Woman shoots back at Lindsey Graham on Youtube

reply to post by spacedoubt

I'd call the pastor a direct cause of this chain of events.

Thank you for your clarification. However, if you agree with that logic, then the only responsibility the pastor can hold, if at all, is indirect. The direct cause would be the actual murderers.

Originally posted by dude69
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Well exactly!!...that's what I'm saying. We're on the same page here man ^^

The more you bow to the artifice of government and state, the more you uphold this closed system, the faster it dissolves.

Dude,we are not on the same page, although I get your point. I just do not agree with it. Aspiring towards entropy is not a good idea, man.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Good enough. He shut up about it now.
And go scream fire in a crowded theater.
And the bible chick, anger issues,

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by dude69
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Well exactly!!...that's what I'm saying. We're on the same page here man ^^

The more you bow to the artifice of government and state, the more you uphold this closed system, the faster it dissolves.

Dude,we are not on the same page, although I get your point. I just do not agree with it. Aspiring towards entropy is not a good idea, man.

Woops...forgot proper pseudo-intellectual etiquette...and you didn't grasp my point. Im not saying you should aspire towards entropy. Im saying by resisting a closed system you're resisting entropy thus working towards harmony in an open system.

Which you also indirectly said a couple of posts ago: " Only the most ignorant mind bows to a closed system "

Exactly.Wether you like it or not we are on the same page, only different approaches.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Good enough. He shut up about it. And go scream fire in a crowded theater.

Here is the problem with your reasoning. First you liken Muslims to bees, and now you are attempting to frame the pastors actions akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. You clearly have no respect for Muslims, who in your mind are nothing more than angry insects, and apparently you think they are insects crowded into the same theater you have purchased a ticket at.

The pastor has not yelled fire in a crowded theater, and you began your arguments in this thread by acknowledging that the pastor has the right to do what he did. Either he has the right to do what he did, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground on rights.

i think it's time they get desensitized. couple billion korans up in flames all over the world?

naw, then people will be prosecuted for pollution and get the global warming nuts riled up too!

they are really starting to rain on everyone's parade.

the vid gal totally explained what she said and meant about what graham said and she was right on!

nothing really to do with the pastor.

lindsey wearing his best appeasement underwear, pissed her off. the jack-ass! lol!

i hope this gal stays safe.

reply to post by dude69

and you didn't grasp my point.

You are right, I missed that point, and misread what you wrote. However, what you are claiming now does not in anyway jive with what you began with when you asserted that rights are "made up". The respect for human rights, natural law unalienable rights, is an open system, and it is the lawful way to non acquiesce to tyranny, by asserting those natural rights. You began arguing for tyranny, and now you seem to want to switch sides. Wouldn't want you in my fox hole.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by dude69

 

and you didn't grasp my point.

You are right, I missed that point, and misread what you wrote. However, what you are claiming now does not in anyway jive with what you began with when you asserted that rights are "made up". The respect for human rights, natural law unalienable rights, is an open system, and it is the lawful way to non acquiesce to tyranny, by asserting those natural rights. You began arguing for tyranny, and now you seem to want to switch sides. Wouldn't want you in my fox hole.

Hmm...no...that was what I was trying to say from the very beginning. I thought you were saying that manmade civil, legal and political rights that serve the preservation of the closed system are the same as natural law inalienable rights. So I guess I just misunderstood your inititial point. My bad.

Originally posted by dude69
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You have no rights. They're made up.

edit on 7-4-2011 by dude69 because: yesmind.

i agree 100%!!!...my father-in-law was an american citizen during WW2...his rights meant nothing as they took him (an american citizen of japanese descent) and put him in an internment camp for 3 years.
he lost all his property (he was allowed 1 suitcase), his job, his money, and the bill of rights didn't mean crap

all of americans so called RIGHTS, are convienent privledges...and to this day, he doesn't believe in the constitution, he doesn't vote, he doesn't even talk about politics...because in the time that he needed it the most...the constitution let him down...
and if any american thinks that this can't happen again...you have your head stuck firmly up your *ss
you think you have rights???.....sure,....you sir, have convienent privledges

reply to post by jimmyx

i agree 100%!!!...my father-in-law was an american citizen during WW2...his rights meant nothing as they took him (an american citizen of japanese descent) and put him in an internment camp for 3 years.

If you read the post directly above yours, then apparently you are not agreeing with The Dude. It would seem the Dude was referring to "civil rights" which are indeed made up, but the natural unalienable rights your father in law had disparaged are as real as he is. His rights meant nothing to the government that did what they did to him, which is why governments can never, ever, be trusted. They have no regard for human rights, only for the aggregation of power. It makes no sense to blame the rights, it makes perfect sense to blame the party responsible for abrogating and derogating those rights.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jimmyx

 

i agree 100%!!!...my father-in-law was an american citizen during WW2...his rights meant nothing as they took him (an american citizen of japanese descent) and put him in an internment camp for 3 years.

If you read the post directly above yours, then apparently you are not agreeing with The Dude. It would seem the Dude was referring to "civil rights" which are indeed made up, but the natural unalienable rights your father in law had disparaged are as real as he is. His rights meant nothing to the government that did what they did to him, which is why governments can never, ever, be trusted. They have no regard for human rights, only for the aggregation of power. It makes no sense to blame the rights, it makes perfect sense to blame the party responsible for abrogating and derogating those rights.

edit on 7-4-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

No...perfect sense would make: to hold those that don't live by their natural inalienable rights as accountable as those that impose " civil rights,religious rights,political rights,legal rights...whatever " upon them. Which would be virtually nearly everybody on this planet. A nice big global symphony of self-immolation.

That'll wake you up in the morning.

"Hey Jackass! I'm gonna burn a Koran here in a minute. Lindsay, why don't you hold me accountable, playa?"

