Does he cry fake tears for them?

[baconshorts]

Yyyyyy

[finnbow]

Drone strikes kill far fewer innocent kids that conventional high explosive or cluster bombs - by a long shot, actually. The warhead is 20 pounds of high explosive, as opposed to many hundreds, or even thousands, of pounds of explosive.

[finnbow]

What does that have to do with question at hand.

What exactly is the question at hand?

[d-ray657]

I'm not aware of any fake tears at all. If you have some facts regarding that, please enlighten us.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

What exactly is the question at hand?

"Can I get a reaction from the lefties on the board If I imply that Obama is a war criminal?"

John

[d-ray657]

The title is what one would call a loaded question. It draws its premise from an inaccurate assertion. In this instance, you have been invited to demonstrate facts that support the premise of your question. In the absence of such facts, the question is illogical and unworthy of further response.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

I do believe that any human being would find it difficult to make a decision to engage in military action against an enemy with the knowledge that there is a significant risk that innocent civilians will be killed. I would expect that such risks are weighed against the security interest with which the commander in chief is charged. The drone strikes are against the leaders of the same criminal enterprise that was responsible for thousands of deaths of Americans, and of other innocent civilians world-wide. That same organization has planned and threatened to cause further bloodshed.

With respect to the relevance of Finn's comparison between the firepower in released in a bombing raid and the firepower contained in a drone, he was bringing up another consideration in the use of drones. A conventional military assault on the criminal enterprise would utilize considerably more firepower, and would also likely result in more deaths of civilians who were caught in the cross-fire.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bobabode]

Do you shed fake tears for all of your dead Mexican neighbors killed by your wacked obsession with free and easy access to military grade weapons and cheap drugs? Wrap your mind around what a logical fallacy is, why doncha?

[icenine]

I really miss Whell and Mezz

[bobabode]

Here's what I was getting at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[bobabode]

Back on the subject of drone attacks

As long as Obama suspects they are or in the vicinity of a "terrorist" they are fair game. Even us citizens. Now he and his media are working overtime to vilify gun owners while standing on graves of the murdered children of sandy hook to do it. Just as Bush stood on the graves of the 911 victims (literally) and went to work on the 4th amendment. There is a real risk that over the course of the next few years, with the stroke of one mans pen, millions of law abiding, patriotic, generally good US citizens will be transformed into criminals and if they resist "terrorist".

Can't happen? It has before Waco, rugby ridge, Philadelphia, others.

Holder say's there is a 3 part test. Threat of violent attack against the us, capture not possible, the killing would be consistent with the laws of war. The American public do not even need to know about it. This is the actions of tyrants not presidents.

If so called assault weapons are banned most likely only a low percentage will be turned in willingly.

Once the 2nd amendment is nullified the rest can just be ignored if not the entire constitution.

Then when austerity measures begin to be implemented we will all be powerless to do anything about it. Remember the minor issue of a debt ceiling? One day the creditors will be coming for payment.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting or really even the security of an individuals home. It is all about the security of the free state. The framers knew what unchecked power is capable of and at least attempted to protect us from it with a last resort.

The entire bill of rights is about limiting the federal governments power over us . Why would anyone think the 2nd is any different? Why do we so willingly and easily give up our rights for some false sense of safety.

Fake tears indeed.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"
-- Rahman Emanuel

Look up the "Gish Gallop." It's another popular & annoying debate tactic.

[bobabode]

I really miss Whell and Mezz

Frick and Frack?:rolleyes:

[icenine]

Frick and Frack?:rolleyes:

better than argo and baconshorts the prepper duo:rolleyes:

prepper posse sounds better

[bobabode]

No I shed real tears for them as i come from along the border and have had friends of mine murdered by these mexican thugs. Does Obama shed more fake tears for the us and Mexican citizens killed by all the illegal arms he and holder let "walk". That was his first failed attempt at gun control. He was not counting on actual patriots still existing in the justice department blowing the whistle on him.

Furthermore, the Mexican people are powerless to stop these murders. The entire system is corrupt and they do not have a 2nd amendment that allows then to take back control of their country. The people cannot own guns. This is perfect case study of what happens when corruption is mixed with a disarmed public and why we need to be able to defend ourselves for corruption and tyrants.

My family lives near the border. It getting more and more violent there regardless of what Obama says. They live there. Take away their ability to defend themselves and you will see the level of violence along e boarder begin escalate. More people will die.

Thank you for highlighting this as I wasn't going to bring it up as I get a bit emotional when I think about it. As for cheap drugs? I hate nothing worse than a drug pusher except for maybe a pedophile. I view drugs as another means for those in charge to control a population but that's another post for another time. Most liberals I know are all pot heads.

You are most certainly full of shit but please sally forth and tilt at windmills or whatever it is that gets you your jollies.

[bobabode]

better than argo and baconshorts the prepper duo:rolleyes:

prepper posse sounds better

Not that I miss Whell at all but at least Whell had the balls to use the same name at AK as he did here. Maybe BS is one of those who develops an alter ego for every different forum that he trolls on?

[icenine]

Yeah
Whell made me mad
but at least he had an intellectual foundation for many of his viewpoints whether you agreed with him or not. He is at least a productive member of society.

Somewhere along the line we messed up...it would really be sad if baconshorts really believes his own propaganda. Scary too. I would gladly give up my right to own an AR-15
if it would keep one out of baconshorts hands too, but of course it is probably too late for that....

[bobabode]

Back on the subject of drone attacks

As long as Obama suspects they are or in the vicinity of a "terrorist" they are fair game. Even us citizens. Now he and his media are working overtime to vilify gun owners while standing on graves of the murdered children of sandy hook to do it. Just as Bush stood on the graves of the 911 victims (literally) and went to work on the 4th amendment. There is a real risk that over the course of the next few years, with the stroke of one mans pen, millions of law abiding, patriotic, generally good US citizens will be transformed into criminals and if they resist "terrorist".

Can't happen? It has before Waco, rugby ridge, Philadelphia, others.

Holder say's there is a 3 part test. Threat of violent attack against the us, capture not possible, the killing would be consistent with the laws of war. The American public do not even need to know about it. This is the actions of tyrants not presidents.

If so called assault weapons are banned most likely only a low percentage will be turned in willingly.

Once the 2nd amendment is nullified the rest can just be ignored if not the entire constitution.

Then when austerity measures begin to be implemented we will all be powerless to do anything about it. Remember the minor issue of a debt ceiling? One day the creditors will be coming for payment.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting or really even the security of an individuals home. It is all about the security of the free state. The framers knew what unchecked power is capable of and at least attempted to protect us from it with a last resort.

The entire bill of rights is about limiting the federal governments power over us . Why would anyone think the 2nd is any different? Why do we so willingly and easily give up our rights for some false sense of safety.

Fake tears indeed.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"
-- Rahman Emanuel

Rugby ridge? WTF are you talking about? Australia? Who's Rahman? Noodle soup? Go chuck some cowpies, hopalong.

Here's Ben Franklin's original quote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Stop paraphrasing, it makes for tedious reading. See here- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

[BlueStreak]

Do YOU give a shit when innocent people are slaughtered?

Or do you just consider the blood of innocents to be a reasonable price for what you THINK is "freedom"?

Hows that for a set of questions, asshat?

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Call me crazy, but I don't see a society wherein people feel they MUST carry weapons at all times for fear of being attacked as a free society AT ALL. If we devolve to that point it is because of people like you and the stinking NRA and your bizarre determination to reduce my country to some idiotic wild west fantasy you harbor.

You are not the defenders of freedom, you are it's worst enemy.

[merrylander]

Here is one for you BS - define innocent.

[Oerets]

This might "shoot" a big hole in your argument that the President is insensitive to collateral damage.

The successful mission that killed OBL. One F-16 with a couple of 500lb'ers would of done the same job, but made a bigger mess. From the reports the President was the one who made the decision to lessen the chance of innocent lives taken.

Also with your line of thinking it would be better to have more of our troops on the ground then the remote devices? War is not pretty and for one to think or project onto another this suggestion now after the previous administration activities . When you were more then likely silent to them makes one wounder the real reason why?








Barney

[piece-itpete]

I see no connection between baconshorts and argo.

Pete

[Boreas]

I see no connection between baconshorts and argo.

Pete

I have the feeling that BS is, as Bob said, a prepper. Also probably a member of some Lone Star Republic militia with separatist ideals - that or a militia wannabe. Those groups very often espouse the values and goals of National So************************m but, until BS declares himself to be a Neo-Nazi or starts spouting their philosophy, I'll give him some small benefit of the doubt.

Parenthetically, I suspect that if there's any truth to his story that he has lost friends to Mexican "thugs" it was in the course of some vigilante "Minute Man" type border incident where the "invaders" shot back.

