warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Afterall

 

Here is a link to your posts on this thread for all who want to see this members circular ramblings-Afterall posts on this thread and the circular ramblings involved.

The VICTIM is the one where THEIR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INFRINGED.

The only one running in circles is your partner in crime but I am happy to deal with you instead now if you like.

You are going to have to explain to me who the victim is in the theater full of people that do not react to my shouting. Who was the victim in my death threat case? Who was the victim in my 911 call example?

Please tell me who had rights infringed upon in any of these examples for me.

You bring up several questions that both I and JPZ obviously answered, yet you are still here-rambling.

If JPZ actually answered them, it was long after twisting and playing games. It was also WELL AFTER CALLING ME STUPID. Do you really thing that someone who BEGINS by calling me stupid deserves much respect?

Now, please explain to me whose rights are infringed upon in the examples I gave you.

For the record. My first question was not "who" so I stand corrected there. Now see if that even helps you any.

[edit on 5/29/10 by Afterall]

You are going to have to explain to me who the victim is in the theater full of people that do not react to my shouting. Who was the victim in my death threat case? Who was the victim in my 911 call example?

Please tell me who had rights infringed upon in any of these examples for me.

So, now you are saying the people in the theater would not react to you shouting fire? That is getting circular there. How bout I come to one of your family get togethers and scream that there is a tornado or some other such thing? This one does lead down the slippery slope, I have to agree. It brings into the argument of possible victimhood. Like such things as traffic tickets and the like. Which I do not believe in. I do follow the tenet that there has to be a victim if there is to be a crime. But, victimhood can be argued when your rights are infringed. Not just direct harm of the body, but say the body of rights.

Death threat would be who you threatened with death. That is infringing on someone's Liberty. You are actually going to state that if I threaten YOUR life, it would not impact you at all. I cannot go into the purpose of such a threat. I am sure the people that the Mafia threaten with death and the burning of their store for the purpose of buying their insurance. Now that brings into the discussion the government threatening with fines and jail if one does not buy their insurance. Oh the analogies of government and the Mafia keep poking their head out.

As for calling in to the Po Po on a false report victimizes everyone that pays money into that service.

Originally posted by endisnighe
So, now you are saying the people in the theater would not react to you shouting fire?

You obviously did not read my examples and that is why your answers are not making any sense. Let me ask you a serious question.

Are you looking to just be troublesome and argue or can we have an honest discussion about this?

Yes, or no?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Afterall

 

Here is a link to your posts on this thread for all who want to see this members circular ramblings-Afterall posts on this thread and the circular ramblings involved.

You not only pointed them out but you commented on them being rambling and circular but your above post clearly demonstrates you did not even read them.

Please be honest with me so I know whether or not I should just see if Lemon.Fresh ever answers the question I asked HIM.

It seems unfair for you to insult the entirety of my posts when you have not read them. Do you not agree?



[edit on 5/29/10 by Afterall]

Originally posted by endisnighe
So, now you are saying the people in the theater would not react to you shouting fire?

Just an FYI to add to the example I am certain you are busy reading right now in order to make sense the next time you respond -

The theater could be full of deaf people.

reply to post by Afterall


Well that would be extenuating circumstances no?

What if pigs could fly? OH WAIT, Swine flu!

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Afterall

 

Well that would be extenuating circumstances no?

What if pigs could fly? OH WAIT, Swine flu!

It does not matter. My point was that it is not an absolute truth that someone WILL be injured or killed by any of those. It was that simple until Jean got a hold of it.

Can you still argue that they are absolute truths even after admitting there could be extenuating circumstances?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
how about those satanists....they despise God, right?

The ignorance in this thread can be blinding at times.

Let me clarify....people i have met who are satanists follow concepts of desecration. i realize that there are some people who call themselves satanists as well that see it differently, and scoff at these people.

Ah, so you hang out with teenagers who call themselves Satanists but do not adhere to any known and established Satanic religion.

something else must be blinding you. it isn't ignorance. perhaps is it mismanagment of comprehension?

