Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 367

Thread: Amash denounces armed protests in Michigan

  1. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    It is? Which lines did you read between to glean that tidbit?
    I think it's a terrible idea to come in with weapons, as it might be perceived as intimidation of legislators.
    The implication here is that in the given context, legislators et al are within their valid authorities as servants of the public trust; that they are authorized to shut down an entire economy and drive countless people into penury and restrict, disparage, and diminish their rights.

    The implications are clear and unequivocal. Reading anything else from Amash's words reveals gross linguistic incompetence. If this is not what Amash meant, then I reiterate his dire need of remedial English class.

    These are the facts: the legislators et al are doing wrong. Therefore, the people stand centrally within the circle of their rights and the concomitant authorities to act by "intimidating" the vermin and scum who threaten them.

    This isn't rocket surgery.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The implication here is that in the given context, legislators et al are within their valid authorities as servants of the public trust; that they are authorized to shut down an entire economy and drive countless people into penury and restrict, disparage, and diminish their rights.
    It is? How do you square that with his unequivocal affirmation of the right to protest?

    Looks like an opinion about "optics" to me. And I passed my remedial reading class.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  4. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by tebowlives View Post
    You're over reacting on this issue.
    You're welcome to hold that view, but I will point out that this is precisely the tepid attitude that has compromised away our rights over time.

    For me, there is no such thing as over-reacting where trespass upon the rights of men are concerned.

    L
    ogic says you're over reacting.
    You keep writing that, yet have offered no argument in support of the assertion. HMMM...


    That you actually think this has anything to do with slaughtering regulars over a whiskey rebellion is made up drama.
    That you presume to understand that which you clearly do not my virtue of your response is embraced ignorance.

    Why don't you explain to me why you make long winded, overly dramatic posts?
    Why do you make unsupported assertions?

    Anyone who doesn't support a candidate with a very high conservative voting record can go screw off. Because you don't agree with him on a vote doesn't make him the sellout here.
    It would seem we work from differing notions of "conservative". But do tell us how I am a "sellout". Please give the gory details.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  5. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    It is? How do you square that with his unequivocal affirmation of the right to protest?
    Unequivocal? Are you high? It was decidedly NOT unequivocal. It was very much conditional... Protest, but do not intimidate legislators, the implication being that you don't do such things even if what they do merits such a response. We must always respect and leave feeling safe our sage and sacred legislators. Sheesh.

    Looks like an opinion about "optics" to me. And I passed my remedial reading class.
    Irrelevant. Appearances are equally important, something most of our contemporary politicians have disregarded for the inconveniences they present.

    It seems you are on the side of the legislators. That's fine so long as you own it. I hold a decidedly different view.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  6. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    For me, there is no such thing as over-reacting where trespass upon the rights of men are concerned.
    That's as good an excuse as any for shooting the messengers, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    It seems you are on the side of ...
    That's a liberal trick designed to shut down debate. Why do you hate free speech?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-14-2020 at 10:07 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  7. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    That's as good an excuse as any for shooting the messengers, I guess.
    I've not shot anyone. I have called out a rat's ass. Prove me wrong and I will amend.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.




  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post

    Freedom is my agenda. Anyone gets in the way of that is filth so far as I am concerned. Amash is apparently a traitor to freedom, or some sort of candyass... "oooo... people will think you're intimidating legislators..." That is the point. When ANYONE, legislator or otherwise, fixes to abridge my rights, they become an enemy. I don't give a rat's patootie the intentions behind it. You endeavor to damage me, I am damned right going to intimidate the hell out of you.

    The logic of the position would readily extend perfectly to the mugger in the process of mugging... well, you can't INTIMIDATE him... Legislators are muggers on the grandest scale of them all. You don't get all kissy-smoochy with a rabid dog; you put it down with rapid and non-equivocating dispatch.
    This isn't a freedom issue at all.

