Another Dictator
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
read it, umimpressed.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Coming from straightmoron, I’ll take that as a compliment.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
All right, all right, I’ll play. No male over the age of twelve may wear short pants. Females of all ages get a tax credit for summer dresses in any kind of weather.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I’ll play, too:
“General Order No. 1: all you poor bastards are now on your very own.
That is all.”
({poof} — I promptly disappear, never to be seen again.)
May 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
You will note x that I kept my comment about the item under discussion. You responded with a personal slur. Who’s the moron?
I have been banned at other sites because they couldn’t refrain from personal attacks, but didn’t like to be treated the way they treated others. I suspect you are the same kind of hairpin.
I’m sorry your feelings were hurt, but I wasn’t impressed with the society that would have resulted from a good portion of your new rules. Many of them are practiced is shithole countries throughout the world. I thought the idea was to avoid that fate. Excuuuuse me.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
You’re the one whose widdle feewings were hurt, not mine. Make one or two retarded comments here and there, and the discussion is about the issues. Make too many retarded statements in a row, and at some point you become the retard. This discussion is no exception.
But perhaps I err. Perhaps you had an actual point buried in that generalized rambling. Maybe you can name some actual “shithole” countries that have tried national CCW, a militia-clause-free Second Amendment, a First Amendment that allows unlimited political expenditures but holds people accountable for provable fraud, or any of the other specifics I mentioned. If you have any actual content, let’s hear it. Otherwise, you’ll have to excuse me for concluding that you are a moron, moron.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Here you go, guys.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Ok asshole, but you’re going to have to promise not to wet your panties as Sebastian did.
National CCW is a horrible idea, because the 2nd amendment already covers it and is all the law we need if we were honest about our fealty to the constitution and the nation.
Why have an appeals process to reverse acquittals in criminal courts? Why not just repeal the strictures against double jeopardy? Admit it, you are a prosecuting attorney who wants his job to be easier. Many shithole countries have something similar, they can keep coming after those out of favor until they have no assets with which to defend themselves. Only a complete moron and totalitarian sonofabitch would support such a provision. If you think I just called you a sonofabitch, you are correct, for once.
I have less trouble with your militia free second amendment, but not much less. The idea behind the second was to act as a brake on governmental tyranny. Therefore the elimination of that clause delegitimizes, or at least tends that way, resistance to that tyranny. That is a stupid idea. The reasons we have become the greatest best hope of mankind in this planet’s history in such a short time, is because not only do our founding documents limit government encroachment on individual liberty, but they also describe what they deemed an appropriate response to it. (a citizens’ militia) The effectiveness of that provision is more due to the fear by governmental agents and agencies that there will be a sufficient number of Americans cognizant of the meaning and purpose of the second. Obviously, you are not one of those. Just as you want your prosecutions to be easier, you are again looking for the easy way out. Doesn’t say much for your character.
As for unlimited political campaign expenditures, I agree with you. That should not even be debatable, the first amendment applies here. But under the provisions you propose elsewhere there would be no need for campaign expenditures because there would be no campaigns. Whoever controlled the courts and the most number of organized arms would just take office and hold it by force, covered with a patina of law by just arresting and appealing untill they got the conviction or financially broke any who opposed the holders of power.
There are already laws and punishments for provable fraud. But again under your plan, if situations changed or altered circumstances made campaign promises detrimental to the nation, the maker of that promise could then be arrested and if acquitted of fraud but not mistake, all that would be necessary is for the state to keep appealing under they reversed the acquittal. Are you really that dumb that you would foist that on this nation? A better solution would be for provisions for national recall elections of elected officials, we have it for every office below the presidency. Why should that office be so sacred? In that we agree. Or as a guard against emotional backlash during bad times, a system could be put in place that 2/3 of the state governments could by some strict formula could remove a president from office. Sort of an American vote of “no confidence”, not everything in the parliamentary system is useless and that may serve us well. But your suggestion places way too much power in hands we cannot trust when simple mistakes are made or reassessments are required. I am quite sure you have said things that were not true, but you believed to be true at the time you said them, everybody has, me included, that is not fraud, but in with power in the wrong hands and with acquittal appeal a reality there would never be anyone who could do a damn thing for fear of being convicted of fraud if any mistakes at all were made. That is just stupid.
