Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:36 pm
This is getting silly.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
He may be referring to your off hand dismissal of the southern poverty law center, that being listed by them as a hate group might as well be an endorsement. A few groups they list as hate groups belong on such a list. But I believe they list many groups and omit others based on a socialist / "anti white" leaning filter.Diogenes wrote:Stubby wrote:Right back atcha, digot!
Your admission that you consider the KKK, NAZI party and skinhead organisations and many many other hateful groups 'credible' and 'above reproach' makes you the singularly most disgusting, morally corrupt member here.
Words fail. You are a sick lying bastard @sshole. That is all anyone needs to know about you. You have no example of me admitting any such thing because I regard such groups as reprehensible, but the truth never got in your way before.
Well, I know many liberals and conservatives who are decent honest people who have beliefs I don't share. I don't want to sound like I'm stereotyping.williatw wrote: Don't trust the right wing conservatives any more than the left wing liberals, neither has any respect for the Constitution.
Having shared a house with a Marine Corps veteran, I am inclined to say the third amendment is the most important. He got filth on the inside of sealed containers.williatw wrote: Which is why I agree with the idea that maybe the 2nd amendment may be the most important one of all.
Agreed.ladajo wrote: This is getting silly.
Good enough. It's not about the readers, it's about taking responsibility for your own ideas. I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it with my life and I will shove my boot up your rear so far you can smell shoelace if you try to make it look like I said it.Diogenes wrote: But Wilco. There might be someone reading the dialogue who is too stupid to get the joke. Given some of the denizens here, I wouldn't be surprised.
Blankbeard wrote:I can't speak for him but for an extreme social conservative the list looks like thisStubby wrote:Right back atcha, digot!
Repealed
21, maybe 17 and 26
Blankbeard wrote: Gutted (Changed so as to effectively eliminate the intent
1, 4, 8,9,10
Demanding equal access to the public's attention is not suppressing opposition opinion, it is balancing it. We currently have a system where virtually everyone working in Media is Hired in New York (Obama 79% 2008) or Los Angeles (Obama 69% 2008) and then joins a Union.Blankbeard wrote: The extremes on both ends seem to want to rewrite the 1rst to be "everyone is entitled to our opinion. 8,9, and 10 are effectively dead letters at this point.
Blankbeard wrote: I think you could make a similar list for our friends on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's mostly the same. 21, 17 and 26 drop out as does 4. 5 comes in because of the takings clause that I've heard "mainstream" progressives decry. The second is gone, of course. Maybe 11 too.
Extreme libertarians generally only have a problem with 16, as far as I can see.
williatw wrote:Don't trust the right wing conservatives any more than the left wing liberals, neither has any respect for the Constitution.Blankbeard wrote: I can't speak for him but for an extreme social conservative the list looks like this
Repealed
21, maybe 17 and 26
Gutted (Changed so as to effectively eliminate the intent
1, 4, 8,9,10
The extremes on both ends seem to want to rewrite the 1rst to be "everyone is entitled to our opinion. 8,9, and 10 are effectively dead letters at this point.
I think you could make a similar list for our friends on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's mostly the same. 21, 17 and 26 drop out as does 4. 5 comes in because of the takings clause that I've heard "mainstream" progressives decry. The second is gone, of course. Maybe 11 too.
Extreme libertarians generally only have a problem with 16, as far as I can see.
williatw wrote: Which is why I agree with the idea that maybe the 2nd amendment may be the most important one of all. There is a news story (heard originally on Fox) that maybe Obama is planning on re-categorizing a whole host of semiautomatic weapons as heavily regulated fully automatics under the pretext of their allegedly being easy to modify to full auto. They would all be regulated like machine guns...sure they would figure out a way to include semi-auto pistols to like my Glock 26 and my Beretta. Wouldn't require an act of Congress, just presidential instructions to the ATF.
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/11/ ... -firearms/
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-t ... rns-expert
F*** you prick. Your sort is always accusing people who disagree with you of "racism" or "sexism" or some other new and improved made up "ism". I'm sick of granting accusers such as you credibility. You interpret everything as some sort of racist/sexist dog whistle, and the funny thing is, you people seem to be the only ones hearing it. The position of the "real" me has been described clearly enough in my comments going back several years. You are just a lackwit that hasn't been around long enough to read them, nor had the reasoning faculties to do so had you had the intelligence sufficient to think of it.Stubby wrote:
Again.RIGHT. BACK. AT. YOU.
One. I am not lying about what you said. I will quote it below. No doubt you will claim to have misspoken. I am sure you didn't. You let the mask slip and we got to see the 'real' you.
Stubby wrote: Two. My parents were married 10 months before I was born.
Stubby wrote: Three. ad hominem. You can't refute the argument so attack the messenger.
Classic.
Stubby wrote:Diogenes wrote:
Stubby wrote:
Family Research Institute
Quote:
The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group[4] by the nonprofit civil rights organization[5][6][7] Southern Poverty Law Center[8][9] because of Cameron's discredited research and claims about LGBT people.
Well, that's all I need to know about them to consider them credible. Anybody labeled a "hate group" by the Nuts and Kooks running the Southern Poverty Law Center is above reproach in my book.
Stubby wrote: I can understand why you feel you can't continue to preach your ideas here. And it is nice of you to confirm who we all are talking to when you do sprout your foul ideas.
