David Stockman: Guns are are barbarous relic that have no place in our civilization

[Brian4Liberty]

David Stockman, budget "guru" in the Reagan Administration, has recently come out of a long exile, and has had some favorable coverage, especially based on a recent Reason TV interview. He certainly makes some good points about our crony capitalism (corporatism) and the danger of budget deficits.

He appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher this week, and it appears that he is fiercely against guns and the Second Amendment. He also seems to adhere to the left dogma that the Constitution is an ancient document that doesn't apply anymore; the convenient opinion that it is a flexible document, always open to interpretation, or to be filed away and ignored completely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNoyLEBMsg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNoyLEBMsg

[LedHed]

David Stockman, budget "guru" in the Reagan Administration, has recently come out of a long exile, and has had some favorable coverage, especially based on a recent Reason TV interview. He certainly makes some good points about our crony capitalism (corporatism) and the danger of budget deficits.

He appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher this week, and it appears that he is fiercely against guns and the Second Amendment. He also seems to adhere to the left dogma that the Constitution is an ancient document that doesn't apply anymore; the convenient opinion that it is a flexible document, always open to interpretation, or to be filed away and ignored completely.

The Framers included Article V for purposes of amending the constitution to suit the needs of an evolving nation, so they themselves considered the Constitution to be a "flexible" living document.

Article III establishes empowers the judicial branch to interpret meanings and intentions within the Constitution, so the Framers obviously knew that the language within the document would need to be ajudicated regarding its meaning from time to time as well.

[Sola_Fide]

David Stockman, budget "guru" in the Reagan Administration, has recently come out of a long exile, and has had some favorable coverage, especially based on a recent Reason TV interview. He certainly makes some good points about our crony capitalism (corporatism) and the danger of budget deficits.

He appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher this week, and it appears that he is fiercely against guns and the Second Amendment. He also seems to adhere to the left dogma that the Constitution is an ancient document that doesn't apply anymore; the convenient opinion that it is a flexible document, always open to interpretation, or to be filed away and ignored completely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNoyLEBMsg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNoyLEBMsg



Translation: Guns are bad*




*except when governments use them to control you





Oh, by the way....A "living" document is a dead document.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Framers included Article V for purposes of amending the constitution to suit the needs of an evolving nation, so they themselves considered the Constitution to be a "flexible" living document.

Article III establishes empowers the judicial branch to interpret meanings and intentions within the Constitution, so the Framers obviously knew that the language within the document would need to be ajudicated regarding its meaning from time to time as well.

Certainly. But why do gun control nuts just want to pass new laws that are in direct contradiction to both the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment when they should be fighting to amend the Constitution first? They want to ignore both the Constitution, and the process of modifying it. Interpretation that results in the complete opposite result renders the original document completely meaningless, and is a farce.

[Toureg89]

The Framers included Article V for purposes of amending the constitution to suit the needs of an evolving nation, so they themselves considered the Constitution to be a "flexible" living document.
yeah, but i think we would all agree that the proper way to constitutionally illegalize all aspects of private firearm ownership would be to pass an amendment nullifying the second amendment.

but i would argue even that is not completely constitution, if the constitution is supposed to be the codified philosophies found in the Declaration of Independence, which itself (DoI) says that rights are inalienable.

i.e., even illegalization of rights does not REALLY take away those rights; it does practically, but not in theory.

[LedHed]

Certainly. But why do gun control nuts just want to pass new laws that are in direct contradiction to both the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment when they should be fighting to amend the Constitution first? They want to ignore both the Constitution, and the process of modifying it. Interpretation that results in the complete opposite result renders the original document completely meaningless, and is a farce.

SCOTUS or a lower assigned court is empowered to review laws made when suit is brought which questions the constitutionality of the law. If you feel a particular law is an infringement of your rights under 2nd amendment or any other, you have the right, and perhaps the obligation, as a citizen to bring suit to test the law passed.

