Confused

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
historyforall
Posts: 31
Joined: 2008 Sep 10 09:47

Confused

Postby historyforall » 2011 Jul 07 15:00

Having been away for a work project for the last few months I refrained from going on this forum so I could come back with a new look. I am sad that not much has changed and I see that some arguments are still related to the 3rd grade level.

Having been exposed to how other groups around the country think I am greatly confused by what I see. How can you be for getting rid of laws but want more laws. Political groups who want to end the big governments and their meddling but want to meddle in others lives. Its the whole against abortion but for the death penalty argument all over again. Or the opposite for abortion but against the death penalty for some.

The biggest thing I am amazed at is how the exact same arguments that have been used over and over again are being used to try and stop something even though history shows everytime that you can't stop it in the long run. In this case gay marriage; I am not overly fond of the gay lifestyle unless its in the context of a 1940s movie but I understand that allowing it to happen is a benefit for those who want it to happen. The problem is that the arguments against are almost the exact language used to stop marriages of different races. You can't be the land of the free if you don't allow freedom no matter how bad a taste it leaves in your mouth. Its like the guy who was a deciding vote that ended up allowing women to have the right to vote. He was against the idea at first but when it came time to vote he pictured his mother and realized that he could not vote against her. I will always have respect for those who stand up for what is right even when they themselves do not support it, that is how we make the country great again.

I grew up a baptist but thankfully had good christian leaders not ones crusading for their own power control and benefits. Its Gods job to find the true sinners not mine.

This brings me to the groups that want to cram Gods law down everyones throat while warning against the rise of other religions. Whether its a bill to make christianity the only true religion of the country or something that bans other religions from being able to have a say in this country. I find it bordering on the very idea that they are trying to ban. If you are affraid of Islam spreading dont meet it with Crusader harshness but true open Christianity, that forgives the sinner and welcomes all into the holy light. I do not want the ground work set out that gives any religious group the right to tell me how I must think, act or worship, that also goes for someone elses idea of Christ.

The key word is Freedom. Before a law is passed it should be held to the question does it limit or restrict someones freedom or right. I am sure that no one would want to live in my vision of the world so stop trying to make everyone else live in yours.
I believe in the rights and freedoms of a person even when I don't support them on a moral or fundamental basis.

ParkerLongbaugh

Re: Confused

Postby ParkerLongbaugh » 2011 Jul 07 16:14

historyforall wrote:Whether its a bill to make christianity the only true religion of the country...

Good grief, has that even been talked about or introduced anywhere, in any legislature? I can maybe see it done as a stunt for getting a headline, but even that's a stretch.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Pro LIBERTY

Postby Crux » 2011 Jul 07 18:43

Give me an example of this "3rd grade level" silliness you postulate, coming from say, myself or Sam or some other RIGHT leaning voice, and be more specific AS IT RELATES TO YOUR PREVIOUS POST.

Some of us see a big difference between the termination of a baby in the womb, and the death sentence given to a convicted 1st degree murderer with special circumstances... My views are well laid out on this subject on another thread.

On Gay Marriage, there are gays and non-gays who see this issue as a deliberate and unnecessary poke in the eye of the traditional institution of marriage, and favor domestic partnership as law and terminology. Frankly the government should have no role in marriage/partnership contracts between consenting adults.

I am not a Christian, but decidedly agnostic. Still, I do not bash with wholesale abandon Christians or Christianity. I do see all Christians cramming their values down other folks throats. Surely there are some.

You really have to learn how to paint with a much broader brush. There are countless examples of Dems and Progressives using government as a coercive force for THEIR passions.

Easy there big fella...
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Confused

Postby Sam » 2011 Jul 09 06:49

historyforall wrote:The key word is Freedom. Before a law is passed it should be held to the question does it limit or restrict someones freedom or right. I am sure that no one would want to live in my vision of the world so stop trying to make everyone else live in yours.