And that other website your posted (H.O.M.E.) is also on the list.
'
List of Organisations deemed to be 'above reproach' and considered 'credible' by Diogenes
The SPLC reported that there were 926 active hate groups in the United States in 2008, up from 888 in 2007. That number did not include hate groups that appear to exist only on the Internet. The groups included:
186 separate Ku Klux Klan (KKK) groups with 52 websites
196 neo-Nazi groups with 89 websites
111 white nationalist groups with 190 websites
98 white power skinhead groups with 25 websites
39 Christian Identity groups with 37 websites
93 neo-Confederate groups with 25 websites
113 black separatist groups with 40 websites
159 patriot movement groups
90 general hate groups (subdivided into anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial, racist music, radical traditionalist Catholic and others)[9][10] with 172 hate websites.[11]
hanelyp wrote:He may be referring to your off hand dismissal of the southern poverty law center, that being listed by them as a hate group might as well be an endorsement. A few groups they list as hate groups belong on such a list. But I believe they list many groups and omit others based on a socialist / "anti white" leaning filter.Diogenes wrote:Stubby wrote:Right back atcha, digot!
Your admission that you consider the KKK, NAZI party and skinhead organisations and many many other hateful groups 'credible' and 'above reproach' makes you the singularly most disgusting, morally corrupt member here.
Words fail. You are a sick lying bastard @sshole. That is all anyone needs to know about you. You have no example of me admitting any such thing because I regard such groups as reprehensible, but the truth never got in your way before.
Whatever the stated intent, the effect of many groups they endorse is the continuation and expansion of poverty.
Blankbeard wrote:
Good enough. It's not about the readers, it's about taking responsibility for your own ideas. I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it with my life and I will shove my boot up your rear so far you can smell shoelace if you try to make it look like I said it.(That's a joke. Mostly)
http://libertylawsite.org/2012/12/07/gu ... t-origins/So it is no surprise that for most of our history, the Black community from the leadership to the grassroots has explicitly and aggressively endorsed the right of armed self-defense and firearms ownership. Kentucky firebrand Ida B. Wells urged that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Negro home.” The first generation of legal battles by the NAACP were centered on defending Blacks who had used firearms in self-defense – e.g., hiring Clarence Darrow to defend Dr. Ossian Sweet who was mobbed for attempting move into a white neighborhood.
In every generation armed Black folk have used guns in self-defense both prosaically and heroically. And since at least the middle of the 19th century Blacks have embraced a dual policy of nonviolent social change concurrent with a clear endorsement of individual self-defense. This approach is vividly illustrated in Martin Luther King’s commentary during one of the high profile debates about the implications of the approach. After affirming the strategy of nonviolence in pursuit of group goals King says this:
Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi … . When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects.
Diogenes wrote:Gun Control’s Racist Origins
http://libertylawsite.org/2012/12/07/gu ... t-origins/So it is no surprise that for most of our history, the Black community from the leadership to the grassroots has explicitly and aggressively endorsed the right of armed self-defense and firearms ownership. Kentucky firebrand Ida B. Wells urged that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Negro home.” The first generation of legal battles by the NAACP were centered on defending Blacks who had used firearms in self-defense – e.g., hiring Clarence Darrow to defend Dr. Ossian Sweet who was mobbed for attempting move into a white neighborhood.
In every generation armed Black folk have used guns in self-defense both prosaically and heroically. And since at least the middle of the 19th century Blacks have embraced a dual policy of nonviolent social change concurrent with a clear endorsement of individual self-defense. This approach is vividly illustrated in Martin Luther King’s commentary during one of the high profile debates about the implications of the approach. After affirming the strategy of nonviolence in pursuit of group goals King says this:
Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi … . When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects.
williatw wrote:
Or in an even broader sense...the way Capone and the other mobsters were able to corrupt and virtually take over cities like NY and Chicago, even before prohibition. They got their start before prohibition in things like "protection rackets". If you were a store/business owner and Capone or his thugs show up demanding payment, disarmed as you were in NY and Chicago you had little recourse accept to pay them. If you resisted unarmed you would have been beaten or worse, and/or your business destroyed. You couldn't as the constitution should have allowed arm yourself, your employees, even form a protection militia of fellow business owners to protect yourself from the criminals. If you had the city gov would have come down on you like a ton of bricks. It was the gov in those cities who rendered their citizens disarmed, wouldn't allow them to use deadly force to protect their own property, and then the corrupted police failed to protect them from the criminal thugs. The only thing Capone had to worry about was his fellow mobsters, the city/state gov were corrupted, the people disarmed by the state. I am sure they had organized crime in say Texas then and now, but don't seem to recall hearing about them being able to control things to the degree it got in NY or Chicago.
A suspected burglar got more than he could handle when he attempted to break into an Oklahoma City home, which ended up being inhabited by a boxing and kickboxing trainer — and apparently a good one.
Jonathan Wise, 19, was arrested earlier this month with two black and bloodshot eyes and in need of stitches for other injuries. He reportedly tried to rob the home of Norm Houston, according to police.
Besides special locks and security cameras, an undisclosed number of staff members and teachers carry concealed handguns.
Thweatt said the "guardian plan," which drew international attention when it was implemented in 2008, definitely enhances student safety.