Tony and Hame

sandstorm · February 15, 2013

Just as we armed Osama Bin Laden against Russia, or Saddam against Iran........much like styrafoam, weapons don't decompose for quite some time.

GO RV, then BV

Shabs.....you dont have to concede your argument.....but

Isnt it ironic we are arming the middle east, as we reduce our military and try to ban guns for americans??

You do see why some have formed such different kinds of opinions?

Edited February 15, 2013 by sandstorm

Shabibilicious · February 15, 2013

Shabs.....you dont have to concede your argument.....but

Isnt it ironic we are arming the middle east, as we reduce our military and try to ban guns for americans??

You do see why some have formed such different kinds of opinions?

It is terribly ironic. But I haven't seen anything of substance that supports disarming Americans.......perceived assault weapons, yes.....total disarmament, no.

GO RV, then BV

stonewall67 · February 15, 2013

Just as we armed Osama Bin Laden against Russia, or Saddam against Iran........much like styrafoam, weapons don't decompose for quite some time.

GO RV, then BV

Exactly Shabs....... those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them..... and suffer the conciquences thereof!!!!! Please stop using bad decisions of the past to justify those same type of decisions now!!!! It's like saying "Mom, why can't I smoke dope...... you did!!!"

It is terribly ironic. But I haven't seen anything of substance that supports disarming Americans.......perceived assault weapons, yes.....total disarmament, no.

GO RV, then BV

Making it illegal to own a weapon that has a higher round capacity than 3 rounds is effectively minimizing ones ability to defend themselves and their family!!!! Just one step closer to the true stated goal of Obama, Feinstein and the like..... TOTAL DIARMAMENT......... I for one have never found it wise to listen to a politician say what they would like to see happen and then believe that they will not do what they need to do to make that happen......

Shabibilicious · February 15, 2013

I have definitely learned to question politicians stone. However, you and I will have to agree to disagree when it comes to assault weapons and higher capacity mags.

GO RV, then BV

willy1der · February 15, 2013

Great analogy Hame.... Let me give you this conservatives response to the playground scenario.... I have 6 kids ranging from 21 down to 5, I've faced this before! I have taught my kids to use their intellect and not their brawn. Find a way to defuse the situation as best you can until you can get someone with authority to handle things and protect you. However, I have also taught them how to protect themselves because I know evil exists in this world and they may very well have to defend themselves from someone who is not interested in peace! The worst thing I could do is make them believe that peace is attainable in all situations. Then one day they come home after having the crap kicked out of them and they are mad at me for not telling them the truth about life!

Think back historically.... Chamberlain tried to make peace with Hitler through appeasement..... Did that stop WWII from happening? We have had talk after talk with North Korea..... Has that stopped them from building nukes and threatening America? How about the people in the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado?? Could they have stopped that situation by talking the gunman into peace???? Sometimes you have to meet evil where it is and make a stand!! In order to be able to do that, you have to know how and you have to be equipped with tools that help you be successful.

I've got a brother-in-law and an aunt in politics. One on the local scale and the other national.... I would prefer to get in their ear than to run myself. Effect change one life at a time where I stand..... That's my contribution!

I understand stonewall67. I just wanted to plant a seed. I also know that you don't need God speaking through me to you, you're a man of God. The local level is probably the best place to start to effect change. My reason for the suggestion is due to my respect for the way you handle yourself. I hope you know that I was ribbing you in my earlier post. Here lately people seem to be on edge and my attempts at humor have failed tremendously.

God bless brother!

stonewall67 · February 15, 2013

I understand stonewall67. I just wanted to plant a seed. I also know that you don't need God speaking through me to you, you're a man of God. The local level is probably the best place to start to effect change. My reason for the suggestion is due to my respect for the way you handle yourself. I hope you know that I was ribbing you in my earlier post. Here lately people seem to be on edge and my attempts at humor have failed tremendously.

God bless brother!