Hey Pal, there are lots of laws that can be seen as limiting or restricting someone's freedom, such as those riding motorcycles by law must wear helmets, when riding in a car we must wear seatbelts, keeping to a speed limit are just a few that I can think of. Even though we have freedom of speech, it's not that free if you yell fire in a crowed place for example. There are zoning laws that tell us how to live on property we own. And so forth
We have lots of laws that are limiting or restricting to us all - where have you been living. And far as I see no one is trying to cram anything down anyone's throat.
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Confused

Postby fangz1956 » 2011 Jul 09 12:52

freedom
–noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6.
exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from ): freedom from fear.
7.
the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.
ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.
frankness of manner or speech.
10.
general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11.
the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.
a liberty taken.
13.
a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14.
civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.
the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17.
Philosophy . the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity ( def. 7 ) .


Synonymous also as follows:
—Synonyms
1. Freedom, independence, liberty refer to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one's rights and powers. Freedom emphasizes the opportunity given for the exercise of one's rights, powers, desires, or the like: freedom of speech or conscience; freedom of movement. Independence implies not only lack of restrictions but also the ability to stand alone, unsustained by anything else: Independence of thought promotes invention and discovery. Liberty, though most often interchanged with freedom, is also used to imply undue exercise of freedom: He took liberties with the text. 9. openness, ingenuousness. 12. license. 16. run.



I can see the picture here...both sides, all sides. But I have to say that things such as requirements for helmets for motorcyclists are frivolous restraints (not all States have this "law" on the books)...as is the seatbelt "law". These are safety issues and the choice to buckle up or not, wear a helmet or not should be completely personal choices with NO mandate from a government entity requiring one to do so or else. Restraints on freedom and personal liberty are often subtly and cleverly cloaked as "safety" (and in my personal opinion are driven by fear of an overly litigious society). Further, government entities have no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults.......Some Southern states (and the good ole Commonwealth is no exception) are known for imprisoning consenting adults for "crimes against nature". Who's nature and why is sex the business of anybody outside of that bedroom????? Governmental and political bodies have no business attempting to legislate morality, God, religion, and an ever growing list of issues and items that systematically erode and erase our personal freedom to choose for ourselves what we each see as the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Historyforall is not the first one to say that it is impossible to carry on adult, intelligent discussion and debate on this forum. Take the labels Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, off of the table for a minute or three. Look at the facts of each issue on its own....that's FACTS not somebody else's fear-based and contrived, cherry-picked pieces of an issue. Then, let's discuss and debate those facts without resorting to name-calling and/or labelling the other members engaged in the discussion. If we could achieve that, we might just be surprised at how much more interesting and stimulating this forum becomes. And YES crux.......that means you have to stop calling people names. Use their selected user names or don't engage in the conversation! It is that simple.

“If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics.”

Will Rogers



:wink2:

P.S. Sam...........How is your son???? I've been wondering and thinking about that for a quite a while now. :angel5:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Confused

Postby Sam » 2011 Jul 09 13:10

Well Gal, I sure do appreciate your asking about my son. He is on a medication that is supposed to shrink the tumor and it has some serious side effects. He also has to rub a testerone cream on his chest three times a week. There are days when he can hardly get out of bed then days when he is fairly good. He is suffering some serious depression. He has a drs appoint later this month to get some more blood work. Luckly he has a great wife and if I were younger I would there helping all the time. We have been to visit several times. He has a full crew working for him and that is good, the work keeps coming in and we don't know if that is good or not. He works too much and is so stressed out. I feel helpless at times. He has to work has he owns his own business. He brings in well over $250 thousand a year and we all laugh when we tell him he is considered rich.

Don't have much to tell other then he keeps putting one foot ahead of the other. I only hope I outlive him. It's a great life if you don't weaken. I have been busy getting rid of most of my tools etc as I just cantdo that kind of stuff any more. This getting older is sometimes difficult. Again thanks for asking. I now feel the wam and fuzzies.

Getting back to the helmets and seatbelts, I thought it was the law that you had to wear helmets when riding a motorcycle and seatbelts while in a car. I remember way back when the law went into effect on helmets and so many were saying they didn't want their freedoms taken away that it should be their choice when wearing a helmet or not. Now my wife said too many with head injuries end up cost the State money. Just confused.
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Confused

Postby Coondog » 2011 Jul 11 13:25

Yep!

