Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bulldog: I'm not following what you said about Republicans "wanting people killed for victimless crimes." What crimes? Which Republicans?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I understood that part but I kinda don't care about minor grammatical errors when I write for a message board.

as for irony, really? you do know the definition of that term n'est ce pas?

Yes better than you know, but I am sure you are right and it is only a liberal tactic...

Stick to calling Obama Che reborn you are better when you use your one trick

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

hey, I'm not a GOP'er I'm a conservative who leans socially liberal so more like Guiliani I suppose. When I mean small government and governement out of my life/way I mean that when it comes to the right to choose too.

however I'd note abortion and capital punishment are too very separate issues and I don't know if it's fair to make an argument that equates the two.'

on holier than thou....uhm they're are a few GOP'ers like that. But my argument was not just pols, it was liberals in general. more times than I care to recall when I get in a debate with a liberal they end up resorting to name-calling and bogeyman creating and get all frothy at the mouth. it's pretty scary really.

of course...I should have known not to take the bait on those discussions.

as for controlling others I'd argue generally the GOP is the party of hands-off, that's why they protect for the 1st and 2nd amendments so staunchly. It's not the GOP that sets up websites for americans to rat each other out on healthcare, or who are for ending secret balloting, it goes on and on.

the evangelicals (to whom I assume you are referring) can be tied to a rocket for all I care and sent through the sun. get your religion out of my face... I mean I believe in God but I'm not going to put that in someone's face, nor put forth my personal interpretations of the bible.

I didn't necessarily mean you, just in general. If I said you personally, I was wrong to say so.

Both parties are only for the Constitution when it favors them, but have no problems ignoring it when it's someone else.

I wasn't really talking about capital punishment. I mean that people are killed on raids on the war on (some) drugs. There's too many of instances of cops tazing someone who hasn't used force on another person.

Someone who is truly for small government I can get behind, but the trouble is defining what small government is, is up for question.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Yes better than you know, but I am sure you are right and it is only a liberal tactic...

Stick to calling Obama Che reborn you are better when you use your one trick

alright handy I overreacted to your joke a bit

Now I haven't called Obama Guevara in a while (relatively speaking probably a matter of several weeks but considering the number of postings that's a while). that must really set you off for some reason, I mean for you to continually harken back to that. it seems every other time you respond to one of my posts you bring that up

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bulldog: I'm not following what you said about Republicans "wanting people killed for victimless crimes." What crimes? Which Republicans?

The war on (some) drugs and illegal immigration to name a couple. Now someone who kills another over drugs certainly has harmed another human, but that's a different issue.

It's certainly not all Republicans, but it's certainly a good amount of them.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I didn't necessarily mean you, just in general. If I said you personally, I was wrong to say so.

Both parties are only for the Constitution when it favors them, but have no problems ignoring it when it's someone else.

I wasn't really talking about capital punishment. I mean that people are killed on raids on the war on (some) drugs. There's too many of instances of cops tazing someone who hasn't used force on another person.

Someone who is truly for small government I can get behind, but the trouble is defining what small government is, is up for question.

understood Bulldog. I shouldn't be posting when I'm in a **** mood. especially re: politics.

and I have to agree with your line about the constitution to a large degree.

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

understood Bulldog. I shouldn't be posting when I'm in a **** mood. especially re: politics.

Ditto here.

Since 2000 I've gotten more frustrated with politics. Right now I can't see anyone even remotely worth a darn in either party to vote for. Heck, I'm not certain if I consider voting even morally right, since both of the major parties are for removing freedoms people who haven't harmed others.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Because I try and give credit where credit's due and try and not mis-credit.

Sarcasm meter's busted again.

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Sarcasm meter's busted again.

If you say so.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If you say so.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...se-blunder-over-Oval-Office-carpet-quote.html

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If you say so.

What the hell kind of third-grade response is that? If you've got nothing to say, don't say anything. Not a difficult concept.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/04/r...ributed-oval-office-martin-luther-king-quote/

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...se-blunder-over-Oval-Office-carpet-quote.html

What the hell kind of third-grade response is that? If you've got nothing to say, don't say anything. Not a difficult concept.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/04/r...ributed-oval-office-martin-luther-king-quote/

And your response that only says "Sarcasm meter's busted again." is something much better than a 3rd grade response?

I must be missing something, where did I use a quote from either of those two articles?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I must be missing something, where did I use a quote from either of those two articles?

You had a quote, Red Cloud said you should have attributed it to MLK Jr. (a joke).

You seemed not to get the joke- it was kind of obscure.

I was just trying to provide a friendly service.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

And your response that only says "Sarcasm meter's busted again." is something much better than a 3rd grade response?

Yes, because in that remark, I am communicating that you did not get a joke that I made. Whereas in your remark, you said nothing at all.

I must be missing something, where did I use a quote from either of those two articles?

There's no way you're this dense. No way. Has to be an act.

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Yes, because in that remark, I am communicating that you did not get a joke that I made. Whereas in your remark, you said nothing at all.

There's no way you're this dense. No way. Has to be an act.

Up until those two links I had no clue about the Obama misquote.

You had a quote, Red Cloud said you should have attributed it to MLK Jr. (a joke).

You seemed not to get the joke- it was kind of obscure.

I was just trying to provide a friendly service.

Thanks!

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bulldog: apart from the unproven and unprovable sophistry of "victimless crimes," I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean by claiming that Republicans "want" people "killed" for those crimes.

