I'm curious as to why you think it is osan that is the one looking for a fight and views violence as the only solution? It seems to me he is in a defensive mode, not an aggressive one.Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
"The Patriarch"
Every "law" or edict carries with it a potential death sentence for the scofflaw.
Stating that the fight for freedom is a fight to the death isn't hyperbole..
Anybody who views even the most obscure or unjust law as anything but a death threat should really look around.....
He's reckless in his rhetoric. Perhaps by choice. Perhaps not. But a lot of people read these pages. Some likely not of sound mind and judgment and quick to act on what they read as some acceptable method of "activism" or "patriotism." And we'd do well to think it through a bit better prior to openly stimulating actionable measures that we aren't prepared to take responsibility for. Especially if we aren't prepared to lead that which we call for. It's very easy to sit beind our keyboards and solicit such rhetoric but if we're not careful, we'll certainly sleep in the bed that we inadvertently make for ourselves.
I understand what being defensive means and that liberty itself must always be defended in order so that it flourishes. But being defensive is a multi-dimensional affair today. I'm just saying think things things through a little better is all. As I said, a lot of people read these pages. So we need to be accountable for what we stimulate.
And again...
That's a very stupid thing to say here. Especially if we're truly speaking from a defense perspective. What we do here at RPF is to seek political solutions. Nothing else. If someone wants to start an army and fight to the death as opposed to any political solution, then, do it on their own blog or whatever. Because I'm sure as sht not going to be part of any of this kind of fukery here on the forum. I didn't sign up here for that kind of activism. And even if I did think that was the only thing that we're left with, I sure wouldn't be leading from behind a keyboard in order to plant those seeds in the minds of others behind some silver-tongued rhetoric. That's a coward's role.Originally Posted by osan
...the ultimate choice for this land will be lay down or fight to the death. There will be no "political" solution.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-21-2016 at 10:47 AM.
People who go looking for a fight and view violence as the only solution to our problems aren't often as successful in the endeavor as those who are ready for one.
This is why the ultimate choice for this land will be lay down or fight to the death. There will be no "political" solution.
I notice that you promote this logic that blood must be spilled or that we have to go looking for a physical fight as the preferred solution a lot here. Is that what you think we're endorsing here?
You see what you want, a common enough failing of men.
In case you did not read quite carefully, nowhere did I endorse any such thing....
Well, that's exactly correct. I do see what I want. And while I agree that the choice to do so is absolutely a common enough failing of men, it is also practical to be that way from time to time while among them in order to better understand their intention/vision. But you made a rather firm and decisive, actionable, proclamation here. One that I've seen you've repeated consistently within varying context around the forum. We'd do well to be careful and think it through a little better if this is not truly our intention. But it becomes difficult to decipher intentions when the same rhetoric becomes repetitive. As I'd mentioned there in my previous communication, a lot of people read these pages. So, we'd do well to envision accountability in our rhetoric.
And I always read carefully, osan. Always.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-21-2016 at 11:23 AM.
I think that advice more appropriately goes to those doing the actual aggressing, not those that wish to be left alone.
"The Patriarch"
Something that is not understood by most Americans is that English- especially as spoken by Americans, does not always make much sense to foreigners. Many other languages have homogenized into what we now call "English", making it much more difficult to learn than even German.
Spanish is very straight forward. The rules are easy and seldom broken. It has always been a 2nd language that I recommend to my students, as knowing both English and Spanish can get you around 2/3's of the world.
On a side-note, most Americans are loathed in France because they will not learn the language- considered too hard.
This does NOT mean I support forcing businesses to speak other languages- just pointing out some issues that many Americans don't comprehend.
There is no spoon.
I'd say the same for 99.9% of everything "government" has produced in America since 1791, at the very least.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
You are certainly entitled to your view on such a matter, but I would point out that you have not demonstrated how it qualifies as such. OTOH, it is not really that significant an issue, in my mind.
Perhaps by choice. Perhaps not. But a lot of people read these pages. Some likely not of sound mind and judgment and quick to act on what they read as some acceptable method of "activism" or "patriotism."