Thanks willy!! I totally got your humor!! LOL....... People are on edge all over this country and not just on DV......

hame55 · February 15, 2013

For 10 years following the removal of Saddam from Kuwait, the US, along with numerous other partner countries tried to negotiate with Saddam. His answer was to constantly thumb his nose at negotiations, sanctions and so forth. In those 10 years, he ordered the shooting down of numerous UN jets in the no fly zone, harbored terrorist and committed atrocities against his countrymen..... I would think that 10 years of negotiations was enough. At some point, someone had to take down the evil dictator. Please don't fail to remember that the US was not the only country involved in doing so. Canada, England, Germany etc. all plaid a part. It was not just "BUSH'S WAR"!!!

Careful Hame..... Your falling into the trap of generalizing the opposition. That same trap that Tony screamed against!

Do you know who armed most of those guys...... Yup.. The good ole USA! Obama armed the oposition in Egypt, Lybia and Syria. Guess who those guys were! The Muslim Brotherhood.... aka Al Quaida!!! How did that work out for us?? Hame.... I thought the liberal mindset was peace and conversation over violence?!?!?!

Ah.... our border with Mexico... That's a safe place isn't it!!!!!! Mexico! The land of total gun control and gun regulation! Law abiding citizens are not allowed to own anything but a single shot shotgun and only that after they pass background checks, pass tests and jump through a mile of bureaucracy. How many people killed in Mexico in recent years??? How about 55,000!!!!!!

Mexicans are dying because of our insatiable drug habit in this country - and their leaders not legalizing drugs to stop the drug wars.

As for Obama arming other countries - I don't agree with MOST of what Obama does. This is one of them.

As for Bush, let's be honest, shall we? The Coalition of the "Unwilling" was just a cover for the Bush invasion and you know it.

You also know Bush invaded before the UN was finished looking for WMD - because he knew they would not find any. And they did not.

stonewall67 · February 15, 2013

Mexicans are dying because of our insatiable drug habit in this country - and their leaders not legalizing drugs to stop the drug wars.

As for Obama arming other countries - I don't agree with MOST of what Obama does. This is one of them.

As for Bush, let's be honest, shall we? The Coalition of the "Unwilling" was just a cover for the Bush invasion and you know it.

You also know Bush invaded before the UN was finished looking for WMD - because he knew they would not find any. And they did not.

Hame... That revisionist history at best..... The unwilling???? Please qualify that statement! Unwilling because a segment of the population said no? Collin Powell went to the UN before the attack.... Bush went to congress before the attack... Both entities agreed on the attack! Your letting your Bush hate blind you to facts! Now, wether or not the war was justifiable can be debated but the same tired liberal lines you just threw out there are smoke and mirrors! Did Saddam have WMD's???? Well we know for a fact he did!!! How you might ask??? Because he used them on his own people!!!! That's fact!!! Please come with a better argument than Umwilling and WMD's.

Here's a link for you to look at:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

I'm enjoying the debate!!! Keep it coming!!!

caz1104 · February 15, 2013

Rayzur - Another of your intelligent posts....thanks for saving me the trouble!

I was accused of telling conservatives how to live - I was actually describing what the Common Good might be, in my opinion, for us all.

This is what happens in healthy debate. Gee, I wonder what is best to do in this case...and we discuss.

Moving away from solving problems with guns - do we tell our kids to fight on the playground to get along or get their way? Or do we tell them to work it out other ways?

This seems to be the big difference. No one that I know tells their kids that fighting is the best way to solve their problems. But I don't hang out with conservatives.

Fighting in the playground becomes fighting in the world, as adults. They know no other way.

Simply not true,but your entitled(entitlement society) to your opinion-peace

Rayzur - Another of your intelligent posts....thanks for saving me the trouble!

I was accused of telling conservatives how to live - I was actually describing what the Common Good might be, in my opinion, for us all.

This is what happens in healthy debate. Gee, I wonder what is best to do in this case...and we discuss.