John

[Boreas]

There is a real risk that over the course of the next few years, with the stroke of one mans pen, millions of law abiding, patriotic, generally good US citizens will be transformed into criminals and if they resist "terrorist".

Can't happen? It has before Waco, rugby ridge, Philadelphia, others.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were both about illegal arms trafficking.

Ruby Ridge was a case where Federal agents with a lawful purpose for being there reacted, on their own authority, with unwarranted force.

At Waco the Federal agents were there in force because of the number of people in the compound and the arms available to them. The holocaust that resulted was ordered by Koresh. He burned the place down, not the Feds.

Philadelphia? I assume you're not talking about your friends the Knights in Philadelphia, Mississippi. That must mean you're talking about Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the siege at the MOVE house. You have a point here, sort of. The Philadelphia Police Department did indeed drop a small bomb on a rooftop bunker to clear it prior to a full assault via the roof. The explosion ignited other explosives in the bunker and that started the whole house on fire.

MOVE had a long history of armed provocations and deadly attacks on the police. Their house was literally a fortress, heavily armed and lined inside with telephone poles. The only way the police could respond was with force. Sadly, the attack backfired.

All you seem too be able to see here is that a governmental entity used deadly force to confiscate weapons. What you ignore is that these incidents all involved illegal weapons and illegal activity with them.

You also seem to want to brush aside the fact that the exchanges of fire in these incidents were all initiated by the people you would describe as the victims. The scenes of Federal agents at Waco being shot and killed as they attempted to infiltrate Koresh's compound are very fresh in my mind but, apparently, not in yours.

John

[piece-itpete]

Ruby Ridge was ugly, ugly, ugly. Coppers completely out of control. Weaver was hardly a boy scout but what a screwed up 'bust', it's just terrible. It sure wasn't his fault they shot his unarmed wife through the forehead with a baby in her arms. Every time I hear that only the professionals should have guns I think of it.

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

What Bac says though about criminalizing people at the stroke of a pen is very true.

Pete

[Boreas]

Ruby Ridge was ugly, ugly, ugly. Coppers completely out of control. Weaver was hardly a boy scout but what a screwed up 'bust', it's just terrible. It sure wasn't his fault they shot his unarmed wife through the forehead with a baby in her arms. Every time I hear that only the professionals should have guns I think of it.

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

What Bac says though about criminalizing people at the stroke of a pen is very true.

Pete

Maybe, but his examples don't make his point.

The only US example I can think of in recent memory is the "Enemy Combatant" deal. We all know that Clobama did that!

John

[Boreas]

Most liberals I know are all pot heads.

Pretty fucking ignorant statement there, BS.

John

[piece-itpete]

LOL! We all know that righties are evil dupe old people killers :eek:

For some reason reading this thread shoe's on the other foot comes to mind ;)

Apparently this tee shirt is showing up at leftie rallies:

https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1170/images/OBOMBAshirt_three.jpg

Pete

[icenine]

BS makes a point about Obama doing nothing about assault weapons going to Mexico yet does not want an assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook. Pretty inconstistent thinking there.

[Boreas]

BS makes a point about Obama doing nothing about assault weapons going to Mexico yet does not want an assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook. Pretty inconstistent thinking there.

Not entirely. The disastrous Fast and Furious was intended to identify and arrest the people shipping weapons to Mexico. What gets lost in the shuffle here is whether the program as a whole was in some measure successful despite the utter failure of one operation.

For all we know, it was an overall success but the press isn't interested in that sort of story and, perhaps for reasons of operational integrity, the DoJ isn't talking with any specificity about the overall picture.

Also, it's not totally Obama's "baby". The program was started under the Bush Administration. Finally, the actual transaction that had such disastrous results was authorized at the local level. It didn't have Washington's approval.

But, yes, BS is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

As always.

John

[bobabode]

LOL! We all know that righties are evil dupe old people killers

For some reason reading this thread shoe's on the other foot comes to mind

Apparently this tee shirt is showing up at leftie rallies:

https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1170/images/OBOMBAshirt_three.jpg

Pete

You've been hanging out with these folk? http://www.salsalabs.com/
Bad righty!:rolleyes:
Back to shoe talk-most people don't like the drone program being carried out in the autonomous regions such as Waziristan and parts of Yemen, etc. These places certainly aren't under any central control of the governments that claim them as being in their borders. Unfortunately, the inhabitants have little say when terrorist groups move in and set up shop. Finnbow's point about the efficacy of using smaller munitions is a valid one not to mention the message it sends to those who are actively seeking to strike at us on our home soil. This is a war of very different proportions than what we are used to but it is a war nonetheless, no matter how prepper/militia types wish to use the prosecution of it to besmirch the reputation of the President. Maybe it's just using some false equivalence to try and salvage your boy Georgie Bush's reputation. Better known as deflection.:rolleyes:

My opinion is that the only boots on the ground that would have truly long lasting benefit to them and us belong to the Peace Corps. As you guys are fond of saying, "there are bad people out there, doing bad things". Duh, no shit but how about we try something that really can make a difference?

[BlueStreak]

I see no connection between baconshorts and argo.

Pete

They're both rightwing a-holes.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Ruby Ridge was ugly, ugly, ugly. Coppers completely out of control. Weaver was hardly a boy scout but what a screwed up 'bust', it's just terrible. It sure wasn't his fault they shot his unarmed wife through the forehead with a baby in her arms. Every time I hear that only the professionals should have guns I think of it.

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

What Bac says though about criminalizing people at the stroke of a pen is very true.

Pete

Oooops.

So, the government is now supposed to tolerate any and every group of armed paranoid delusionals, advocating the violent overthrow of said government because of this eff-up? That's insane. There is not a governing body on the planet that would do that. And, I'm pretty sure....Never really has been. I pretty sure that if our first president got wind of someone espousing such things, that he wouldn't have showed them where the bear shits? Oh, that's right....He did just that once, didn't he? Of course he did...WHAT LEADER IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULDN'T?

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

I gather you're referring to the Whiskey Rebellion. President Washington actually took command of the troops in the field. What troops do you ask? Why, the militia, of course! That's what the 2nd Amendment was about. These Right Wing morons today seem to think it's so they can do what the rebels did.

Idiots.

John

[BlueStreak]

I gather you're referring to the Whiskey Rebellion. President Washington actually took command of the troops in the field. What troops do you ask? Why, the militia, of course! That's what the 2nd Amendment was about. These Right Wing morons today seem to think it's so they can do what the rebels did.

Idiots.

John

Yep. They don't get, and I suspect, never will.

"..........obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief...", "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Go ahead, dumbasses. Take up arms against your own government and see how long you last.

And, despite whatever half-baked fairytales the rightwing propaganda machine has filled your head with-----That's the way it's ALWAYS been.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Oh my he called me an asshat. Whatever will I do?

Why can't you just answer the question?

How much slaughter is acceptable to you?

Regards,
Dave

[Twodogs]

Are we at war? Certainly not with Pakistan.

We should be! At least until they release the Doctor that gave up Osama. Why does Obama allow them to hold and torture that man. Obama has no tears for anyone but himself.

[Twodogs]

:)

No just pointing out the hypocrisy. If it were up to me the good people of Mexico would have the means to fight back.

They're better armed than they were before Fast and Furious. :p American troops swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I don't know a single one that would fire on an American citizen. On the contrary, bluestreak could do a survey and see how much love the troops have for the current admin.

[d-ray657]

In this post you really expose yourself. Your wild theories about who you think I am or how my friends died says a hell of a lot more about your character than mine. You sir don't have a fucking clue.

One friend a coworker was stabbed to death the other a dept. sheriff was beat In the head with tire iron by three thugs and left for dead on the side of the road. He succumbed hours later. All the perpetrators were illegal alien drug smugglers.

You think I might be nazi? For that one you get a good ole fashioned FUCK YOU!

Go ahead and ban me.

I think you're doing a pretty good job of banning yourself. Your prejudices show clearly through in your posts, taking you pretty quickly down the road to irrelevance.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Twodogs]

In this post you really expose yourself. Your wild theories about who you think I am or how my friends died says a hell of a lot more about your character than mine. You sir don't have a fucking clue.

One friend a coworker was stabbed to death the other a dept. sheriff was beat In the head with tire iron by three thugs and left for dead on the side of the road. He succumbed hours later. All the perpetrators were illegal alien drug smugglers.

You think I might be nazi? For that one you get a good ole fashioned FUCK YOU!

Go ahead and ban me.

How insensitive of you, don't you know that all the illegal aliens are good honest hard working people who only want a chance to do the horrible jobs that Americans don't want? That's why their very first action in this country is to break the law. Dude, these libs over here, can't think past their noses.

[icenine]

They're better armed than they were before Fast and Furious. :p American troops swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I don't know a single one that would fire on an American citizen. On the contrary, bluestreak could do a survey and see how much love the troops have for the current admin.