I saw a recent news item about some guy riding his motorcycle in a ralley to protest the helmet law......wrecked his bike and died of preventable head injuries. Had he only been wearing a helmet.....! Ironic, ain't it!

Certainly the imposition of said "safety" laws are in large part, as so many things are, due to the cost of medical care (and, naturally, protection for the insurance industry).

In doing so, however, we have insured the longevity and perpetuation of those inclined to incredibaly stupid and potentially fatal acts We have interferred with the law of natural selection.

It explains a lot!

Coondog :curse:

If I haven't bitten anybody, why should I be on a leash?

ParkerLongbaugh

Re: Confused

Postby ParkerLongbaugh » 2011 Jul 11 14:07

coondog wrote:Certainly the imposition of said "safety" laws are in large part, as so many things are, due to the cost of medical care (and, naturally, protection for the insurance industry).

In doing so, however, we have insured the longevity and perpetuation of those inclined to incredibaly stupid and potentially fatal acts We have interferred with the law of natural selection.


100%, spot-on, dead right!

User avatar
historyforall
Posts: 31
Joined: 2008 Sep 10 09:47

Re: Confused

Postby historyforall » 2011 Jul 12 14:15

Oh well I had a long response but lost it due to a loss of internet. I have very poor internet at my house. So I will just recap.

If all debates and arguments where just name calling and chest thumping nothing would ever get done. Oh yeah, that is what Congress is like right now.

There are some who want Christianity to be declared the official religion of the US. Allowing Christian symbols to be place on public/govt buildings. Also, they want other religions to lose their non-profit status and have some protection against the "threat" of sharia law. They see M. Bachman as their best hope and support her in all ways. This was in Wisc. A Rolling Stone article touched on something similar to this I believe in Minn.

Not wanting to open the abortion/death penalty debate. But death is death supporting one but not the other for moral/religious reasons is wrong and hypocritical. Life is either sacred or not.

"Freedom is just another word for nothing else to lose."

My whole point is that of course there are things that limit what we can do, it is called a society. Making rules to live by so we don't piss each other off. Yelling fire infringes on my right to enjoy a public show. I fought against seatbelt/helmet laws when they were being passed even though I wear both. Nature does have to weed out the lesser ones.

The Archie Bunker approach to solving our Nations issues is not going to get us anywhere. Be proud to say you live in the land of the free.

Those groups against gay marriage are also against gay unions and anything else that results in two people of the same sex gaining a status that makes them one in the eyes of the state and Country. The box doesn't say single, married or union. The same arguments now were used in the interracial marriage fight and a lot of similar arguments in the women's right to vote.

I am from a deep south family that goes back to the first in their respected states. My ancestors fought for this country and against it in the Civil War. I am amazed at how many people are okay with laws that restrict anothers right to live their life the way they want as long as it doesn't limit someone else's equal right.

Don't yell about states rights when your state fought to end it.

Don't push your religious lifestyle on others and fight against other religions who are making their people live a certain way just because you don't like it.

Don't fuss over debt ceilings when it didnt matter before.

Demand from your side everything they demand from the other side.

Don't belive a politician who complains about govt programs but benefits from them at the same time.

Most importantly don't believe everything you see and hear.

and finally Rockbridge County Please Support Ron Paul (although he is kinda selling out right now) there have to be more than 40 of us this time around. We need to reboot the Country, shrink the military, and take away things so that we can move forward again.
I believe in the rights and freedoms of a person even when I don't support them on a moral or fundamental basis.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Confused

Postby Crux » 2011 Jul 12 16:18

...cripes...
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Confused

Postby Sam » 2011 Jul 13 07:25

Hospital costs much higher for motorcycle crash victims who don't wear helmets
Motorcycle riders who crash without a helmet rack up far larger hospital bills than those whose heads were protected in a crash, a new University of Michigan study finds. From the emergency room door to the trauma center to the rehabilitation unit, the authors report, care for unhelmeted crash victims cost substantially more and kept patients in the hospital longer than care for patients who wore helmets.