Moving away from solving problems with guns - do we tell our kids to fight on the playground to get along or get their way? Or do we tell them to work it out other ways?

This seems to be the big difference. No one that I know tells their kids that fighting is the best way to solve their problems. But I don't hang out with conservatives.

Fighting in the playground becomes fighting in the world, as adults. They know no other way.

Hame... That revisionist history at best..... The unwilling???? Please qualify that statement! Unwilling because a segment of the population said no? Collin Powell went to the UN before the attack.... Bush went to congress before the attack... Both entities agreed on the attack! Your letting your Bush hate blind you to facts! Now, wether or not the war was justifiable can be debated but the same tired liberal lines you just threw out there are smoke and mirrors! Did Saddam have WMD's???? Well we know for a fact he did!!! How you might ask??? Because he used them on his own people!!!! That's fact!!! Please come with a better argument than Umwilling and WMD's.

Here's a link for you to look at:

http://hotair.com/ar...-found-in-iraq/

I'm enjoying the debate!!! Keep it coming!!!

The UN(before the invasion) was in IRAQ multiple of times to document WMD's. One reason we invaded was Iraqs refusal to allow UN inspectors access to all area's agreed upon after 1st invasion.-peace

Edited February 15, 2013 by caz1104

tigerstripes · February 15, 2013

So your rebuttal of this guys science is to use the rebuttal of some liberal scientists?

But what you are saying here is that we should discount the opinions of liberal scientists, because they differ in view from this one conservative scientist.

The reason these people disagree with him is because he doesn't use scientific methods to come up with his thesis. He basically starts from the viewpoint of "Because some people disagree with my ideology, they must be stupid". That is a very poor way to conduct research. It also does nothing to advance his belief.

I agree.... I never stated "republican" vs "democrat"..... I stated modern liberal and conservative view points on life..... Can we see a correlation of those viewpoints in politics?

Perhaps if you could define "modern liberal" and "modern conservative", we may have somewhere to begin a discussion.

Speaking only for myself, I used to consider myself conservative, then the conservative side of politics raced away somewhere to the right of Pluto. Those on the left went past me in an attempt to catch up with the conservatives. Now I find myself standing here wondering where everybody went.

Is this another one of your "post a picture - caption it to represent something I believe with no evidence to support it" things? Which one of those guys is calling for Americans to be disarmed?

Hame... That revisionist history at best..... The unwilling???? Please qualify that statement! Unwilling because a segment of the population said no? Collin Powell went to the UN before the attack.... Bush went to congress before the attack... Both entities agreed on the attack! Your letting your Bush hate blind you to facts! Now, wether or not the war was justifiable can be debated but the same tired liberal lines you just threw out there are smoke and mirrors! Did Saddam have WMD's???? Well we know for a fact he did!!! How you might ask??? Because he used them on his own people!!!! That's fact!!! Please come with a better argument than Umwilling and WMD's.

I'm enjoying the debate!!! Keep it coming!!!

Are you sure the UN agreed on the attack?

hame55 · February 15, 2013

Hame... That revisionist history at best..... The unwilling???? Please qualify that statement! Unwilling because a segment of the population said no? Collin Powell went to the UN before the attack.... Bush went to congress before the attack... Both entities agreed on the attack! Your letting your Bush hate blind you to facts! Now, wether or not the war was justifiable can be debated but the same tired liberal lines you just threw out there are smoke and mirrors! Did Saddam have WMD's???? Well we know for a fact he did!!! How you might ask??? Because he used them on his own people!!!! That's fact!!! Please come with a better argument than Umwilling and WMD's.

Here's a link for you to look at:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

I'm enjoying the debate!!! Keep it coming!!!

I am not sure I can debate anymore with you. You said Saddam had WMDs.

Everyone has known for ten years he did not. I need to debate rationally with someone...sorry!