Actually I work with active duty Marines everyday...have been since 2009. I have not heard one negative comment about Obama from any of them. Well one day I did hear a group blaming him for the Hostess business failing but other than that not one negative word.
Your assumption that the troops do not like him as a general popular sentiment is simply not true. I am sure some do not but many do.

Now the retired guys that have the government socialized free medical care (thank you for your taxes supporting us) are a cranky lot and always complaining about the big government that treats them so well lol;)


Oh I modeled my avatar after yours two dogs;)

[Rex E.]

In this post you really expose yourself. Your wild theories about who you think I am or how my friends died says a hell of a lot more about your character than mine. You sir don't have a fucking clue.

One friend a coworker was stabbed to death the other a dept. sheriff was beat In the head with tire iron by three thugs and left for dead on the side of the road. He succumbed hours later. All the perpetrators were illegal alien drug smugglers.

You think I might be nazi? For that one you get a good ole fashioned FUCK YOU!

Go ahead and ban me.

No better argument to legalize drugs, eh......

Seems like a better and easier option than building fences and killing folks looking for work......

[bobabode]

Oh I modeled my avatar after yours two dogs;)

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/lmao.gifhttp://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif

Haw!http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/smoking.gif

[bobabode]

How insensitive of you, don't you know that all the illegal aliens are good honest hard working people who only want a chance to do the horrible jobs that Americans don't want? That's why their very first action in this country is to break the law. Dude, these libs over here, can't think past their noses.

Yeah but we can count...:rolleyes: 313 to 225...:D Them Latinos sure helped with that.

[BlueStreak]

Why can't you just answer the question?

How much slaughter is acceptable to you?

Regards,
Dave

Well?

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

How insensitive of you, don't you know that all the illegal aliens are good honest hard working people who only want a chance to do the horrible jobs that Americans don't want? That's why their very first action in this country is to break the law. Dude, these libs over here, can't think past their noses.

Back to be proven wrong yet again?;)

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

It's true. You don't have to demonstrate knowledge of the issues or citizenship to vote.

Respectfully, you're crazy - dude. You're gonna have to show me, mang! Y'all are cracking me up with this voter fraud manure. Give it up, it didn't happen. snicker!

Yeah, that's right - I've even got a little Missouran blood in me...:eek: :D

[Rex E.]

Respectfully, you're crazy - dude. You're gonna have to show me, mang! Y'all are cracking me up with this voter fraud manure. Give it up, it didn't happen. snicker!

Yeah, that's right - I've even got a little Missouran blood in me...:eek: :D

Was he about 3'4"?

:p

[BlueStreak]

Do you folks really just set back and believe everything your told?


Do you? I'm guessing it depends on who is doin' the telling.

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

Do you folks really just set back and believe everything your told? In the state of Texas when you register to vote you do not need a driver/I'd card or ss card/number. If you do not have either all you have to bring with you to vote is a 1 utility bill, bank statement, paycheck. All of which are easily obtained.

Stupid? Yep. Texas tried to fix that and Eric holder sued the state to stop them.

Don't know about other states.

Oops. I forgot to list my state.:rolleyes: I'll correct that detail right now.:) It's in my AK details under the same name as here.

[icenine]

Ah Texas cannot wait until it goes blue. Is Perry one of those idiots rejecting funding for Obamacare? Yeah. Well guess what when the owners of the hospitals come to dufus and complain about why he is denying them guaranteed money from the feds in the form of more insured patients he will cave.
Think I am wrong? Just ask Governor Brewer of America's next blue state...Arizona. She knows it is coming and caved just this week. She knows that if she denies medical coverage to the states uninsured (many of them Latino) it will just accelerate the process of de-Republicanization.



I hope Governor Perry changes his mind. If you are from Texas Baconshorts it looks like no Obamacare for you.

If you think about it only an asshole would deny people of his or her state medical coverage, especially if the Feds are picking up the tab.
What kind of Governor does that to his own citizens?

[bobabode]

Do you folks really just set back and believe everything your told? In the state of Texas when you register to vote you do not need a driver/I'd card or ss card/number. If you do not have either all you have to bring with you to vote is a 1 utility bill, bank statement, paycheck. All of which are easily obtained.

Stupid? Yep. Texans mostly are in my experience. Well, 47% of them at least.:D YMMV. Fixed that for ya.

Holder stopped Perry from requiring every voter to have a driver's license to vote. Them's the facts.

So, do you actually believe that the Texas voter rolls are not checked by your Texas Secretary of State? If you aren't eligible to vote you are stricken from the rolls. You can show up with those proof of residency documents that you mentioned and vote a provisional ballot but it won't be counted if you are not on the official voter rolls. That's how it is in California. Here's an assignment, go to your state's official website and look around. If it's half as good as ours you can find out the facts. You can check your county registrar of voters website for more details.

BTW, in person voter fraud countrywide is around one dozen cases since the year 2000.

[merrylander]

Uh guys, why are you entertaining this troll?

[d-ray657]

Do you folks really just set back and believe everything your told? In the state of Texas when you register to vote you do not need a driver/I'd card or ss card/number. If you do not have either all you have to bring with you to vote is a 1 utility bill, bank statement, paycheck. All of which are easily obtained.

Stupid? Yep. Texas tried to fix that and Eric holder sued the state to stop them.

Don't know about other states.

Must be why Texas sent a tea party candidate to the senate and voted for Romney - they let the idiots vote. :D

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

...

My opinion is that the only boots on the ground that would have truly long lasting benefit to them and us belong to the Peace Corps. As you guys are fond of saying, "there are bad people out there, doing bad things". Duh, no shit but how about we try something that really can make a difference?

I partailly agree with you, but with no force behind them, the taliban will kill them.

Yep. They don't get, and I suspect, never will.

"..........obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief...", "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Go ahead, dumbasses. Take up arms against your own government and see how long you last.

And, despite whatever half-baked fairytales the rightwing propaganda machine has filled your head with-----That's the way it's ALWAYS been.

Regards,
Dave

Washington took up arms against his own government.

Pete

[Boreas]

Washington took up arms against his own government.

Pete

Did you forget the smiley or do you really mean this BS?

John

[bobabode]

I partailly agree with you, but with no force behind them, the taliban will kill them.
Pete

Yeah, well. Don't go where you're not welcome. If you have to soften them up first then I guess you missed the point. Who gives a shit about the Taliban, anyway? We made 'em what they are today - to kill Russians, if I remember correctly.

[BlueStreak]

I partailly agree with you, but with no force behind them, the taliban will kill them.



Washington took up arms against his own government.

Pete

He also took up arms against disgruntled taxpayers in Western Pennsylvania.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Yeah, well. Don't go where you're not welcome. If you have to soften them up first then I guess you missed the point. Who gives a shit about the Taliban, anyway? We made 'em what they are today - to kill Russians, if I remember correctly.

Ahhh, the CIA tossing boomerangs............(At the behest of then CIA Director----GHW Bush.:rolleyes:)

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

One solution breeds another problem.

Pete

[bobabode]

One solution breeds another problem.

Pete

Beating swords into plowshares sounds like a...well, it just sounds like a good idea. Full bellies and clean water leaves little room for fanaticism. That is the idea of the Peace Corp. God bless 'em. Check them out. http://www.peacecorps.gov/

[piece-itpete]

I have no problem with the peace corps. They have their place of course.

Pete

[bobabode]

So, you're Yemeni? or is it Pushtun? Is this where you hang out? http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen/

[merrylander]

You still have not answered - define innocent.

[piece-itpete]

According to the last census I filled out, I am a polish zimbabwean mongolian cuban.

Pete

[bobabode]

According to the last census I filled out, I am a polish zimbabwean mongolian cuban.

Pete

You were partially right.:p

[piece-itpete]

You got me! I'm really the Zimbabwean. Or as we refer to ourselves, the Zimbas.

Please refrain from making fun of my unusual heritage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9zOpQSSl_E

Pete

[bobabode]

You got me! I'm really the Zimbabwean. Or as we refer to ourselves, the Zimbas.

Please refrain from making fun of my unusual heritage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9zOpQSSl_E

Pete

Oh, I thought the middle two were hyperbole. You have my deepest sympathies...:D Hemingway would've had nothing but high praise for your heritage.:rolleyes: Btw, we're still trying to figure mine out, could've been the milkman but Mom's not tellin'.

[piece-itpete]

LOL!

I'm really only a little bit pollack, but that whole drop of blood issue makes me wear plaid at all times. And black socks with sandals.

Pete

[bobabode]

Obama defines it. A lot of power this man has.

Looky there, 100 posts and you're a senior member. Feel special now?

[BlueStreak]

Obama defines it. A lot of power this man has.

Right, and the power he has was granted him by the people who voted for him....a clear majority of the American people. Not once, but twice.

Figure that out.