That has to be the best defense of the 1st ammendment I have ever heard. I nearly choked on my coffee. Did she really just say "Playa?" Golden stuff. Golden.
She has to be one helluva date. I'd love to hear her go off on a tirade over a plate of stuffed porkchops.
Nothing like urine and Jesus to make your point.

On a serious note though, why doesn't she continue and start burning pages of Leviticus? Christians and Jews hold the Old Testament to be the word of God, and yet the Old Testament clearly states similar things. Where one is to be burned if they commit adultery or homosexuality. (Sorry, I do not know the verses verbatim, but I can attest that that they're there. I have read them). My point is that it is not the religion that is at fault here. It is the time in which these texts were written. In 2011, we really don't have much use for such violent and ignorant "laws". If you're going to burn them, burn them all! Book of Eli time!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jimmyx

 

i agree 100%!!!...my father-in-law was an american citizen during WW2...his rights meant nothing as they took him (an american citizen of japanese descent) and put him in an internment camp for 3 years.

If you read the post directly above yours, then apparently you are not agreeing with The Dude. It would seem the Dude was referring to "civil rights" which are indeed made up, but the natural unalienable rights your father in law had disparaged are as real as he is. His rights meant nothing to the government that did what they did to him, which is why governments can never, ever, be trusted. They have no regard for human rights, only for the aggregation of power. It makes no sense to blame the rights, it makes perfect sense to blame the party responsible for abrogating and derogating those rights.

edit on 7-4-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

then "rights" should be looked at as " temporary privledges"...to my humble laymans thinking, rights cannot be abrogated. since they were during WW2, and to a lesser extent in todays legal settings in a variety of unpublisized rulings, people should have a more stark, realistic view, rather than relying on a philosphical set of principals.
people do not "have" something, if that "something" is negotiable.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jimmyx

 

i agree 100%!!!...my father-in-law was an american citizen during WW2...his rights meant nothing as they took him (an american citizen of japanese descent) and put him in an internment camp for 3 years.

If you read the post directly above yours, then apparently you are not agreeing with The Dude. It would seem the Dude was referring to "civil rights" which are indeed made up, but the natural unalienable rights your father in law had disparaged are as real as he is. His rights meant nothing to the government that did what they did to him, which is why governments can never, ever, be trusted. They have no regard for human rights, only for the aggregation of power. It makes no sense to blame the rights, it makes perfect sense to blame the party responsible for abrogating and derogating those rights.

edit on 7-4-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

then "rights" should be looked at as " temporary privledges"...to my humble laymans thinking, rights cannot be abrogated. since they were during WW2, and to a lesser extent in todays legal settings in a variety of unpublisized rulings, people should have a more stark, realistic view, rather than relying on a philosphical set of principals.
people do not "have" something, if that "something" is negotiable.

Yep.

reply to post by jimmyx

then "rights" should be looked at as " temporary privledges"...to my humble laymans thinking, rights cannot be abrogated.

Of course rights can be abrogated! This is why the right to self defense is so essential, precisely because rights can, and are abrogated. Since time immemorial rights have been abrogated, and/or derogated. Either you are willing to fight for those rights, or you are not. What is not worth fighting for is not worth having.

to get a better idea on how the american people are fooled into believing that they have rights, i suggest reading, "necessary illusions" written by noam chomsky. although, it is not the only book that addresses the problem of "drinking the kool-aid", it does give one a primer on manipulation.

Originally posted by jimmyx
to get a better idea on how the american people are fooled into believing that they have rights, i suggest reading, "necessary illusions" written by noam chomsky. although, it is not the only book that addresses the problem of "drinking the kool-aid", it does give one a primer on manipulation.

If you honestly think that Noam Chomsky is on your side, and really cares about you and yours then you might be interested in some swamp land I have had a hard time unloading. Noam Chomsky is a linguist of the highest order. He is also no friend of freedom.

Rights are self evident, not some rhetoric sold through propaganda. Of course, the sun is self evident too, but that doesn't mean you will see it. Especially if you keep waiting until dark to look for it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jimmyx

 

then "rights" should be looked at as " temporary privledges"...to my humble laymans thinking, rights cannot be abrogated.

Of course rights can be abrogated! This is why the right to self defense is so essential, precisely because rights can, and are abrogated. Since time immemorial rights have been abrogated, and/or derogated. Either you are willing to fight for those rights, or you are not. What is not worth fighting for is not worth having.

jean paul...it saddens me that our elected leaders have taken such a "low road" approach to such basic human tenents. to most of them, power of the the people, has become a psuedonym for power of the wealthy.

Every " Intellectuell " is an agent of power....From Confucius to Nietzsche.

As soon as your ideas contain the underlying tone of wanting to impose order on people, or fight a specific group of people you loose the genius card and can be described as just another asshole.

Since that's all we've managed to do until now and it's not really helping along anything.

reply to post by jimmyx

jean paul...it saddens me that our elected leaders have taken such a "low road" approach to such basic human tenents. to most of them, power of the the people, has become a psuedonym for power of the wealthy.

Our first mistake is to think that we elect leaders. Free people do not need leaders, and instead elect representatives. Our biggest mistake was believing that voting was a hall mark of freedom. If an unelected monarch works tirelessly at defending the rights of the individual, and an elected polity works tirelessly at trampling all over unalienable rights, which government is preferable?

We only have ourselves to blame. All governments exist by consent of the governed. We have consented to the tyranny we face, and we have done so mostly out of expedience, apathy, and ignorance. People want thunder without the storm, they want oceans without the roar, and they want sunlight without the sunburn.

Either we fight for what is right, or we lament that others will not fight that fight for us. Which do you honestly think is the more practical solution to obtain freedom?