Sage449 · February 15, 2013

Hmm - worried about gun control and killing off our kids - so tell me what is abortion all about - what's the difference?

stonewall67 · February 15, 2013

I am not sure I can debate anymore with you. You said Saddam had WMDs.

Everyone has known for ten years he did not. I need to debate rationally with someone...sorry!

Debate rationally? What do you call casting a blind eye to what is verified proof positive facts! Did you even look at my proof? Everyone being who?????? The liberal media who took it upon themselves to vilify Bush?? Here look at this proof.... Don't blindly follow without checking all sides out first!!! This can be found at the following site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

On December 23, 2005, a Dutch court sentenced Frans van Anraat, a businessman who bought chemicals on the world market and sold them to Saddam's regime, to 15 years in prison. The Dutch court ruled that Saddam committed genocide against the people of Halabja;^[16] this was the first time a court described the Halabja attack as an act of genocide. On 12 March 2008, the government of Iraq announced plans to take further legal action against the suppliers of chemicals used in the poison gas attack.^[17]

Neither Saddam Hussein nor his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid (who commanded Iraqi forces in northern Iraq in that period, which earned him a nickname of "Chemical Ali") were charged by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for crimes against humanity relating to the events at Halabja. However, the Iraqi prosecutors had "500 documented baskets of crimes during the Hussein regime" and Hussein was condemned to death based on just one case (the 1982 Dujail Massacre).^[18] Among several documents revealed during the trial of Saddam Hussein, one was a 1987 memorandum from Iraq's military intelligence seeking permission from the president's office to use mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin against Kurds. A second document said in reply that Saddam had ordered military intelligence to study the possibility of a "sudden strike" using such weapons against Iranian and Kurdish forces. An internal memo written by military intelligence confirmed it had received approval from the president's office for a strike using "special ammunition" and emphasized that no strike would be launched without first informing the president.^[19]

On 18 December 2006, Saddam Hussein told the court:

In relation to Iran, if any military or civil official claims that Saddam gave orders to use either conventional or special ammunition, which as explained is chemical, I will take responsibility with honor. But I will discuss any act committed against our people and any Iraqi citizen, whether Arab or Kurdish. I don't accept any insult to my principles or to me personally.

^[20]

Ali Hassan al-Majid ("Chemical Ali") was condemned to death by hanging by an Iraqi court in January 2010, after being found guilty of orchestrating the Halabja massacre. Majid was first senten

ced to hang in 2007 for his role in a 1988 military campaign against ethnic Kurds, codenamed Operation Anfal; in 2008 he also twice received a death sentence for his crimes against the Iraqi Shia Muslims, in particular for his role in crushing the 1991 uprisings in southern Iraq and his involvement in the 1999 killings in the Sadr City (then Saddam City) district of Baghdad. He was executed on January 25, 2010.^[21]

jonjon · February 15, 2013

Is this another one of your "post a picture - caption it to represent something I believe with no evidence to support it" things? Which one of those guys is calling for Americans to be disarmed?

All of them but the one holding up the peace sign.

He's lying though, he wants us disarmed too.

tigerstripes · February 15, 2013

All of them but the one holding up the peace sign.

He's lying though, he wants us disarmed too.

Well played.

stonewall67 · February 15, 2013

Hame..... Here's another link for you:

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm?p=full

I can give you more if you would like....

Rayzur · February 15, 2013

So your rebuttal of this guys science is to use the rebuttal of some liberal scientists? The very people who most assuredly got offended by the book in the first place? That's like asking Al Gore to respond to scientists who refute man caused global warming.

Yo brother, before I respond I want to be clear that at the end of the day, I acknowledge you are a solider as am I. And I have no doubt that when it really matters, you and I will fall into this almost automatic mechanistic rhythm and standing shoulder to shoulder will cover each others back as we stand united in one mission to live the oath we swore in defending the Constitution and liberties protected therein. Meantime, we chit chat about things of interest or differing perspectives as to what's going on in the world. And while some of us disagree on perspective, I do know at the end of the day, both active and vet will stand together as a unified force of one in the mission of Constitutional and liberty defense.