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

Where the fuck were you when Bush and Cheney killed hundreds of thousands? Cheering at a teabagger rally, no doubt. It's apalling, I tell you. Is english your mother tongue?

[BlueStreak]

You knowingly and fully support this and then claim your appauled by the murder of the children of sandy hook? really?


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/how-does-the-president-have-the-right-to-target-for-killing-a-us-citizen/

"Writing in Salon today, Glenn Greenwald writes, “What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (‘No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law’), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists — criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats

The "signature strike" doctrine developed under Obama, which has no discernible basis in law, merely looks for patterns. A pattern could consist of a party of unknown men carrying guns (which scarcely distinguishes them from the rest of the male population of north-west Pakistan), or a group of unknown people who look as if they might be plotting something. This is how wedding and funeral parties get wiped out; this is why 40 elders discussing royalties from a chromite mine were blown up in March last year. It is one of the reasons why children continue to be killed.

You're somehow trying to equate the military killing a TRAITOR during a time of war with what happened at Sandy Hook?:confused:

How about the firebombing of Dresden? Or any of the scores of cities, towns and villages we've destroyed over the years. There were children there, and there might have even been Americans there!:eek:

You come up with the weakest arguments, I swear..............

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

You knowingly and fully support this and then claim your appauled by the murder of the children of sandy hook? really?


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/how-does-the-president-have-the-right-to-target-for-killing-a-us-citizen/

"Writing in Salon today, Glenn Greenwald writes, “What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (‘No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law’), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists — criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats

The "signature strike" doctrine developed under Obama, which has no discernible basis in law, merely looks for patterns. A pattern could consist of a party of unknown men carrying guns (which scarcely distinguishes them from the rest of the male population of north-west Pakistan), or a group of unknown people who look as if they might be plotting something. This is how wedding and funeral parties get wiped out; this is why 40 elders discussing royalties from a chromite mine were blown up in March last year. It is one of the reasons why children continue to be killed.

I wouldn't line a birdcage with the Guardian and the other is a blog. Are you somehow suggesting that voting for Obama had something to do with Sandy Hook. You really are depraved or possibly just slow witted.

[merrylander]

Obama defines it. A lot of power this man has.

Sorry but if you think any of those savages along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border are innocent then you are naive to the extreme.

[hatrack71]

BS makes a point about Obama doing nothing about assault weapons going to Mexico yet does not want an assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook. Pretty inconstistent thinking there.

How the hell does arming drug cartels bent on killing have anything to do with disarming responsible American citizens? Not inconsistent at all. Totally different.

[hatrack71]

I don't respond the way you wanted me to and therefore you tell me how you think I should have responded to fit your preconceaved notion? Weak.

BTW Nice stereotyping. Should we just nuke the entire region and rid ourself of all the savages at once? Or is taking them out a few at a time with Drones good enough for you?

Don't let this guy get to you Bacon. His comments illustrate he is clearly bigoted.

[BlueStreak]

Traitor found guilty in who's court? No trial, no judge, no jury, killed ouside any theater of war. Be careful what you say, obama, can target you at will evidently.

i'm not about to defend the firebomging of Dresden nor Shermans march thru the south. You make bad assumptions.

You're a fool and I would defend both.

One was a good run at breaking the back of Nazi Germanys industrial base and the other was a proper move to crush the will of a bunch of fu**ing slavery loving traitorous insurrectionists. Or is there something about slavery and Nazis you like? And don't give me that bullshit lie about that war being about "states rights" either.

Chew on that for a while.

Love,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Don't let this guy get to you Bacon. His comments illustrate he is clearly bigoted.

Bigoted against idiots? Damn right I am.

Regards,
Dave

[merrylander]

Don't let this guy get to you Bacon. His comments illustrate he is clearly bigoted.

If I dislike people who come here and destroy buildings amd murder 3000 people in a day is bigoted, then fine I'm bigoted. These same kind of people have attacked my wife on five occasions, so if I would see the lot in hell is being bigoted, then that's fine by me.

[merrylander]

Bigoted against idiots? Damn right I am.

Regards,
Dave

Dave I guess we are in the same boat, for despite St. Paul's admonition I still have never learned to suffer fools gladly.

[Boreas]

and both were within a theater of war so there is "some" merit to them but again I'm not going to defend them. Twice now in the last few posts you libs have mentioned that peoples in the vicinity of bad people deserve to be annihilated and then you wonder why some people might not want to give up their ability to defend themselves? By your logic if my neighbor was a NAZI or a Bigot I deserve to die when you try and take him out by deadly force.

Stick that in your bong and smoke it :)

There's two things wrong with this statement. The first is that it isn't true. That's the second thing too.

The first untrue statement is that you are assigning a "collective opinion to all us "libs". That's neither demonstrated here nor true.

The second untruth is that any individual here believes proximity to terrorists implies complicity with terrorists.

Your statements here are inflammatory and insulting. They're also often untrue. The title to this thread is a perfect example of this and that's why you get the reaction you do.

The way you address a subject here conveys the distinct impression that you're more interested in pushing the buttons of the people who hold a different view than you are in having an actual discussion. And that's to say nothing about a desire to persuade people to point of view. That seems absent as well.

Think about this for a while.

(I will too.)

John

[merrylander]

John,
I'd love to have a calm, cool, and collective "discussion" about things. Heck thats why I came here. But truthfully I was attacked from the very get go. You would have more credibililty that this was truly what you were interested in doing if you privided similar feedback to folks taking a different view than mine.

I get the impression this is a "liberals club" which is interesting because that thats not what I think it intended to be (I could be wrong).

Whoa, go back and re-read the first 10 posts. I just did and sorry but they do not fit the description of "calm cool" in my book.

As I have pointed out here before, when I lived in Canada I was a paid up member of the Conservative Party, so forget the liberal tag.

I guess the reason for the preponderance of "liberals" here is that the Republicans who started out here tend to lose the arguments so they get mad and pick up their marbles and leave.

In 82 years of observation I have found what works and what does not work so you will find I rarely argue, I merely state where policies have been proven good or where they have proven worthless.

I will admit that I have trouble resisting the odd dig.:)

[Boreas]

John,
I'd love to have a calm, cool, and collective "discussion" about things. Heck thats why I came here. But truthfully I was attacked from the very get go. You would have more credibililty that this was truly what you were interested in doing if you privided similar feedback to folks taking a different view than mine.

I get the impression this is a "liberals club" which is interesting because that thats not what I think it intended to be (I could be wrong).

Swings and roundabouts. Sometimes the liberals sort of have the upper hand and sometimes it's the conservatives.

As to my personal contribution, I did say I would ponder my own advice above but the truth is when someone expresses his opinion in an honest, considered and considerate fashion, I respond in the same spirit. On the other hand, when someone comes on like an asshole there;s something in me that needs to be the bigger asshole. ;)

John

[hatrack71]

John,
I'd love to have a calm, cool, and collective "discussion" about things. Heck thats why I came here. But truthfully I was attacked from the very get go. You would have more credibililty that this was truly what you were interested in doing if you privided similar feedback to folks taking a different view than mine.

I get the impression this is a "liberals club" which is interesting because that thats not what I think it intended to be (I could be wrong).

My impression as well. Perhaps a more fitting name for this forum would be "Politically Correct Chat."

[finnbow]

My impression as well. Perhaps a more fitting name for this forum would be "Politically Correct Chat."

Admittedly, we tend to come down hard on those spewing right wing talking points lifted from talk radio or Faux.

[barbara]

Admittedly, we tend to come down hard on those spewing right wing talking points lifted from talk radio or Faux.

Yes...... I'm far more tolerant of any body, no matter what their political views are, if they can actually articulate their viewpoint and stand behind it with facts rather than just repeat right or left wing talking points.

[hatrack71]

Admittedly, we tend to come down hard on those spewing right wing talking points lifted from talk radio or Faux.

I see that. It is obvious that I'll have to be much more prepared on my talking points. Bear with me, it'll happen.

[bobabode]

Man what a stretch.. is english your native toungue?

I rest my case...:rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

and both were within a theater of war so there is "some" merit to them but again I'm not going to defend them. Twice now in the last few posts you libs have mentioned that peoples in the vicinity of bad people deserve to be annihilated and then you wonder why some people might not want to give up their ability to defend themselves? By your logic if my neighbor was a NAZI or a Bigot I deserve to die when you try and take him out by deadly force.

Stick that in your bong and smoke it :)

"Deserve"? No. Unfortunate enough to be in the way? Yes.

However, how many wars have we actually "won" since WW2?

The embarrassment that was Vietnam?

First Gulf War that just led to the second?

Afghanistan, the war that we've been fighting since 2003, against part time goat farmers?

Even outside the theater of war, the bad guys use the tactic of surrounding themselves with women, children and other innocents as a human shield.

It seems to me, YOU'RE taking the "bleeding heart liberal" position, here.