Are there any particular laws being proposed or in effect which you feel are infringing your rights? Then hire an attorney to represent your interests as an aggrieved party. It's both your right as well as your responsibility to get involved with the process if you feel a law is not constitutional. Wouldn't you agree?

[LedHed]

yeah, but i think we would all agree that the proper way to constitutionally illegalize all aspects of private firearm ownership would be to pass an amendment nullifying the second amendment. but i would argue even that is not completely constitution, if the constitution is supposed to be the codified philosophies found in the Declaration of Independence, which itself (DoI) says that rights are inalienable.

i.e., even illegalization of rights does not REALLY take away those rights; it does practically, but not in theory.

Not as easy as it sounds. It would have to be proposed, debated, and then ratified by the states. I seriously doubt that the 2nd amendment will be repealed or amended within our lifetimes.

[Dr.3D]

Not as easy as it sounds. It would have to be proposed, debated, and then ratified by the states. I seriously doubt that the 2nd amendment will be repealed or amended within our lifetimes.

That's because they ignore it anyway. They don't need to amend what is ignored.

[specsaregood]

Not as easy as it sounds. It would have to be proposed, debated, and then ratified by the states. I seriously doubt that the 2nd amendment will be repealed or amended within our lifetimes.

Ah, so because something is difficult, we should just ignore the rule of law and do what we want. Got it.

[LedHed]

Ah, so because something is difficult, we should just ignore the rule of law and do what we want. Got it.

So, that's what you understood from what I wrote, huh?

WOW... JUST WOW...

[Brian4Liberty]

SCOTUS or a lower assigned court is empowered to review laws made when suit is brought which questions the constitutionality of the law. If you feel a particular law is an infringement of your rights under 2nd amendment or any other, you have the right, and perhaps the obligation, as a citizen to bring suit to test the law passed.

Are there any particular laws being proposed or in effect which you feel are infringing your rights? Then hire an attorney to represent your interests as an aggrieved party. It's both your right as well as your responsibility to get involved with the process if you feel a law is not constitutional. Wouldn't you agree?

Isn't that is what is being discussed right now when some of our politicians want to at least attempt make sure are laws are Constitutional before they are passed?

What you are describing is certainly our last retreat and final defense against unconstitutional laws, but it is stacked in the favor of the authoritarians. They pass the laws, enforce the laws, and then you lose your rights unless you can prove them wrong with your measly resources pitted against the vast might of the system. The odds are long indeed. That's why we want politicians who respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not those who willfully ignore it.

Fortunately, as a group, we do fight these laws, and have some minor victories:


http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9KS4R203.htm

A trial court judge in central California has thrown out key sections of a state law restricting handgun ammunition sales, barring authorities from registering bullet buyers' thumbprints on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional.

[Brian4Liberty]

So, that's what you understood from what I wrote, huh?

WOW... JUST WOW...

So are you playing Devil's Advocate here, or just giving us a rundown on the sad state that exists today?

So far you are arguing that the Constitution is a "living" document, open to interpretation, and that if we don't like a new law, our only recourse is to personally spend our resources in a David vs. Goliath fight to restore our stolen rights, in a system stacked in the favor of the government?

[specsaregood]

So, that's what you understood from what I wrote, huh?
WOW... JUST WOW...

That sounds like a yes to me.

[LedHed]

So are you playing Devil's Advocate here, or just giving us a rundown on the sad state that exists today?

So far you are arguing that the Constitution is a "living" document, open to interpretation, and that if we don't like a new law, our only recourse is to personally spend our resources in a David vs. Goliath fight to restore our stolen rights, in a system stacked in the favor of the government?

Naw. Don't spend your own money. You can file a class action suit through the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Easy peasy. Not "arguing" it at all. It's a fact.

But hey. If you don't like it here in the US of A, then you have options of moving elsewhere more "free." With fewer pesky laws and such like, oh I don't know, Afghanistan?