So in direct response to your question, my issue is this. Rossiter was not scientific and used his credentials to nonetheless give it that air of meeting that threshold. For whatever reason the federal government wanted to study the roots of conservatism. I don't know why and would guess it was part of a larger discussion not even related to that quality specifically. Whatever the reason it was NOT to blame, vilify, judge, pathologize or otherwise negatively characterize conservatism. That is never ever, ever never scientifically acceptable or considered science. Its considered good fodder for books or political pundits, or commentators, BUT it is never ever considered science. In order to be considered science, it must be methodologically pure, pristine, and without judgmental qualifiers. Indeed one of the scientists, from the federal study Dr. Kruglanski, correctly and in contrast to Rossiter, stated that: their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false" THAT is the most accurate statement a scientist can make .... both in this study as it should be in his.

When science is methodologically pristine, it doesn't matter if the scientist is conservative, liberal, male, female, black, white, purple, or a nazi. The variables are operationalized objectively, and are not the subject of opinionated manipulation. Indeed they are generally reduced to numbers which are subjected to statistical correlations. None of that happened with Rossiter's work. None of it. He didn't even bother to formulate a hypothesis, operationalize variables or subject their objectification to statistical analysis. He merely commented based upon his observations, and using his credentials, implied there was an air of science to his findings.

The findings of the federal study, did not sit well with a lot of people and its well known that Rossiter was extremely upset with the correlations produced by that study. Instead of scientifically formulating another study drilling down on the findings, or showing different findings produced from the same variables, he used his license and credentials to simply write an opinionated rebuttal. I'm not saying its wrong, but I am saying it doesn't even approach the threshold of scientific

My further objection as that of others, is that Rossiter who is a licensed provider, breached fundamental science, and the rubrics governing his profession, by inventing categories and relationships to mental illness that do not exist in acceptable science. The only acceptable scientific nomenclature acceptable to his profession is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) (5th edition release has been delayed to 2013).

which does not in any fashion, flavor or content support anything Rossiter says in his book. Nothing. Not one thing. So we have a guy, who uses his credentials, to advance a statement about the mental illness of a group which in turn is not founded upon any acceptable methodological foundation and which, defies the nomenclature regulating his profession.... and he thinks its okay? Its not okay and those in his profession have extreme heartburn to the point to contacting his licensing Board for unethical use of position of power and license to advance personal gain. A big no no.

This has nothing to do with liberal scientists refuting him. This is just basic science, ethics and Board regulation of a profession so that people will not do exactly what he did. I haven't read any other opinions about his work from sources other than professional reviews of peer colleagues. They basically think his stuff suks from a scientific, and medical practice aspect. Other than that, its a good book expressing his opinion as a person. THAT is my issue with him.

And btw there IS a federally funded research study that essentially looks at what Rossiter was trying to say, only they say it within scientific, licensed, and professional protocol; of course not the same conclusions, and reported as relationships just like the recent study on conservatism (and I'd be the first to refute that those scientists must have all been conservatives. It doesn't matter in methodologically pristine research).

Can you please ask me a non technical question next time so my answer doesn't have to be so long

Its alllllll good... baff

hame55 · February 16, 2013

Debate rationally? What do you call casting a blind eye to what is verified proof positive facts! Did you even look at my proof? Everyone being who?????? The liberal media who took it upon themselves to vilify Bush?? Here look at this proof.... Don't blindly follow without checking all sides out first!!! This can be found at the following site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

On December 23, 2005, a Dutch court sentenced Frans van Anraat, a businessman who bought chemicals on the world market and sold them to Saddam's regime, to 15 years in prison. The Dutch court ruled that Saddam committed genocide against the people of Halabja;^[16] this was the first time a court described the Halabja attack as an act of genocide. On 12 March 2008, the government of Iraq announced plans to take further legal action against the suppliers of chemicals used in the poison gas attack.^[17]

