surprise me, Partisan Doc Gonzo strikes again in his meager attempt at devil's advocate.

Personally I feel the man did rather well in the interview, especially considering Matthews constant attempts to make him look bad and crazy. He was calm and rational and while he could not fully develop his points(thanks to Chris Matthews constantly attacking him), I believe he articulated quite well.

StainlessSteelRat
08-13-2009, 17:58
you are just a dopey fucker , ain't you?

did you watch the entire interview or just a partial clip?

why couldn't the gun guy answer one simple question...when asked why he openly wore a gun carrying the sign with the paraphrased quote he did, directly asked what political statement he was making with the protest...the fucking coward couldn't/didn't answer

rather than openly say he was sending the message that our elected leaders should fear the citizens, he wussed out and hemmed and hawed and said nothing coherent

as for Matthews freaking out, it was the third time he asked the same, simple question and the guy dodged it...simply asked why wear a loaded gun to a presidential function with the history of our presidents...and guns...

no one argued his legal right to wear/carry it, Matthews made a point of that , "you can chew gum in church too...it's legal", etc...

be outraged the gun advocate was inarticulate and i'm with you, but you can't say the guy was not given every chance to explain himself on national Tv with no bullshit, and blew the chance

OP should just have a shotgun lollipop and stfu, imo

There's no interview of the guy in the clip he linked. But it's beside the point. Regardless of the brain capacity of the guy w/ the gun, the reaction of the MSNBC tards is still ridiculous.

They did suggest that he not have the right suggesting the injunctions be filed. Suggesting that he not be allowed to remain.

EDIT - just watched the Matthews interview, I think the guy handled Matthews very well. And his answer was basically b/c I can. It's a liberty/right we have.

EDIT2 - and both MSNBC/Matthews somehow felt that the Constitution should be suspended w/ Obama in town. Quite the contrary. And Matthews going on about our 'history' was a joke. What is it? 4 Presidents shot out of 44? And he implies that guns were never in the presence of a president except when used against them; a ludicrous, baseless claim.

Blixa
08-13-2009, 18:19
meh I meant more in a V for Vendetta style than walking with a sign

Because we haven't reached that point yet. We still have most of our rights and until that changes and live is still enjoyable to most, going around killing other people wouldn't really gain you a lot of support. My guess is 10-20 years.

Ziegler
08-13-2009, 18:28
got here to the party late.

As usual Doc...you're out of your mind.

You know exactly why he didnt say something along the following...

The american people have the rigth to bera arms because it was the intention of our found forefathers that when the government over reaches it's bound, it is the patriotic duty of the citizens to kill the government and replace it. There are many americans, including myself, that are beginning to think that time has come.


You know damn good and well why he didnt say that, he had the national spotlight shining on him, and if had said anything close to that the following would have happened.
1)MSNBC would have labeled him a right wing gun nut psychopath
2)you'd have lambasted him for the same.
3)He would have mysteriously vanished

You even admit, what he did so far will get him permanent monitoring by the NSA/FBI and SS(*chuckles at the connatation) and thanks to the Patriot Act(wasnt Obamessiah supposed to get rid of that...oh yeah,he lied and decided to keep it)..they'll be monitoring every single bit of correspondance he has with anybody. he was dead on right for not opening his mouth...because he fears his government....
His gun and his poster spoke plain and loudly, and anyone who has an inkling of this country knew exactly what his point was. CM wanted to get him to say something he could construe for the administration to have cause to take action over publically. (remember CM is the guy that gets chills running up his leg when Obama opens his mouth)

It boils down to...he felt safe among his fellow citizens in protesting but when put in front of the national spotlight by himself, then the weight of both the hostile media and the hostile government..he was very cautious in what he said, knowing full well it would be used against him to the fullest extent possible,.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 18:34
@ Ziegler - then don't go on Tv and do the interview...as usual, you haul up a straw man rather than the points at hand...it's ok...really

never once do i ...opr Matthews say he didn't have the Right to do what he did, or even how he did it...al that was asked was a direct question as to the meaning of his chosen form of Protest

i'm calling him a coward for not saying it outright when fgiven the chance, that simple...

@ Vessol - i'd be willing to bet i've read at least as much of Jefferson as you have, if not more...

hence my understanding of the sign's paraphrasing "time to water the Tree of Liberty" - how else would you interpret it besides an implied threat?

but as i said, i'll scope the other links after work...for those trying to paint me a partisan, fuck you and diaf of Limbaugh agit prop you disingenuous bastards

jonyak
08-13-2009, 18:36
sounds like a threat to me.

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 18:38
Doc it seems that you are pissed at a guy for not pushing a message you perceive he should be pushing because of the sign and the gun.

Let me suggest something else. Maybe he is very familiar with that approach and wanted to try something new. He even fell back on the position you would like him to push.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 18:45
Doc it seems that you are pissed at a guy for not pushing a message you perceive he should be pushing because of the sign and the gun.

Let me suggest something else. Maybe he is very familiar with that approach and wanted to try something new. He even fell back on the position you would like him to push.

it's not about what i would "like"..it's about being honest in political discourse

"what was your point in choosing to protest in the way you did?"

he chose the sign, and ot be openly armed, planned it by asking the church permission to be on their grounds with a fire arm

yet, when given the chance on national TV to clearly state his point, he weaseled

that's the only bit that pisses me off, NOT his choices, but that he then chose to go on the program, and wimped out when the lights were on him

if he wanted anonymity or to be esoteric or obscure, then don't go on TV for the interview...that simple, eh?

Blixa
08-13-2009, 18:50
planned it by asking the church permission to be on their grounds with a fire arm

I don't think this was the case. Did you listen to the vid I posted yet? He says in it that the police originally wanted to remove him for trespassing or sth. like that but then the police chief called and said he just talked to the priest who said it's ok and that the guy can stay. Doesn't sound like he planned that.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 19:07
I don't think this was the case. Did you listen to the vid I posted yet? He says in it that the police originally wanted to remove him for trespassing or sth. like that but then the police chief called and said he just talked to the priest who said it's ok and that the guy can stay. Doesn't sound like he planned that.

as i said, i'm at work and have not been able to watch your clip yet, i'll do so and respond as soon as i get home this evening, and thanks for putting up the link

Bissen
08-13-2009, 19:08
Because we haven't reached that point yet. We still have most of our rights and until that changes and live is still enjoyable to most, going around killing other people wouldn't really gain you a lot of support. My guess is 10-20 years.

Unless they lull the majority even further into sleep.

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 19:08
Why does that need an explanation? He is pissed the way the country is going. Which he said in the interview. He said the type of society he wants. Which also is in interview and is in line with how he protested.

He did not commit violence. He admitted he brought a show of force with him. He also pointed out that gun is a defensive tool.

jonyak
08-13-2009, 19:11
Why does that need an explanation? He is pissed the way the country is going. Which he said in the interview. He said the type of society he wants. Which also is in interview and is in line with how he protested.

He did not commit violence. He admitted he brought a show of force with him. He also pointed out that gun is a defensive tool.

all the while protesting in way which calls for offensive action against the government...

Bissen
08-13-2009, 19:17
all the while protesting in way which calls for offensive action against the government...

I consider the government to be on the offensive. How about you?

jonyak
08-13-2009, 19:19
I consider the government to be on the offensive. How about you?

I think you need to look beyond the gov't and look closer at how business and the gov't are basicaly becoming the same thing. I beleive its more that corporate interests are on the offensive.

Exultus
08-13-2009, 19:24
The guy is another Libertarian coward. He brought his firearm to do what all of the anarchist cowards talk about doing. Carrying out their revolution. He chickened out at the last moment (he got further than most of the anarchists do who as seen on this forum merely sit and cry and pretend they are going to revolt against the government).

If someone brought a firearm to a Bush meeting they would have been shot on sight. Hell just wearing a t-shirt or having a bumper sticker that one of the Republican operatives didn't like was enough to get forcefully thrown out and detained.

Bissen
08-13-2009, 19:24
I think you need to look beyond the gov't and look closer at how business and the gov't are basicaly becoming the same thing. I beleive its more that corporate interests are on the offensive.

Either fucking way. Our rights (in general) are there for a very good reason.

But when the legislative demigods of said nation try to take them away, on a seemingly nonstop rodeo powertrip, I'd say it's down the line to take action.

jonyak
08-13-2009, 19:27
Either fucking way. Our rights (in general) are there for a very good reason.

But when the legislative demigods of said nation try to take them away, on a seemingly nonstop rodeo powertrip, I'd say it's down the line to take action.

sure... but I think you are directing your anger and aggression at the wrong enemy... You need to change how your country deals with money. rigth now your country is ruled by the rich, for the rich. what always gets me is that you guys fight to let that happen, and then when they take over your gov't you figth that to.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 19:31
Either fucking way. Our rights (in general) are there for a very good reason.

But when the legislative demigods of said nation try to take them away, on a seemingly nonstop rodeo powertrip, I'd say it's down the line to take action.

so, where was the outrage and protest on or before Jan 19th?

thought so...

and what Rights are being taken away at the moment...exactly which ones and how please?

don't get me wrong here, i will readily agree that shit is fucked up, but do notice that all the "outrage" and protests and such from a certain portion of the population did not occur until AFTER Jan 20th

something rotten in Denmark, mayhaps?

Bissen
08-13-2009, 19:41
sure... but I think you are directing your anger and aggression at the wrong enemy... You need to change how your country deals with money. rigth now your country is ruled by the rich, for the rich. what always gets me is that you guys fight to let that happen, and then when they take over your gov't you figth that to.

First. I ain't american.

Second. Your country deals with money exactly the same way the US deals with it. There's a reason the financial crisis is global. As so with our liberties and rights being taken away.

Blixa
08-13-2009, 19:42
and what Rights are being taken away at the moment...exactly which ones and how please?

The right to bear arms obviously and that is accomplished by making the public through media like MSNBC think that everyone who has a weapon will most likely want to kill the president and that they have to "get rid of him RIGHT NOW" (quote from the interview by that bitch). And when you lose any form to stand up to the government (weapons) or to ever start a revolution, it won't be long before they take away the other rights because noone will then have the means to stop them.

jonyak
08-13-2009, 19:43
First. I ain't american.

Second. Your country deals with money exactly the same way the US deals with it. There's a reason the financial crisis is global. As so with our liberties and rights being taken away.

well you sure talk like one... and yes I know my country is fucked as well, although not near as bad.

so exactly what country are you from.. and what liberties do you have that are being taken away??

Ziegler
08-13-2009, 19:55
@ Ziegler - then don't go on Tv and do the interview...as usual, you haul up a straw man rather than the points at hand...it's ok...really

never once do i ...opr Matthews say he didn't have the Right to do what he did, or even how he did it...al that was asked was a direct question as to the meaning of his chosen form of Protest

i'm calling him a coward for not saying it outright when fgiven the chance, that simple...



And yet agin you refuse to see the answer. Yeah he was afraid of being railroaded. Call him coward, it's for the most part correct, patrick henry or nathan hale he isnt. I cant believe he agreed to the interview either. *shrugs* But I certainly understand why he didnt answer those questions, he should run for office, all that is left is bold face lying, he seems to have the sidestep part down pretty good.
BTW...you wont see me at any townhall meetings. Mostly because I do believe that any flagrantly outspoken people against Obama will be marked and monitored...and besides, my democrat congressman is too much of a pussy to hold one.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 19:58
The right to bear arms obviously and that is accomplished by making the public through media like MSNBC think that everyone who has a weapon will most likely want to kill the president and that they have to "get rid of him RIGHT NOW" (quote from the interview by that bitch). And when you lose any form to stand up to the government (weapons) or to ever start a revolution, it won't be long before they take away the other rights because noone will then have the means to stop them.

do please link your proof that the Right to bear arms is being taken away...what legislation is that in?

you do know that Barry said it was settled when SCOTUS declared it an Individual Right in last year's session ( the DC case), yes?

i am reading a lot of disquiet, but have yet to see what the fuck you are talking about here

oh yes and to both you and Ziegler..if the guy didn't want to do the interview, all he had to do was not sign a release...instead he signs it and goes into a studio to do it...i'm still calling bullshit here

Bissen
08-13-2009, 20:04
so, where was the outrage and protest on or before Jan 19th?

thought so...

and what Rights are being taken away at the moment...exactly which ones and how please?

don't get me wrong here, i will readily agree that shit is fucked up, but do notice that all the "outrage" and protests and such from a certain portion of the population did not occur until AFTER Jan 20th

something rotten in Denmark, mayhaps?

Me being a Dane, I'd have to say yes. Somethings very rotten in the state of Denmark.

What I meant about rights was that first you have the right not to pay income tax since the 16th amendment was never ratified. But today your into the this sick spending commie spree where peoples right to choose is also getting taken. I can understand why Americans protest this. Then again. You "elected" your own shit...

And it's spreading to the rest of the world. When america farts, the world stinks.

I agree though. Where were they before jan 20th. atleast they are getting air time as of now ;)

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 20:08
Me being a Dane, I'd have to say yes. Somethings very rotten in the state of Denmark.

What I meant about rights was that first you have the right not to pay income tax since the 16th amendment was never ratified. But today your into the this sick spending commie spree where peoples right to choose is also getting taken. I can understand why Americans protest this. Then again. "You" elected your own shit...

And it's spreading to the rest of the world. When america farts, the world stinks.

I agree though. Where were they before jan 20th. atleast they are getting air time as of now ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States _Constitution

ex-squeeze meh?

look for yourself at the states which ratified it, this is in compliance with the Constitutional requirements for an Amendment...thus legal as anything

where the fuck do people come up with this kind of bullshit?

Blixa
08-13-2009, 20:12
I'm not saying it's taken away already in the U.S. (it is in most of europe, including my country), but it's on the way. The US government just doesn't have the public as far as to be able to change the second amendment, but when Mr. President's personal telestation (yes, I know it's not actually his before you come me with that) portraits people who exercise that exact right without harming anyone as potential murderers, it's only a question of time.