I wish people could spell correctly when attempting to be witty and mock my intelligence. Perhaps you should stop hanging out with teenagers and then making ignorant blanket statements based on what your drinking buddies tell you.

I am quoting your whole post. I want it to stand in testament.

I never said "hang out" with anyone. I said "people i have met". I know you comprehend what i type....so why make stuff up? I am a 37 year old man. I run a business. I have employed thousands of people in my town. I know a LOT of people. When i say "people i have met", that is exactly what i mean.

I do not drink. I am allergic to alcohol. It makes me violently ill, and i get a rash. Why randomly insert this in there?

RE: spelling....i use firefox. I am fully aware of each misspelled word. At 4am, i really could care less about perfect spelling. I had spent the day working my full time job, then putting on my oldest sons graduation party and attending those ceremonies. Being bleary eyed and too tired to sleep can really drive the "I don't give a craps" when it comes to correcting spelling errors.

It doesn't matter if i misspelled a word. You using that as some kind of jab is lowbrow. The people of this online community will see this for what it is. You had little of value to add on the content of my post, and took a jab at grammatical errors.

Bravo. Be proud of such displays. You made a completely non topical post just to insult another member.

edit to add.....are you not the same person who wanted to question my ability in bed earlier in this thread? Do you really need to stoop to such depths just because of 1 conversation? Do you really want to make it impossible to have friendly exchanges in other threads, on other issues?



[edit on 29-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by Cygnis
[rant]
We have become so intolerant of each other , we are weighted down with merely making sure that we say stuff so softly to not offend someone. It's becoming retarded.

You can't say this because you will offend someone's race.

You can't say this because you will offend someone's rights.

You can't say this because you will be sued by someone who is offended.

You can't say this because SOMEONE will take OFFENSE.

It's disgusting. You can't speak your mind because someone will get offended.

What happened to tolerance for other people's views? What happened to recognition of other people's thoughts, understanding that you don't have to agree, because it is their thoughts, feelings or beliefs?

It really creates undue stress having to be PC all the time for fear of upsetting someone.
[/rant]

thanks for the the space, and thanks for reading.

i see, so, if you lose your job because you ARE NOT christian, that's ok...if you have bricks thrown through your windows because you are an athiest, that is ok... if your child gets beat up at school, because his parents are athiests, that's ok...if you don't think that happens, go live in the southern states of the U.S.....it is still happening to this day and nothing is being done about it...but...let someone suggest that the government take "in god we trust" off of our money...and the christian nut jobs come unhinged...AND THAT IS WHY THIS PRINCIPAL SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN

reply to post by Afterall


simple and short answer:

It is against the law to call 911 and report a false crime - the victim is The People, who were defrauded in the false report. The false report misspent tax dollars, and diverted public employee efforts away from already present activities. too much of this, and you have to hire more officers to handle the inefficiency. So you are the victim, as well as all other citizens.

It is against the law to make death threats to a person the victim is the person who had threats made to them. This is so obvious, i will assume it isn't contended

It is against the law to shout FIRE in a crowded theater This isn't against the law. I cannot make any response to this statement, as it is an untrue statement

There you go...my responses are in bold.

Originally posted by Afterall

What I said above was that I stopped responding to NEW POSTS FROM YOU. Then you pointed out it was a response. NO DUH!!!! It was not however, a response to anything you have posted recently. Learn to read.

Wow.

I just want to make sure i am clear....you are saying that you....nevermind. Really. I makes me feel stupid to even try to put my mind in a low enough position to comprehend this.

Maybe when you grow up we can have an intelligent conversation.

What was that JPZ said about thieves locking doors?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Afterall

 

simple and short answer:

It is against the law to call 911 and report a false crime - the victim is The People, who were defrauded in the false report. The false report misspent tax dollars, and diverted public employee efforts away from already present activities. too much of this, and you have to hire more officers to handle the inefficiency. So you are the victim, as well as all other citizens.