At the same time, those injured while riding without a helmet were somewhat less likely to be covered by insurance that could pay for their care, according to the paper in the September issue of the Journal of Trauma. The results also confirm earlier findings that riders without helmets were younger, suffered more head and neck injuries, and had a higher overall injury severity score.

The study analyzed data for 216 motorcycle crash victims brought to the U-M Health System's Trauma Burn Center between 1996 and 2000. Forty-two of them, or 19 percent, were not wearing a helmet when they crashed -- despite Michigan's mandatory helmet law. The detailed analysis was made possible by a unique medical records database that captures diagnoses and charges for U-M patients.
On average, helmet use led to average hospital costs that were about 20 percent, or $6,000, less than costs for those who didn't wear helmets. For patients who were treated on an inpatient rehabilitation floor at the U-M after leaving the trauma unit, average costs for unhelmeted riders were nearly twice those of helmeted riders.

"This adds further evidence to the argument that we need helmet laws for every rider in every state, not to infringe on personal freedom, but to improve safety and reduce costs for everyone," says Mary Margaret Brandt, M.D. an assistant professor in the U-M Medical School's Department of Surgery and a trauma surgeon at the Trauma Burn Center. "Until that happens, it shows that those who ride without helmets should pay higher insurance premiums, as smokers and other high-risk groups do."

The U-M researchers' approach differs from that of previous studies that tallied health care costs for every victim of motorcycle crashes in a given state -- including those who died at the scene or before they reached the hospital, and therefore lowered the overall average cost of care.

In 2000, 2,862 motorcyclists died and approximately 58,000 were injured in highway crashes in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Unhelmeted riders are 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to sustain a nonfatal injury than those who wear helmets, NHTSA reports.

Despite the evidence supporting helmet use as a means of reducing injuries, deaths, health care costs and disability, three U.S. states have no helmet law, and another 27 have laws that only require helmets for certain riders, mainly minors.

Since the U.S. Congress lifted federal sanctions in 1995, five states have weakened their helmet laws. And in the past year, there have been campaigns to weaken or repeal the helmet laws of 10 states, including Michigan. The state's latest repeal attempt passed the state House in May.

The U-M study found that 81 percent of the patients admitted to the U-M Trauma Burn Center from motorcycle crashes in the study period had worn a helmet, even though Michigan state police surveys from 1997 to 1999 found that 96 percent of people involved in motorcycle crashes wore helmets.

The average age of the helmeted riders was 37 years, compared with 32 years for unhelmeted riders. Ninety-two percent of all the patients studied were male. The injury severity score for each patient was calculated, and it correlated with the length of the patient's stay in the Trauma Burn Center and with the cost of the patient's hospitalization. The injury severity score for head and neck injuries was significantly higher for patients who had not worn helmets.

Patients who had worn helmets during their crash had average hospital costs of $31,158, as opposed to $37,317 for those who hadn't worn a helmet. Ninety-two percent of the helmeted riders were insured, while only 86 percent of unhelmeted riders were.

The researchers tracked 23 patients from the larger group who were admitted to the hospital-based rehabilitation unit run by the U-M Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department. Average costs for unhelmeted riders ran $43,053, compared with $23,201 for helmeted riders.

Brandt notes that the UMHS Data Warehouse, which has tracked all cost data for U-M inpatients since mid-1996, made the current research possible. She speculates that outpatient costs for unhelmeted patients, which cannot be accurately be tracked because many patients return to their home town after treatment at the U-M Trauma Burn Center, may be even higher.

"These differences in costs create a financial burden, incurred by the patient, which weighs on the health care system and society," she says. "The price for personal freedom is not isolated to the individual motorcyclist, but is paid by the entire community."
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Confused

Postby Crux » 2011 Jul 13 20:02

historyforall wrote:
Don't fuss over debt ceilings when it didnt matter before.



Wake up...