    Pandemic rules are similar to environmental rules. They can make sense because you can't easily punish people who inflict harm on others. Just like it can be hard to punish someone directly for pollution that results in cancer, you can't easily prove another gave you the Coronavirus. I was against the lockdown purely because I thought the cost outweighed the benefits.

    If you are going to argue "muh freedom" then you have to have a way to convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide for giving someone else the virus. But given that it would be impossible to prove how someone got the Coronavirus then rules governed purely by cost benefit concerns are the only way to make decisions.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 05-14-2020 at 10:10 AM.

  10. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I've not shot anyone. I have called out a rat's ass. Prove me wrong and I will amend.
    You don't think calling someone a rat's ass fits the colloquial definition of "taking a pot shot at" them?

    How did you do in your remedial reading class?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-14-2020 at 10:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  11. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    This isn't a freedom issue at all.

    Pandemic rules are similar to environmental rules. They can make sense because you can't easily punish people who inflict harm on others. Just like it can be hard to punish someone directly for pollution that results in cancer, you can't easily prove another gave you the Coronavirus. I was against the lockdown purely because I thought the cost outweighed the benefits.

    If you are going to argue "muh freedom" then you have to have a way to convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide for giving someone else the virus. But given that it would be impossible to prove how someone got the Coronavirus then rules governed purely by cost benefit concerns are the only way to make decisions.
    Cost/benefit can be bullshitted every which way. Who determines the cost/benefit threshold? Who decides the costs and benefits? Who decides which costs and benefits are important and which are not? This is a weak-tea argument in favor of arbitrary tyranny just because what... you're afraid of getting sick?

    Life is rotten with risk. Freemen accept the risks and act to mitigate them WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR FELLOWS. If the physical approach of another leaves you terrified that you will become terminally ill with the boogeyman's curse, then either flee the area of slay him and take your chances with the courts. But it seems far too many want all the benefits of "freedom" without having to bear any of the burdens of having it.


    My rights do not disappear magically because there is a plague afoot.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  12. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You don't think calling someone a rat's ass fits the proverbial definition of "taking a pot shot at" them?

    How did you do in your remedial reading class?

    Pot shot; the very term implies something irrelevant, cheap, tawdry, invalid, untrue, or below the belt. I called Amash out for being just another low-rent politician. I also stated that I will amend my opinion when someone demonstrates that he has been misquoted.

    'Nuff said. Good day.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  13. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post


    My rights do not disappear magically because there is a plague afoot.
    So death penalty for giving someone the virus and killing them it is. Punishment is the only way your view is coherent with liberty.

  14. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    So death penalty for giving someone the virus and killing them it is. Punishment is the only way your view is coherent with liberty.
    That is not even Coherent as a sentence. and quite twisted as a thought.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  15. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Pot shot; the very term implies something irrelevant, cheap, tawdry, invalid, untrue, or below the belt. I called Amash out for being just another low-rent politician. I also stated that I will amend my opinion when someone demonstrates that he has been misquoted.

    'Nuff said. Good day.
    You excerpt his statement, read implications into that excerpt while you have it conveniently out of context, and declare that the mound you just shoveled up is the hill you will die on.

    Clearly you don't need anything as substantial as a misquote to turn friends into enemies. Good day to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  16. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    That is not even Coherent as a sentence. and quite twisted as a thought.

    Just re-read it. It makes sense.

    Here's the thing. You don't understand liberty at all. Perhaps that is why it is confusing.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Just re-read it. It makes sense.

    Here's the thing. You don't understand liberty at all. Perhaps that is why it is confusing.
    This whole thread has become a series of leaps to illogical conclusions in the name of nastiness.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  19. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Just re-read it. It makes sense.

    Here's the thing. You don't understand liberty at all. Perhaps that is why it is confusing.
    I live mine..

    I will join my neighbors when the shooting starts..

    I will use whatever makes itself available..