Do you mean to imply that I am somehow responsible for the potentially poor behavior of others?
If my "intentions" are unclear to someone and if they find the subject matter of import, then onus rest with them to obtain clarity or to ignore what I have written. Seems simple enough to me.And we'd do well to think it through a bit better prior to openly stimulating actionable measures that we aren't prepared to take responsibility for. Especially if we aren't prepared to lead that which we call for. It's very easy to sit beind our keyboards and solicit such rhetoric but if we're not careful, we'll certainly sleep in the bed that we inadvertently make for ourselves.
You claim to read carefully, yet this response belies your words. I've not advocated anything, a claim you keep making and yet fail to demonstrate. You seem to believe that there are political solutions that are likely to come about in the real word that also stand to prove satisfactory, presumably, to the cause of freedom, to speak in rather loose terms. I see their theoretical plausibility but not the likelihood that they will in fact be made manifest, all else equal. I base my view on my understanding of humans, which in turn is based on what I see in the world every single day, gushing forth from the human world in unimaginable abundance.That's a very stupid thing to say here. Especially if we're truly speaking from a defense perspective. What we do here at RPF is to seek political solutions. Nothing else. If someone wants to start an army and fight to the death as opposed to any political solution, then, do it on their own blog or whatever. Because I'm sure as sht not going to be part of any of this kind of fukery here on the forum. I didn't sign up here for that kind of activism. And even if I did think that was the only thing that we're left with, I sure wouldn't be leading from behind a keyboard in order to plant those seeds in the minds of others behind some silver-tongued rhetoric. That's a coward's role.
Now, call me crazy, but when I see hundreds of millions of Americans lining up to either side of a division line separating two mutually exclusive and violently antagonistic political world views, it is not my first impression that the parties in question seek to kiss and make nice with one another. Do you think, for example, that the Muslim army invading Europe is going to live peaceably with those whose manner of living fills them with revulsion and hate? Do you actually believe that you, as another example, will be able to evangelize the virtues of freedom to the socialist parasites who literally want to see you butchered like a calf because you show the temerity of not finding their views just ducky?
You have made a baseless accusation, then went on to elaborate with fact not in evidence. I deny your accusation and have done you the courtesy of clarifying my so-called "intentions". I hope this puts the baby to bed once and for all because so long as I see such likelihoods, I will continue to point them out. That is a far cry from telling people that they should get their rifles and start shooting.
Last edited by osan; 05-21-2016 at 11:48 AM.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
That's awfully generous, don't you think?
Video aside, this general question has a very simple answer. If you were abroad for a few months in Germany (for sake of argument), you might attempt to learn the language ahead of time. You would definitely have an accent, and no one would mistake you for a native speaker. You might bravely attempt to order in German at a restaurant, but depending on your attention to detail, you might end up confusing or insulting someone in the process. You certainly would not be at your most comfortable in German.
Now imagine that your waitress smiles and says "Are you American? I could take that order in English if you'd like, or explain some of the menu items."
Even if you speak some of the local language, from a customer service perspective it helps to make your clientele be at ease and happy in your establishment.
Should it be the law? Hell no. I should be able to decide I don't want kids, or dogs, or women, or whatever, in my establishment. I could cater only to fat, bearded smokers over 50. I will deal with the financial results of those decisions, of course.
Back to the particular establishment, I'm not sure there's even a direct translation for custard that would satisfactorily explain what it is. I just tell my parents it's mantecado.
Oh and please be careful with that Google translate nonsense. When I type in "cake" I get "pastel." Where I come from, it's "bizcocho." When I ask Google to translate "bizcocho" back into English, it tells me I'm asking for a biscuit. A few islands over, I would be asking for something entirely different --- certainly not something provided in your usual bakery. "Pasteles" (keep in mind it told me a "pastel" was a cake) are pastries, but that's just making "pastel" plural, so how did we go from ordering multiple cakes to ordering pastries? "Pastelillos" are fried turnovers, even though grammatically they would just be little cakes and someone might think themselves clever enough to believe they are ordering cupcakes. Google assures me that cupcakes are actually "magdalenas," which I've never heard used that way where I've come from.
Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.
When in Rome................
I turned Mr Animal on to a little Mexican joint many years ago. Mr Animal doesn't speak Spanish and when he started going without me, he hit a few snags trying to order. He knew what he wanted to eat but he was dying for one of their homemade chocolate milkshakes. After getting every flavor Jarritos in the restaurant, he finally learned to say chocolate milkshake in Spanish. When he ordered it for the first time, the girl behind the counter smiled and said, "OOOOhhh!". LOL. He would never consider suing our little Mexican joint because no one speaks English. He wanted a chocolate milkshake from that place so he learned how to order it. It really is that simple.
This ought to help.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...0aee7b8e7d061?This Earpiece Translates Foreign Languages For You In Real Time
This earpiece is a real smooth talker.
Waverly Labs has created a device called The Pilot System, which translates English, French, Spanish and Italian in real time. This means when someone is speaking to you in any of these languages and you don’t understand what they are saying, all you have to do is put the device in your ear and it’ll translate what that person is saying as they say it. It’s like Babel fish from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy IRL.
The gadget, which will retail for $299, includes a second earpiece, which can be used for wireless music streaming, and a battery charger. The user must also download an app onto their phone in order to toggle languages in the earpiece. Additional downloadable language packs for Slavic, Semitic, Hindi and East Asian languages will also be available.
You can now pre-order The Pilot, but the whole kit and caboodle — meaning the app and device — won’t be available as a complete package until Spring 2017.
...
I'm betting you'll be able to find this device and ap severely discounted at several titty bars in foreign countries...
(Where the amorous get rolled)
I don't value other cultures, nations, or people. So, my vote is execute anyone speaking a foreign language on US soil. Thanks. Serious.. Na I'm Kidding, Nope I'm actually serious. HAHA I'm kidding. DIE!!!
It's my one weakness.
Well, that and very bad women.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
Wrong meme, that is for Pedos, etc.
Try this one:
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
Much better.Wrong meme, that is for Pedos, etc.
Try this one:
"The Patriarch"
What I'm offering you is advice. Advice that we all may benefit from. Whether you reject it or accept it is a choice that's yours alone. Reckless rhetoric invites dangerous company. To casually reject the notion that our rhetoric somehow cannot and will not ever be responsible for any potentially poor behavior of others is irresponsible and shortsighted. And while you're certainly free to reject the possibility, it is practical to consider it.
Now, I understand that we become comfortable in our rhetoric once we've been around the community for a while. And I think you're one of our more valuable contributors. But I'm not dick waving with you here. I'm just saying think things through a little better is all. If that particularly dangerous rhetoric (and that's exactly what it is) wasn't repetitive I wouldn't even mention it. But because it is repetitive rhetoric I'm obligated to tell you that I personally reject it when it becomes persistent. It's dangerous rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that if you give a feller a rope he wants to be a cowboy. People aren't ready to be cowboys yet.
Anyway. That's really all I have to say about it. It's likely better discussed in a topic of its own anyhow.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-21-2016 at 08:43 PM.
It's good politics for Trump or Scott Walker(who probably pussed out) or whoever regardless.
Bernie Supporters dont like going to Dem meetings with the globalist Mexican leaders talking Spanish to the insiders.
BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky – Washington liberals are trying to push through the so-called DREAM Act, which creates an official path to Democrat voter registration for 2 million college-age illegal immigrants.
Rand Paul 2010
Booker T. Washington:
Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose
fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides.
You claim my rhetoric is "reckless". You have given no explanation of how my simple statement of observation is so. Now you claim it invites "dangerous company" - I have no idea what you mean as it could be any of quite a list of possibilities or some combination thereof.