Surely as a RP supporter you are one, like many conservatives and tea party types, who has long been troubled by the MASSIVE growth of both the size and scope of government on the Federal level, and the obscene growth of spending these last couple few years? Surely you rail against those Progressives and Democrats that never feel satiated with these gross increases?
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

The SOTN is FUBAR

Postby Coondog » 2013 Feb 13 12:03

The State of the Nation

Once again, Obama addressed the joint session, joint chiefs, supreme court and assorted dignatories and guests (including Ted Nugent) with a choerent (and, yes, progressive) message outlining what our problems are, what our goals should be and how (albiet lacking some specific details) we might reach those goals.

Over optomistic, perhaps, but a positive vision of the future where things that need to be done get done. Somehow. And, yes, it was about government's role in getting things done. Virtually nothing addressed in the SOTN falls within the scope of private enterprise. Government is not (obviously) a for profit organization. It is there to administer to needs unadressed by free market capitalism - roads, bridges, regulatory safeguards and the welfare of the people.

We are presented with bold (and, yes, progressive) initiatives. We may agree or disagree, but as the man says, "They deserve a vote!"

Then, the good part comes along. The opposition response. Rubio paints a stark contrast to optomism along with an embrace of revisionist history. Government growth and spending has supposedly skyrocketed under Obama. But, one must ask, by what standard? The deficit is lower and public sector employmenht is down. The debt (not the same as the deficit) is up, but there is no moritorium or statute of limitations on the effects of the Bush Administration on where Obama started ond on the continuing effects of prior bad policy on the economy.

My guess is that Rubio's negative, vitrolic, presonal and unwarrented attacks on the presedent and his seemingly frenzied delivery (did he have ants on his face?) will end any notion of his continued precieved role as 'Savior'. Rand Paul, who was more hydrated (and often fruitier than a nut cake), made more sense.

Note to republicans: Your problem is not messaging. :director: We all got the message.....and rejected it. :thumdwn: The problem is the content of the message. :curse:

Guns :gun:

Cuts :knife:

Hate :evil:

Your only goal was to prevent Obama from a second term. You failed! Try something new! Say yes! :thumbup:

You will feel oh so much better :pompom:


This has been fun time with

:hail: Coondog

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

FUBAR OBAMA

Postby Crux » 2013 Feb 13 15:45

coondog wrote: Government growth and spending has supposedly skyrocketed under Obama. But, one must ask, by what standard? The deficit is lower and public sector employmenht is down. The debt (not the same as the deficit) is up, but there is no moritorium or statute of limitations on the effects of the Bush Administration on where Obama started ond on the continuing effects of prior bad policy on the economy.

Dude. You are lost. The debt is larger by 6.5 TRILLION. Obama SAID he would cut the deficit in half, but is the only President ever to exceed 1 TRILLION in Deficit Spending, and he did it EVERY YEAR!!. Bush's largest deficit was 455 billion, and you will remember Obama FAMOUSLY lambasted W. in the debates against John McCain.

He called George "irresponsible and Unpatriotic" for running that specific 455 billion dollar deficit. Remember the jibe about the credit card to the bank of China? Don't deny it or seek to revise recent history...
Obama had DOUBLED and TRIPLED that 455, which was Bush's WORST deficit.

Embrace it. It is not Bush's policy. It is Obama's...

I will not. I reject Obama as truly deluded and in over his ideological head.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Confused

Postby Coondog » 2013 Feb 13 17:11

The federal budget deficit dipped to $1.1 trillion in fiscal 2012, the 12 month period that ended Sept. 30, according to a report released Friday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The figure was $200 billion less than the deficit recorded the previous year.
However you want to cut it. $200 billion less is...................less. It may not be a large cut, but a cut is a cut.

Despite cries from conservatives about the growth of government under the current administration, the public sector has shed more than 600,000 jobs since President Obama took office
600,000 less government employees is, by definition, smaller government. Everything is not measured in dollars, regardless of what devout capitalists may think.

Coondog

Things are bad enough without lying about how much worse they are.

User avatar
nudgewink
Posts: 163
Joined: 2008 Mar 19 13:07

Re: Confused

Postby nudgewink » 2013 Feb 13 17:32

Coondog, you are hopeless. Didn't you get the memo?
The Republican Party wrote:Up is down.
Black is white.
More is less.
Rich is poor.
Democracy is Communism.
Guns are nerf balls.
Vaginas are the pits of Hell.
I may not agree with you, but I will defend my right to kill you.