    And I am warning my young relatives to get OUT of that Profession.. while they still can..
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  20. #227
    Has Amash denounced the petty tyrant that is running his state?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  21. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Has Amash denounced the petty tyrant that is running his state?
    That depends on how one chooses to spin this, I suppose:

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Amash
    Everybody has the right to protest and I think the governor overreached in a lot of ways.
    Do you consider it a denunciation? It certainly isn't a compliment.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  22. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    So death penalty for giving someone the virus and killing them it is. Punishment is the only way your view is coherent with liberty.
    So death penalty for going out and and getting infected when you knew you were one of the more susceptible people who might die if you caught it.

    People don't need to be locked up to keep those who are more susceptible to the virus from getting it. Those who make the decision to go out and possibly get infected are the ones who are to blame if they die.

  23. #230
    Almost everyone here has a point, but I'm not seeing anyone coherently reconciling all of them, so I'll make an attempt.

    Starting from the issue of libertarian morality, @Krugminator2 is implicitly right that disease -- especially in pandemic circumstances -- offers a challenge to traditional interpretations of the non-aggression principle. On an individual level, restricting a healthy person's movement is aggression, but to an extent, so is an unhealthy person exposing someone to a virus that they're carrying. How do you tell the difference?

    Since we can't reasonably tell the difference on an individual level (am I a carrier? who got me sick with plague? who knows?), it's theoretically reasonable from a libertarian viewpoint to operate from a statistical model of who is the aggressor, when, and how, and treat a moderate degree of cautious, tentative governmental restrictions as defensive force, via rough consensus. However, Krugminator2's argument fails on two levels:
    1. Exaggerated analogy: Without criminal intent, unintentionally giving someone a disease they later die from is not murder. It's not even negligent homicide as Krugminator2 argues, because it's not the only or even primary contributor to their death: There are a million variables and contributing factors at play, including luck of the draw, their own treatment decisions, and the consequences of their own earlier life decisions on their health. This should be obvious considering the sudden, miraculous drop in deaths from heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, now that virtually every old person is supposedly dying of COVID-19. If someone is so fragile that a gentle breeze will kill them, the person who altered the wind patterns by moving their chair is not reasonably responsible for their death. Instead, an especially vulnerable person holds the lion's share of responsibility for protecting themselves with a multi-layered bubble that befits their individual circumstances. Saying otherwise is interpreting libertarianism in an ivory tower way that defies reality and common sense.
    2. Unbounded rationalization of government power in the name of "statistically defensive" force: If a libertarian is going to accept the government's power to make pragmatically subjective cost/benefit analyses in the name of minimizing aggression, they would be wise not to get carried away with the idea that the government can exercise unlimited arbitrary power in the name of this goal. That kind of recklessness only makes sense if you presume libertarian morality arose from a vacuum, where no history can inform its limits to legitimizing pragmatic statistical models of aggression. In reality, libertarianism is just a more principled extension of American and Enlightenment principles, which must be respected above all when dangerously blurring the lines of what does and does not constitute aggression. History shows that if you give government enough rope to hang you with, they'll do it eagerly. As osan said, subjective cost/benefit analyses can be BS'ed endlessly, and government can and will justify tyranny in the name of false liberty. The Founders and Framers understood this, which is why they created a republic whose government possessed only strictly limited, enumerated powers. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land for a reason, and states are only in compliance if they embody a republican form of government. Governors with unlimited dictatorial powers DO NOT APPLY, even when empowered by a representative legislature, which is dubious in many of these cases.


    @devil21 is correct that the most effective form of protest right now is civil disobedience:
    Armed protests at the capital are justified enough, but almost nothing pisses off Governer Whitler more than barbers ignoring her petty edicts, especially when more armed protesters are defending the barber. The only thing that tops that might be the Sheriff who ever-so-politely wrote that he won't divert resources to enforce her whims over actually protecting and serving. That probably sent her into a tizzy as well, and both have better optics amongst the independents and more "civilized" conservatives, than sheer revolutionary intimidation, however justified.