Ziegler
08-13-2009, 20:24
[url]where the fuck do people come up with this kind of bullshit?

do some googling...
income tax illegal
or
never pay income tax again

There's some wackjob out on the net that claims if you file certain documents, you wont have to pay income tax because it is a "voluntary" tax...last I heard, he's in prison for tax evasion. :lmao:

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 20:32
I'm not saying it's taken away already in the U.S. (it is in most of europe, including my country), but it's on the way. The US government just doesn't have the public as far as to be able to change the second amendment, but when Mr. President's personal telestation (yes, I know it's not actually his before you come me with that) portraits people who exercise that exact right without harming anyone as potential murderers, it's only a question of time.

again, i call bullshit

now, it's wonderful that someone form Germany takes the time to educate themselves about U.S., however...that being said...get your facts correct if you want to get into the deep waters on the topic

watch the Matthews interview on msnbc, i think this is what you are talking about?

Matthews himself is an NRA member, as are the folks in his family, he states clearly that he understands the carry laws and that it was perfectly legal for the guy to do what he did...same as i said

that's NOT the point...the only point here is the individual choosing to do a televised interview and then pussying out on stating his case when asked directly...simple as that

as for your strawman attempt as even suggesting anyone is losing their gun rights...more bullshit, if you think differently...do please explain your position and show your proof

@ Ziegler - lol, just as i thought eh? but thanks for the info...fuck if i can understand how so many well meaning folks can believe such provably wrong bullshit sometimes...

EDIT: oh yeah, the gun guy did mistake Matthews question about the income tax, and started with the whole voluntary thing as well, until Matthews corrected him with the actual history of the 16th amendment and Woodrow Wilson...facts tend to fuck some people up, eh?

@ Bissen - no worries, and i'm glad you see my point about Jan 20th - my concern is that a lot of it is just partisan, another concern is for the small number for whom it's something else

Bissen
08-13-2009, 20:38
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States _Constitution

ex-squeeze meh?

look for yourself at the states which ratified it, this is in compliance with the Constitutional requirements for an Amendment...thus legal as anything

where the fuck do people come up with this kind of bullshit?


Bububut Ron Paul said so :lmao:

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 20:41
Bububut Ron Paul said so :lmao:

hey now, you Danes are good for a few things, pretty women and pastries!

send both naow!

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 21:04
EDIT: oh yeah, the gun guy did mistake Matthews question about the income tax, and started with the whole voluntary thing as well, until Matthews corrected him with the actual history of the 16th amendment and Woodrow Wilson...facts tend to fuck some people up, eh?

He wanted to expand on it and Mathews interrupted him.

Blixa
08-13-2009, 21:06
again, i call bullshit

now, it's wonderful that someone form Germany takes the time to educate themselves about U.S., however...that being said...get your facts correct if you want to get into the deep waters on the topic

watch the Matthews interview on msnbc, i think this is what you are talking about?

Matthews himself is an NRA member, as are the folks in his family, he states clearly that he understands the carry laws and that it was perfectly legal for the guy to do what he did...same as i said

No, I'm not talking about the interview, I'm talking about the video linked in the OP where that bitch says "Why can't we get rid of him RIGHT NOW?". If you're so set on the interview, take the part where he implies that the only plausible reason people would bring a gun to the rally is to murder the president. And that's exactly the point, it's being portrait as evil and legal at the same time trying to switch the public opinion into making the "evil" guns illegal.


that's NOT the point...the only point here is the individual choosing to do a televised interview and then pussying out on stating his case when asked directly...simple as that

No, who cares about some random guy and if he "pussied out" or not? This has nothing to do with the topic; MSNBC flipping out about some guy exercising the second amendment and trying to portait it as scandal.


as for your strawman attempt as even suggesting anyone is losing their gun rights...more bullshit, if you think differently...do please explain your position and show your proof

There is no obvious proof as there has not been an open attempt yet. In other countries, people have lost their gun rights already and the US media like MSNBC for example is playing exactly the same as the UK media did before they lost their rights... and now look at the UK, installing cameras in their citizens' houses - the reason this has not already happened in the USA is because the founding fathers did an awesome job and the right to carry a gun is portrait as one of the most important rights.


@ Ziegler - lol, just as i thought eh? but thanks for the info...fuck if i can understand how so many well meaning folks can believe such provably wrong bullshit sometimes...

How about you start bringing some arguments instead of throwing insults out all the time.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 21:16
oh my stars and garters...didn't i say i only saw the Matthews bit and i woudl watch the rest after work?

why, yes i did...twice so far...learn2read perhaps?

hell, i even thanked you for your link



No, I'm not talking about the interview, I'm talking about the video linked in the OP where that bitch says "Why can't we get rid of him RIGHT NOW?". If you're so set on the interview, take the part where he implies that the only plausible reason people would bring a gun to the rally is to murder the president. And that's exactly the point, it's being portrait as evil and legal at the same time trying to switch the public opinion into making the "evil" guns illegal.

thanks for stating that you are talking about something different than myself and others are...as i said, i'll catch the two clips and address them in a little while

as for the Matthews interview...what implication are you talking about? he asked the guy his motivation and political statement he was making with the gun and sign at a POTUS even in lieu of the history our country has under those circumstances...and got no clear answer




No, who cares about some random guy and if he "pussied out" or not? This has nothing to do with the topic; MSNBC flipping out about some guy exercising the second amendment and trying to portait it as scandal.

i think you are mistaken here on a number of fronts...watch the Matthews interview again, note where he righteously acknowledges the protesters Right to have his gun...wtf is this outrage, and who gives a shit if a media outlet expresses an editorial opinion anyway?

read yoru first amendment again...you know, the part about the Press? the guy has his rights, the network has theirs as well...get back to me if anyone form the Fed says something like that and i'll bring my guns as well...until then, less qq pl0x...




There is no obvious proof as there has not been an open attempt yet. In other countries, people have lost their gun rights already and the US media like MSNBC for example is playing exactly the same as the UK media did before they lost their rights... and now look at the UK, installing cameras in their citizens' houses - the reason this has not already happened in the USA is because the founding fathers did an awesome job and the right to carry a gun is portrait as one of the most important rights.

strawman again..until and unless you have some evidence (not even proof, just some verifiable evidence will do), quit your whining, imo




How about you start bringing some arguments instead of throwing insults out all the time.

so you really can't read english that well, can you?

otherwise you might have noticed me making the same points to you multiple times in this thread already...even going so far as repeating myself when you miss simple points...i'm really trying to be nice here but you are either willfully ignorant or being deliberately obtuse

either way, your worship is duly noted...

EDIT: for spelling

Fro
08-13-2009, 21:19
God dammit, guns wont protect you from corruption or a police state.

Also revolutions generaly only happen once the shit has realy hit the fan.

doomahx
08-13-2009, 21:22
There is no obvious proof as there has not been an open attempt yet. In other countries, people have lost their gun rights already and the US media like MSNBC for example is playing exactly the same as the UK media did before they lost their rights... and now look at the UK, installing cameras in their citizens' houses - the reason this has not already happened in the USA is because the founding fathers did an awesome job and the right to carry a gun is portrait as one of the most important rights.



Don't worry, the public will be told that it is to protect us against terrorists and no one will have a problem with it.

*EDIT*

Correction.


The public will be told that terrorists are trying to take away our freedom.. then no one will have a problem giving up their freedom.

Ausei
08-13-2009, 21:31
If guns are made illeagal the only people who would have them are the people who do illeagal acts..... You are just taking away from responsible people when you add more permits and more money to have a gun. A drug dealer is not going to give his gun up when they go illeagal...

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 21:34
If guns are made illeagal the only people who would have them are the people who do illeagal acts..... You are just taking away from responsible people when you add more permits and more money to have a gun. A drug dealer is not going to give his gun up when they go illeagal...

and who is trying to make firearms illegal?

once again, a strawman used to fire up well meaning folks , but with no basis in actual reality

this person does however make the case against any kind of prohibition that runs counter to popular interests of the constituency

Ausei
08-13-2009, 21:36
and who is trying to make firearms illegal?

once again, a strawman used to fire up well meaning folks , but with no basis in actual reality

this person does however make the case against any kind of prohibition that runs counter to popular interests of the constituency

Did you make any point or are you just flaunting your vocabulary?

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 21:36
Did you make any point or are you just flaunting your vocabulary?

i made at least two points...if you try really hard and sound out the words you may find them

Hubbell
08-13-2009, 21:37
oh my stars and garters...didn't i say i only saw the Matthews bit and i woudl watch the rest after work?

why, yes i did...twice so far...learn2read perhaps?

hell, i even thanked you for your link




thanks for stating that you are talking about something different than myself and others are...as i said, i'll catch the two clips and address them in a little while


You are the ONLY ONE talking about the matthews interview. You're a fucking troll and a jackass for constantly posting in a thread where you admittedly haven't watched either of the 2 videos which are still being discussed.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 21:41
You are the ONLY ONE talking about the matthews interview. You're a fucking troll and a jackass for constantly posting in a thread where you admittedly haven't watched either of the 2 videos which are still being discussed.

would you kindly remove your tongue from my ass before you speak...it's difficult to understand your lisping until you do

thanks

PirateGlen
08-13-2009, 21:43
Some very interesting ironies regarding Jefferson's letter and the current affairs of date.

In the same letter you find the tree of liberty quote you'll find:

"Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive."

What a great analysis of today's healthcare debate.

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 21:56
I agree Glen big pharma supporters and insurance company supporters are walking around making retarded claims. What kind of morons would think that healthcare is a right or that the current system is working.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 21:58
I agree Glen big pharma supporters and insurance company supporters are walking around making retarded claims. What kind of morons would think that healthcare is a right or that the current system is working.

did you see any of the town halls?

it explains a lot, imo

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 22:03
did you see any of the town halls?

it explains a lot, imo

No is there anything interesting? I spent a good couple of hours convincing dems on facebook that they are being led around by he nose.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 22:06
No is there anything interesting? I spent a good couple of hours convincing dems on facebook that they are being led around by he nose.

well, watch some, and then you can try to convince Republicans that they are being led around even worse

Silverhandorder
08-13-2009, 22:22
well, watch some, and then you can try to convince Republicans that they are being led around even worse
Both sides are wrong I agree.

Blixa
08-13-2009, 22:37
oh my stars and garters...didn't i say i only saw the Matthews bit and i woudl watch the rest after work?

why, yes i did...twice so far...learn2read perhaps?

That's great for you, but if you haven't even watched the video in the OP, why are you attacking my points on that video? Sorry that this thread is not dedicated to exactly what you watched and what not.


hell, i even thanked you for your link

I'm not talking about my link, I'm talking about the link in the OP... really so hard to understand?


thanks for stating that you are talking about something different than myself and others are...as i said, i'll catch the two clips and address them in a little while

As people above me already said; you're wrong on this one, you're the only one limiting the discussion on that one video, everyone else including the OP is mostly talking about vid #1 from the OP.


as for the Matthews interview...what implication are you talking about? he asked the guy his motivation and political statement he was making with the gun and sign at a POTUS even in lieu of the history our country has under those circumstances...and got no clear answer

He was basically asking the guy if he intended to kill Obama, that's way brash and biased for an interviewer.




i think you are mistaken here on a number of fronts...watch the Matthews interview again, note where he righteously acknowledges the protesters Right to have his gun...wtf is this outrage, and who gives a shit if a media outlet expresses an editorial opinion anyway?

Again, IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT FUCKING INTERVIEW. It's about that bitch saying "why can't we get rid of that guy RIGHT NOW" and the others agreeing with her and saying that "sadly" the law says that the guy can not be "gotten rid off".


read yoru first amendment again...you know, the part about the Press? the guy has his rights, the network has theirs as well...get back to me if anyone form the Fed says something like that and i'll bring my guns as well...until then, less qq pl0x...

Lol, I was never attacking MSNBC from a legal standpoint and I'm not proposing to get rid of freedom of press, but the freedom of speech (correct me if I'm wrong), allows me to criticize other people/organisations/the government/whatever. Do you have a problem with that?



strawman again..until and unless you have some evidence (not even proof, just some verifiable evidence will do), quit your whining, imo

"not even proof, just some verifiable evidence"... lol, ignoring the fact that those two are basically the same, I've given you reason why there isn't any. The public is still in the phase of being manipulated by the gov, it's just taking longer than in other countries (most western countries already forbid guns) because of the clear stance the constitution takes.




so you really can't read english that well, can you?

otherwise you might have noticed me making the same points to you multiple times in this thread already...even going so far as repeating myself when you miss simple points...i'm really trying to be nice here but you are either willfully ignorant or being deliberately obtuse

There you go with the insults again; I was talking about your reply to ziegler where you did nothing but insult his opinion without bringing any argument at all.

DocGonzo
08-13-2009, 22:55
@ Blixa

ok..am home now, and will watch the OP link, and then yours

i could go through your last line by line..but why fucking bother, obviously you appear to have missed some salient points, but let me demonstrate with ONE particular bit...


"not even proof, just some verifiable evidence"... lol, ignoring the fact that those two are basically the same, I've given you reason why there isn't any.

no..evidence is NOT proof

you use evidence towards proving an hypothesis, evidence is data towards a proof...thus the terms are related, but not identical

nitpicky.,..yep, but in the realm of discourse, clearly defining your terms accurately aids in diminishing instances of misunderstanding and allows more efficient communications

and lastly...you are Zeiglar's mommy now?

he's a big boy, and we have done the dance many times, you are coming into a conversation that has been ongoing for some years, might one politely suggest you stfu on things you know nothing about and stick to your own knitting?

bitch... ;)

StainlessSteelRat
08-13-2009, 23:03
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States _Constitution

ex-squeeze meh?

look for yourself at the states which ratified it, this is in compliance with the Constitutional requirements for an Amendment...thus legal as anything

where the fuck do people come up with this kind of bullshit?