Look at it this way; If I were trapped in a position that I knew my own country was going to hit, because it was infested with terrorists. I'd understand why the C-in-C chose to proceed, rather than call it off just to spare me.

And, I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

"Deserve"? No. Unfortunate enough to be in the way? Yes.

However, how many wars have we actually "won" since WW2?

The embarrassment that was Vietnam?

First Gulf War that just led to the second?

Afghanistan, the war that we've been fighting since 2003, against part time goat farmers?

Even outside the theater of war, the bad guys use the tactic of surrounding themselves with women, children and other innocents as a human shield.

It seems to me, YOU'RE taking the "bleeding heart liberal" position, here.

Look at it this way; If I were trapped in a position that I knew my own country was going to hit, because it was infested with terrorists. I'd understand why the C-in-C chose to proceed, rather than call it off just to spare me.

And, I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
Dave

Great post, Dave.

BS appears to think that using what he see's as a liberals take on this war against terrorists, he's going to score points. I would say your post just demolished that tactic. There's an unspoken undercurrent in his posts that Democrats are pussies and/or potheads. Maybe he's just being another ignorant Texan who quite often has an overblown sense of selfworth? In my experience that is usually the case with Texans. Except the latino majority there.

[bobabode]

Whoops, getting ahead of myself. I just checked and it's 45% white and 38% latino. Given the disparity in birthrates? Whites will be a minority in Texas in a few years, maybe less.;) Lump blacks in with latino's and the white are a slight minority and losing ground.

[bobabode]

Only a fucktard would view what I said as bigoted, get a tutor and learn to read english.

[bobabode]

..and you can kiss my lilly white California ass, just in case you're wondering, BS.:mad:

[BlueStreak]

Whoops, getting ahead of myself. I just checked and it's 45% white and 38% latino. Given the disparity in birthrates? Whites will be a minority in Texas in a few years, maybe less.;) Lump blacks in with latino's and the white are a slight minority and losing ground.

I wonder if the whites in Texas will tuck tail and run, like they did in Detroit?:rolleyes:

Regards,
Dave

[finnbow]

I wonder if the whites in Texas will tuck tail and run, like they did in Detroit?:rolleyes:

Regards,
Dave

If so, Oklahoma will build a wall and a moat.

[BlueStreak]

It's really more of a libertarian stance than anything else. I have a problem with two things.

1. The pres is either abusing his power or somewhere along the way something has gone Terribly wrong. He should not have ability to indiscriminately kill people at his calling. Even if Obama is doing this for the right reasons who's to say this will always be the case? What if your and opposition party leader or a activist living abroad? The president has the power to make you go away.

2. The clear hypocrisy of trying to restrict the freedoms of Americans over dead children while he is indiscriminantly killing more children at his direct guidance than any of the mass murderes with ar15s.

And you know I wouldn't even care that much if he would go about it the correct way. Is the 2nd ammendment no longer required or does it need clarity? Tackle the issue head on with another ammendment. If the American people truly are asking for change then it will be a cake walk to get it approved. If it is not then he is trying to force his will on the majority.

Holy Cow, do you have a horrendously bad view of how the world really works. (I can see the damage rightwing propganda has done to your brain.:p)

1). Presidents have ALWAYS had that ability. (As most powerful people have.) Are you really that naive?

2). The second amendment as a way for the people to defend themselves against the federal government has been woefully obsolete (antiquated?) for decades. Actually, it has been a quaint notion, at best, for much longer than that. Washington proved in Western PA during the Whiskey Rebellion that violent insurrection can and will be quelled.

Take them on and YOU WILL LOSE. Then, they will slap you in the face by using your money to pay for it. (Hopefully, it will never come to that.) Just ask the dead Confederates how that goes.:rolleyes:

Secondly; What do you do when a given "freedom" or "liberty" that many, or even most people don't want to give up, becomes a serious problem that must be dealt with regardless?

This is where real leadership comes in, my friend.

(Before we go any further, I will remind you that I support the 2nd Amendment, but happen to believe there is no sensible reason for private citizens to own any weapon that can fire more than one shot per trigger pull. Nor is there any sensible reason for a hundred round clip, outside of the military. You and I simply set the bar in a different place when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not.)

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

Whoops, getting ahead of myself. I just checked and it's 45% white and 38% latino. Given the disparity in birthrates? Whites will be a minority in Texas in a few years, maybe less.;) Lump blacks in with latino's and the white are a slight minority and losing ground.

Right now, we're the only "majority minority" state, Bob.

John

[bobabode]

Struck a nerve, eh BS? Go look up the terms you like to use so freely. If calling, some little troll hiding under front porch hissing and spitting at anyone who comes near, a name in response to your constant misuse of the english language is bigotry? You are the clueless one. How about pigf**ker? Any objection to that perjorative? Go look up perjorative before you further damage what little standing you have here.

[bobabode]

Ok Dave, here is your chance to win me over then. I'm no Ideologue so help me out. Can you point to the legal basis that allows the president to kill us citizens without trail? Can you site any examples of this occurring in history beyond recent events? To be clear I'm asking about targeting specific individuals not as a result of collateral damage.

The Civil War?

[Boreas]

2). The second amendment as a way for the people to defend themselves against the federal government has been woefully obsolete (antiquated?) for decades.

Dave, that was never the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was for the defense of the government in the absence of army. It was also, frankly, to gain support from the southern states where there was a real fear of slave rebellions. The militia in the south those days was, among other things, charged with controlling the slave population and also apprehending and returning runaways.

John

[bobabode]

If so, Oklahoma will build a wall and a moat.

If they get that far, Colorado will nuke 'em.:D

[BlueStreak]

Ok Dave, here is your chance to win me over then. I'm no Ideologue so help me out. Can you point to the legal basis that allows the president to kill us citizens without trail? Can you site any examples of this occurring in history beyond recent events? To be clear I'm asking about targeting specific individuals not as a result of collateral damage.

With trail, without...........

"Legal basis"? What legal basis did Hoover and MacArthur use to force the "Bonus Army" out of DC? What legal basis did the Reagan Administration use to allow South & Central Americans to peddle cocaine in American cities? (Iran -Contra) What legal basis was used to justify the Tuskeegee Experiments? What legal basis was used to justify the "Trail of Tears" or the forced internment of Japanese Americans during WW2..................Shall I go on?

That's the whole point. Legal basis, or none, these things happen anyways. Always have, and sadly, I suspect they always will. Abolish this government and the new one will pick up where the old one left off. They'll just have a more or less creative way of justifying or covering up.

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

Right now, we're the only "majority minority" state, Bob.

John

Look where that got us... a democrat in the Governor's mansion and a democratic super majority in the assembly and a budget surplus. What will we do?;)

[bobabode]

You seem to be the only one comming unhinged. Perhaps you should see someone about your anger issues.

I don't get angry, I just get mean. How's about you work on that obsessive/compulsive disorder of yours and that big hole in your education?;)

[Boreas]

first time i've heard the 2nd ammendment was for slave rebbellion. Do you have a source for that?

I have a bogus source. Prof. Carl Bogus, that is. ;)

John

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

[Boreas]

You seem to be the only one comming unhinged. Perhaps you should see someone about your anger issues.

I don't get angry, I just get mean. How's about you work on that obsessive/compulsive disorder of yours and that big hole in your education?;)

I'm trying to decide whether to side with the racist or the lunatic. :confused:;)

John

[d-ray657]

I have to say dave each of those are unique cases with unique circumstances. It sounds to me like your acknowleging that obama has no legal basis for what he is doing. You also didn't cite any examples of other presidents targeting individual civilians for death.

Further... highlighting those cases you point out drives home the fact that any government and including this government can and has in the past turned repressive.

This actually bolsters the case for not watering down the 2nd ammendment in my view.

In this new way of war - terrorism - how does one define a civilian? If one is a ranking official in an organization that has sworn to destroy the US, does that person really come within the definition of a civilian? Is such an individual closer to an enemy combatant? What is the difference between making a target of a military command center, and targeting leaders of an organization that fights its war by killing indiscriminately? Opposing military forces are not fired upon because they have committed a crime, are they?

These questions aren't just rhetorical. I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of targeted killings, but I also felt little remorse in the manner in which Osama Bin Laden met his end.

I have heard the argument that organizations like Al Qaeda are more akin to a criminal enterprise, and it has some appeal to it. But I also see a distinction. A criminal organization might engage in violence in order to protect the profit from its criminal enterprise. It seems like the terrorist organizations engage in criminal activity in order to finance their campaign of violence. The lines are significantly blurred. How much process is due to anyone who engages in an organization that indiscriminately kills people in order to advance some warped religio/political aim. Does it make a difference that such leaders are beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement action?