If you mean the guys shooting at cops on drug raids, **** skippy, I want 'em dead. Surely you aren't suggesting they be given a pass.

And the irony of your point about the taser is this device was created to avoid the use of lethal force. The question of occasional indefensible use of the thing (about which I've posted) and the occasional tragic outcome doesn't change the fact that most people are infinitely better off being tasered rather than shot. I mean, you do agree we need police, right? And you do agree that occasionally the police have to use force, right? Asking some people nicely to stop doing what they're doing has been shown not to work a lot of the time.

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bulldog: apart from the unproven and unprovable sophistry of "victimless crimes," I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean by claiming that Republicans want people "killed" for those crimes.

If you mean the guys with guns shooting at cops on drug raids, **** skippy, I want 'em dead. Surely you aren't suggesting they be given a pass.

And the irony of your point about the taser is this device was created to avoid the use of lethal force. The question of occasional indefensible use of the thing (about which I've posted) and the occasional tragic outcome doesn't change the fact that most people are infinitely better off being tasered rather than shot. I mean, you do agree we need police, right? And you do agree that occasionally the police have to use force, right? Asking some people nicely to stop doing what they're doing has been shown not to work a lot of the time.

Unless the drug user has killed someone or stolen from someone to get drugs than they haven't used agression against another person. The war on (some) drugs is completely wrong. Being against the drug war isn't condoning drugs.

Certainly being tasered is better than being shot.

I'm all for the cops using measures in self defense, but that still doesn't excuse the act of using force on someone who hasn't harmed another human.

Sending SWAT teams into houses is putting the cops at risk. There's other ways of getting the users/dealers that doesn't create that risk.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Unless the drug user has killed someone or stolen from someone to get drugs than they haven't used agression against another person. The war on (some) drugs is completely wrong. Being against the drug war isn't condoning drugs.

Certainly being tasered is better than being shot.

I'm all for the cops using measures in self defense, but that still doesn't excuse the act of using force on someone who hasn't harmed another human.

Sending SWAT teams into houses is putting the cops at risk. There's other ways of getting the users/dealers that doesn't create that risk.

hmm...well you can't allow people to break the law indiscriminately (and the cops and Feds have these guys monitored and know exactly what they're doing and when they're doing it mostly), and dealing drugs is, well, breaking the law and I'd argue harming people (and I'll parse that to say I'm not talking about "dave" the local weed dealer, more like the h and cocaine guys and the big cartel weed people).

Arizona would be a perfect example right now of why we don't just need cops busting heads and/or blazing bad guys but it's getting to the point where the military may need to send some blackhawks and apache's south of phoenix. Reading about drug gangs controlling 30% of that state...it's inexcusable and the only way to combat them is w/guns really. you can't coax them out any other way so in the end you're sitting with a scenario like the scene in HEAT w/Deniro telling Pacino "I take scores, that's what I do, you do what you do, try and take down guys like me"

how else would you handle that?

putting pressure on the mexican government won't work because they obviously are living in fear of these gangs. it's like Pablo Escobar all over again

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

hmm...well you can't allow people to break the law indiscriminately (and the cops and Feds have these guys monitored and know exactly what they're doing and when they're doing it mostly), and dealing drugs is, well, breaking the law and I'd argue harming people (and I'll parse that to say I'm not talking about "dave" the local weed dealer, more like the h and cocaine guys and the big cartel weed people).

Arizona would be a perfect example right now of why we don't just need cops busting heads and/or blazing bad guys but it's getting to the point where the military may need to send some blackhawks and apache's south of phoenix. Reading about drug gangs controlling 30% of that state...it's inexcusable and the only way to combat them is w/guns really. you can't coax them out any other way so in the end you're sitting with a scenario like the scene in HEAT w/Deniro telling Pacino "I take scores, that's what I do, you do what you do, try and take down guys like me"

how else would you handle that?

putting pressure on the mexican government won't work because they obviously are living in fear of these gangs. it's like Pablo Escobar all over again

The war on drugs has created more problems than it's solved. It's government trying to do to much.

If someone kills another person trying to gets drugs, steals from another, is off on drugs they crash into another person, rapes another, I have no problems going after them. Basically the same as alcohol, you don't ban the drug, you ban the result.

I have no problems the cops stopping those who are aggressing against others. Those who aren't, let society try and find ways to get them to stop voluntarily.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The war on drugs has created more problems than it's solved. It's government trying to do to much.

If someone kills another person trying to gets drugs, steals from another, is off on drugs they crash into another person, rapes another, I have no problems going after them. Basically the same as alcohol, you don't ban the drug, you ban the result.

I have no problems the cops stopping those who are aggressing against others. Those who aren't, let society try and find ways to get them to stop voluntarily.

So it's the "war" on drugs that's got your knickers in a twist. Well, no less a figure than William F. Buckley was more or less on your side. My sole experience with the "war" on drugs is watching the pathetic mopes on "Cops" and other shows.

And you're right, the principal problem to law abiding Americans, most of whom wouldn't know where to begin to look for drugs to buy, is with the violence perpetrated by drug users who need money to buy the stuff. And by various drug "people" shooting at each other or cops and occasionally hitting innocent bystanders.

But I'm still waiting for an answer (and some examples, please) of your assertion about Republicans "wanting" people "killed" because of "victimless" crimes. If you were pregnant with celestial fire when you wrote that I can understand, been there, done that.