I think some of the issue revolves around how some of the states 'ratified' it. Be that as it may, the 16th still only states that income taxes of any kind are deemed 'indirect'. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1)Which requires that they "be uniform throughout the United States" and our tax code is anything but uniform.

btw, re: issues on ratification: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp

To demonstrate the merits of this argument, an examination of the evidence uncovered by Bill is essential. The federal government claims that the State of Kentucky was the second state to ratify the amendment, such action taking place on February 8, 1910. But, the records of the State of Kentucky reveal a far different picture. These records show that the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and then sent that resolution to the Senate in early February, 1910. On February 8, 1910, the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. The Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment, but federal officials, being in possession of documents showing this rejection, fraudulently claimed otherwise.

I'm not saying this guy is right or wrong, I'd want to see the source documents for myself.

More stuff.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/22063.html

Blixa
08-13-2009, 23:15
@ Blixa

ok..am home now, and will watch the OP link, and then yours

i could go through your last line by line..but why fucking bother, obviously you appear to have missed some salient points, but let me demonstrate with ONE particular bit...

It's you who doesn't even get the meaning of this thread which has little to do with some guy being a coward but more with MSNBC attacking the second amendment. It's pathetic to say that I'm missing your points, really.


no..evidence is NOT proof

you use evidence towards proving an hypothesis, evidence is data towards a proof...thus the terms are related, but not identical

If you go by this, you simply are wrong as I've provided lots of evidence then; the most president-friendly media trying to push against individual gun-ownership and attacking a law-abiding citizen who supports gun ownership, talking about "getting rid of him" (if you haven't watched the vid, don't doubt that they said that because they did) and you can take the UK as reference. I've also given a logical as to why this hasn't happened yet and why you can't find the government openly opposing gun ownership: Because the media haven't gotten the public far enough yet to make gun control popular enough to not lose votes.


nitpicky.,..yep, but in the realm of discourse, clearly defining your terms accurately aids in diminishing instances of misunderstanding and allows more efficient communications

nitpicky indeed and it's kinda symbolic that you're using a sentence which has this little to do with my argumentation/point; I'm beginning to think I should feel flattered.


and lastly...you are Zeiglar's mommy now?

he's a big boy, and we have done the dance many times, you are coming into a conversation that has been ongoing for some years, might one politely suggest you stfu on things you know nothing about and stick to your own knitting?

No, you might not. The one who was coming into a conversation here is you trying to make the thread about some interview and the motives of one random guy and trying to derail from its original topic, msnbc freaking out about the 2nd amendment. It's idiotic to try to deny that when you haven't even watched the vid; I'm not attacking you for not having watched it, but if you attack my points I made on some video that you haven't even watched, I can't help but lol at your stupidity.


bitch... ;)

I'll gladly return that, fag :)

Apex Vertigo
08-13-2009, 23:26
Why does he think that an entire crowd of protestors armed and loaded would make the crowd safer?

Silverhandorder
08-14-2009, 00:13
Why does he think that an entire crowd of protestors armed and loaded would make the crowd safer?

Because no one would be stupid enough to draw a firearm. And if there is such individual he can be easily neutralized.

You can claim if there are no guns in the first place then no individual can draw a gun. However that is a stupid argument, if individual in question is already dumb enough to draw a gun nothing is stopping him from disregarding the law and doing. A crowd where everyone one has a gun is better equipped to neutralize such individual than a small contingent of cops spread around a large area.

Apex Vertigo
08-14-2009, 00:30
Because no one would be stupid enough to draw a firearm. And if there is such individual he can be easily neutralized.

You can claim if there are no guns in the first place then no individual can draw a gun. However that is a stupid argument, if individual in question is already dumb enough to draw a gun nothing is stopping him from disregarding the law and doing. A crowd where everyone one has a gun is better equipped to neutralize such individual than a small contingent of cops spread around a large area.

But with people being as stupid as they are I can only see a lot of accidental friendly fire. If it became common practice to openly carry a weapon to the point where everyone did it it would be much more likely for someone to lose it one day and decide to unholster.

Silverhandorder
08-14-2009, 00:35
But with people being as stupid as they are I can only see a lot of accidental friendly fire. If it became common practice to openly carry a weapon to the point where everyone did it it would be much more likely for someone to lose it one day and decide to unholster.

There are trade offs. However it is painfully obvious after numerous studies on this subject that not everyone carries. The people that carry tend to take it seriously and have lots of practice with their guns. Rate of crime among gun owners is significantly lower then non gun owners.

I understand where your fears come from. However I have yet to find any compelling evidence.

Even if we consider that all people that lose it will also have guns they are more likely to be neutralized by having a gun owner nearby.

PirateGlen
08-14-2009, 00:36
I think some of the issue revolves around how some of the states 'ratified' it. Be that as it may, the 16th still only states that income taxes of any kind are deemed 'indirect'. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1)Which requires that they "be uniform throughout the United States" and our tax code is anything but uniform.


This is because you have a different interpretation of uniformity. Arguably the 16th amendment would have specified geographic uniformity if there was a dispute over the intended meaning. However because the judiciary interprets uniformity as geographic, there's no need to include that in the amendment.

If the people were opposed to this interpretation there's two methods to go about it, constitutional amendment, or court packing.

PirateGlen
08-14-2009, 00:39
I agree Glen big pharma supporters and insurance company supporters are walking around making retarded claims. What kind of morons would think that healthcare is a right or that the current system is working.

Most of the misinformation heard from the media and town hall shouters comes from here:

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=19319

A list of lies. Admittedly some people oppose the legislation for REAL reasons, but most have just been tricked. Most of the outrage you'll find is from political agents or suckers who believe this stuff.

Silverhandorder
08-14-2009, 00:51
Most of the misinformation heard from the media and town hall shouters comes from here:

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=19319

A list of lies. Admittedly some people oppose the legislation for REAL reasons, but most have just been tricked. Most of the outrage you'll find is from political agents or suckers who believe this stuff.

I could care less for that list. I won't make a claim either way since I did not read the document.

My problem comes from the fact that they will be subsiding those that can not pay and adding more coercive forces to the industry. Things like telling insurances what they can and can not cover. We already have this as state mandates. This young lady looked up what her plan covers and it has shit like artificial pregnancy for old women, and diseases that old people get. So she is effectively paying for shit she will not use for a long time. This exists now, I can't imagine how much worse it's going to get when government is making the rules.

I would be willing to compromise. If government thinks they can compete with the private sector why not make a government ran healthcare company that runs on user fees. They can give free coverage to those that they think deserve it and cover preconditions. If they find it that it is too expensive then instead of taking the money from taxpayers they can simply ration the amount of care they provide. This way people that feel morally obligated to help can use this service and those that want nothing to do from it will continue to use private insurances.

However as I said we also need to do insurance reform.

HiroProtagonist
08-14-2009, 01:02
The implicit threat of force is often more effective than an explicit threat of force, particularly when the momentum is against wanna be's like the current alliance between the Obamanites and the main stream media.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 01:57
Some very interesting ironies regarding Jefferson's letter and the current affairs of date.

In the same letter you find the tree of liberty quote you'll find:

"Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive."

What a great analysis of today's healthcare debate.

Only if you paint both the proponents and the town hall protesters w/ that same brush.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 02:03
This is because you have a different interpretation of uniformity. Arguably the 16th amendment would have specified geographic uniformity if there was a dispute over the intended meaning. However because the judiciary interprets uniformity as geographic, there's no need to include that in the amendment.

If the people were opposed to this interpretation there's two methods to go about it, constitutional amendment, or court packing.

There is no need to interpret uniformity. To do so only perverts the meaning to suit an end.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 02:09
Most of the misinformation heard from the media and town hall shouters comes from here:

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=19319

A list of lies. Admittedly some people oppose the legislation for REAL reasons, but most have just been tricked. Most of the outrage you'll find is from political agents or suckers who believe this stuff.

How is it lies?

Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens.

First one I picked to check:

"all health care and related services covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
high quality health care or related services"

"promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that
all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

How do illegals and non-citizens not fall into that category? The only determining factor about who receives care is based on whether giving the care would result in high quality health care. That means anyone.

So, not all lies. How about you find me one lie for my one truth?


WTB multi-quote lessons. :P

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 02:43
The guy had different reasons for protesting, and having a gun on him. This is something Mathews clearly either didn't understand, or he was deliberately trying to characterize wrong about the man. He kept assuming/projecting that the guy had the gun on him for the same reason he was protesting. This isn't the case. He wore the gun because he 1. Had the right to, and 2. Simply wore it for It's benefits. The gun had nothing to do with his protest, or the context of the event. You anti-gun/non owners forget that people wear guns in this country all the time on a regular basis. For this guy it was no different than wearing a baseball cap. Mathews was reading way too much into it.

Jonte912
08-14-2009, 02:58
The guy had different reasons for protesting, and having a gun on him. This is something Mathews clearly either didn't understand, or he was deliberately trying to characterize wrong about the man. He kept assuming/projecting that the guy had the gun on him for the same reason he was protesting. This isn't the case. He wore the gun because he 1. Had the right to, and 2. Simply wore it for It's benefits. The gun had nothing to do with his protest, or the context of the event. You anti-gun/non owners forget that people wear guns in this country all the time on a regular basis. For this guy it was no different than wearing a baseball cap. Mathews was reading way too much into it.

no wonder you got your school massacers

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 03:13
no wonder you got your school massacers (Euro retard can't spell massacre right, lol)

No wonder you got skyrocketing violent crime rates, that make those extremely rare school shootings look insignificant. No wonder you're helpless to defend yourself from violent criminals. No wonder 800000 people a year in Europe aren't saved by guns used in self defense. No wonder violent Muslims, who will use guns/weapons illegally, are overrunning your hapless country. No wonder you will wish you had a gun soon enough.

PirateGlen
08-14-2009, 03:15
How is it lies?

Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens.

First one I picked to check:

"all health care and related services covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
high quality health care or related services"

"promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that
all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

How do illegals and non-citizens not fall into that category? The only determining factor about who receives care is based on whether giving the care would result in high quality health care. That means anyone.

So, not all lies. How about you find me one lie for my one truth?


WTB multi-quote lessons. :P

You're right, some of it is accurate even if worded as alarmist. They could've just as easily stated: "EVERYONE GETS HEALTHCARE!"

As for the lie, the easiest one to come up with without even looking is the deathpanels.

PirateGlen
08-14-2009, 03:20
I could care less for that list. I won't make a claim either way since I did not read the document.

My problem comes from the fact that they will be subsiding those that can not pay and adding more coercive forces to the industry. Things like telling insurances what they can and can not cover. We already have this as state mandates. This young lady looked up what her plan covers and it has shit like artificial pregnancy for old women, and diseases that old people get. So she is effectively paying for shit she will not use for a long time. This exists now, I can't imagine how much worse it's going to get when government is making the rules.

I would be willing to compromise. If government thinks they can compete with the private sector why not make a government ran healthcare company that runs on user fees. They can give free coverage to those that they think deserve it and cover preconditions. If they find it that it is too expensive then instead of taking the money from taxpayers they can simply ration the amount of care they provide. This way people that feel morally obligated to help can use this service and those that want nothing to do from it will continue to use private insurances.

However as I said we also need to do insurance reform.

And your perspective is a very minute portion of the dissent. It nice that you don't care about the list. Unfortunately, that's what's getting the attention because most of the people opposing the bill are too dogmatic to have real reasons to oppose it.

Ziegler
08-14-2009, 03:43
The guy had different reasons for protesting, and having a gun on him. This is something Mathews clearly either didn't understand, or he was deliberately trying to characterize wrong about the man. He kept assuming/projecting that the guy had the gun on him for the same reason he was protesting. This isn't the case. He wore the gun because he 1. Had the right to, and 2. Simply wore it for It's benefits. The gun had nothing to do with his protest, or the context of the event. You anti-gun/non owners forget that people wear guns in this country all the time on a regular basis. For this guy it was no different than wearing a baseball cap. Mathews was reading way too much into it.


Bullshit. He knew he was wearing a gun and he knew the qoute, not to mention the precursor flag Dont Tread on Me in the sign as well. It carried a distinctive part of the total message he was sending. I totally and completely agree with his message.
Washington needs to be killed. I prefer Obama is left alone though, he'll change.

You're right, some of it is accurate even if worded as alarmist. They could've just as easily stated: "EVERYONE GETS HEALTHCARE!"

As for the lie, the easiest one to come up with without even looking is the deathpanels.
That is exactly the fucking problem...ILLEGALS DONT DESERVE IT!!..cash up front fucker or you can bleed to death on sidewalk. Dont like...get the fuck out of MY country.

What about this one.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

Page 16

yeah...if you like your doctor you can keep him...if you like your health insurance you can keep it..(the part he didnt say aloud...so long as it never changes, you never leave your current job, or the prices never change.)

Or how about this one?

To pay for this health care plan, Obama is going to cut 500 Billion from medicare.
Are you actually going to buy the bovine scatology that this wont equate to lesser treatments or higher co-pays for the seniors?



This bill is chock full of fail. It is pure and simple a plan to put health care under the governments purvue.
Why is it that every fucking solution that Obama has, involves a government intervention and take over?

ANd really Doc...he's a card carrying member of the NRA...whoop dee fucking doo...I am on Obama's supporter email list too....and I am not a member of the NRA. It might as well be a gun owner database. You going to say I am an Obama supporter because I belong to some group or not pro-gun!?
I dont watch the CM, he may be pro-gun, but he was trying to trap that guy and get him to say something that would likely get him held for 48 hours at least. You can bet everything from the face his daddy made when he came in the guys mother to when his kid had his first wet dream has been raked over by now.