These aren't easy questions - and I don't think that they can be answered in absolutist terms.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

I don't even know where to start with this. As soon as some federal court enforces some gun laws on the basis that the 2nd ammendment is based on a now unnessessary requirement to suppress slave rebellion i'll pay it more head.

I do appreciate you sharing the link. Thank You.

Give it a try. It's fascinating subject and a fascinating conclusion on the part of Prof. Bogus. It might make for an interesting subject.

Here's a link to the whole paper - if you're brave enough. ;)

I don't think I am. :)

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

John

[Oerets]

To many guns already in the system and to many selfish leaning citizens out there. I'm sorry but it will take a few more incidents before real change will occur IMO!



Barney

[bobabode]

Go ahead and side with the racist John. He needs all the love he can get and as for me well.. I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!:

Oh my, we have a celebrity on board .:rolleyes: Is it Stuie or Al? Now I know where you get your psychiatric talent...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smalley
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/98/Stuart_Smalley.jpg/300px-Stuart_Smalley.jpg

[BlueStreak]

I have to say dave each of those are unique cases with unique circumstances. It sounds to me like your acknowleging that obama has no legal basis for what he is doing. You also didn't cite any examples of other presidents targeting individual civilians for death.

Further... highlighting those cases you point out drives home the fact that any government and including this government can and has in the past turned repressive.

This actually bolsters the case for not watering down the 2nd ammendment in my view.

No, what it highlights is that we've had the 2nd Amendment all along and it hasn't made a bit of difference. You get to have your peashooting toys and the your ridiculous fantasies of how they protect you from the government and the powers that be do what they want anyhow. It also illustrates that "legal basis" doesn't really matter much, regardless of who you put in office. Not even any of those deluded Tea Party imbeciles, who mistakenly think there was, at some point, some fairytale period of time when great, Godly and honorable men wouldn't dream of doing such things.

Your entire thought process is baseless to its foundation.

That's what it highlights.

Regards,
Dave

[merrylander]

First off that U.S. citizen traitor Alawi convicted himself out of his own mouth, no trial was necessary

Secondly how would you suggest fighting an enemy who hides behind the skirts of women, thos same wome who he treats like dogs*. The older men convince the teenagers that if they strap on an explosive vest and blow themselves up in a crowded market they are martyrs. Hamas even sent a teenaged giirl into Israel with an explosive vest. They also fire their rockets from schoolyards or mear mosques. Their sole purpose in life is to kill westerners, so it becomes the law of the jungle - kill or be killed.

* These pious men who claim they are honouring their women - hah -all of the terrorist laptops that were seized were full of pornographic material. I for one would not wish to live in a worldwide caliphate, I even have enough problem with so called Christians.

[bobabode]

So clearly the following statement is bigoted.

Maybe he's just being another ignorant MEXICAN who quite often has an overblown sense of selfworth? In my experience that is usually the case with MEXICANS.

So what difference does it make if it Texans or Mexicans?

Oh and Fucktard...short for Fucking Retard.... Another highly inflammatory term used in the description of the mentally handicapped. Also bigoted.

They way I meant it was that you are backwards. As to the difference between Mexicans and Texans? Hmmm, one is a nationality and Texans aren't. No matter that they bloviatingly think they are the Lone Star State, they are just one of fifty. Next time I'll call you a pinhead when you call me a bigoted racist. Happy now, Stuart?

[merrylander]

Those are all great quesitons D-Ray.. now add to the mix the person being a us citizen.

I am a U.S. citizen but if I went about advocating the murder of other citizens and or government officials I imagine that it would probably take less than 24 hours before my citizenship would be revoked, and rightly so IMO.:rolleyes:

[hatrack71]

Ah Texas cannot wait until it goes blue. Is Perry one of those idiots rejecting funding for Obamacare? Yeah. Well guess what when the owners of the hospitals come to dufus and complain about why he is denying them guaranteed money from the feds in the form of more insured patients he will cave.
Think I am wrong? Just ask Governor Brewer of America's next blue state...Arizona. She knows it is coming and caved just this week. She knows that if she denies medical coverage to the states uninsured (many of them Latino) it will just accelerate the process of de-Republicanization.



I hope Governor Perry changes his mind. If you are from Texas Baconshorts it looks like no Obamacare for you.

If you think about it only an asshole would deny people of his or her state medical coverage, especially if the Feds are picking up the tab.
What kind of Governor does that to his own citizens?

And what makes you think Obamacare is the answer. We're already seeing the negative effects. Doctors are resigning. Local practices shutting down. Welcome to the nightmare of never getting any care.

[hatrack71]

Uh guys, why are you entertaining this troll?

I think he's just entertaining Political Chat. You all think the same here.

[hatrack71]

Bigoted against idiots? Damn right I am.

Regards,
Dave

Then why do you hang out here?

[hatrack71]

Dave, that was never the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was for the defense of the government in the absence of army. It was also, frankly, to gain support from the southern states where there was a real fear of slave rebellions. The militia in the south those days was, among other things, charged with controlling the slave population and also apprehending and returning runaways.

John

Bullshit!

[hatrack71]

I have to say dave each of those are unique cases with unique circumstances. It sounds to me like your acknowleging that obama has no legal basis for what he is doing. You also didn't cite any examples of other presidents targeting individual civilians for death.

Further... highlighting those cases you point out drives home the fact that any government and including this government can and has in the past turned repressive.

This actually bolsters the case for not watering down the 2nd ammendment in my view.

That's how I see it. I swear certain members here have fantasies of repressing others that they play out here. You meet all kinds.

[hatrack71]

I am a U.S. citizen but if I went about advocating the murder of other citizens and or government officials I imagine that it would probably take less than 24 hours before my citizenship would be revoked, and rightly so IMO.:rolleyes:

Really? I see a lot of folks who fit that profile who are seemingly immune to prosecution of any kind. Most of them being politicians and Federal employee/apointees. Oh, but they don't count right. Just like you guys and your one sided forum IS ALWAYS right.;)

[Boreas]

Well for sure the Land of Nuts and Fruits you might say is the antithesis to the Lone Star State. Which is better? Subject for another thread.

I love this meme. "California liberal". "People's Republic of California", etc.

Gotta tell you guys, California ain't so freakin' liberal. Would a liberal state elect the Governator? Or Dana Rohrbacher? Or Daryll Issa? Would the PRC vote to retain the death penalty? Ban gay marriage in the state's constitution? Reject GMO labeling?

I sorta bought into this myth before I moved here from Maryland but, let me tell you, Maryland and, for that matter, Massachusetts are a lot more liberal than California!

Now, are we Texas? South Carolina? Utah? Hell, no (thank Ford ;)) but we're no so************************t paradise either.

Oh, and "fruits and nuts"? I guess so but our "fruits" tend to be people like Harvey Milk and Cleve Jones. The nuts are more like Dan White or Mel Gibson.

John

[merrylander]

Orange county is so far right they are off the scale.

[Boreas]

Really? I see a lot of folks who fit that profile who are seemingly immune to prosecution of any kind. Most of them being politicians and Federal employee/apointees. Oh, but they don't count right. Just like you guys and your one sided forum IS ALWAYS right.;)

Hey, Kyle, the 1st Amendment gives us pretty wide latitude in what we can say but the line is definitely drawn at calling for insurrection or assassination. A good many people tend to walk up to the line by saying things like "I wouldn't be sorry to see someone put a cap in So-and-so's ass." or "If the government tries to take our guns away don't be surprised if there's a shooting war." That's pretty nasty shit and, sadly, all too common these days.

It's pretty rare, however, to see things go past that point. You seem to think it's more common than I and that even politicians cross the line with impunity. Can you give me some specific examples? The only thing I can think of off hand was Sharron Angle who ran for the Senate in Nevada. She cryptically referred to employing "2nd Amendment remedies" to overthrow an "out of control" Congress. I don't know of any others.

John

[barbara]

I love this meme. "California liberal". "People's Republic of California", etc.

Gotta tell you guys, California ain't so freakin' liberal. Would a liberal state elect the Governator? Or Dana Rohrbacher? Or Daryll Issa? Would the PRC vote to retain the death penalty? Ban gay marriage in the state's constitution? Reject GMO labeling?

I sorta bought into this myth before I moved here from Maryland but, let me tell you, Maryland and, for that matter, Massachusetts are a lot more liberal than California!

Now, are we Texas? South Carolina? Utah? Hell, no (thank Ford ;)) but we're no so************************t paradise either.

Oh, and "fruits and nuts"? I guess so but our "fruits" tend to be people like Harvey Milk and Cleve Jones. The nuts are more like Dan White or Mel Gibson.

John

You are so right!
In my neck of the woods, if you aren't a birther you are ostracized.

But, hey, this is California so everyone MUST be off the chart liberal.... Right? .

