Jump to content
I mean, if what you say is truly part of our cultural history, then surely it was written down somewhere before it became NRA propaganda back in the 1980's?
Or are you going to tell me that leaving your six-shooter on the hitchin' post is simply a bogus artifact of Western movies? Back then, gun-owning folks (unless they had criminal intent) complied, without ridiculous claims of how their 2nd-amendment rights were somehow being violated.
Or, point out how blind are the eyes of those who purport to know our founding and cultural history. Until 2008, what court had ever seen an individual right to gun ownership in the 2nd amendment? You may like what the law says now, just don't go bringing our cultural history into it, because that's very much the opposite of what you think it is.
Yeah, nothing ever goes wrong when there's a samaritan with a gun nearby:
How can I get it through to you concealed-carry folks, that if you think I need help, please don't?
The link is merely this week's example...
Not that any of the issues discussed in this weeks-old partisan political bickerthread matter. I mean, especially in light of recent telco/911 issues, why isn't everyone coming together and questioning not just our circa-2004 local election computers, but all those other vintage Windows XP systems we're relying on to count ballots in a little over a year? Seriously, who has a Windows XP box still plugged into the Internet in this day and age? Oh. Gummint. The voting boxes...
Well, nothing to worry about, I mean who's leading the world in hacking those? Oh. China. Albeit in most cases it comes down to nobody thought to change a default password, or even if they did they stored it in plaintext (with all our CC #'s right next to that info, right down to the security code and likely our SSNs, not that anyone working for corporations or governments cares enough to keep it from happening every other week for like a decade now) or something. I'm sure the NSA has backups. Surely they'll protect us! Oh. Stuxnet...
I should start packing for New Zealand now. I hate to say it, but we're screwed. Makes me lose sleep at night. On top of not being able to call 911. Somehow we need to get beyond ideology and fix what we've broken, because it all used to work. In the case of voting, with ballot gear purchased in my grandparents' time which still wouldn't be obsolete in my grandchildrens' despite that I don't even have kids. Instead we have Windows XP. So, I'm sure, will my unborn-as-yet children, if we don't do something about it. Which won't happen until we unwind the travesty that will be the 2016 elections sponsored by Windows XP and Chinese hackers, so just mark my words, I guess.
Or believe what the TV tells you when it happens. If it comes to halting a recount, we'll just have the Supremes appoint our next President, again. Although how they'll manage that without citing Bush v. Gore (a decision which claims it isn't allowed to be cited, although it has been at least once I think) should be interesting to observe from New Zealand or somewhere. I'll come back once I'm allowed to hang my chad in my homeland.
Yeah, some systems have been upgraded to at least Win 7. But mostly, nobody ever updated the proprietary XP drivers for the proprietary hardware, running the proprietary patented vote-counting blackboxes. So they're still running XP for that reason. Take our Hart InterCivic boxes, for example. In this day and age of gesture-driven touchscreens, when was the last time someone updated a driver for that sort of input device? So, yeah, it's prolly about time to spend fantastic gobs of tax money to update our election infrastructure in 2017, to 2014 technology (hey, it's an improvement right), then lather-rinse-repeat. Or keep running XP, either way China owns us even with mail-in ballots, because they pwn our election infrastructure.
Peace, out. Back to my up-all-night movie, Blazing Saddles.
I mean, at least this isn't an ad-hominem response to me. But still, after the issues that've been brought up, your response is you hate Margaret Sanger because Hillary?
Dude, I don't even know what to say. You're arguing against some point I didn't bring up, in hopes to discredit me as supporting people I've only ever spoken out against? Maybe you should consider addressing the issues, instead of always bringing your point around to those people you hate...
If you're the one claiming fetal-tissue sales for profit, then shouldn't you be the one to substantiate it with something other than a completely-discredited, bogus-to-begin-with, bullshit ideological partisan video? Instead of my proving something completely unsubstantiated never happened? That's a pretty high and insurmountable bar, to me.
But here I am again, having to explain the rules of fair debate to an ideologue who can't begin for a second to believe he might just be wrong about anything. :-( No room for rational debate with such folks.
Why do I have to be the one to rebut video evidence that's been so widely and soundly discredited? I mean, if you want to keep on believing it against any rational assessment of the evidence thus far presented? You just insist that I prove what amounts to you to be a negative? I can't begin to do that, nobody can. If you believe in this, the onus of proof is on YOU, not me.