And dont worry about Doc insulting me...it's his way of saying he wants to have buttsecks with me. :lmao:

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 04:43
You're right, some of it is accurate even if worded as alarmist. They could've just as easily stated: "EVERYONE GETS HEALTHCARE!"

As for the lie, the easiest one to come up with without even looking is the deathpanels.

The phrase 'death panels' (or deathpanels) does not exist on that site.

Are you refering to:

Sec. 1233, Pg. 425-426, Lines 22-25, 1-3 - Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

or

Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think Senior Citizens and end of life. END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING. SOME IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED RATIONING HEALTH CARE FOR THE ELDERLY.

or

Sec. 1233, Pg. 427, Lines 15-24 - Government mandates program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life). The government has a say in how your life ends.

And do you have evidence that the above 3 items are, in fact, lies?

You do have to meet w/ a gov't employee to discuss "life-sustaining treatment". The orders signed by a legitimate health care professional as determined by 'the Secretary' will be legally binding; the family has no recourse.

Who do the Nigerian frauds (or any other) prey on the most? Why?

Now, insert gov't flunky advising those same seniors on what steps to take regarding their end-of-life care and life continuing treatment (which is mandated) and voila, you have gov't making decisions for the elderly and once the orders are processed it's a done deal. Family is non the wiser.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 06:15
Bullshit. He knew he was wearing a gun and he knew the qoute, not to mention the precursor flag Dont Tread on Me in the sign as well.

:rolleyes: You're just assuming like Mathews did. Believe it or not, you can carry a gun without it being a political message. He never stated that the gun was part of his sign message. Stop reading into nothing.

Sqarak
08-14-2009, 08:31
so you didn't actually listen to the interview, did you?

if you had, you might have noticed Matthews asking that exact question

@ Blixa - will watch your clip after work and respond, thanks for finding it

He was yelling, the whole point of such tactic is to intimidate the interviewee. Could be he asked it, but I was focussing more on his screaming.
If you want a proper interview, especially from an individual that isn't as verbally strong as someone who received media-training, one should ask their questions in a calm and composed manner. No one is preventing him from asking the hard questions etc, but bullying a interviewee reeks of placating your individual opinion and sensationalism.

Sqarak
08-14-2009, 08:54
No wonder you got skyrocketing violent crime rates, that make those extremely rare school shootings look insignificant. No wonder you're helpless to defend yourself from violent criminals. No wonder 800000 people a year in Europe aren't saved by guns used in self defense. No wonder violent Muslims, who will use guns/weapons illegally, are overrunning your hapless country. No wonder you will wish you had a gun soon enough.

Erm Gloom, "800000 people a year" from where (region within Europe) exactly and "not saved" from what?

Also a few points:

1. If you are referring to violent criminals in Europe owning a gun will do little unless you train your family as a spec ops unit. Most homejackings are done in team, by armed men. They usually carry semi or full-automatic guns. They also tend to kidnap family members prior to committing the home jacking. They also split up in groups, one at the house and one with the kidnapped family member.

Currently homejacking is the most violent form of criminal behaviour in Western Europe. Luckily it is still rare enough to be shocking enough to get proper media coverage.

We also have murder and rape, but unless it gang or theft related it often involves situations where a victim didn't even expect to have to use a gun, such a rape by a family member.


2. The spread of Islam can not be stopped by owning a gun. Our birthrates are going down, most immigrants have still a higher rate. We are heading to extinction event anyway as Christian fundies seem to be rising up in the US as well and they loooooooveeeeeeee their guns and got and itch to use them on anything that is not white or Christian.

3. What sky-rocketing violent crime rates?

Teth
08-14-2009, 09:48
MSNBC is the leftist version of Fox. Both are fucking terrible and if you watch either them - or take anything said on them seriously - you should feel bad. American news in general is venal bullshit, but their shamlessly biased stuff just takes it to whole new realms of terrible.

At least the horribly biased shit in totalitarian nations is hilarious in how hard it tries.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 12:38
Erm Gloom, "800000 people a year" from where (region within Europe) exactly and "not saved" from what?

Also a few points:

1. If you are referring to violent criminals in Europe owning a gun will do little unless you train your family as a spec ops unit. Most homejackings are done in team, by armed men. They usually carry semi or full-automatic guns. They also tend to kidnap family members prior to committing the home jacking. They also split up in groups, one at the house and one with the kidnapped family member.

Currently homejacking is the most violent form of criminal behaviour in Western Europe. Luckily it is still rare enough to be shocking enough to get proper media coverage.

We also have murder and rape, but unless it gang or theft related it often involves situations where a victim didn't even expect to have to use a gun, such a rape by a family member.


2. The spread of Islam can not be stopped by owning a gun. Our birthrates are going down, most immigrants have still a higher rate. We are heading to extinction event anyway as Christian fundies seem to be rising up in the US as well and they loooooooveeeeeeee their guns and got and itch to use them on anything that is not white or Christian.

3. What sky-rocketing violent crime rates?


I wouldn't even listen to him, he somehow thinks that europe is a cesspool of crime and murder, yet he doesn't realise that the US is one.

Oo_
08-14-2009, 13:24
MSNBC is the leftist version of Fox. Both are fucking terrible and if you watch either them - or take anything said on them seriously - you should feel bad.

I just watch the clips people link and hope that the delicate mind control signals weaved into the transmission are destroyed when this stuff is compressed to youtube quality. :ohno:

88Chaz88
08-14-2009, 13:31
(Euro retard can't spell massacre right, lol)

You try spelling a word like massacres in swedish then.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 13:43
As for the lie, the easiest one to come up with without even looking is the deathpanels.

Also:

"Obama's response in New Hampshire to the so-called death-board issue also was revealing. Some say these boards are tantamount to euthanasia for the elderly. Placards outside the meeting read: "Obamacare, Down the Chute Granny." (Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is spearheading this protest.)

Obama's response? He says reform "would not basically pull the plug on grandma because we decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore." But the House bill comes dangerously close to giving unelected health boards the power to pull that plug. And as policy students know, it's not always the precise wording of legislation that counts, but the regulatory interpretations of laws that are made by federal and state officials."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/13/obamas_hoof-in-mouth_disease__97358.html

He was asked directly about the death panels at the NH town hall and failed to unequivocally deny the possibility. "would not basically"?? wtf?

Sqarak
08-14-2009, 14:29
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/13/obamas_hoof-in-mouth_disease__97358.html

He was asked directly about the death panels at the NH town hall and failed to unequivocally deny the possibility. "would not basically"?? wtf?

I think isolationists should be happy with the creation those so called death panels, the rest of the world would shun the US on moral grounds.

The more I follow this whole healthcare "discussion" the more I realise that the US has lost all touch with reality. Palin and co talk about this "death panel" as if the US is the last beacon of civilisation that has not yet implemented it yet.

If anything this proves that a 2 party system leads to a lot of screaming and mudslinging, but little debate. After all what can the Republicans do but disagree and if it was the other way round the Democrats would be all up in arms.
US citizens need to wake up and realise that the political elite just fool around with them. While you stand there screaming at each other the politicians are enjoying a big fat paycheck and all kinds of benefits and fuck each other in a big fat DepRep orgy. US has become like France under Louis XV where the elite uses the people for their own little games, power schemes and other forms of entertainment.
Conveniently the media doesn't pay to much attention to that particular part.

Hellsink
08-14-2009, 14:48
A big :lmao: at "death panels", "birthers" and nutjobs bringing guns to town hall meetings and screaming pointlessly at the speakers.

Good going, right wing America.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 14:54
A big :lmao: at "death panels", "birthers" and nutjobs bringing guns to town hall meetings and screaming pointlessly at the speakers.

Good going, right wing America.

Why don't you try reading the bill before making stupid, pointless posts.

@Sqarak - you are correct regarding our 2-party system. We're fucked. All we can do at this point is try to prevent further expansion of gov't into our personal lives and finances.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 14:56
You try spelling a word like massacres in swedish then.

I don't need to, this is an English language forum, and you idiots can fuck off if you can't speak it.


Erm Gloom, "800000 people a year" from where (region within Europe) exactly and "not saved" from what?

Not from Europe, that's the point. 800000 people a year in America are saved by people using guns in self defense. Nobody knows how many people in Europe die because they don't have that same capability. It could be more.



Also a few points:

1. If you are referring to violent criminals in Europe owning a gun will do little unless you train your family as a spec ops unit. Most homejackings are done in team, by armed men. They usually carry semi or full-automatic guns.

This is just ignorant. Must be the kind of propoganda shit they bs you with in Europe to justify the gun laws, eh? 1 person with a semi auto weapon can easily kill a half dozen or so men. Especially if they have a 45 or higher caliber, or most effectively, a simple shot gun. A 15 year old with an auto shotty and the right ammo can wipe out a swat team. A few thugs with auto glocks are no problem with good home security/firearms knowledge. You can easily blast them 1 after the other as they try to break in.


They also tend to kidnap family members prior to committing the home jacking. They also split up in groups, one at the house and one with the kidnapped family member.

Logic fail. Now were not talking about a burglary anymore. This is a kidnapping scenario that has no relation to conventional burglaries (which make up the majority percentage of burglaries)...




2. The spread of Islam can not be stopped by owning a gun. Our birthrates are going down, most immigrants have still a higher rate.

No, but at least you can defend yourself if you have a gun.


We are heading to extinction event anyway as Christian fundies seem to be rising up in the US as well and they loooooooveeeeeeee their guns and got and itch to use them on anything that is not white or Christian.

What a crock of irrational, paranoid, xenophobic bullshit. You're making Fro look like Socrates here. I don't even understand how you can be so moronic and ignorant. I guess this is how far you Europeans have fallen mentally...that you actually think that Christianity is on the same level as Islam in regards to perpetrating violence. Get a fucking clue over there. There's no comparison between Muslims in Europe and Christian fundies in the US. If you look at it the crime rates statistically, your irrational fears are laughably exposed.

And this is coming from an Atheist that lives in a red state. Even I fucking know that's paranoid and baseless.



Currently homejacking is the most violent form of criminal behaviour in Western Europe. Luckily it is still rare enough to be shocking enough to get proper media coverage.

We also have murder and rape, but unless it gang or theft related it often involves situations where a victim didn't even expect to have to use a gun, such a rape by a family member.

3. What sky-rocketing violent crime rates?

It does depend on the country, but the best example is the UK which banned guns and saw their violent crime rates skyrocket indeed. It's no doubt a trend which plagues most of Europe as guns are banned/suppressed across the continent. Although I'm sure your media doesn't announce the fact, and floods you with the bullshit you've displayed about guns being no help against crime. :rolleyes: The notion of which is a total farce that is disproved by American self defense statistics...

88Chaz88
08-14-2009, 14:57
I don't need to, this is an English language forum, and you idiots can fuck off if you can't speak it.

Are you a troll, or just extremely retarded?

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 15:06
Are you a troll, or just extremely retarded?

Do you not fucking see this is an English forum? I'm not the one trying to speak on a forum that has a standard language different than my own, you fucking moron. If you drooling idiots can't speak the language, then post the fuck somewhere else, you fucking shitbrains. This shit is simple. People dumb as you fucks should be shot, ffs.

88Chaz88
08-14-2009, 15:14
Do you not fucking see this is an English forum? I'm not the one trying to speak on a forum that has a standard language different than my own, you fucking moron. If you drooling idiots can't speak the language, then post the fuck somewhere else, you fucking shitbrains.

Yup, you're retarded.

There is nowhere in the ToS that states you have to post in 100% perfect english, the mere fact that even you understood what he was saying proves he can speak english to a satisfactory degree to post here. Anyway I've seen far better grammar from non-english speakers than those who speak it as their first language.

Oh and the amount of swearing in your reply implies that I'm not the one who's drooling. If you aren't getting all rabid in your posting I advise you to get a better vocabulary.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 15:22
Yup, you're retarded

No, you're retarded. I called him an idiot for not being able to spell an English word. And then you expected me to able to spell in Swedish, when I don't need to, on an English forum, lol. He's still an idiot, whether I knew what he was trying to spell, or not. Retard. Laughable of you to try and lecture me on vocabulary when you obviously don't know the meaning of words. Dumbass kid.

88Chaz88
08-14-2009, 15:27
No, you're retarded. I called him an idiot for not being able to spell an English word. And then you expected me to able to spell in Swedish, when I don't need to, on an English forum, lol. He's still an idiot, whether I knew what he was trying to spell, or not. Retard.

No he clearly isn't, you're an idiot for thinking that fluency in a second language equals your intelligence or even contributes to it. Anyway I'll make this fair, what's your second language, go on...


Laughable of you to try and lecture me on vocabulary when you obviously don't know the meaning of words. Dumbass kid.

Well I'm not the one who's dropped the f-bomb in every sentence yet, I wonder if you realise that the true definition of that word would mean it doesn't belong anywhere near your post, instead you use it to replace a word that you can't think of. Maybe if you tried writing something more coherent and stopped trying to cram as many insults as possible using the fewest amount of words you might not need to swear at all.

Still, what words is it I haven't understood exactly?

Sqarak
08-14-2009, 15:35
What a crock of irrational, paranoid, xenophobic bullshit. You're making Fro look like Socrates here. I don't even understand how you can be so moronic and ignorant. I guess this is how far you Europeans have fallen mentally...that you actually think that Christianity is on the same level as Islam in regards to perpetrating violence. Get a fucking clue over there. There's no comparison between Muslims in Europe and Christian fundies in the US. If you look at it the crime rates statistically, your irrational fears are laughably exposed.

Funny that you need an exaggeration to realize that your own claim about all Muslims is equally failed. There are issues concerning Muslims and Western European Society, but you can't possibly know shit about it over there as it barely gets covered properly.





It does depend on the country, but the best example is the UK which banned guns and saw their violent crime rates skyrocket indeed. It's no doubt a trend which plagues most of Europe as guns are banned/suppressed across the continent. Although I'm sure your media doesn't announce the fact, and floods you with the bullshit you've displayed about guns being no help against crime. :rolleyes: The notion of which is a total farce that is disproved by American self defense statistics...