It is against the law to make death threats to a person the victim is the person who had threats made to them. This is so obvious, i will assume it isn't contended

It is against the law to shout FIRE in a crowded theater This isn't against the law. I cannot make any response to this statement, as it is an untrue statement

There you go...my responses are in bold.

Your response shows that you completely missed my examples as well. There is a reason I gave them. I knew at some point I would have to explain why your answers are wrong and I thought I could save you the trouble. Had you read my examples, you would not have given these answers. Want to actually read them and try again or just call me names some more?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Wow.

I just want to make sure i am clear....you are saying that you....nevermind. Really. I makes me feel stupid to even try to put my mind in a low enough position to comprehend this.

So let me get this straight. You can not comprehend what you read and that is because I am not that bright?

What was that JPZ said about thieves locking doors?

After he kept twisting what I was saying as far as he could, I put him on ignore. I missed most of what he said after he called me stupid.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THIS THREAD THAT CAN CONVERSE WITHOUT CALLING PEOPLE NAMES AND MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you people were defending a Christian and this is how you all behave?

Alrighty then. I can either go back and address the questions you posed to me, on page 37,or I can go back and answer your hypotheticals which you attempted to switch the argument to after those were fairly well addressed by others. Which would you prefer?

Originally posted by Afterall

IS THERE ANYONE IN THIS THREAD THAT CAN CONVERSE WITHOUT CALLING PEOPLE NAMES AND MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can. That eventuality is predicated entirely on YOUR ability to keep it civil. I never 'counter attack' until after I've been attacked myself. As the saying goes around here, "You don't start none, ain't gonna BE none".

I thought you people were defending a Christian and this is how you all behave?

Ah. That explains the perennial misatributions as to religion. No, in this case the man is alleged to have been a christian, but the law by no means applies solely to christians, but to all. What I've been defending is EVERYONE'S rights to free speech, including yours and Gunderson's, regardless of religion. I suppose the insistence on making it about christianity, solely to set up attacks against the christians, is probably where this went off the rails.

[edit on 2010/5/29 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by Afterall

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Afterall

 

simple and short answer:

It is against the law to call 911 and report a false crime - the victim is The People, who were defrauded in the false report. The false report misspent tax dollars, and diverted public employee efforts away from already present activities. too much of this, and you have to hire more officers to handle the inefficiency. So you are the victim, as well as all other citizens.

It is against the law to make death threats to a person the victim is the person who had threats made to them. This is so obvious, i will assume it isn't contended

It is against the law to shout FIRE in a crowded theater This isn't against the law. I cannot make any response to this statement, as it is an untrue statement

There you go...my responses are in bold.

Your response shows that you completely missed my examples as well. There is a reason I gave them. I knew at some point I would have to explain why your answers are wrong and I thought I could save you the trouble. Had you read my examples, you would not have given these answers. Want to actually read them and try again or just call me names some more?

I am requoting the whole thing. I want you to go back and read the post you quoted. Tell me where i called you names.

Those are my answers. Debate them if you wish. But they are my answers.

No one called you a name. If you have to make up stuff to be a victim it says a lot about not only your position, but your motives as well.

Originally posted by Afterall

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Wow.

I just want to make sure i am clear....you are saying that you....nevermind. Really. I makes me feel stupid to even try to put my mind in a low enough position to comprehend this.

So let me get this straight. You can not comprehend what you read and that is because I am not that bright?

What was that JPZ said about thieves locking doors?

After he kept twisting what I was saying as far as he could, I put him on ignore. I missed most of what he said after he called me stupid.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THIS THREAD THAT CAN CONVERSE WITHOUT CALLING PEOPLE NAMES AND MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you people were defending a Christian and this is how you all behave?

No, i comprehend what you say. But to verbalize it hurts my brain.

I didn't call you any names. That is you who have done that since you got involved.