IOW, since when has religion been based on facts rather than faith? Hardly makes me anti-religion to insist that government be fact-based, in a system such as ours which recognizes no official religion while depending on facts to underpin legislation. You're free to disbelieve my facts, without me mocking your religion (not that you'd ever grant me that courtesy). Instead, apparently I just need to shutup or risk being gunned down. While that might win a debate, I've never been one to knuckle under to intimidation, particularly where my right to free speech is concerned. I'd just like to say that our views of this country are apparently irreconcilable, due to your being an extremist who is genetically incapable of listening to anyone other than himself.
So which one of us do the facts make a witless demagogue? If you're proud of that title, don't let me disabuse you of it. Unless "your ilk" can come up with a rebuttal that isn't simply an ad-hominem attack against someone (like myself) you disagree with. This isn't about me, it's about the issues. Or rather, this shouldn't be about me, but should be about the issues. So long as you're oblivious to that, I'll keep calling Trump an idiotic bozo clown of a joke of a candidate, while disparaging you unless and until you have a point to make that isn't an ad-hominem.
Or, are you so uncomfortable with your position that you can't argue in favor of it, instead only being capable of disparaging others who disagree?
Yeah, that isn't pathetic at all. You could always not comment until you've done some basic research into the Constitution, first, you know...
Or are insults your only support for what you believe? Disparage me as much as you will, you still won't have any credibility if your only arguments are against people not issues. Sorry, try again later.
Yeah, I have a helluva lotta tolerance of folks who only angrily lash out at everyone without bothering to make any effort at, you know, any sort of lucid and rational point.
"I see Bowman dropping his redneck 'gummint thugs comin' to take yer guns' jive every chance he gets."
Links, please? I mean, if yer gonna resort to ad-hominems as your only rebuttal against me, then surely you can enlighten everyone else as to what on Earth you're even beginning to talk about, by providing links to how I'm some sort of broken record on a forum I barely post to.
Vs. your Wedell-like record for posting here on topics you don't begin to know anything about, which never stops you from weighing in with some bizarre ideological opinion, then resorting to ad-hominems if anyone posts any disagreement to it.
Yeah, I keep shooting down rebuttals to what I post, myself. But it isn't my fault, that those I request factual information from on the political right, can't provide it. So I guess, not that I don't think it's childish, that I have to expect "rebuttals" like yours. Which remind me of Homer Simpson "mooning" as a "rebuttal".
You know, if you can't defend your position without resorting to tactics nobody who reads your posts begins to buy into, maybe it's time to at least consider the oppositions' point? I'm not so closed-minded as to discount any rebuttals. I'm just waiting for one that's rational, and not filled with discrediting ad-hominem hatred I shouldn't begin to respond to, for fear of legitimizing it.
Bullys gonna bully.
And apparently you didn't notice, that the document I posted a link to, has an entire section about why Marbury and Madison are bogus ideological decisions? IANAL, which is why I post the opinions of legal scholars I agree with. But which you apparently can't be bothered to read, before insisting I back up my position with references I already posted.
Which means that in terms of my further responding to you, you first have some credibility to earn back. Beginning by reading the information I present to back up my posts, before posting your knee-jerk responses to those posts.
But I notice that, as opposed to any constructive criticism, or willingness to compromise, your only recourse in political discussions has become hating those opposed to your opinions.
Don't then go cryin' me a river if your attitude leads to insults -- from those very people you go out of your way to hate without listening to. What other rational response is there? So don't get me started on who's judgment is clouded around here.
If the Presidential election doesn't go how we want it, the difference between us, is that I'll willingly leave the country to avoid paying taxes to a government I don't support. You'll just stay and take up arms against it. I doubt we'll ever agree on anything, given that attitude.
Taxation without representation, yeah, I'll agree that's "punishment" like you say. But if your representation supports taxes you don't, then why on Earth wouldn't you take the honorable way out of expatriation, if you no longer believe in voting as a remedy? Because you'd rather stay here and enact "2nd Amendment Remedies" i.e. killing your neighbors who disagree with you?
Sorry, as much as I love this country, if you people insist on electing Trump, y'all have nothing to worry about from me. I'd rather leave the country, as abhorrent a notion as that may be, than go around killing my neighbors in political retaliation based on some misinformed notion that the Founders would approve.
If you ever disagree vehemently with a government of, by, and for the People, then for God's sakes, please just leave our country instead of just gunning people down. I'm willing to do so if President Trump, what's your beef? I'll take expatriation over murdering my neighbors any day, myself.
Last login: Monday, September 28, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.