Most European countries are rather small, people tend to befriend people across the country and in neighbouring countries. We are not dependant on media concerning events. We talk with each other about it.

And the whole gun vs no gun debate is useless as guns aren't even as common in most European cities as in the US. The favourite weapon here are still all kinds of knives or bludgeoning tools like crowbars and baseball-bats.
I fail to see how people preferring this kind of fighting will become more peace-loving one they get easy access to firearms.
I'm not talking about gangsta's and mafia here, I'm talking about average drunk Joe who goes on a rampage every now and then. I rather have them go crazy with something I can dodge and no I don't feel particularly inclined to shoot someone because they are in a drunken rage.

You will also find the highest crime ration in the most densely populated regions, has nothing to with the amount of weapons available, but more about the amount of people packed together and a whole bunch of socio-economic shit. England and especially France have the biggest issue with this.

Banning guns is rather silly, but allowing anyone to buy almost anything without control is not the way to go in my opinion.
I've been to many countries in Europe and it is not that uncommon for people to have guns in their home, but I'd have to go search far and wide to find people who find it useful to just carry it around any time of the day.


You don't particularly come over as a retard, but please try to imagine a world where social and group dynamics can differentiate from those happening in the US. I also need to remind myself sometimes that the US is developing a different kind of society as Europe, with their own issues and challenges and although I love the odd Americunt vs Eurofag jibe, it is getting rather tiring to see people go about this that actually think they are better based on the continent they were born on.

It is also useful to be able to realise that people can disagree and that disagreeing is useful as it makes sure rationality gains the upperhand sooner or later (History has sadly proven that it is often late, but beter late than never I suppose). There is no point in black & white thinking, just like antifa are just as bad as neo-nazis and Dawkins-drones are the same as religious fundies.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 15:38
No he clearly isn't, you're an idiot for thinking that fluency in a second language equals your intelligence or even contributes to it.

It's indicative of his low intelligence that he is dumb enough to try and speak garbled, misspelled, amateurish ESL English, on an English standard forum, and make himself look like a fucking fool for all to see.



Anyway I'll make this fair, what's your second language, go on...

I don't need to speak Swedish on here, nor any other language than English. Were not on a fucking Swedish forum, you moron. I would never try and post on an internet forum with a standard language that I wasn't positively proficient in. Nor would anyone with any common sense or intellect.

Ziegler
08-14-2009, 15:48
:rolleyes: You're just assuming like Mathews did. Believe it or not, you can carry a gun without it being a political message. He never stated that the gun was part of his sign message. Stop reading into nothing.

stop blindly ignoring the obvious too. By simply exercising his right and wearing a gun to a political function in conjunction with the sign he was carrying...make a very good statement. To say it didnt...is either naive or disingenous.

88Chaz88
08-14-2009, 15:55
It's indicative of his low intelligence that he is dumb enough to try and speak garbled, misspelled, amateurish ESL English, on an English standard forum, and make himself look like a fucking fool for all to see.

Actually you're wrong, speaking garbled english isn't 'dumb' no matter what forum you're on. Do you really think most people look at his post and think he's an idiot for spelling a notoriously difficult word incorrectly? His point is still there and clear for all to see whether you agree with it or not.


I would never try and post on an internet forum with a standard language that I wasn't positively proficient in. Nor would anyone with any common sense or intellect.

Or maybe you don't because you wouldn't be able to hide your posts with good grammar and people may actually see them for what they are, complete garbage.

Silverhandorder
08-14-2009, 15:59
stop blindly ignoring the obvious too. By simply exercising his right and wearing a gun to a political function in conjunction with the sign he was carrying...make a very good statement. To say it didnt...is either naive or disingenous.
Exactly but when given the chance he chose to make a statement that would reach more people. As said it can be interpreted both ways. You might think this is bad of him to do but w/e he handled it well.

Anyways looky what I found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxjahek0f8

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 16:03
Funny that you need an exaggeration to realize that your own claim about all Muslims is equally failed. There are issues concerning Muslims and Western European Society, but you can't possibly know shit about it over there as it barely gets covered properly.

lol, It's no exaggeration, It's dead on. You have absolutely no realistic concept of what Christians in America are like. Hardly any Christians, even fundamentalist ones, are actually violent. Whereas the violence committed by Muslims in Europe is well documented worldwide. Your media obviously demonizes Christians in America and downplays Muslims in Europe. What a joke.



Most European countries are rather small, people tend to befriend people across the country and in neighbouring countries. We are not dependant on media concerning events. We talk with each other about it.

And the whole gun vs no gun debate is useless as guns aren't even as common in most European cities as in the US. The favourite weapon here are still all kinds of knives or bludgeoning tools like crowbars and baseball-bats.
I fail to see how people preferring this kind of fighting will become more peace-loving one they get easy access to firearms.

I'm not talking about gangsta's and mafia here, I'm talking about average drunk Joe who goes on a rampage every now and then. I rather have them go crazy with something I can dodge and no I don't feel particularly inclined to shoot someone because they are in a drunken rage.


You've got this all totally backwards. The criminal elements of society do not care about gun laws, and will try to obtain guns illegally, and make no mistake they are doing so in gun banned countries. Furthermore, legal gun owning, law abiding citizens do not "go on rampages". Just because people have access to guns does not make them violent people, who will use them to victimize their fellow man all of the sudden for no good reason out of the blue. The criminals stay criminals and the law abiding stay law abiding in an armed society. The only difference is that citizens can better protect themselves from the criminals.




You will also find the highest crime ration in the most densely populated regions, has nothing to with the amount of weapons available, but more about the amount of people packed together and a whole bunch of socio-economic shit. England and especially France have the biggest issue with this.

If the people in France and England could properly protect themselves with firearms, I guarantee that crime rates would go down. They would go down because like in America, the criminals know that any would be victim could be carrying a firearm. Criminals like easy prey. Gun owners are not easy prey.


Banning guns is rather silly, but allowing anyone to buy almost anything without control is not the way to go in my opinion.
I've been to many countries in Europe and it is not that uncommon for people to have guns in their home, but I'd have to go search far and wide to find people who find it useful to just carry it around any time of the day.

Well on average worldwide 1 in 20 people are criminals, even in the medium-good parts of town. If you think about your environment in this manner, carrying sounds like a better idea.



You don't particularly come over as a retard, but please try to imagine a world where social and group dynamics can differentiate from those happening in the US. I also need to remind myself sometimes that the US is developing a different kind of society as Europe, with their own issues and challenges and although I love the odd Americunt vs Eurofag jibe, it is getting rather tiring to see people go about this that actually think they are better based on the continent they were born on.

It is also useful to be able to realise that people can disagree and that disagreeing is useful as it makes sure rationality gains the upperhand sooner or later (History has sadly proven that it is often late, but beter late than never I suppose). There is no point in black & white thinking, just like antifa are just as bad as neo-nazis and Dawkins-drones are the same as religious fundies.

I agree to some extent. But myself and many other Americans are of the strong opinion that the dynamics of gun ownership which I've illustrated in this post apply to any society, because we've seen them proven in America. So we balk at "those dumb Europeans" when we hear anti-gun sympathetic ideas. ;)

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 16:05
stop blindly ignoring the obvious too. By simply exercising his right and wearing a gun to a political function in conjunction with the sign he was carrying...make a very good statement. To say it didnt...is either naive or disingenous.

Only if you interpret it that way. He wasn't doing so deliberately, and stated that he wasn't. To contradict what he said and assume he was is disingenuous.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 16:18
Actually you're wrong, speaking garbled english isn't 'dumb' no matter what forum you're on.

You're delusional. There is no way speaking a garbled language other than your own isn't absolutely dumb. If I were to go to France and speak half ass French I would get a load of shit for it, and so would your dumb ass if you tried to speak garbled language in another tongue to people.


Do you really think most people look at his post and think he's an idiot for spelling a notoriously difficult word incorrectly?

If you can't properly speak in a different language, then you shouldn't make an ass of yourself by trying.




His point is still there and clear for all to see whether you agree with it or not.

As if I didn't respond to it. Obviously you're not looking, but I tore his emotional whining to shreds. Suck it.


Or maybe you don't because you wouldn't be able to hide your posts with good grammar

I speak and understand language better than you do.


and people may actually see them for what they are, complete garbage.

Coming from the guy that does nothing but defend the garbled English of morons, rather than actually discussing the topic. You're the one posting useless garbage, you worthless nitwit.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 16:22
You're delusional. There is no way speaking a garbled language other than your own isn't absolutely dumb. If I were to go to France and speak half ass French I would get a load of shit for it, and so would your dumb ass if you tried to speak garbled language in another tongue to people.



If you can't properly speak in a different language, then you shouldn't make an ass of yourself by trying.





As if I didn't respond to it. Obviously you're not looking, but I tore his emotional whining to shreds. Suck it.



I speak and understand language better than you do.



Coming from the guy that does nothing but defend the garbled English of morons, rather than actually discussing the topic. You're the one posting useless garbage, you worthless nitwit.

you're an idiot.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 16:28
you're an idiot.

lol, coming from the Canadian. You calling me an idiot is a compliment. Your whole country is one big pile of idiots. Canadian moron. Get fucked by a horse, or a moose.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 16:29
lol, coming from the Canadian. You calling me an idiot is a compliment. Your whole country is one big pile of idiots. Canadian moron. Get fucked by a horse, or a moose.

your idiocy astounds me.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 16:31
your idiocy astounds me.

Your "I know you are, but what am I!" posts don't impress me, or anyone, you retarded moose fucker.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 16:32
Your "I know you are, but what am I!" posts don't impress me, or anyone, you retarded moose fucker.

yep, he's an idiot alright.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 16:33
yep, he's an idiot alright.

Yep, you're an idiot that can only say "you idiot!", alright.

Any retard could accomplish this.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 16:43
Yep, you're an idiot that can only say "you idiot!", alright.

Any retard could accomplish this.

Idiot ^^

88Chaz88
08-14-2009, 16:46
You're delusional. There is no way speaking a garbled language other than your own isn't absolutely dumb. If I were to go to France and speak half ass French I would get a load of shit for it, and so would your dumb ass if you tried to speak garbled language in another tongue to people.

Speaking a garbled second language is dumb? So you're basically saying learning any other language is idiotic. This statement is completely moronic. Funnily enough not everyone is so racist we all have to laugh at foreigners making an effort to learn our respective languages, clearly you are.


If you can't properly speak in a different language, then you shouldn't make an ass of yourself by trying.

Really, well even though you've repeated yourself I'm not going to, see above instead.


As if I didn't respond to it. Obviously you're not looking, but I tore his emotional whining to shreds. Suck it.

I wasn't aguing that (although I think 'torn to shreds' and 'emotional whining' is taking things so far out of perspective you need the Hubble telescope to see clearly) just saying that his misspell of 'massacre' was completely beyond the point.


I speak and understand language better than you do.

Really, any evidence for this outrageous claim?


Coming from the guy that does nothing but defend the garbled English of morons, rather than actually discussing the topic. You're the one posting useless garbage, you worthless nitwit.

Oh yes, my 3000+ posts are all defending moronic foreigners from grammar nazis, like an internet amalgam of Batman and Oscar Schindler for stupid people.

Of course you can't leave without the complimentary insult, whether this is to cover up all the crap you've said previously, to bait me into posting something as stupid as you have posted, or I'm actually making an impact into your skull I guess we'll never know.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 17:10
Idiot ^^

Retard Canadian.




Speaking a garbled second language is dumb? So you're basically saying learning any other language is idiotic. This statement is completely moronic.

You don't learn a language by going into another language forum and making an ass out of yourself. You take classes and learn it from speakers you happen to know.



Funnily enough not everyone is so racist we all have to laugh at foreigners making an effort to learn our respective languages, clearly you are.

Kid, in the real world people aren't like that. If I were to go to France and talk garbled French I would not be taken to kindly. This isn't Blue's Clue's international, "Chaz". People are not so accepting in reality.




Really, well even though you've repeated yourself I'm not going to, see above instead.

lol, you keep repeating nonsense and I will keep refuting it.



I wasn't aguing that (although I think 'torn to shreds' and 'emotional whining' is taking things so far out of perspective you need the Hubble telescope to see clearly) just saying that his misspell of 'massacre' was completely beyond the point.

It wasn't part of my counter-point, dipshit.




Really, any evidence for this outrageous claim?


Ya, your inability to understand the meaning of words as illustrated by this idiotic debate that you no legitimate point in.




Oh yes, my 3000+ posts are all defending moronic foreigners from grammar nazis, like an internet amalgam of Batman and Oscar Schindler for stupid people.

Could all be in GD for all we know. I'm not looking up your 3000 dumbass posts, I'm noting how you've contributed jack shit to this thread, thus your posts here are garbage.


Of course you can't leave without the complimentary insult, whether this is to cover up all the crap you've said previously, to bait me into posting something as stupid as you have posted, or I'm actually making an impact into your skull I guess we'll never know.

You've just got a sore asshole because I've torn your stupid attempt at an argument to bits on every reply, and you know you can't win because you're fundamentally wrong. Cry more you dumbass. Next time don't defend sheer stupidity.

Fro
08-14-2009, 17:19
You don't learn a language by going into another language forum and making an ass out of yourself. You take classes and learn it from speakers you happen to know.

what planet are you on?


Kid, in the real world people aren't like that. If I were to go to France and talk garbled French I would not be taken to kindly. This isn't Blue's Clue's international, "Chaz". People are not so accepting in reality.

You couldn't be further from the truth. Have you ever actualy been to France? They apreciate people atleast atempting to speak french whereas just talking to them in english (or even worse English with a horrible French accident thrown in for good measure) tends to get their back up.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 17:22
Only if you interpret it that way. He wasn't doing so deliberately, and stated that he wasn't. To contradict what he said and assume he was is disingenuous.