[hatrack71]

Hey, Kyle, the 1st Amendment gives us pretty wide latitude in what we can say but the line is definitely drawn at calling for insurrection or assassination. A good many people tend to walk up to the line by saying things like "I wouldn't be sorry to see someone put a cap in So-and-so's ass." or "If the government tries to take our guns away don't be surprised if there's a shooting war." That's pretty nasty shit and, sadly, all too common these days.

It's pretty rare, however, to see things go past that point. You seem to think it's more common than I and that even politicians cross the line with impunity. Can you give me some specific examples? The only thing I can think of off hand was Sharron Angle who ran for the Senate in Nevada. She cryptically referred to employing "2nd Amendment remedies" to overthrow an "out of control" Congress. I don't know of any others.

John

Good point John. How about Eric Holder. Seems to me Border Patrol and citizens along the southern border have been taking to the grave because of Fast and Furious. How about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi- although not US citizens but is it really any different? Murder is murder no matter where it happens.

Lastly, how about George Bush and his cronies. They all had prior knowledge of 911 but did nothing to stop it.

Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld.... I can go on and on......... They even ran a welcome piece in my local slanted rag for that prick Rumsfeld when he moved here. I made sure to comment to the fact that he was not welcome here. We do not harbor war criminals in Montana. It got me banned from Lee Enterprises newspaper forums- I'm so hurt. Really.

[Boreas]

I'm not seeing a 1st Amendment issue here, Kyle. Your post that I responded to was in turn a response to Merrylander's about penalties for advocating violence to government officials and individuals. When you said that such things were common and that even government officials were guilty, I naturally assumed you were talking about speech.

Good point John. How about Eric Holder. Seems to me Border Patrol and citizens along the southern border have been taking to the grave because of Fast and Furious. How about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi- although not US citizens but is it really any different? Murder is murder no matter where it happens.

The most that can be said about these matters is that they involved serious negligence on the part of some government officials at some levels of authority. Even that is seriously disputed. Murder is not relevant.

Lastly, how about George Bush and his cronies. They all had prior knowledge of 911 but did nothing to stop it.

Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld.... I can go on and on.........

I hate that bunch, really hate them, and think they ought to be prosecuted for war crimes. To say that they had prior cause for concern is certain. The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing is ample proof of that. There's also proof that they were aware of the threat of flying planes into buildings but to say that they had specific knowledge of the attacks that occurred on September 11th is another matter. We don't know that.

John

[hatrack71]

"I'm not seeing a 1st Amendment issue here, Kyle. Your post that I responded to was in turn a response to Merrylander's about penalties for advocating violence to government officials and individuals. When you said that such things were common and that even government officials were guilty, I naturally assumed you were talking about speech."

Ooops. Yeah, I can't say that I've seen any official here advocate that verbally. I was off base.

[hatrack71]

"I hate that bunch, really hate them, and think they ought to be prosecuted for war crimes."

Amen to that!

[merrylander]

I think he's just entertaining Political Chat. You all think the same here.

If you tell everyone here that they all think like I do you will really be in deep shit.:D

[hatrack71]

If you tell everyone here that they all think like I do you will really be in deep shit.:D

I actually was just kidding. Forgot the emoticon.:D

[merrylander]

I hate that bunch, really hate them, and think they ought to be prosecuted for war crimes. To say that they had prior cause for concern is certain. The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing is ample proof of that. There's also proof that they were aware of the threat of flying planes into buildings but to say that they had specific knowledge of the attacks that occurred on September 11th is another matter. We don't know that.

John

There was a female FBI agent who brought to the attemntin of her superiors a group of Saudi people who were taking strange flying lessons. They only wanted training if flight, not the least interested in takeoffs and landings. She was ignored.

[hatrack71]

There was a female FBI agent who brought to the attemntin of her superiors a group of Saudi people who were taking strange flying lessons. They only wanted training if flight, not the least interested in takeoffs and landings. She was ignored.

Incredible! You wouldn't happen to have a link to that would you? I'd be interested in reading that.

[Boreas]

There was a female FBI agent who brought to the attemntin of her superiors a group of Saudi people who were taking strange flying lessons. They only wanted training if flight, not the least interested in takeoffs and landings. She was ignored.

In July of 2001, less than two months before September 11th, George Bush attended the G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy. While there, he stayed aboard a US Naval vessel in Genoa Harbor, surrounded by SAMS and all manner of naval weaponry. The reason? His security people felt there was too much risk of someone flying an airplane into a hotel if he were to stay in one.

Rob, your example shows that they should have known. My example shows that they did.

John

[hatrack71]

Man, you guys should post some links to this. Very interesting.

[BlueStreak]

I choose to believe i'm at least somewhat in control of my own destiny, and I'll continue to beleive there are some honorable people out there, Deluded or not. For sure if everyone believes what you are saying then it would be a Self-Fufilling Prophecy.

You are in control of your own destiny, for the most part. But not really any more so than in most countries. And, you're absolutely right, there are honorable people out there. Some of them are Liberals and Democrats. Some of them are rightwingers and Libertarians. But, not all in both camps.

Figure that out, please?

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

Orange county is so far right they are off the scale.

QFT. Dana Rohrbacher is my representative in the House. You ought to see his district boundaries, it makes Gerry's salamander look tame in comparison.

[Boreas]

How is it negligence when it was a purposeful act?

What was a purposeful act, Arizona's fucked up gun law?

Also, if Obama has no knowledge of it why did he invoke executive privilege?

I don't know. Do you?

Do you think the car thief/arsonist Issa would have let go of this crap if there was anything to it? That 'roided out asshole has been trying to hang Obama since he got the House Oversight Committee chair, just like he promised.

John

[BlueStreak]

First off that U.S. citizen traitor Alawi convicted himself out of his own mouth, no trial was necessary

Secondly how would you suggest fighting an enemy who hides behind the skirts of women, thos same wome who he treats like dogs*. The older men convince the teenagers that if they strap on an explosive vest and blow themselves up in a crowded market they are martyrs. Hamas even sent a teenaged giirl into Israel with an explosive vest. They also fire their rockets from schoolyards or mear mosques. Their sole purpose in life is to kill westerners, so it becomes the law of the jungle - kill or be killed.

* These pious men who claim they are honouring their women - hah -all of the terrorist laptops that were seized were full of pornographic material. I for one would not wish to live in a worldwide caliphate, I even have enough problem with so called Christians.

Well said, Rob.

And, this was my point. When we said we wouldn't fire on a mosque was the day they started hiding in mosques. We don't kill kids? Okay, then our enemies will hole up in the kindergartens and madrassas...................And the damn war, that should have been over in months, drags on for ten + years. (And, Obama was NOT the C-inC ten years ago, now was he?)

(Actually, I find it interesting that I find myself arguing this with rightwingers. Just a few years ago, THEY were the ones moaning about the way we fight modern wars in this way.:confused:)

Lastly;

I have no use at all for Theocracy, not even a Christian one. It's just another form of religious tyranny.

Regards,
Dave

[hatrack71]

"I have no use at all for Theocracy, not even a Christian one. It's just another form of religious tyranny."

What are you specifically referring to here? Arab nations?

[bobabode]

"I have no use at all for Theocracy, not even a Christian one. It's just another form of religious tyranny."

What are you specifically referring to here? Arab nations?

Probably Virginia, I'm guessing.

[hatrack71]

Probably Virginia, I'm guessing.

Vote for someone else. That's the process. You might have to bear with me here. I'm not very familiar with VA. I'm just a Montucky boy.

EDIT: I'm guessing organized religion is like the mob there then?

[bobabode]

Vote for someone else. That's the process.

Just reading between the lines here, Kyle but what he was probably refering to is the rise of the religious right in our country. Good thing those old white guys who wrote the Constitution had the foresight to erect a wall between the church and state and enshrine it in that document. Freedom of and from the right to worship whatever you choose, be it Jehovah, Allah, Buddha or a rock. The idea that this is a christian nation runs counter to the founding documents.

[hatrack71]

Just reading between the lines here, Kyle but what he was probably refering to is the rise of the religious right in our country. Good thing those old white guys who wrote the Constitution had the foresight to erect a wall between the church and state and enshrine it in that document. Freedom of and from the right to worship whatever you choose, be it Jehovah, Allah, Buddha or a rock. The idea that this is a christian nation runs counter to the founding documents.

Absolutely. Makes perfect sense.

[Boreas]

The purposeful act was letting guns walk. You'll have to ask Issa, but not sure what else he coulld legally do once executive privilege is declared. Again a dedicated thread would be appropriate I think.

.

Do you actually know why the guns were allowed to "walk"?

John

[hatrack71]

Do you actually know why the guns were allowed to "walk"?

John

Initially a sting operation I suppose........ that went TERRIBLY wrong.

[Boreas]

Initially a sting operation I suppose........ that went TERRIBLY wrong.

But you don't know. Nothing against you. I suspect that not many do. I'm wondering whether BS does. You'd hope so since he seems top be pretty upset about it.