    In any case, the more absurdly tyrannical the government becomes to enforce shutdown policies over peaceful civil disobedience, the more it wakes people up to the cause of liberty, and the more it undermines Whitler's precarious grasp on authority. Imagine if more people followed the barber's lead: First it's just one barber. Then it's two businesses. Then four. Eight. Sixteen. Thirty-two. As civil disobedience grows at an exponential rate, it begins to overwhelm the Gestapo's ability to crush it...until the government becomes impotent, irrelevant, and delegitimized, exactly as it deserves.

    @osan and @Swordsmyth and others are correct that the armed protests at the capital are perfectly justified anyway:
    Justin Amash seems to be clutching his pearls about the horrors of the people intimidating legislators. BITCH, PLEASE. That's the grandstanding "impeach Trump over a hypocritical lie and lick leftist buttholes" new Justin Amash talking, not the "humbly explain every vote" old Justin Amash who I respected. The legislators and enforcers are intimidating the people already! What the hell else do you call it when the state sends jack-booted thugs to arrest barbers and barmen? What else do you call it when sanctimonious cops arrest a mother for "endangering her kids" by taking them to the park...leaving the kids behind as they haul her off?

    Whatever the lockdowns' original intentions, this is no longer about some kind of reasonably pragmatic approach to minimizing unintentional aggression against vulnerable old people. It's naked tyranny beyond anything else we've seen in our lifetimes. Heck, in Michigan, Whitler is already making ambiguous comments about how the protestors are ironically increasing the chances of lockdown being extended. She intends for her apologists to interpret her as, "Because they'll increase the number of infections," but she's also making the veiled threat that she'll extend the lockdown and destroy more lives as a punitive measure until the serfs learn their place.

    The government is already intimidating the people, so any intimidation the people return is inherently defensive in nature. The government deserves it. Furthermore, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. If intimidation is going to happen, it ought to be coming from the people in at least equal measure as from the government, and we haven't even come close yet, even just considering present levels (let alone payback for past abuses).

    We ought to be as encouraging as possible toward virtually any form of protest short of shooting first. Governments at this very moment are rapidly paving the way for people to make "exceptions" for absolute dictatorial powers under virtually any other emergency. We're being groomed, and it's partially working. (Libertarians are literally the only people who would make a distinction between "technically infecting someone is aggression" and literally any other excuse for totalitarianism ever. We're a negligible minority, so you'd better believe that anyone else accepting the government's actions now will accept them under virtually any other circumstance. Ironically, in many cases it's the vulnerable older generations who are better at recognizing it and speaking out.) Thankfully, a sizable portion of the population is now getting pissed off. Even if it's along partisan lines, it's a start. The politicians may suck, but among the grassroots bases, the left/right axis has rotated over the past decade to become more parallel with tyranny/liberty. I'll take it, and I'm going to encourage the people who are getting pissed off. It's about time.

    Finally, it seems everyone except @acptulsa knows how to spell "shill." Why the insufferably persistent misspelling with 'y'? Is it because Swordsmyth uses a 'y' for reasonable pun-related reasons? Ugh.
    Last edited by Mini-Me; 05-14-2020 at 12:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by President John F. Kennedy
    And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. That we are only 6% of the world's population, and that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind. That we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
    I need an education in US history, from the ground up. Can you help point me to a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly resource?

  24. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    That depends on how one chooses to spin this, I suppose:

    Do you consider it a denunciation? It certainly isn't a compliment.
    I would suggest that considering that Gretchen Whitmer is a powermad tyrant, a libertarian in her state running for office might use this as an opportunity to contrast themselves with her behavior.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  25. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    So death penalty for going out and and getting infected when you knew you were one of the more susceptible people who might die if you caught it.