He clearly said that "If you don't use your rights, you're gonna lose them" as to why he brought the gun. Sounds like a political statement to me.


You're delusional. There is no way speaking a garbled language other than your own isn't absolutely dumb. If I were to go to France and speak half ass French I would get a load of shit for it,

He doesn't speak "half ass" English, he misspelled one single word... what's your problem?

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 17:23
what planet are you on?

Earth, where people actually learn how to speak a language before trying to speak it fluently to people in a uni-language forum. The one's with common sense at least.




You couldn't be further from the truth. Have you ever actualy been to France? They apreciate people atleast atempting to speak french whereas just talking to them in english (or even worse English with a horrible French accident thrown in for good measure) tends to get their back up.

I've known people who've gone there and were treated like shit because they didn't speak French well enough.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 17:24
He clearly said that "If you don't use your rights, you're gonna lose them" as to why he brought the gun. Sounds like a political statement to me.

More like "I still have the right to carry". Which has nothing to do with the sign. Or no message at all, he just wanted to carry. There's really no way he was deliberately attaching a gun message to the sign message.


He doesn't speak "half ass" English, he misspelled one single word... what's your problem?

What a fucking dumbass pussy party we have going on today. Yeah if he can't use any punctuation, and or misspells the core words of his sentences, he's writing half ass English. Yes he is.

Bissen
08-14-2009, 17:26
lol, coming from the Canadian. You calling me an idiot is a compliment. Your whole country is one big pile of idiots. Canadian moron. Get fucked by a horse, or a moose.


The truth hurts doesn't it gloomy. You know perfectly well America is the most idiotic moron nation in the western hemisphere.

This thread right here is exhibit A.

If you haven't noticed. 9/10 of forumfall is threads about stupid americans and their stupid doings.

And btw. I ain't calling YOU stupid. I really don't think you are. Percentage wise though. Americans = Naive stupid individuals.

But don't feel bad. Atleast your plague of idiocy is spreading to the rest of the globe. You're just way in the lead...

Blixa
08-14-2009, 17:27
More like "I still have the right to carry"

More like "I still have the right to carry and if I don't display publicy that I care about that right and don't want it to be taken away, I will lose it". The quote in my post you quoted wasn't made up btw, it was taken from the interview.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 17:35
More like "I still have the right to carry and if I don't display publicy that I care about that right and don't want it to be taken away, I will lose it". The quote in my post you quoted wasn't made up btw, it was taken from the interview.

Still has jack shit to do with the message on the sign.

Fro
08-14-2009, 17:35
Earth, where people actually learn how to speak a language before trying to speak it fluently to people in a uni-language forum. The one's with common sense at least.

Well it must be a different earth to the one everyone else is on since its pretty damn common for people with non-fluent english to still speak english on the internet, its a common way for people to practice and advance their English skills. Also how many languages do you speak?


I've known people who've gone there and were treated like shit because they didn't speak French well enough.

lol... Well i've been to France and my French is pretty poor but they were all very helpful, so i'm guessing you or your freinds are either full of shit or there was different reason the French treated you them like shit.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 17:41
The truth hurts doesn't it gloomy. You know perfectly well America is the most idiotic moron nation in the western hemisphere.

On issues of freedom, such as gun rights, I would put Americans way ahead of Canadians.

Bissen
08-14-2009, 17:41
...

Blixa
08-14-2009, 17:42
Still has jack shit to do with the message on the sign.

You were talking about the gun and the sign, I was attacking your point on the gun. What makes you think I disagree with you on the point of the sign too? With the sign, I think we can all agree, he didn't say its meaning on purpose; it'd be fucking stupid to admit to want to murder the government (I doubt he really wants to murder them, he was exaggerating, a word you should be familiar with) on national television.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 17:46
Well it must be a different earth to the one everyone else is on since its pretty damn common for people with non-fluent english to still speak english on the internet, its a common way for people to practice and advance their English skills.

There's certain places to do it, and not to do it. It's fucking rude to go on an English forum like this one when you barely understand any English, and can't yet spell it.


Also how many languages do you speak?

Doesn't matter. I'm not trying to wing it on other language forums.



lol... Well i've been to France and my French is pretty poor but they were all very helpful, so i'm guessing you or your freinds are either full of shit or there was different reason the French treated you them like shit.

Aren't you French?

Fro
08-14-2009, 17:49
There's certain places to do it, and not to do it. It's fucking rude to go on an English forum like this one when you barely understand any English, and can't yet spell it.

How is it rude to try and learn another language or engage someone in their own language. Surely its more rude to expect them to speak your first language fluently.


Doesn't matter. I'm not trying to wing it on other language forums.

I was just asking, no need to get defensive.


Aren't you French?

Well if i was it would just make you look like an even bigger idiot but luckily for you i'm not.

Bissen
08-14-2009, 17:49
Aren't you French?

Only by appearance and accent.

Ohh and the frog leg sticking out his ass

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 17:49
You were talking about the gun and the sign, I was attacking your point on the gun. What makes you think I disagree with you on the point of the sign too? With the sign, I think we can all agree, he didn't say its meaning on purpose; it'd be fucking stupid to admit to want to murder the government (I doubt he really wants to murder them, he was exaggerating, a word you should be familiar with) on national television.

Whatever. I'm just pointing out that the gun and sign were not connected, even if both were sending a message in different ways.

What is it that you think I'm exaggerating?

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 17:53
How is it rude to try and learn another language or engage someone in their own language. Surely its more rude to expect them to speak your first language fluently.

Not imo when you're trying to have an intelligent discussion.



Well if i was it would just make you look like an even bigger idiot but luckily for you i'm not.

No, I think it would show that your example is irrelevant since you're French and would therefore be treated differently, obviously. But hey whatever this is all anecdotal.

88Chaz88
08-14-2009, 17:57
Wow, I come back in an hour and it seems practically everyone has now ripped your racist self apart.

Good game dude, better luck next time.

Fro
08-14-2009, 17:57
Not imo when you're trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Well i suppose it depends how bad their english was, if you couldn't understand what they were trying to say then i would say it would be inconvinient or irritating but not rude.


No, I think it would show that your example is irrelevant since you're French and would therefore be treated differently, obviously. But hey whatever this is all anecdotal.

If i was french then i'd surely have a better understanding of how the french react to people speaking poor french to them than you would.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 18:00
Wow, I come back in an hour and it seems practically everyone has now ripped your racist self apart.

Good game dude, better luck next time.

lol, fantasize more, teen idol. I've not been refuted once by anyone. And you've still failed. Nothing is more desperate than calling someone racist based on nothing and copping out on arguing.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 18:03
Well i suppose it depends how bad their english was, if you couldn't understand what they were trying to say then i would say it would be inconvinient or irritating but not rude.

You might be in the minority in that way.




If i was french then i'd surely have a better understanding of how the french react to people speaking poor french to them than you would.

Not if you were an American born Frenchman.

Fro
08-14-2009, 18:06
You might be in the minority in that way.
I dalt it judging by the reaction on this forum.


Not if you were an American born Frenchman.

If i was born in america and lived in america how could i be French?

Blixa
08-14-2009, 18:07
Whatever. I'm just pointing out that the gun and sign were not connected, even if both were sending a message in different ways.

Wait, now both were sending a message? Before you clearly said


no message at all, he just wanted to carry.

That was the point I was attacking, but you seem to disagree there now with yourself too.


What is it that you think I'm exaggerating?

For example with the Muslims overrunning Europe, but maybe you really just have no clue.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 18:13
Wait, now both were sending a message? Before you clearly said

That was the point I was attacking, but you seem to disagree there now with yourself too.

I'm saying in any case the sign and gun are separate from each other.




For example with the Muslims overrunning Europe, but maybe you really just have no clue.

Oh yeah? Enlighten me on how millions of Muslims are not migrating to Europe and bringing their primitive/violent nature's with them?

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 18:24
I dalt it judging by the reaction on this forum.

I think you mean "doubt". :sly:

This forum isn't a good example.





If i was born in america and lived in america how could i be French?

Could be racially French in America.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 18:30
On issues of freedom, such as gun rights, I would put Americans way ahead of Canadians.

are you fucking serious???

We have more guns per capita than you do in the states.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 18:36
are you fucking serious???

We have more guns per capita than you do in the states.

Wow it can say other words.

You don't have the right to carry em, and other restrictions.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 18:36
Wow it can say other words.

You don't have the right to carry em.

yes, we do...

yet strangely most people don't feel the need to.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 18:42
yes, we do...

yet strangely most people don't feel the need to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Laws_and_regulati on

"section 17 of the Firearms Act makes it an offence for anyone, including a security guard, to possess prohibited or restricted firearms (i.e. handguns) outside of his or her home."

jonyak
08-14-2009, 18:46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Laws_and_regulati on

"section 17 of the Firearms Act makes it an offence for anyone, including a security guard, to possess prohibited or restricted firearms (i.e. handguns) outside of his or her home."

handguns...

there are alot of other kinds of weapons... and somehow I think there are ways around that because I know security guards who carry legaly.

"To purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm, a person must have a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) for restricted firearms and be a member of a certified range. To use restricted firearms a person must also obtain long term authorization to transport (LTATT) from their provincial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) to move the firearm to and from the range. Short term authorization to transport (STATT) is required in most cases to move a firearm from a business to the owner's home, or when the owner wishes to change the address where the firearm is stored. Firearms can be shipped without a STATT by a bonded courier directly to an owner's home."

"Section 19 of the Act goes on to allow individuals to receive an Authorization to Carry, or ATC, granting permission to carry loaded restricted firearms on their persons for certain reasons specified in the Act."

Blixa
08-14-2009, 18:53
I'm saying in any case the sign and gun are separate from each other.


no message at all, he just wanted to carry.

You clearly say that there's no message behind the gun. "he just wanted to carry" - no, he made a political statement by carrying the gun, he said so himself.


Oh yeah? Enlighten me on how millions of Muslims are not migrating to Europe and bringing their primitive/violent nature's with them?

millions in which amount of time. Also, "primitive/violent nature's" (spelled wrong btw, gtfo of English forums) is just plain wrong, Muslims are not more aggressive than Christians by default. We do have a problem in Germany with some Turks (Muslim or not) not learning the language (they should gtfo if they don't want to learn the fucking language imo), but they have not a more violent/primitive nature than anyone else and there are smart Turks I know, too.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 18:57
You couldn't be further from the truth. Have you ever actualy been to France? They apreciate people atleast atempting to speak french whereas just talking to them in english (or even worse English with a horrible French accident thrown in for good measure) tends to get their back up.

OK, no, not really. They will prefer to practice their english and this is often based on their belief that your French is inadequate and inferior to their English.

Not saying Gloom is correct in all his arguments but ^^ is not some universal truth by a long shot.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 18:59
OK, no, not really. They will prefer to practice their english and this is often based on their belief that your French is inadequate and inferior to their English.

Not saying Gloom is correct in all his arguments but ^^ is not some universal truth by a long shot.

most french canadians will be very happy that you tried to speak to them in fench and will even help you when you mess up.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:04
handguns...

there are alot of other kinds of weapons... and somehow I think there are ways around that because I know security guards who carry legaly.

"To purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm, a person must have a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) for restricted firearms and be a member of a certified range. To use restricted firearms a person must also obtain long term authorization to transport (LTATT) from their provincial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) to move the firearm to and from the range. Short term authorization to transport (STATT) is required in most cases to move a firearm from a business to the owner's home, or when the owner wishes to change the address where the firearm is stored. Firearms can be shipped without a STATT by a bonded courier directly to an owner's home."

"Section 19 of the Act goes on to allow individuals to receive an Authorization to Carry, or ATC, granting permission to carry loaded restricted firearms on their persons for certain reasons specified in the Act."

lol, that doesn't mean you can open carry/concealed carry. Means you can transport to the range in cases.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 19:04
most french canadians will be very happy that you tried to speak to them in fench and will even help you when you mess up.

I can say the same for most Germans when you speak German to them, BUT this is only the case for tourists and not for people who are within the community and should be able to speak the language. I too get annoyed when some immigrants that lived their whole life here in Germany are unable to use articles correctly (we have 3 variations for "the" in German) and since we are in a community that should be able to speak English here, I could understand people getting annoyed at someone really sucking at English. From what I've read though, this guy only spelled one word (massacre) wrong and no one except for gloom is getting mad over it.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 19:06
most french canadians will be very happy that you tried to speak to them in fench and will even help you when you mess up.

If only French Canadians actually spoke French, that might be helpful. :P

Seriously though, French Canadians have a hard time understanding French. I had to resort to English just to order a beer once..... And the waiter greeted us in French Canadian which is why I used French first. (And yes, I know some will have greater and lesser understanding).

Obviously, it's not a question of the written language; the barrier is a result of phonetic differences. I could understand them however.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:06
lol, that doesn't mean you can open carry/concealed carry. Means you can transport to the range in cases.

Section 19 of the Act goes on to allow individuals to receive an Authorization to Carry, or ATC, granting permission to carry loaded restricted firearms on their persons for certain reasons specified in the Act. These reasons are as follows: if the person is a licensed trapper and carries the firearm while trapping, if the person is in a remote wilderness area and needs the firearm for protection against wildlife, if the person's work involves guarding or handling money or other items of substantial value, or if the person's life is in danger and police protection is inadequate to protect him or her.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:08
You clearly say that there's no message behind the gun. "he just wanted to carry" - no, he made a political statement by carrying the gun, he said so himself.

Are you retarded? What does in any case mean to you?




millions in which amount of time. Also, "primitive/violent nature's" (spelled wrong btw, gtfo of English forums)

lol no It's spelled right. You don't understand it, genius.


is just plain wrong, Muslims are not more aggressive than Christians by default. We do have a problem in Germany with some Turks (Muslim or not) not learning the language (they should gtfo if they don't want to learn the fucking language imo), but they have not a more violent/primitive nature than anyone else and there are smart Turks I know, too.