I don't defend a Christian. I defend a human, who has unalienable rights. Trying to wiggle in Christian jabs will certainly be recieved appropriately by all readers.

edit to add: no where did i say you are stupid or not that bright. I am not questioning your intelligence based on a few posts. I DID say that the idea you presented was dumb. We all have stupid ideas.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

This is an excellent post.

Starred and flagged!!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I defend a human, who has unalienable rights.

No no no no... Your not defending his rights as his rights are not being infringed upon. His job terms does not allow for him to blast his religious convictions, end of story. No person in government nor any government agency/function should have anything to do with religion as was dictated by our god damned founding fathers!

That principal is free to believe in whatever the hell he wants, but he is not free to establish those beliefs whilst working in his official capacity for the government. If he does not like that this government is secular, then he can quit working for the government and get a job at a Christian private school instead. If he does that then he can blast his religious convictions all he wants, and there would be no problems.

The United States of America government IS SECULAR

Religion has no place in government in any way, shape, or form

We left Britain for that very damn reason! Now we're going to go back to that because the oh so poor principal working for the government can't do his job as a government worker without invoking his deity in ritualistic practices?! WTF!

Reply to post by sirnex

Wrong. Part if the reason we left Britain was a mandatory religion. That is the reason the freedom of religion is in the Constitution.

What you propose is doing the exact same thing as Britain was doing by telling people who/what (or who/what not) to worship, where (or where not) to worship , and when (or when not) to excercise their religion.

This flies directly in the face of our Constitution. You are making the founding fathers turn in their graves with your tyrannical postings.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I defend a human, who has unalienable rights.

No no no no... Your not defending his rights as his rights are not being infringed upon. His job terms does not allow for him to blast his religious convictions, end of story. No person in government nor any government agency/function should have anything to do with religion as was dictated by our god damned founding fathers!

That principal is free to believe in whatever the hell he wants, but he is not free to establish those beliefs whilst working in his official capacity for the government. If he does not like that this government is secular, then he can quit working for the government and get a job at a Christian private school instead. If he does that then he can blast his religious convictions all he wants, and there would be no problems.

The United States of America government IS SECULAR

Religion has no place in government in any way, shape, or form

We left Britain for that very damn reason! Now we're going to go back to that because the oh so poor principal working for the government can't do his job as a government worker without invoking his deity in ritualistic practices?! WTF!

Is "announce games" in his job description? I understand that the overly progressive court system in the past has stretched the first amendment to mean that we remove the right to free speech to any government worker doing anything even remotely related to the agency they work for.

Yet, at the end of the day the law reads "Congress shall not". He is not a member of congress. I have presented that the way the law is understood is erroneous based on the obvious writing.

Now, I could go into how the Communist infiltration sought to remove religion as a viable part of society.

Leaving England was for many reasons, none of which involved a school principle announcing a sporting event. We DID take exception to being forced to join a state sponsored church as the Church of England.

reply to post by sirnex


That principal, who did not in any way establish any religion, but merely spoke his opinion, had as much right to do so as the numerous Presidents who have declared "God Bless America" during their State of the Union Address, and as much right to speak his mind as Congress does to use a federal building to recite a prayer before each session. He had as much right to speak his mind as the courts do to impose an oath that includes; "So help me God" for every witness that takes the stand. You seem to ignore all of this in order to make your claims.

Further, for whatever reasons the Pilgrims left England and came to the America's, it is not as if they left British rule, and by 1776 that British rule had become tyrannical enough to spark a Revolution. However, that Revolution of 1776 was not fought because Great Britain was imposing a single religion on the colonies, and it was ultimately a tax on tea that ignited the war. An irony that makes tea taste quite bitter today given the tyrannies of That time don't compare to the tyrannies of the federal government today, and where colonists were outraged by a tax on tea, income tax was non existent at that time, and it appears that that Revolution was fought to trade one tyrant several thousand miles away, for several thousand tyrants here in on this land.