[Pericles]

Not that it has anything to do with this thread:rolleyes:, but Stockman got his butt fired from OMB for opposing the lowering of tax rates.

[Deborah K]

Someone needs to explain to Stockman that the only thing preventing a totalitarian, tyrannical regime is the armed citizen.


Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

[Anti Federalist]

Shows once again that the Reagan regime and it's administration, really was no friend to gun owners.

[LedHed]

The Reagan regime was 22 - 30 years ago. How much interest or influence do you really think the Budget Direktor had in "gun control."

Second question: Why is your avatar a picture of a drunken, (demonstrated) anti-semitic, (alleged) wife beater, Australian actor? Are you a fan of Gibson? (I am, actually.)

[pcosmar]

Naw. Don't spend your own money. You can file a class action suit through the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Easy peasy. Not "arguing" it at all. It's a fact.


If anyone was thinking this is anything other than a troll.
Please read that again.

[Anti Federalist]

Not as easy as it sounds. It would have to be proposed, debated, and then ratified by the states. I seriously doubt that the 2nd amendment will be repealed or amended within our lifetimes.

That's the point, the process is difficult and cumbersome so that the constitution cannot be changed for light and transient reasons.

This month it's the 2nd amendment because of the shootings in Tuscon.

Next month it may the 1st amendment because the WBC are being jerks about something.

[LedHed]

If anyone was thinking this is anything other than a troll.
Please read that again.

Okay, I'll bite. How is what I said "trolling?"

[Anti Federalist]

Naw. Don't spend your own money. You can file a class action suit through the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Easy peasy. Not "arguing" it at all. It's a fact.

But hey. If you don't like it here in the US of A, then you have options of moving elsewhere more "free." With fewer pesky laws and such like, oh I don't know, Afghanistan?

Oh weeping jesus.

In, what, over three years now on this board, I have never seen anybody make the "well iff'n ewe doan like it, you can jus' git out" argument.

My family has been here since 1650. I have had family fight in every major conflict this nation has ever been involved in.

My great uncle, a two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner, said there are only two reasons to go to war: one to defend your home, the other, to defend the Bill of Rights.

It is people like you who are dismissing that tradition of liberty with an attitude of complacency and have largely gotten us into the mess that we are in right now.

Tell you what, why don't you GTFO and relocate to some location more to your suiting, with plenty of rules to regulate the populace, maybe like North Korea.

[specsaregood]

Naw. Don't spend your own money. You can file a class action suit through the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Easy peasy. Not "arguing" it at all. It's a fact.


I know funny and that right there ^ is funny.

[dannno]

Is LedHed Josh or someone like that? That would be really funny.

[pcosmar]

Well he has gotten up to senior member with nothing but anti-liberty posting.
Opposition to Open Carry and the 2nd amendment.
And now favors the ACLU and SPLC as a venue to get gun rights restored.

Any questions?

[Anti Federalist]

The Reagan regime was 22 - 30 years ago. How much interest or influence do you really think the Budget Direktor had in "gun control."

Second question: Why is your avatar a picture of a drunken, (demonstrated) anti-semitic, (alleged) wife beater, Australian actor? Are you a fan of Gibson? (I am, actually.)

Stockman was held up in "conservative" circles as a hero back in the day.

He wasn't the only one, nor was Reagan very "strong" on the 2nd Amendment.

My avatar is based on the character of William Wallace, even though the story in the movie was apocryphal at best, and not the actor.

My response is the same as the last troll who had something to say about it.

http://www.rocknheavy.net/anthrax/photos/anthrax2002.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Is LedHed Josh or someone like that? That would be really funny.

That would be good for the lulz.

I think it's our pal AxisMundi myself.

His circular reasoning style is similar.

And AM was recently banned.