Turks are different than other Muslim groups.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 19:09
Wow, I come back in an hour and it seems practically everyone has now ripped your racist self apart.

Good game dude, better luck next time.

There has been nothing racist in his posts. Furthermore, if the original poster is Swedish, that is not a race and therefore he could not even attempt to be racist.

A few terms that might actually convey your thoughts: nationalistic, prejudiced, anglocentric, spelling bee judge.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:12
Section 19 of the Act goes on to allow individuals to receive an Authorization to Carry, or ATC, granting permission to carry loaded restricted firearms on their persons for certain reasons specified in the Act. These reasons are as follows: if the person is a licensed trapper and carries the firearm while trapping, if the person is in a remote wilderness area and needs the firearm for protection against wildlife, if the person's work involves guarding or handling money or other items of substantial value, or if the person's life is in danger and police protection is inadequate to protect him or her.

Right, so unless they judge you needing of protection, you can't open carry unless you're out in the woods, or a security guard. Fail.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 19:12
Turks are different than other Muslim groups.

Oh? And of which subset do you speak? Are there only the two? Turks and The Rest?

Are all Turkish Muslims the same then? And share no characteristics w/ 'The Rest'?

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:13
Right, so unless they judge you needing of protection you can't open carry unless you're out in the woods, or a security guard. Fail.

why else would you need to openly carry??

also.. you are more than allowed to walk around with a rifle if you want to... I have seen people do it.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:14
There has been nothing racist in his posts. Furthermore, if the original poster is Swedish, that is not a race and therefore he could not even attempt to be racist.

A few terms that might actually convey your thoughts: nationalistic, prejudiced, anglocentric, spelling bee judge.

I dare you to prove any of those except the last one, even though It's really a fallacy too as it went beyond spelling.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 19:14
Are you retarded? What does in any case mean to you?

Are you retarded? There is no "in any case" in the quote I provided.


lol no It's spelled right. You don't understand it, genius.

I seriously doubt that, but w/e


Turks are different than other Muslim groups.

Oh they are? Well, they're the most muslims coming into europe, the rest you can hardly call "millions" - there you have your exaggeration.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 19:16
why else would you need to openly carry??


You did not seriously just ask that question, did you?

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:16
You did not seriously just ask that question, did you?

yes I did... why do you have an answer?

sorry canada just isn't the open FFA PVP country that you guys make the USA out to be.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:19
Oh? And of which subset do you speak? Are there only the two? Turks and The Rest?

Are all Turkish Muslims the same then? And share no characteristics w/ 'The Rest'?

Turks/Turkish Muslims in general probably aren't as violent prone as some of the other Muslims, such as those from Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 19:20
yes I did... why do you have an answer?

... you ALWAYS can be approached by criminals. Do you think your life can't be threatened when your government doesn't explicitly state that it can? Besides, what if the government would fuck up even more or turn totalitarian? Citizens need some way to be able to stand up to their government.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:23
... you ALWAYS can be approached by criminals. Do you think your life can't be threatened when your government doesn't explicitly state that it can? Besides, what if the government would fuck up even more or turn totalitarian? Citizens need some way to be able to stand up to their government.

I am sorry, I have never been afraid of the people in my country.

nor do I think if I was, that a gun would help me at all.

I always thought voting was a good way to stand up to a gov't, but thats just me.

don't get me wrong, I have nothing against owning guns, or people owning guns, I want to get one myself. I just don't see the need for people to openly carry handguns and automatic rifles.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 19:23
Turks/Turkish Muslims in general probably aren't as violent prone as some of the other Muslims, such as those from Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Noone plays extremist muslims down and no european country wants them, the problem is using the term "Muslim" to describe them (muslim just means someone who believes in the religion). If you mean fundamental muslims, say so but don't hate on all people who just believe in the religion (which you do when you say "Muslims are the problem").


I am sorry, I have never been afraid of the people in my country.

nor do I think if I was, that a gun would help me at all.

I always thought voting was a good way to stand up to a gov't, but thats just me.

don't get me wrong, I have nothing against owning guns, or people owning guns, I want to get one myself. I just don't see the need for people to openly carry handguns and automatic rifles.

What if the government suddenly says "there's no voting anymore"? What if it's obvious that the elections are being faked?
And you should be afraid of some people in your country, except for if there is no crime in canada.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:24
why else would you need to openly carry??

Thank you Jeezuz for dis ghift.

Oh phuck it, Blixa went and responded for meez.


I didn't misspell anything did Iz?


also.. you are more than allowed to walk around with a rifle if you want to... I have seen people do it.

Can't have it out of It's case if not in the woods/range, according to those laws. Even if you had it in It's case in some areas, it probably wouldn't fly.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:24
Noone plays extremist muslims down and no european country wants them, the problem is using the term "Muslim" to describe them (muslim just means someone who believes in the religion). If you mean fundamental muslims, say so but don't hate on all people who just believe in the religion (which you do when you say "Muslims are the problem").

when it really comes down to it, I garantee christianity has inflicted much more pain, suffering and death than muslimism ever has, over the course of history.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:27
What if the government suddenly says "there's no voting anymore"? What if it's obvious that the elections are being faked?
And you should be afraid of some people in your country, except for if there is no crime in canada.

Well then we pull out our rifles and take them out... we still have more weapons per capita than the US.

there is crime here, I just don't let it run my life.

truthfully despite our left leaning politics, I beleive our gov't leaves us alone alot more than the US gov't does, hell the US gov't tells our gov't what to do 90% of the time.

Aacevedo
08-14-2009, 19:28
when it really comes down to it, I garantee christianity has inflicted much more pain, suffering and death than muslimism ever has, over the course of history.

Blasphemy!
Your sins will be cleansed with fire!

Blixa
08-14-2009, 19:30
Well then we pull out our rifles and take them out... we still have more weapons per capita than the US.

So? Why do you oppose having and carrying weapons then?


there is crime here, I just don't let it run my life.

How does carrying a weapon run your life?

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:33
Noone plays extremist muslims down and no european country wants them, the problem is using the term "Muslim" to describe them (muslim just means someone who believes in the religion). If you mean fundamental muslims, say so but don't hate on all people who just believe in the religion (which you do when you say "Muslims are the problem").

I think using the word "fundamentalist" (spelled wrong nub), is also pretty broad and could be taken offensively. "Muslim" is what they are. A wide variety of Muslims of all descriptions hate western society. I'm referring to them when I say Muslims. I don't know what else to call them. 'Bad Muslims'? Come on...


What if the government suddenly says "there's no voting anymore"? What if it's obvious that the elections are being faked?
And you should be afraid of some people in your country, except for if there is no crime in canada.

No worries, government knows who is best suited for guns and when you can carry them...surely they know what's best for the rest of your life as well!


when it really comes down to it, I garantee christianity has inflicted much more pain, suffering and death than muslimism ever has, over the course of history.

Also lol @ "Muslimism"...

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:36
So? Why do you oppose having and carrying weapons then?

How does carrying a weapon run your life?

I don't really oppose it, I just don't see a point to it, and it doesn;t bother me that I am not allowed to carry a handgun.

carrying a weapon is not what runs your life. its the fear of you fellow country man that does. The US is a fear mongering nation, you are all so afraid of each other, that you feel you need, or should be allowed to carry a weapon specificaly designed to kill a human being. you are so afraid of your gov't that you think you need weapons to stop them. yet your gov't is basicaly the will of the majority. the life of the average american is based on fear. I refuse to let fear run my life.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:37
No worries, government knows who is best suited for guns and when you can carry them...surely they know what's best for the rest of your life as well!


Nice strawman

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:39
I don't really oppose it, I just don't see a point to it, and it doesn;t bother me that I am not allowed to carry a handgun.

carrying a weapon is not what runs your life. its the fear of you fellow country man that does. The US is a fear mongering nation, you are all so afraid of each other, that you feel you need, or should be allowed to carry a weapon specificaly designed to kill a human being.

Ever heard of these guys named criminals? They're 1 in 20 of the population. And they're not nice.


you are so afraid of your gov't that you think you need weapons to stop them. yet your gov't is basicaly the will of the majority. the life of the average american is based on fear. I refuse to let fear run my life.

How else are we going to stop a tyrannical government should it decide to exercise tyranny on the people, than with weapons? You sir are living in blissful ignorance in regards to both of the above.

Gloomrender
08-14-2009, 19:40
Nice strawman

Not a straw man. They do decide what's best for you.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 19:51
Ever heard of these guys named criminals? They're 1 in 20 of the population. And they're not nice.

How else are we going to stop a tyrannical government should it decide to exercise tyranny on the people, than with weapons? You sir are living in blissful ignorance in regards to both of the above.

good for you buddy... its good to know you are ready for the revolution, and all those nasty criminals that are out to get you.

do you know how paranoid you sound?

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 19:59
Turks/Turkish Muslims in general probably aren't as violent prone as some of the other Muslims, such as those from Saudi Arabia or Iran.

What is the basis for your theory/opinion?

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 20:01
when it really comes down to it, I garantee christianity has inflicted much more pain, suffering and death than muslimism ever has, over the course of history.

Oh? Lots of theories being tossed around in this thread. ;)

Per capita gun ownership doesn't mean much when you total pop is so much smaller than the US. Your pop would still be easier to control than ours.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 20:05
you are so afraid of your gov't that you think you need weapons to stop them. yet your gov't is basicaly the will of the majority. the life of the average american is based on fear. I refuse to let fear run my life.

Actually, our gov't is the will of the special interests and the power hungry career politicians. Fear is not the motivator. Taking back what is ours is/should be the motivator and carrying a gun is symbolic in the case of the protester. The freedom to carry guns is a matter of self defense be it from other people or gov't.

Unfortunately, our citizenship pool is becoming more and more diluted by sheeple willing to give up our freedoms and promote the special interest status quo.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 20:07
Actually, our gov't is the will of the special interests and the power hungry career politicians. Fear is not the motivator. Taking back what is ours is/should be the motivator and carrying a gun is symbolic in the case of the protester. The freedom to carry guns is a matter of self defense be it from other people or gov't.

Unfortunately, our citizenship pool is becoming more and more diluted by sheeple willing to give up our freedoms and promote the special interest status quo.

I agree. but realisticaly, a few citizens with guns are no match for the US military, which is there to protect those special interests.

unless most of the people in your country are experienceing hardship, or extreme political repression, I doubt many of them would actualy wake up.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 20:16
good for you buddy... its good to know you are ready for the revolution, and all those nasty criminals that are out to get you.

do you know how paranoid you sound?

And you think that our democracy will last forever and will never get overthrown by some power-greedy bastards?

Do you know how naive you sound?

jonyak
08-14-2009, 20:20
And you think that our democracy will last forever and will never get overthrown by some power-greedy bastards?

Do you know how naive you sound?

I never said that.

your democracy has already been taken over by power hungry bastards.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 20:22
I never said that.

your democracy has already been taken over by power hungry bastards.

and yours of course hasn't... ... !! If there's not some kind of revolution every now and then, I don't think representative democracy can work well.

Fro
08-14-2009, 20:22
So when is the right time for revolution? I mean if all these governments are so evil whats holding all you guys with guns back and how come they dare to steal your rights in the firstp lace since you have all these guns?

Blixa
08-14-2009, 20:26
A revolution wouldn't work atm since you'd need most of the population to agree with to be successful. And I'm not that restricted yet and still have a fun and most of my liberties. I just don't have the right to defend them anymore.

Question to you fro: Do you trust your government?

Fro
08-14-2009, 20:30
Question to you fro: Do you trust your government?

No but i dont see how guns would stop them from being sneaky power grabbing bastards.

Besides a revolution is a war over hearts and minds since a government cant hold power without support from atleast some of the people. You dont need guns to revolt, you dont even need to fight.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 20:34
No but i dont see how guns would stop them from being sneaky power grabbing bastards.

At the moment, as I said, it's still in the acceptable range. I would like many things changed, but it's not as bad as it could be. But when they cross a certain line, a revolution is very well possible. And yes, against the full army the citizens probably wouldn't stand a chance, but the soldiers are citizens themselves and I doubt they'd all want to kill their own families.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 20:36
Besides a revolution is a war over hearts and minds since a government cant hold power without support from atleast some of the people. You dont need guns to revolt, you dont even need to fight.

You do. When you protest and all your protesters get shot by the police, who the fuck is gonna protest then? If you protest, police starts shooting people and people shoot back, people might find hope in the revolution.

Fro
08-14-2009, 20:38
At the moment, as I said, it's still in the acceptable range. I would like many things changed, but it's not as bad as it could be. But when they cross a certain line, a revolution is very well possible. And yes, against the full army the citizens probably wouldn't stand a chance, but the soldiers are citizens themselves and I doubt they'd all want to kill their own families.

In which case why would you need guns? Like i just siad if you can gain the support of the military and a large enough majority of the public then theres nobody to fight. The only time there is violence is when the revolution isn't supported by a large enough majority which normaly suggests that its not as clear cut as simply an opressive governement trying to restrict the rights of all there people.

A violent revolution normaly only happens when one part of countries populace is being treated unfairly.

Fro
08-14-2009, 20:39
You do. When you protest and all your protesters get shot by the police, who the fuck is gonna protest then? If you protest, police starts shooting people and people shoot back, people might find hope in the revolution.

Are the police not citizens aswell in the smae boat as the militray? To be honest all you paranoid conspirasits pro gun guys seem to have little understanding of actual revolution.

Blixa
08-14-2009, 20:42
A violent revolution normaly only happens when one part of countries populace is being treated unfairly.

That's usually the case with an oppressive and totalitarian regime. Think about the French revolution for example (you really should know your own history). People who had a good stand with the "government" had an awesome life, the rest was fucked. People started a revolution and changed things (even if only for a short time).