:boxing:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Confused

Postby Crux » 2013 Feb 13 18:23

If you are happy I am happy for you.

Now. What is 200 billion between friends? I mean, a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit vs a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit. You seem to think Obama is to be credited for this? He advanced this? Where is his adopted budget. There hasn't even been a budget.

ANY CUTS are more the phantom evils concocted by the compliant House GOP!

coondog you are better than this.

Our monetary policy is inflation built on devaluation of the dollar.


Your government is borrowing 46 percent of the money it spends. The debt still GREW by over 1 TRILLION dollars! We will never practically be able to repay the debt, but what do you or so many care. You really don't pay for much perhaps, and fool yourself you are just hitting the RICH. EVERYONE, short of the SUPER rich and a few Wall Streeters are getting burned. You know full well you are saddling the savers with 0% interest rates, weaker dollars, increased prices, shrinking retirement accounts, and only promises of more pixie dust!

DOG! Nudge! My goodness.


I can not really believe you function with such closed minds. :surrend: Stop with the vitriol!
Gosh, you who dominate the population of this sad forum are LOST. I know enough to QUESTION, even my self.

Now Nudge.

You really are over the top and rabid my dear. Your pithy bigotry is not becoming of the slightly reasonable. :2cent:

Dog. By public sector, do you advance that Federal Public Sector jobs are down by 600,000???
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dog, your weak 200 billion and 600 thousand JOY, doesn't give any comfort, or CLARITY. I think you must KNOW this.

seriously,crux

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Teachable moment!

Postby Crux » 2013 Feb 13 20:59

nudgewink wrote:Up is down.
Black is white.
More is less.
Rich is poor.
Democracy is Communism.
Guns are nerf balls.
Vaginas are the pits of Hell.
I may not agree with you, but I will defend my right to kill you.

Nudgewink, a perfectly biased demagogue advances a synopsis of the GOP.

I find it interesting. First Nudge indicates nonsense. Up is down. I experience this myself. Too many believe silly things. More is less. Well sometimes. Rich Mon... Rich in spirit. Democracy is not Communism, it is three wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner. Guns are nerf balls! We play good guys and bad guys and nobody gets hurt.

Vaginas are the pits of hell. No one speaks of their mother, their sister or their daughter this way.

Yet, here is Nudgewink :wink: . Angry.
Fixated on crude innuendo... :clap:

"I may not agree with you, but I will defend my right to kill you." WHAT? :shakeh:

This is the delusion. Nudge I am going to tell you strait.
______________________________________________________

You are lost and separated from love, peace and understanding.
I am saddened that folks like you perpetuate victim-hood. Hatred. Ignorance. Dependency and sad pathetic excuses. For yourself certainly. But more so the folks that are sincerely trying, perhaps for the first time in their life seeking a greater understanding. You could give more...

NO ONE is holding you back Dear. You Are Free... Get divorced. Make love. Get pregnant and get an abortion.
Free will Baby and whine all the way. I am not your enemy... Nor your ENABLER.

You do not have to defeat me. You only have to overcome your better self to spew such broken words...


crux

You treat me vicariously through the prism of your own dark thoughts. You are broken and deserve better, friend.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Respect. I understand that. Crazymaking. I understand that too, and you are a fine example ... Lash out and let it go .

crux
_____

STONEWALL!! I want that Angel smiley back for selection, you silly boy!! Why is it gone from the menu??---->

User avatar
Stonewall
Site Admin
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:26

Re: Teachable moment!

Postby Stonewall » 2013 Feb 14 10:21

crux wrote:STONEWALL!! I want that Angel smiley back for selection, you silly boy!! Why is it gone from the menu??---->

I pared smileys somewhat to reduce the clutter, trying to delete the ones that seemed less popular. Thanks to your feedback, it's back, first in the list.
Thanks for your posts! Stonewall, your administrator ... just an "empty suit."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Thanks

Postby Crux » 2013 Feb 14 17:44

:angel5: Bless you my son...

crux