Neither Saddam Hussein nor his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid (who commanded Iraqi forces in northern Iraq in that period, which earned him a nickname of "Chemical Ali") were charged by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for crimes against humanity relating to the events at Halabja. However, the Iraqi prosecutors had "500 documented baskets of crimes during the Hussein regime" and Hussein was condemned to death based on just one case (the 1982 Dujail Massacre).^[18] Among several documents revealed during the trial of Saddam Hussein, one was a 1987 memorandum from Iraq's military intelligence seeking permission from the president's office to use mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin against Kurds. A second document said in reply that Saddam had ordered military intelligence to study the possibility of a "sudden strike" using such weapons against Iranian and Kurdish forces. An internal memo written by military intelligence confirmed it had received approval from the president's office for a strike using "special ammunition" and emphasized that no strike would be launched without first informing the president.^[19]

On 18 December 2006, Saddam Hussein told the court:

In relation to Iran, if any military or civil official claims that Saddam gave orders to use either conventional or special ammunition, which as explained is chemical, I will take responsibility with honor. But I will discuss any act committed against our people and any Iraqi citizen, whether Arab or Kurdish. I don't accept any insult to my principles or to me personally.
^[20]

Ali Hassan al-Majid ("Chemical Ali") was condemned to death by hanging by an Iraqi court in January 2010, after being found guilty of orchestrating the Halabja massacre. Majid was first senten

ced to hang in 2007 for his role in a 1988 military campaign against ethnic Kurds, codenamed Operation Anfal; in 2008 he also twice received a death sentence for his crimes against the Iraqi Shia Muslims, in particular for his role in crushing the 1991 uprisings in southern Iraq and his involvement in the 1999 killings in the Sadr City (then Saddam City) district of Baghdad. He was executed on January 25, 2010.^[21]

Short and sweet so listen up. Chemical weapons like sarin were not cited by Bushies as reasons to invade. Mushroom clouds (CONDI RICE) and uranium yellowcake were said to be the threat to the US.

Both turned out to be Bush lies.

Sarin gas was not a threat.

We sold them those chemical weapons - we should know. They need delivery systems to be an imminent threat to the US. They did not have those systems. (long range missiles) You swallowed the pill from FOX news. How did it taste?

You show your ignorance...no more time for this.

Edited February 16, 2013 by hame55

Thaiexpat · February 16, 2013

Stonewall67, you replied with a comparison between CA and TX and, sorry, I dont follow it? Maybe it is me or some inside joke, but I just didnt get it!

OK, as for being free and then telling me there is a difference in politics at a local level, at least, makes zero sense to me.

So, if I might, use an example for all those to ponder.

Jose and Hose B are running for county office. Jose is your man, you like him and vote for him. He is of ___party, which you happen to like also. He wins by majority (Whatever % you want to place in above 51%)

The question is:

Does he have the consent of the people? If so, what about the 49% (or whatever) that didnt vote for him? How did he get consent to respresent them?

OK, so lets say, over time, Jose starts doing things that kinda piss you off. Starts influencing your business and home life with passing of some statues, regulations, etc. Does he still govern with your consent? If so, how does me maintain that "mastery" over you?

Similar, I live next to you and start putting those lovely plastic, pink flamingoes on my yard. You walk over and say, "Hey, Thaiexpat, why dont you take those ugly SOS flamingoes and move back to BFE!". If course, I would say, "Piss off!". Later, you discover that ALL the neighbors think like you and you get them to sign a petition saying the same thing (Take those flamingoes and hit the road). Of course, I reply to you all with "Piss off". Now, you go to Jose with your problem and he gets Barney Fife to walk over and tell me the same thing as you all want. WHEN did he get authority over me? When did Jose get authority over me? When did YOU get authority over me? Just because I live in a certain location doesnt NOT present a contract or consent to be govern by anyone.