John

[BlueStreak]

"I have no use at all for Theocracy, not even a Christian one. It's just another form of religious tyranny."

What are you specifically referring to here? Arab nations?

Any nation, including this one.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Just reading between the lines here, Kyle but what he was probably refering to is the rise of the religious right in our country. Good thing those old white guys who wrote the Constitution had the foresight to erect a wall between the church and state and enshrine it in that document. Freedom of and from the right to worship whatever you choose, be it Jehovah, Allah, Buddha or a rock. The idea that this is a christian nation runs counter to the founding documents.

And, there it is.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Do you actually know why the guns were allowed to "walk"?

John

Wasn't the idea to trace where they ended up, thus establishing a "picture" or trail of the cartel networks?

Kind of a dumb idea on more than one level. One being that opportunist oppostion politicians (Issa) could easily paint it as "arming Mexican drug cartels" then the usual propaganda outlets (FoxNews, EIB and the NRA and it's sycophant magazines.) could spin some yarn about it being part of some nefarious plot to attack the 2nd amendment..........:rolleyes:

When really, it was just a very flawed plan associated with the very flawed "War on Drugs".

Regards,
Dave

[hatrack71]

Wasn't the idea to trace where they ended up, thus establishing a "picture" or trail of the cartel networks?

Kind of a dumb idea on more than one level. One being that opportunist oppostion politicians (Issa) could easily paint it as "arming Mexican drug cartels" then the usual propaganda outlets (FoxNews, EIB and the NRA and it's sycophant magazines.) could spin some yarn about it being part of some nefarious plot to attack the 2nd amendment..........:rolleyes:

When really, it was just a very flawed plan associated with the very flawed "War on Drugs".

Regards,
Dave

Yep, agreed. The war on drugs is fruitless. It's not going to stop anything.

[Boreas]

Wasn't the idea to trace where they ended up, thus establishing a "picture" or trail of the cartel networks?

Nope!

John

[bobabode]

Nope!

John

Do tell?:D

[Boreas]

The purposeful act was letting guns walk. You'll have to ask Issa, but not sure what else he coulld legally do once executive privilege is declared. Again a dedicated thread would be appropriate I think.

.

Do you actually know why the guns were allowed to "walk"?

John

Still there, BS?

John

[hatrack71]

Need the popcorn emoticon here.

[BlueStreak]

Nope!

John

Do tell?:D

Really, John...do tell?

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

Really, John...do tell?

Regards,
Dave

I was waiting to see whether BS knew but he seems to be MIA.

Here's an article from that commie rag, Fortune Magazine. It's the best summation of the operation and the serious cluster f#@k that it was that I've seen. At its core the story is one of a seriously dysfunctional agency which has been deliberately crippled by the gun lobby and their Republican allies.

There was gun walking, a total of 3 guns and these were part of a sting but that's not what F&F was about. In fact, the sting operation was run against the parameters set out by the team's leader, and authorized by a subordinate while the leader was on vacation. The agent who ran the rogue operation was the guy who blew the whistle and the two guns found near the dead agent were from that group of 3. Figure THAT out if you can!

Anyway, I don't want to spoil your enjoyment of the article so here's the link.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

[Boreas]

If I recall correctly the official story was to enable them to somehow trace revealing nature in which they made there way into the hands of the bad guys. Is there a different reason I haven't heard. Truthfully I'd like to get into this on a different thread as I'd love to hear what other folks view of this is.

I think we probably covered this in a thread sometime back. Anyway, read the article I linked to. It'll show you just how screwed up this whole thing has been and how many outright lies have come from the Congress and the press.

As I see it, the biggest problem was AZ gun law. It really hamstrung the Feds. Next would be the two (or three) rogue agents in the ATF's F&F team.

John

[bobabode]

As far as those (five law enforcement personnel?). Put them under oath in front of a senate committe and ill buy their story.

They'll just start up with that, "To the best of my recollection" bullcrap and it'll get nowhere. They aren't afraid of any Senators, they'll just lie.;)

[d-ray657]

Yes I believe this has always been about the gun laws. Some might call it a false flag operation. There are emails uncovered that support this as well ( I see if I can find them).

As far as those (five law enforcement personnel?). Put them under oath in front of a senate committe and ill buy their story.

Has the committee called them?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

So, did you read the article?

Yes I believe this has always been about the gun laws. Some might call it a false flag operation.

That petty criminal leading the House investigation did.

I think you missed my point and the point made in the article. You seem to be saying that the target of F&F was really Arizona's gun laws. There is no evidence to support that and that's not what I meant. I was saying that the Arizona gun law is so goofy and so full of holes that it was virtually impossible for the ATF team to build a case that the USAO would buy.

There are emails uncovered that support this as well ( I see if I can find them).

You may be thinking of the emails that Dodson and CBS edited and then mischaracterized.

As far as those (five law enforcement personnel?). Put them under oath in front of a senate committe and ill buy their story.

Do you mean the 7 Agents at the Phoenix office? We already pretty much know that Dodson would perjure himself and, as Don suggested, if the House Governmental Oversight Committee thought they could help them build their case against the Obama Administration, they would have already been called.

John

[Boreas]

Here is the email.

""Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

So ya I believe the gun laws were causing ATF some problems and they were looking for ways to issue their "demand letter 3"

You'll need to explain to me exactly what you think the significance of that email is. Licensed firearm dealers weren't the targets of F&F. Straw buyers and the people they were fronting for were the targets.

John

[BlueStreak]

If I recall correctly the official story was to enable them to somehow trace revealing nature in which they made there way into the hands of the bad guys. Is there a different reason I haven't heard. Truthfully I'd like to get into this on a different thread as I'd love to hear what other folks view of this is.

That's the impression I was under.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

That's why I said senate. If it Is true that Issa is just out to demonize bho then he would never call them. But the senate can certainly get them on record if they want to.

He set out looking for an excuse before the '09 inauguration. Part of the "One Term" effort launched by Moonhead and the Turtleman.

Regards,
Dave

[merrylander]

What if just Accused you of saying those thing....but wasn't true?

Alawi was not simply accused, he openly advocated killing Americans, That whackjob at Ft. Hood was egged on by Alawi.

[merrylander]

Just reading between the lines here, Kyle but what he was probably refering to is the rise of the religious right in our country. Good thing those old white guys who wrote the Constitution had the foresight to erect a wall between the church and state and enshrine it in that document. Freedom of and from the right to worship whatever you choose, be it Jehovah, Allah, Buddha or a rock. The idea that this is a christian nation runs counter to the founding documents.

I was referring to the churcch that wants to keep contraceptives out of the PPACA and wants to abolish abortion no matter whether the woman's life is in danger or not, but thinks nothing of molesting young children.

[CarlV]

Yes, not giving out contraceptives is as dumb as dumb gets.



Carl

[Boreas]

Yes, not giving out contraceptives is as dumb as dumb gets.



Carl

The Catholic Church doesn't even modify its position covering prophylactics for AIDS prevention, even in Africa where it's an epidemic.

John

[finnbow]

The Catholic Church doesn't even modify its position covering prophylactics for AIDS prevention, even in Africa where it's an epidemic.

John

They might change their tune if young boys had a high incidence of AIDS or other venereal diseases.:cool:

[Boreas]

It supports the position that gun walking was.being used to enable.more strict gun regulation rather than or in addition too nabbing bad guys.

No, it doesn't. Doesn't even address gun walking.

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

It's only trying to determine if a particular group of weapons was purchased at the same time from the same place, point and date of origin.

John

[piece-itpete]

You guys realise that membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary?

Pete

[Boreas]

Then why is the demand letter mentioned?

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

Demand letters concern the reporting of multiple gun sales to the same person. It was mentioned so that they could get an answer to the question in the email. They wanted to know where to look. Pretty simple, really.

The gun nuts are upset over demand letters because they simply don't want any sort of sales reporting at all, even if it's only a requirement to report some guy buying 100 Bushmasters. It has NOTHING to do with gun walking.

John

[Boreas]

Amoung catholics NOT following doctrine is causing the spread not the other way around. If not catholic why would they care?
So a Catholic man contracts HIV from, say, a prostitute, then comes home and infects his wife. I guess that makes it her fault.

John

[Boreas]

Good thing there are no catholics reading this thread.

There are Catholics posting in it - on both sides of the issue, I'd imagine.

John

[finnbow]

Good thing there are no catholics reading this thread.

I was born and raised Catholic. I've long since moved on, however.

[merrylander]

I was born and raised Catholic. I've long since moved on, however.

So was Florence.

[finnbow]

I suppose if the catholic were to commit adultry might as well wear a condom. You think the adulterer would think that wearing the condom would be sinful while committing a sinful act?

The Church would have to put him on double secret probation.:cool:

[bobabode]

The Church would have to put him on double secret probation.:cool:


Bam!:D