Depends on your use of "our" here. Your semantics are not quite sufficiently precise. That aside, I take consistently diligent steps to ensure my words are carefully chosen. I fail at this on occasion and when it is pointed out to me, I own it, acknowledge it, and do what I can to clarify my meanings and better ensure I don't make the same mistake again. I even fail at that at times. But on the whole, I am pretty careful about how I structure my sentences precisely because I hold some understanding of the nature and valence of language.To casually reject the notion that our rhetoric somehow cannot and will not ever be responsible for any potentially poor behavior of others is irresponsible and shortsighted. And while you're certainly free to reject the possibility, it is practical to consider it.
The other side of the communications coin is to ensure that you (third person you, not YOU perforce... devilish language, English) take the proper steps to make sure you have received the message that has been sent. I do my level best to do this as a matter of habit. Once again, I fail at it often enough to make it worthy of mention, but I can also again say that on the whole I do pretty well at not going off prematurely when I think someone has erred. If you notice, in such cases I most often ask for someone's clarification on this point or that. There are times when meaning seems clear enough and I will respond under that assumption, and I am STILL wrong. That's the nature of human communications, especially in this text-oriented medium, and doubly so where topics tend to be contentious by their nature.
Your point is well taken, but you still have not pointed out specifically the "reckless" aspect in what I wrote in this thread. You made an assertion as to my advocacy of violence, which I have solidly rejected as having been my intent. Now it would be of some value to know how it is you are parsing my lines in the way you do, because I do not see the error. I am perfectly willing to correct myself but cannot do it without sufficient input. Likewise, you should be willing to accept the possibility that your parse was based on flawed assumptions.Now, I understand that we become comfortable in our rhetoric once we've been around the community for a while. And I think you're one of our more valuable contributors. But I'm not dick waving with you here. I'm just saying think things through a little better is all.
This I must reject. Adults are adults and excusing their poor choices because someone said something doesn't fly with me. If I stand on a soap box and shout how we must take up arms and start shooting, the fact that someone does just that places onus with them. THEY chose. I did not choose for them. To place onus with me is no different than blaming a director for the content of his films when people choose to act poorly in the wake of having watched. This is the "devil made me do it" position and essentially absolves the actor from responsibility for his choices. It is the very same brand of reasoning that holds gun manufacturers to blame for the robberies others commit with their products.If that particularly dangerous rhetoric (and that's exactly what it is) wasn't repetitive I wouldn't even mention it. But because it is repetitive rhetoric I'm obligated to tell you that I personally reject it when it becomes persistent. It's dangerous rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that if you give a feller a rope he wants to be a cowboy. People aren't ready to be cowboys yet.
If I walk the street and come upon a man telling me that I need to "join the revolution" to end capitalism; to be part of the glorious people's fight against individualism, and all that commierot, I alone am responsible for my choice to fashion a pipe bomb and light it off in the offices of the Glominoid Corporation (see Washingtoons if you do not understand the reference). The man who told me to do it is in no way responsible for my choice. To suggest so is absurd on its face. What if he suggested I feed my son a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and it turns out my boy has a terminal peanut allergy and dies? Is he responsible for that as well?
People advocate for all manner of things. How is it some would hold them responsible when the results are poor, yet fail to give credit and cash when they are spectacularly wonderful? The ice here is very thin and these sorts of considerations fly off the rails in a heartbeat.
ETA: Just to maintain clarity, my tone in all this is very even keeled and non-confrontational. I'm not trying to pick a fight, piss in your cornflakes, or be in any way obnoxious or otherwise impolite. The points you raise are important, which is why I have gone this far in responding. It is not my goal to disparage anyone.
Last edited by osan; 05-22-2016 at 08:56 AM.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
Bet it doesn't translate Basque.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
Hrrmmm, thread winner!!
They do, they're washing the dishes.
I thought Kenmore, Maytag, and Whirlpool were US companies? (...yes, Corporations)
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled
been to Leon's many of times, miss the frozen custard
what is the big deal about having to order in English? Most places you probably can't order in any other language but English.
Sick land.
Hopefully violence will not be involved but I think his point is that business owners no longer own their business. The correct term is fascism and the US is well into fascist territory. On a similar note look at the bathroom controversy. Even on this supposedly freedom oriented website I have not seen one person suggest that it should be determined by the owner of the bathroom who should be allowed in them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us