[StilesBC]

Best argument I've found to give gun-control freaks is this: technology doesn't work in reverse. You don't have to "like guns" to want them to be legal. You simply have to understand that whether they are banned or not, they will exist - simply because we know how to make them. And all the whining in the world is not going to change that fact. Same goes for drugs, nuclear technology, hacker programs, copies of the communist manifesto or any other goods that can be considered "undesirable" by one or more people. They exist. And if someone wants one enough, they will get it.

Once that point has been made, progress can begin on figuring out the best way to ensure they do the least harm. And then it can simply be explained to tirelessly prosecute based on the Libertarian legal principle which outlaws the use of force or coercion.

[Toureg89]

Not as easy as it sounds. It would have to be proposed, debated, and then ratified by the states. I seriously doubt that the 2nd amendment will be repealed or amended within our lifetimes.
its not MEANT to be easy.

amending our constitution (the ULTIMATE LAW OF THE LAND) is a BIG deal.

hence, in order to do it, support for a certain idea needs to be so pervasive as to allow amendment to be possible.

but just because amending it is hard, does not give R's or D's free reign to pass unconstitutional laws.

[LedHed]

Tell you what, why don't you GTFO and relocate to some location more to your suiting, with plenty of rules to regulate the populace, maybe like North Korea.

Nah, I LIKE it here, Mel, but thanks for playing. If I had to choose another place, though, it would likely be the Netherlands. I've headed over to Europe every year in May for vacation the last five by way of Amsterdam. Great little city, that.

Oh, and no one "wins" the MoH; it's awarded. It ain't a contest or a footrace, slick.

[oyarde]

Not that it has anything to do with this thread:rolleyes:, but Stockman got his butt fired from OMB for opposing the lowering of tax rates.

I have been sitting here wondering If I should know who he is ....

[oyarde]

Well he has gotten up to senior member with nothing but anti-liberty posting.
Opposition to Open Carry and the 2nd amendment.
And now favors the ACLU and SPLC as a venue to get gun rights restored.

Any questions?

SPLC ???????????????????????? iT MUST BE A JOKE .

[oyarde]

That would be good for the lulz.

I think it's our pal AxisMundi myself.

His circular reasoning style is similar.

And AM was recently banned.

i MISSED THAT , WHAT FOR ??

[LedHed]

I have been sitting here wondering If I should know who he is ....

Depends on how old you are. He was one of Reagan's wunderkind and helped initiate Ronnie's policies of trickle down "Reaganomics."

[LedHed]

SPLC ???????????????????????? iT MUST BE A JOKE .

It was a tongue in cheek suggestion I made since someone was whining about having to spend their own money on an attorney to bring suit against laws they thought/think are unconstitutional. If you read the thread and put it in context, you'll see that the mountain man in the UP of Michigan takes stuff a bit too literal and then quotes out of context. Must be the isolation up there in Freezyland (or more likely the assholation). With any luck at all, he'll at some point try immolation.

[Brian4Liberty]

But hey. If you don't like it here in the US of A, then you have options of moving elsewhere more "free." With fewer pesky laws and such like, oh I don't know, Afghanistan?

Lol! You are either a master of irony or terribly confused...

And you still haven't addressed the primary issue: so you think that creating laws that are in clear violation of the Constitution is a good thing?

[Brian4Liberty]

It was a tongue in cheek suggestion I made since someone was whining about having to spend their own money on an attorney to bring suit against laws they thought/think are unconstitutional.

Tell us more about the SPLC. What do they do?

[oyarde]

It was a tongue in cheek suggestion I made since someone was whining about having to spend their own money on an attorney to bring suit against laws they thought/think are unconstitutional. If you read the thread and put it in context, you'll see that the mountain man in the UP of Michigan takes stuff a bit too literal and then quotes out of context. Must be the isolation up there in Freezyland (or more likely the assholation). With any luck at all, he'll at some point try immolation.

It is his personality , he is honest and sincere in his beliefs .

[oyarde]

It was a tongue in cheek suggestion I made since someone was whining about having to spend their own money on an attorney to bring suit against laws they thought/think are unconstitutional. If you read the thread and put it in context, you'll see that the mountain man in the UP of Michigan takes stuff a bit too literal and then quotes out of context. Must be the isolation up there in Freezyland (or more likely the assholation). With any luck at all, he'll at some point try immolation.

I figured you were kidding .

[oyarde]

Depends on how old you are. He was one of Reagan's wunderkind and helped initiate Ronnie's policies of trickle down "Reaganomics."

I should remember him then ......

[Anti Federalist]

i MISSED THAT , WHAT FOR ??

I have no idea, I just know he got the banhammer.

Nothing in any recent post seemed to suggest anything out of line, maybe it was in a PM.

Maybe if you get enough neg reps, you get banned and your account goes down the memory hole.

Why not ask his sock puppet, LedHed?

[Anti Federalist]

Must be the isolation up there in Freezyland (or more likely the assholation). With any luck at all, he'll at some point try immolation.

Hmmm, newb comes along and calls a long time member an asshole.

Then suggests it would somehow be "lucky" if the same long time member set himself on fire.


"LedHed can only hope to improve"

[LedHed]

Hmmm, newb comes along and calls a long time member an asshole.

Then suggests it would somehow be "lucky" if the same long time member set himself on fire.

I believe the kids nowadays would call your post a "Fail." I called no one anything in that post, and immolation merely means "sacrifice." I believe the term you were thinking of is "SELF-immolation," which means to set oneself on fire.

Isn't English a fun language? You should consider learning it.

[pcosmar]

Hmmm, newb comes along and calls a long time member an asshole.

Then suggests it would somehow be "lucky" if the same long time member set himself on fire.

Does seem to share the same posting style as AxisMindi. I suspected a 4chan troll, and very possibly a government employee.
Seems his only interest in liberty or this forum is to stir shit.

:(

[LedHed]

I actually DO work for the government part time, so you're right on that point. The rest, not so much...

[Danke]

I believe the kids nowadays would call your post a "Fail." I called no one anything in that post, and immolation merely means "sacrifice." I believe the term you were thinking of is "SELF-immolation," which means to set oneself on fire.

Isn't English a fun language? You should consider learning it.

OK, then what did you mean by first calling him an asshole and then saying "he'll at some point try" to do a sacrifice (if lucky)?


With any luck at all, he'll at some point try immolation.

[jmdrake]

Okay, I'll bite. How is what I said "trolling?"

Because the ACLU is against guns except when they are for illegal immigrants. And the SPLC is a racist / statist organization that hates the very black people it claims to help. Any other questions?

Oh, and here's the Massachussetts ACLU (http://tinyurl.com/24tb7w) speaking on the U.S. v. Cruikshank case. (That was a case where the Supreme Court ruled that the KKK did not violated the civil rights of African Americans when it disarmed them and then killed them.)

Those cases, Presser v. U.S. and U.S. v. Cruikshank, formed the basis for the continuing legal decisions that the Second Amendment is not an impediment to rational gun control.

Rational my butt!

And here is the SPLC showing their disdain for black people (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2001/summer/false-patriots?page=0,8). On the one hand they attack a "false patriot" for uncovering the racist BATF "good ole boy" roundup.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2001/summer/false-patriots?page=0,8
Jeff Randall, 36

Like old soldiers, most of those who left the militia movement simply faded quietly away. But not Jeff Randall, a self-employed machinist and co-founder of Alabama's Gadsden Minutemen.

In May 1995, a year after the group was created, Randall and two other Minutemen infiltrated a gathering of agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) — the bête noire of the militia movement — near the Ocoee River in Tennessee.

They left the annual "Good Ol' Boys Roundup" with a videotape showing what they later described as "an orgy of racism," including shots of a "****** Check Point: Any ******* in That Car?" sign. After ex-cop Randall released the video to the media, several ATF and other law enforcement officials were disciplined.

Four months later, the Minutemen's other co-founder, Mike Kemp, was arrested after 14 marijuana plants were found in his home. Randall quit after the bad publicity, rejoined a week later, and quit for good a year after that.

"I got tired of people ... wanting me to assemble armies for them," he told reporters. "The whole militia movement is either conspiracy kooks or criminals."

Randall even apologized for releasing the Roundup tape, which he said hurt many good officers. Randall now runs Randall's Adventure and Training, which offers jungle tours in Latin America — and which was featured last year on the Travel Channel's "Amazing Adventures."

So a couple of militia men uncover racism in the government agency tasked with enforcing gun laws, they expose it, and all the SPLC can talk about is marijuana plants and how releasing the tape "hurt good people"? Really?

Oh and check out the latest example of SPLC racism.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots
Arguing at Gunpoint
Chris Broughton, 29

Chris Broughton loves his guns and hates President Obama — so much, in fact, that he believes the president belongs in hell. He's not too fond of George W. Bush, either.

Broughton made headlines in August 2009 when he showed up outside an Obama rally in Phoenix with an AR-15 assault rifle slung over his shoulder and a pistol holstered on his waist, becoming a hero to many in the "Patrtiot" movement in the process. He said he carries his guns habitually.

Broughton, apparently assuming that the Obama Administration planned gun control measures, said he wanted to make a point about the right to own guns. "The overwhelming statement I was trying to make was whether you like it or not, my guns aren't going away," said the Phoenix machinist. "They're going to be here until you kill me and take them away."

He claims that some news broadcasters edited video footage of the scene to hide his race (he's black) when reporting on the racist backlash to Obama's election. Presumably, he felt that was part of an effort to paint Obama's critics as racist.

Broughton is a member of We the People, a Patriot tax protest group that has played a central role in the resurgence of the militia movement. He also belongs to the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe. That's the church where pastor Steven Anderson told the congregation in August 2009 he would pray that Obama dies and goes to hell. Broughton said he believes there is a hell, and that it was made for evil people – folks like Obama, both former Bush presidents, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and leaders of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"Barack Obama is responsible for more death than my guns ever will be," Broughton said. "He could end so much suffering immediately, and instead he uses his power to force his agenda. I do hate him."

Let's see...he claims that some news broadcasters edited video footage of the scene to hide his race? That's not a "claim". It's an absolute fact.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

So anyone who claims either of those groups are credible and/or give a flip about the 2nd amendment is either unaware of the facts, unable to process the facts or just dishonest.

[pcosmar]

So anyone who claims either of those groups are credible and/or give a flip about the 2nd amendment is either unaware of the facts, unable to process the facts or just dishonest.

And I thank you brother. You possess the eloquence I lack.

As I said.
I calls em as I sees em.
;)

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems his only interest in liberty or this forum is to stir shit.


He's obviously here to win friends and influence people. :rolleyes:

No doubt if the Second Amendment was written as below, he would take the opposite stance, and not be in favor of weaseling around it.

"Natural herbal remedies, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear marijuana, shall not be infringed."

[pacelli]

If anyone was thinking this is anything other than a troll.
Please read that again.

Bingo.

[jmdrake]

And I thank you brother. You possess the eloquence I lack.

As I said.
I calls em as I sees em.
;)

Thanks. :) There are few organizations I detest more than the SPLC. At least the klan admits they hate black people.

[Anti Federalist]

OK, then what did you mean by first calling him an asshole and then saying "he'll at some point try" to do a sacrifice (if lucky)?

Exactly.

[pcosmar]

Exactly.

No worries. I have spent years working with stuff that was trying to kill me.
I am quite careful with things that blow up.
If I am "immolated" it will be to cover up the evidence of someone Else's crime. ;)

"Blaze of Glory" never seemed a good tactic to me.

:cool:

[oyarde]

Does seem to share the same posting style as AxisMindi. I suspected a 4chan troll, and very possibly a government employee.
Seems his only interest in liberty or this forum is to stir shit.

:(

Why govt employee ?

[pcosmar]

Why govt employee ?

We get some from time to time.
I thought everyone knew we are "monitored".

That, and it fits with the Stateist/Authoritarian rhetoric.

[oyarde]

We get some from time to time.
I thought everyone knew we are "monitored".

That, and it fits with the Stateist/Authoritarian rhetoric.

Oh , I am sure homeland security monitors . I think he said he was in the Guard for thirty years , so he could be real .

[oyarde]

So , any guesses on an Axis mundi proffession ??

[LedHed]

No worries. I have spent years working with stuff that was trying to kill me.
I am quite careful with things that blow up.
If I am "immolated" it will be to cover up the evidence of someone Else's crime. ;)

"Blaze of Glory" never seemed a good tactic to me.

:cool:

Sorry. Would you mind saying that a little louder? The mike didn't pick it up the first time.

LOL! You are a hoot, my friend!

[pcosmar]

LOL! You are a hoot, my friend!

I am quite sure You are not my friend.

[LedHed]

I am quite sure You are not my friend.

And I am quite sure that you are a hoot.

[oyarde]

We get some from time to time.
I thought everyone knew we are "monitored".

That, and it fits with the Stateist/Authoritarian rhetoric.

If you want to see something strange , look at the newest in " introduce yourself " , it amazes me .....

[xd9fan]

David Stockman: Guns are are barbarous relic that have no place in our civilization
soooo ya stupid fucker...you never shot a glock before have ya!!

[Dr.3D]

soooo ya stupid fucker...you never shot a glock before have ya!!

He probably never fired one either. :p

[pcosmar]

We get some from time to time.
I thought everyone knew we are "monitored".

That, and it fits with the Stateist/Authoritarian rhetoric.



LedHed rep comment,,
General paranoid delusional schizophrenia
Well is has been mentioned in other threads that certain posts were tracked to Government ISPs .
Aside from Moderators and Admins here stating it,,there are many other links and references to the same elsewhere.
I do not understand why a simple statement of fact should be considered delusional. Nor how awareness of the same, would be paranoia.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOfQ_v_9sj0

To believe otherwise would only be considered ignorance, or deliberate Obfuscation.

Oh, ,don't bother with any more rep,, it is gray and does not count.

[LedHed]

LOL!!! "They" aren't monitoring everyone here, Buddy. Just you and a couple others, and not because you say anything important or are a threat to security. They monitor you, because your posts provide amusement and something to laugh at during coffee breaks.

Thanks for breaking up an otherwise dull day.

Oh, and it looks like you spilled a little something over to your left you may want to attend to. ;)



Psych!!! :p

(TELL me you didn't look over to your left.)

[pcosmar]

(TELL me you didn't look over to your left.)

I didn't.
Cassie is sitting to my left, and had I spilled anything she would have gotten it.

Nice try though.

[LedHed]

Poor Cassie...

[Anti Federalist]

Poor Cassie...

Are you going to contribute anything worthwhile to the forum, or are you just here to bust balls and be a PITA?

[pcosmar]

Are you going to contribute anything worthwhile to the forum, or are you just here to bust balls and be a PITA?
:)
I am just waiting for the title under the name to change.
Seems due any time.

Then watch for the new name.
;)

[oyarde]

LOL!!! "They" aren't monitoring everyone here, Buddy. Just you and a couple others, and not because you say anything important or are a threat to security. They monitor you, because your posts provide amusement and something to laugh at during coffee breaks.

Thanks for breaking up an otherwise dull day.

Oh, and it looks like you spilled a little something over to your left you may want to attend to. ;)



Psych!!! :p

(TELL me you didn't look over to your left.)

what "others" ?

[LedHed]

what "others" ?
Not you Oyarde. You're not on the "list." ;)