Are the police not citizens aswell in the smae boat as the militray? To be honest all you paranoid conspirasits pro gun guys seem to have little understanding of actual revolution.

You will ALWAYS have some loyal part of the police that supports totalitarian regimes

Fro
08-14-2009, 20:49
That's usually the case with an oppressive and totalitarian regime. Think about the French revolution for example (you really should know your own history). People who had a good stand with the "government" had an awesome life, the rest was fucked. People started a revolution and changed things (even if only for a short time).

Yes i know that and i was trying to make a point. You just said things aren't so bad for you yet but if things were great for you but crap for a different group of germans would you still help them revolt?


You will ALWAYS have some loyal part of the police that supports totalitarian regimes

Not always, sometimes the military will be loyal to the government again its a battle of hearts and minds. If you get enough of the right people to support you than you've already won.

Incanam
08-14-2009, 20:50
Actually for anyone one informed he will make a lot of sense even if they disagree with him. He is there because of the way the country is turning out to be. Healthcare is not the start of it. When pushed on to tell when he thinks it all went wrong he said with the creating of federal reserve.

Which he also didn't explain. What is the way the country is turning out to be? I'm sick of all these cliches. Just answer honestly.

Oh yeah, this is from like 10-11 pages back...

Blixa
08-14-2009, 21:02
Yes i know that and i was trying to make a point. You just said things aren't so bad for you yet but if things were great for you but crap for a different group of germans would you still help them revolt?

Sure I would, not just because of "loving my neighbor", but because when shit like that starts, the next group targeted by the regime could include me.

For reference:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Sozialisten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Sozialist.

Als sie die Juden einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte


When the Nazis came for the communists, I was silent, after all I wasn't a communist.

When they came for the trade unionists, I was silent, after all I wasn't a trade unionist.

When they arrested the socialists, I was silent, after all I wasn't a socialist.

When they imprisoned the Jews, I was silent, after all I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to protest.




Not always, sometimes the military will be loyal to the government again its a battle of hearts and minds. If you get enough of the right people to support you than you've already won.

Even if you get the right people to support you, if you have no means to defend them, you've already lost.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 21:09
I agree. but realisticaly, a few citizens with guns are no match for the US military, which is there to protect those special interests.

unless most of the people in your country are experienceing hardship, or extreme political repression, I doubt many of them would actualy wake up.

One can only hope that a gov't which uses the US Military on US soil would wake people the fuck up. It's pretty clear cut that military is never to be used on US soil. I'd hope our top military people would be wise to squash that thought.

And we are a match for the US military. All they have is guns. They can't use nukes, artillery, bombs, tanks etc. To go beyond small arms weaponry would only destroy the very thing you seek to control. You could do it, but it would be counterproductive to the goals of said regime.

jonyak
08-14-2009, 22:06
and yours of course hasn't... ... !! If there's not some kind of revolution every now and then, I don't think representative democracy can work well.

I never said that.

PirateGlen
08-14-2009, 23:02
The phrase 'death panels' (or deathpanels) does not exist on that site.

Are you refering to:

Sec. 1233, Pg. 425-426, Lines 22-25, 1-3 - Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
This is not manadatory. If you want this information it provides guidelines to physicians on what information they need to include in this consultation.




Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think Senior Citizens and end of life. END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING. SOME IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED RATIONING HEALTH CARE FOR THE ELDERLY.
Also not mandatory. Sets guidelines for what the advanced care practictioner communicates with a person.



Sec. 1233, Pg. 427, Lines 15-24 - Government mandates program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life). The government has a say in how your life ends.
This is about making the means of effecting your end-of-life decisions uniform throughout the state to more effectively make sure what you want is carried out by the medical professionals. The government doesn't really have a say, unless you think they're having a say by coming up with a system that is easier for health care professionals to follow.



And do you have evidence that the above 3 items are, in fact, lies?

You do have to meet w/ a gov't employee to discuss "life-sustaining treatment". The orders signed by a legitimate health care professional as determined by 'the Secretary' will be legally binding; the family has no recourse.

Now, insert gov't flunky advising those same seniors on what steps to take regarding their end-of-life care and life continuing treatment (which is mandated) and voila, you have gov't making decisions for the elderly and once the orders are processed it's a done deal. Family is non the wiser.

Your physician is not a government employee. None of this is mandatory for a person to receive it. I've read the entire section. They key omitted word for most things required is "must".

‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
7 ‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection
8 (r)(1)); and
9 ‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assist10
ant who has the authority under State law to sign
11 orders for life sustaining treatments.

PirateGlen
08-14-2009, 23:09
Also:

"Obama's response in New Hampshire to the so-called death-board issue also was revealing. Some say these boards are tantamount to euthanasia for the elderly. Placards outside the meeting read: "Obamacare, Down the Chute Granny." (Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is spearheading this protest.)

Obama's response? He says reform "would not basically pull the plug on grandma because we decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore." But the House bill comes dangerously close to giving unelected health boards the power to pull that plug. And as policy students know, it's not always the precise wording of legislation that counts, but the regulatory interpretations of laws that are made by federal and state officials."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/13/obamas_hoof-in-mouth_disease__97358.html

He was asked directly about the death panels at the NH town hall and failed to unequivocally deny the possibility. "would not basically"?? wtf?

Obama could flat out say "Death panels are in this bill to kill people we don't like", that doesn't mean it's in the bill. Where are these death panels in the bill?

Blixa
08-14-2009, 23:10
I never said that.

No, I said that... so?

Jezrith
08-14-2009, 23:12
you are just a dopey fucker , ain't you?

did you watch the entire interview or just a partial clip?

why couldn't the gun guy answer one simple question...when asked why he openly wore a gun carrying the sign with the paraphrased quote he did, directly asked what political statement he was making with the protest...the fucking coward couldn't/didn't answer

rather than openly say he was sending the message that our elected leaders should fear the citizens, he wussed out and hemmed and hawed and said nothing coherent

as for Matthews freaking out, it was the third time he asked the same, simple question and the guy dodged it...simply asked why wear a loaded gun to a presidential function with the history of our presidents...and guns...

no one argued his legal right to wear/carry it, Matthews made a point of that , "you can chew gum in church too...it's legal", etc...

be outraged the gun advocate was inarticulate and i'm with you, but you can't say the guy was not given every chance to explain himself on national Tv with no bullshit, and blew the chance


The obvious answer, which happens to be quite self-evident, is he can.



OP should just have a shotgun lollipop and stfu, imo

psst... hey Doc, your leftist bias is showing.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 23:39
This is not manadatory. If you want this information it provides guidelines to physicians on what information they need to include in this consultation.

Also not mandatory. Sets guidelines for what the advanced care practictioner communicates with a person.

Your physician is not a government employee. None of this is mandatory for a person to receive it. I've read the entire section. They key omitted word for most things required is "must".

‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
7 ‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection
8 (r)(1)); and
9 ‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assist10
ant who has the authority under State law to sign
11 orders for life sustaining treatments.

You are missing all the stuff that is not said. They key omitted word for most things required is "must". The key omitted word is choice. Once passed, the Secretary of Health will have all the power in the world to deny coverage to people if they don't do x, y, or z.

who has the authority under State law to sign
11 orders for life sustaining treatments.

The State controls who has this power. Not the patient. Your doctor might or might not; you'll have to see a chosen bureaucrat (having a PhD or other degree does not make them any less of a bureaucrat.)

End of life planning is mandatory.

‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2)regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3),the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:


This is about making the means of effecting your end-of-life decisions uniform throughout the state to more effectively make sure what you want is carried out by the medical professionals. The government doesn't really have a say, unless you think they're having a say by coming up with a system that is easier for health care professionals to follow.

Sort of. All the advice they desire to give you on page 426 is only given if what is on page 427 is present. There is no requirement that States adopt everything written on page 427.

So in any State that the Secretary deems not to meet those requirements, the advanced care consultation has 0 requirements leaving the bureaucrat all their means of persuasion to achieve the end they desire.

‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
the treatment of that individual that—
‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionalsand providers across the continuum of care;[/b]

And there you have your pure bureaucrat. Anyone designated by the Secretary can be a signatory on an 'order regarding life sustaining treatment'. No patient signature is required. No family signature is required.

So, let's say a car accident puts you in a coma. Anyone designated by the Secretary can come along and sign a perfectly legal 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' which could pull your plug.

I'm sure they or you will and can spin this to mean whatever it is you want but in the end, legally, the door is open and the authority will rest w/ the Secretary of Health to dictate the regulations; regulations which will have no check and balance within the gov't short of electing a new president.

How easy would it be to say:

[i]End of life planning consultations which are provided by your PCP will be available once every 5 years and/or at such time that there is a significant change in patient's health. The will include advice on x,y,z and will provide the patient with the means to dictate their own care via proxy of their choosing and/or their specific orders concerning life sustaining treatment.

Patient, doctor of choice, and family retain all control. Costs are controlled by 5 year intervals. Decisions are made based on patient's choices not some bureaucrat's signature.

StainlessSteelRat
08-14-2009, 23:46
Obama could flat out say "Death panels are in this bill to kill people we don't like", that doesn't mean it's in the bill. Where are these death panels in the bill?

That's a pretty weak argument. Death panels was your phrase; it's not on that website you linked.

PirateGlen
08-15-2009, 01:17
That's a pretty weak argument. Death panels was your phrase; it's not on that website you linked.

Correct, but we've heard it quite often from the media as though they exist.

PirateGlen
08-15-2009, 01:41
You are missing all the stuff that is not said. They key omitted word for most things required is "must". The key omitted word is choice. Once passed, the Secretary of Health will have all the power in the world to deny coverage to people if they don't do x, y, or z.
Laws are not designed to give choices. You have the choice to do everything not specifically forbidden by law. There's no law that says you may chose what food to eat, but you still have this choice.



who has the authority under State law to sign
11 orders for life sustaining treatments.

The State controls who has this power. Not the patient. Your doctor might or might not; you'll have to see a chosen bureaucrat (having a PhD or other degree does not make them any less of a bureaucrat.)
Only insofar as to whom the law (not the secretary) defines a physician. A physician is can be found defined here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001395---x000-.html

Ctrl-F -> "(r) Physician"



End of life planning is mandatory.

‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2)regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3),the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
No it's not. This dictates what will be required by the doctor to discuss if you elect to have an end of life consultation.




Sort of. All the advice they desire to give you on page 426 is only given if what is on page 427 is present. There is no requirement that States adopt everything written on page 427.

So in any State that the Secretary deems not to meet those requirements, the advanced care consultation has 0 requirements leaving the bureaucrat all their means of persuasion to achieve the end they desire.
There's no bureaucrat. Just you and your doctor.



‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
the treatment of that individual that—
‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionalsand providers across the continuum of care;[/b]

And there you have your pure bureaucrat. Anyone designated by the Secretary can be a signatory on an 'order regarding life sustaining treatment'. No patient signature is required. No family signature is required.
Correct, anyone designated by the Secretary can sign it. The monumental failure of this complaint is you've failed to read the very next section which reads:

effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

You've successfully pointed out that doctors and specified persons by the secretary may "notorize" the order I chose to make.



So, let's say a car accident puts you in a coma. Anyone designated by the Secretary can come along and sign a perfectly legal 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' which could pull your plug.

I'm sure they or you will and can spin this to mean whatever it is you want but in the end, legally, the door is open and the authority will rest w/ the Secretary of Health to dictate the regulations; regulations which will have no check and balance within the gov't short of electing a new president.
No, as I pointed out... YOU MAKE THE ORDER. They don't make any orders, they just sign them.



How easy would it be to say:

[i]End of life planning consultations which are provided by your PCP will be available once every 5 years and/or at such time that there is a significant change in patient's health. The will include advice on x,y,z and will provide the patient with the means to dictate their own care via proxy of their choosing and/or their specific orders concerning life sustaining treatment.

Patient, doctor of choice, and family retain all control. Costs are controlled by 5 year intervals. Decisions are made based on patient's choices not some bureaucrat's signature.
Your proferred description of end of life car is what's in the bill. :rolleyes:

Hubbell
08-15-2009, 01:50
when it really comes down to it, I garantee christianity has inflicted much more pain, suffering and death than muslimism ever has, over the course of history.

Islam was created and spread by a pedophile who had his gang murder anyone who didn't convert. That was just how it STARTED, let alone where it went from there.

StainlessSteelRat
08-15-2009, 02:08
Laws are not designed to give choices. You have the choice to do everything not specifically forbidden by law. There's no law that says you may chose what food to eat, but you still have this choice.

Wow, you are naive. This law is nothing but broad strokes leaving the regulating to the Secretary of State. Congress delegates it's authority and renders the regulations of the Sec. as legal. Checks and balances completely bypassed.


Only insofar as to whom the law (not the secretary) defines a physician. A physician is can be found defined here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001395---x000-.html

So what? The state is still deciding who you have to meet with for counseling.


No it's not. This dictates what will be required by the doctor to discuss if you elect to have an end of life consultation.

And if you don't? Seems to me they are extremely interested in getting everyone into counseling. Why?


There's no bureaucrat. Just you and your doctor.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.


Correct, anyone designated by the Secretary can sign it. The monumental failure of this complaint is you've failed to read the very next section which reads:

effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

You've successfully pointed out that doctors and specified persons by the secretary may "notorize" the order I chose to make.

No, not notarize; sign and make legally binding. Again, where is the patient sig requirement? Or family member? You've successfully evaded the issue here in that there is not proof of concurrence for the part of the patient.


No, as I pointed out... YOU MAKE THE ORDER. They don't make any orders, they just sign them.

All you pointed out is that the order signed by the bureaucrat is claimed to represent the patient's wishes.


Your proferred description of end of life car is what's in the bill. :rolleyes:

No, it's not. Learn2read and understand what is omitted in this bill.

BTW - the Senate version of the bill has already deleted this part. :)