    People don't need to be locked up to keep those who are more susceptible to the virus from getting it. Those who make the decision to go out and possibly get infected are the ones who are to blame if they die.
    I am against the death penalty in general but sure, punishment would be justified if you could prove it. The death penalty was sarcasm.

    If you knowingly have a deadly virus and you expose other people, you are imposing a cost on them. Libertarians are for making people pay for the costs they impose. If you knowingly give someone HIV, you should be locked up for life in my opinion. Coronavirus shouldn't be that severe but monetary penalties might make sense if you intentionally expose older people like going to a nursing home while infected.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Mini-Me View Post
    The government is already intimidating the people, so any intimidation the people return is inherently defensive in nature. The government deserves it. Furthermore, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. If intimidation is going to happen, it ought to be coming from the people in at least equal measure as from the government.
    Now that is, at long last, a cogent, reasonable, and persuasive counterpoint to that one small (almost parenthetical) portion of Amash's statement. I still say his position is reasonable. So is yours. If "optics" are important, then the question becomes, how do we ensure that people who look at an armed protest will see that point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I would suggest that considering that Gretchen Whitmer is a powermad tyrant, a libertarian in her state running for office might use this as an opportunity to contrast themselves with her behavior.
    He called her behavior "overreach". It doesn't rise to the level of saying she's mad with power, but an endorsement it ain't.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-14-2020 at 12:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  28. #234
    ^^ +rep @Mini-Me
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 05-14-2020 at 01:02 PM.
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler

  29. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    What have you done?
    The thread isn't about him or you.

  30. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    That depends on how one chooses to spin this, I suppose:

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Amash
    Everybody has the right to protest and I think the governor overreached in a lot of ways.
    Do you consider it a denunciation? It certainly isn't a compliment.
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    ...
    He called her behavior "overreach". It doesn't rise to the level of saying she's mad with power, but an endorsement it ain't.
    "Everybody has the right to protest and I think the President overreached in a lot of ways".
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  31. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    You're welcome to hold that view, but I will point out that this is precisely the tepid attitude that has compromised away our rights over time.
    You may hold that view but it is nothing more than creating drama over something minute.

    For me, there is no such thing as over-reacting where trespass upon the rights of men are concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    You keep writing that, yet have offered no argument in support of the assertion. HMMM...
    I just did in the post you quoted HMMM...


    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    That you presume to understand that which you clearly do not my virtue of your response is embraced ignorance.
    That you you presume to think I didn't understand you post is a horrible combination of arrogance and ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Why do you make unsupported assertions?
    Why do you make tings up likethis? To create fake drama?

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    It would seem we work from differing notions of "conservative". But do tell us how I am a "sellout". Please give the gory details.
    l You didn't understand my very simple point which answered your question clearly demonstrates your response is embraced ignorance.

  32. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    "Everybody has the right to protest and I think the President overreached in a lot of ways".
    I agree. But did Justin Amash say that?
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, wow, Anthony Weiner, too?

  33. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by tebowlives View Post
    The thread isn't about him or you.
    He was criticizing the open protesters - he is right that we should be protesting with civil disobedience as well, and some are doing that, but there is nothing wrong with protesting the government directly either.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  34. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    He was criticizing the open protesters - he is right that we should be protesting with civil disobedience as well, and some are doing that, but there is nothing wrong with protesting the government directly either.
    Agreed.
    I thought the point was about doing it a certain way. Not to intimidate. And when there are uneducated mindless bots who think guns bad they will think a certain way. I'm waiting for a group to do it with pink rifles.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Michigan Court Case Shows the Right of Armed Self-Defense Is Broad
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-23-2019, 01:05 AM
  2. Feds threatening Michigan family farm with armed raid
    By donnay in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-01-2014, 12:24 PM
  3. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-27-2012, 05:44 PM
  4. Russia Today Video Coverage Of Armed Protests
    By Reason in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-24-2010, 11:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •