TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

@plainoldme,

David wrote:

Freedom means that government leaves u the hell alone.

plainoldme wrote:

But corporations can dictate your every move in the world according to david,
the 20th C male mad woman in the attic.

Thay did not dictate mine; maybe thay dictated yours.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Davids in his dream place. Shhhhh, let him rest, hes had a hard week what with being an NRA shill and all.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

david, you need a road map to learn where the real world is.

A map wouldn't help; you can't get here from there.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually, young people have a right to be free from work, to not be used. david lives in some sort of lala land brought on by his own horrendous childhood.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Actually, young people have a right to be free from work, to not be used.
david lives in some sort of lala land brought on by his own horrendous childhood.

I only advocate that thay have the same freedom as anyone,
including their natural right to vote in a democracy.
(As a kid, I resented it a lot that while I was working
energetically in political campaigns, I was disenfranchized.)

The worst that can be said of my childhood
is that it was boring once in a while.
There was nothing "horrendous" about it.

From my observation,
it was a lot better than most. I woud not change it much.

David

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Davids in his dream place. Shhhhh, let him rest,
hes had a hard week what with being an NRA shill and all.

I know that u r kidding around,
but whatayamean "shill" ?????

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Davids in his dream place. Shhhhh, let him rest,
hes had a hard week what with being an NRA shill and all.

Maybe I was rong
to challenge u as to your use of "shill" Farmer.

I checked it; see 2nd definition:

"shill
–noun
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating,
as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2. a person who publicizes or praises something
for reasons of self-interest, personal profit,
or friendship or loyalty."

I agree as to the 2nd definition,
in that I am endeavoring to advance and promote
personal freedom, at the expense of government power,
which is the filosofy to which I bear allegiance.

Of course, I know that in your zeal to degrade personal freedom
and to aggrandize liberalism and DISCRIMINATION, u were referring to the first definition.

The same way that activists of the labor movement
supported the AFL CIO, and the blacks supported CORE & NAACP,
I support the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Farmer, did u accuse the unionists
and the blacks of being "SHILLS" ????

I 'd like to know that. I eagerly await.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

From my observation,
it was a lot better than most. I woud not change it much.

You only look fondly upon what was clearly abuse -- and, frankly, one has to wonder what you leave out of your reportage -- because to you it was normal. To be the 20th C male equivalent of the 18th C mad woman in the attic was not normal.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Actually, young people have a right to be free from work

You're kidding right?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I am endeavoring to advance and promote
personal freedom, at the expense of government power,

As what was clearly an abused child, you have no idea of freedom. Your entire thought processes were formed by the subscribed and limited existence you led as the mad boy in the attic, occasionally visited by your mother.

It has, I believe, invested you with a deep seated paranoia.

And, while you are sufficiently delusional and manifestly paranoid to believe that carrying a gun makes you "free," it does not.

A gun to you is like heroin is to an addict. A crutch, an addiction.

Just as a heroin addict endangers those around him, a gun addict endangers those around him.

But, as you are neither sufficiently intelligent nor logical to understand, I have just wasted two precious minutes writing this.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

POM has battery operated 'guns' that she carries partially concealed.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

David wrote:

I am endeavoring to advance and promote
personal freedom, at the expense of government power,

plainoldme wrote:

As what was clearly an abused child, you have no idea of freedom.

That is a non-sequitur, both of whose expressions are false.
Note also that u have offered no evidence
in support of your false conclusion.
My existence was not significantly "limited".
There were ample cabs and buses.

plainoldme wrote:

Your entire thought processes were formed by the subscribed and limited existence [??]
you led as the mad boy in the attic, occasionally visited by your mother.

U have no way of knowing what my "entire thought processes" were.
I did not venture into the attic; another one of your delusions.
I did not ofen get mad; things were pretty good.
I don't remember objecting to anything.

plainoldme wrote:

It has, I believe, invested you with a deep seated paranoia.

Your posts have proven that u don't know what that word means.

plainoldme wrote:

And, while you are sufficiently delusional and manifestly paranoid ??
to believe that carrying a gun makes you "free," it does not.

Free of WHAT ?

plainoldme wrote:

A gun to you is like heroin is to an addict. A crutch, an addiction.

an interest; a hobby; a safety device that everyone shoud have

plainoldme wrote:

Just as a heroin addict endangers those around him,
a gun addict endangers those around him.