Please consider the writings of Lysander Spooner and others that talk about REAL freedom. Living in Texas or where ever under the control of others is NOT freedom. Thinking that voting for someone to represent your desires is not freedom for you or for the other people (there is always a loser). Acting in a sovereign manner requires no laws under which I will be govern. I act from my moral authortiy-do no harm to others, treat others as I wish to be treated, mind my OWN business-NONE of these things are present at either local, state or federal levels. Whether Conservative or Liberal, Commie or Socialist, ALL those folks think they have some right or duty to tell you/I what to do. SO, at any level, can you be free within that system? Never. Unless, of course, you like being told what to do since you lack a moral compass to govern yourself accordingly. (You is not to mean YOU, personally)

Something to ponder. Cheers and thanks for the reply.

stonewall67 · February 16, 2013

Short and sweet so listen up. Chemical weapons like sarin were not cited by Bushies as reasons to invade. Mushroom clouds (CONDI RICE) and uranium yellowcake were said to be the threat to the US.

Both turned out to be Bush lies.

Sarin gas was not a threat.

We sold them those chemical weapons - we should know. They need delivery systems to be an imminent threat to the US. They did not have those systems. (long range missiles) You swallowed the pill from FOX news. How did it taste?

You show your ignorance...no more time for this.

Wow.... You tell Bumper folks are calling you names and whine about it yet do it yourself. I was attempting to have a friendly dialogue with you but you insist on being an arse so let me tell you something you pompous, blinded tree hugging arsehole..... A threat of WMD's does not have to be a threat to US soil to be a threat. There is such a thing as US interests as well!

As for swallowing the Fox pill.... There you go with generalizations again, trying to lump everyone into your neat little perception of them. I don't watch Fox much at all! I read! As a matter of fact, I watch MSNBC as much as I watch Fox! I don't listen to Hannity, Rush or Levine either! It's close minded college professors like you that are ruining the education system in America! You have forgotten the art of logical and civil debate....... You have forgotten the are of scientific study requiring a long look at all sides prior to finding a hypothesis and then working that hypothesis with full understanding that it could very well be wrong! I understand that I may very well be wrong or misguided in my view, that's why I enjoy dialog..... You on the other hand have proven to be a classless snob incapable of inward critical thought and exploration into all sides!! Don't bother replying!!!

I know this may get me banned and I generally try to be civil but Hame just pushed the button and I've had enough!!!! Intelligence?!?!? I would love for you to exhibit that intelligence sometime!

Stonewall67, you replied with a comparison between CA and TX and, sorry, I dont follow it? Maybe it is me or some inside joke, but I just didnt get it!

OK, as for being free and then telling me there is a difference in politics at a local level, at least, makes zero sense to me.

So, if I might, use an example for all those to ponder.

Jose and Hose B are running for county office. Jose is your man, you like him and vote for him. He is of ___party, which you happen to like also. He wins by majority (Whatever % you want to place in above 51%)

The question is:

Does he have the consent of the people? If so, what about the 49% (or whatever) that didnt vote for him? How did he get consent to respresent them?

OK, so lets say, over time, Jose starts doing things that kinda piss you off. Starts influencing your business and home life with passing of some statues, regulations, etc. Does he still govern with your consent? If so, how does me maintain that "mastery" over you?

Similar, I live next to you and start putting those lovely plastic, pink flamingoes on my yard. You walk over and say, "Hey, Thaiexpat, why dont you take those ugly SOS flamingoes and move back to BFE!". If course, I would say, "Piss off!". Later, you discover that ALL the neighbors think like you and you get them to sign a petition saying the same thing (Take those flamingoes and hit the road). Of course, I reply to you all with "Piss off". Now, you go to Jose with your problem and he gets Barney Fife to walk over and tell me the same thing as you all want. WHEN did he get authority over me? When did Jose get authority over me? When did YOU get authority over me? Just because I live in a certain location doesnt NOT present a contract or consent to be govern by anyone.