Lastly number 10 is simply stupid and anti-constitutional. Just recently an Ohio judge ordered a county medical examiner to commit three counts of perjury. He is under court order to do so. Should he refuse to do so, any juror who voted to convict him should he be criminally charged would be a sociopathic amoral sonofabitch. You have already lost that debate and you know it, and so does everybody else that read the thread.
It hasn’t been too long ago that a federal judge, a traitor by the name of Jimm Larry Hendren, refused to let the jury be in the courtroom when the defense pled their case, he then instructed the jury to return a verdict of guilty. All this after he refused to let the jury hear the reading of the law the defendant was accused of breaking and also refused to allow the jury to hear the pertinent parts of the constitution that were applicable. And you support this crap?
\
Look, many people have to work hard to achieve their ends, sometimes those ends are not just, that you want to tilt the field even farthers against individual liberty and responsibility are the reasons I wasn’t impressed. Work harder, or be right more often.
You are now free to call me more names, but I must warn you that others will recognize it for the weakness of your positions that it is.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:32 am
Oh, and out of respect for your debating tone, I said some unflattering things about you. You hit mel, I hit you. Seems fair.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:53 am
As expected, your rant contained 885 words and 0 examples of “shithole countries throughout the world” where any of them are supposedly practiced. Thanks for confirming that you are an even bigger retard than I initially thought, if that’s possible.
I limit my name-calling to truthful, established facts. By your own admission, you call me names not because you have any basis for believing your statements to be true, but simply because you are mad at me for calling you bad names. There is nothing “fair” about that, but more importantly, there’s nothing remotely rational about it, either. My calling you a retard doesn’t make you, me, or anyone else a retard. Your posting retarded shit, does.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:27 am
You didn’t and don’t respond to any points. I knew you wouldn’t. I am not about to define and clarify each and every word I write so you can obscure the issues in all the sideline crap.
You are simply a weak reed who despises anyone with any personal moral strength or political principle. I called you names because that is all you understand. I was trying to keep this discourse to a level low enough for you to comprehend.
If you had any character you would either defend your positions that I find abhorent or you would recant if you can’t defend them. You, as usual, did neither, just called more names.
Of course, you won’t defend your position, you won’t recant your position, you can’t. You are morally incapable of honor.
So tell me again why I am a moron, but you can’t intelligently discuss the issue and yet you are not. Oh, I forgot, I apologize. Please extend my sympathies to anyone who must deal with you, or knows you.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Translation: I, straightarrow, am a liar and a hack who makes shit up, tries to change the subject when called on it, and then has the gall to lecture other people about their supposed lack of character and/or honor.
Sure I did. I’m still responding to your original point, in which you alleged:
So I pressed you, twice, to produce a single example of one of these supposedly existent “shithole” countries in which even one of my ideas, let alone “many,” has been tried. You couldn’t, of course, because no such countries exist. You just made that shit up. Grow a pair and admit it. Repeat after me:
Then – and only then – can we move on to your lame attempts at substantive debate that followed. I refuse to debate substance with individuals who can’t or won’t debate honestly.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
you lying piece of shit. You know as well as I do any number of countries that have and do operate in accord with your ideas. You only choose to make the discussion about anything other than what you said.
Were I to name those countries, then you would press for a listing of the laws with verbatim transcripts. We played this before and you lost. I did supply you with all you asked for before and you refused to consider it, except where you lied and tried to reinterpret what was clearly in conflict with your opinion.
I won’t play anymore juvenile games with you. Frankly you are beneath contempt. But I will manage to hold you so.
You refuse to debate me on any subject of substance because you can’t. You have no substance.
But I do appreciate you saying your ideas had no substance worth debating. You are the one who wouldn’t defend what he said.
You are worse than a waste of skin, because I suspect you are just as dishonest in you job as you are in your personal life. I have to wonder how many innocent people you have harmed. You are a fascist pig.