That is a stupid thing to say.

plainoldme wrote:

But, as you are neither sufficiently intelligent nor logical to understand,
I have just wasted two precious minutes writing this.

That was YOUR idea, Swifty.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Don't let the accusations worry you, David. She has accused several conservatives here of all manner of things, most of which I have forgotten because they were not worth remembering.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

safety device that everyone shoud have

Fallacious:

1.) the threats that you imagine simply do not exist. They're bogeymen. Hence, there is no need for a gun. The sort of safety a person really needs are properly inflated tires, good breaks, oven mitts, safety goggles if they use power saws . . . that sort of thing. Guns simply create more danger.

2.) Only if everyone is low class.

1 Reply

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:

Just as a heroin addict endangers those around him,
a gun addict endangers those around him.

David responded

Quote:

That is a stupid thing to say.

Why don't you tell that to the parents of the two innocent kids in California who were just seriously wounded when their classmate, who had brought a gun to school in his backpack, dropped the backpack.. Go on, David, why don't you email them? While you're at it, David, why don't you tell the two kids in the hospital that everybody should carry a gun everywhere. I'm sure that will make them feel much better about being shot.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:

Just as a heroin addict endangers those around him,
a gun addict endangers those around him.

David responded

Quote:

That is a stupid thing to say.

MontereyJack wrote:

Why don't you tell that to the parents of the two innocent kids in California who were just seriously wounded when their classmate, who had brought a gun to school in his backpack, dropped the backpack.. Go on, David, why don't you email them? While you're at it, David, why don't you tell the two kids in the hospital that everybody should carry a gun everywhere. I'm sure that will make them feel much better about being shot.

Accidents are part of life, Jack. Thay have been since before the first dinosaur was hatched.
That is not a surprize. There are a lot more kids hurt in vehicular collisions or by drownings,
than by accidental gunfire. If thay 'd fallen from a ski lift or a tree, u 'd have been silent, right??

If thay 'd been hurt some other way,
I bet u 'd care a lot LESS; u r just taking advantage
of this opportunity to scream about GUN possession,
because u hate it. I know. (It will not work.)

David

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Don't let the accusations worry you, David.
She has accused several conservatives here of all manner of things,
most of which I have forgotten because they were not worth remembering.

I know; Its sad.
I 'd enjoy a good argument with her,
if she were able to DO it, but she is not
of sufficient intelligence for it.
Her ability to reason is poor.

David

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
safety device that everyone shoud have

Fallacious:

1.) the threats that you imagine simply do not exist. They're bogeymen.
Hence, there is no need for a gun.

Tell that to Reginald Denny.
Your post implies that neither crime,
nor the depredation of animals EXIST.
It is odd that u deny this.
I don 't know of anyone else who does.
Is that a psychotic detachment from reality ?

plainoldme wrote:

The sort of safety a person really needs are properly inflated tires,

It is a fact that people have been robbed on the road,
while thay were changing flat tires.
I 've met one of them.

plainoldme wrote:

good breaks, oven mitts, safety goggles if they use power saws . . . that sort of thing.
Guns simply create more danger.

Guns DO create more danger for violent predators,
be thay man or beast, Plain.

Your post shows that U prefer that victims of violence be HELPLESS
and that predators have a MONOPOLY of power; from that, I dissent.

U are blinding your own eyes, not seeing what there is to be seen.
For instance, if the victims at Virginia Tech
had been armed, thay 'd have shot Cho,
returning gunfire and killing him a lot sooner, with much less loss of life.
Supporters of gun control were de facto in partnership with Cho.

plainoldme wrote:

2.) Only if everyone is low class.

?????? I don 't know what that means.

David

0 Replies

And the statistics are plain that far more people die from accidents with guns than ever use them to prevent crimes.

Your logic, David, is as always circular. You do your damnedest to see that everybody has guns. Then you justify owning a gun by saying that everybody should have one (or many) because they are needed to defend yourself. From the people you've just insured would have guns.

1 Reply

I'm willing to go along with everyone having all the guns they want if they'll also pass a law that says I can shoot and kill someone who pisses me off and be off the hook for it if they are also carrying a gun.

0 Replies

TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know