Please consider the writings of Lysander Spooner and others that talk about REAL freedom. Living in Texas or where ever under the control of others is NOT freedom. Thinking that voting for someone to represent your desires is not freedom for you or for the other people (there is always a loser). Acting in a sovereign manner requires no laws under which I will be govern. I act from my moral authortiy-do no harm to others, treat others as I wish to be treated, mind my OWN business-NONE of these things are present at either local, state or federal levels. Whether Conservative or Liberal, Commie or Socialist, ALL those folks think they have some right or duty to tell you/I what to do. SO, at any level, can you be free within that system? Never. Unless, of course, you like being told what to do since you lack a moral compass to govern yourself accordingly. (You is not to mean YOU, personally)

Something to ponder. Cheers and thanks for the reply.

I can answer that quickly.... Jose should understand that he does not have a mandate and he should work hard on the art of compromise and inclusion. It's called statesmanship. Too few have it anymore! We would rather call names and deflect rather than have serious discussion and find compromise.....

stonewall67 · February 16, 2013

theiexpat........ I understand your premise and wish that was the system we lived in but it's not so the question is, how to have as much freedom as possible within the constraints of the system. The texas Cali analogy is simply as this.... I have the freedom to spend more of my money here then they do there..... State tax, property tax, business tax etc.... I lived there by the way, my dad was stationed in Oxnard for several years and I lived in Ventura as an adult myself and I know the differences. Do you know who is the biggest contributor to population growth in Texas over the past several years..... California!! But I digress...... Freedom is unattainable in any system, democracy, theocracy, commie etc.... What we hope for is the ability to operate In a system that affords us the most freedom we can get! I think we had that here for awhile but its eroding!!

joekooltrips · February 16, 2013

theiexpat........ I understand your premise and wish that was the system we lived in but it's not so the question is, how to have as much freedom as possible within the constraints of the system. The texas Cali analogy is simply as this.... I have the freedom to spend more of my money here then they do there..... State tax, property tax, business tax etc.... I lived there by the way, my dad was stationed in Oxnard for several years and I lived in Ventura as an adult myself and I know the differences. Do you know who is the biggest contributor to population growth in Texas over the past several years..... California!! But I digress...... Freedom is unattainable in any system, democracy, theocracy, commie etc.... What we hope for is the ability to operate In a system that affords us the most freedom we can get! I think we had that here for awhile but its eroding!!

Stone--You know how it is, it's the never ending Legal vs Lawful and the sad part is Legal is winning, (Roth) brought the "list" of "Corporations" over to another thread and the United States as well as The United Nations are Corporations. The United States (Corp) Legal vs The United States (Country) Lawful . With respect. :)/> Note; Some Guy 2000 years ago, (You might know him, some talk about him on Saturday others on Sunday and yet others everyday) faced the same thing, Pharisees (Legal) vs Yahshu"a (Law)

Edited February 16, 2013 by joekooltrips

stonewall67 · February 16, 2013

Rayzur

"My further objection as that of others, is that Rossiter who is a licensed provider, breached fundamental science, and the rubrics governing his profession, by inventing categories and relationships to mental illness that do not exist in acceptable science. The only acceptable scientific nomenclature acceptable to his profession is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) (5th edition release has been delayed to 2013).

which does not in any fashion, flavor or content support anything Rossiter says in his book. Nothing. Not one thing. So we have a guy, who uses his credentials, to advance a statement about the mental illness of a group which in turn is not founded upon any acceptable methodological foundation and which, defies the nomenclature regulating his profession.... and he thinks its okay? Its not okay and those in his profession have extreme heartburn to the point to contacting his licensing Board for unethical use of position of power and license to advance personal gain. A big no no.

CRYPTO REWARDS!

Tony and Hame

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Testing the Rocker Badge!

Live Exchange Rate

Important Information