RE: Shouldn't we be better than this?

RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 5:05:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen When people have to state "I have a _blank_ friend" to try and prove they are not a bigot it is usually because they are. Sorry, no cigar. Having "blanks" as friends is associated with acceptance, and the link has been demonstrated to be strong. Go away moron the adults are having a conversation.

Kirata -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 5:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Go away moron the adults are having a conversation. Ken, you've worked hard for this and nobody deserves it more... [image]local://upfiles/235229/6B06FBA68EC4406BB45A339491E76757.jpg[/image] Congratulations. K.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 8:59:47 AM)
Thanks for your words, Kirata. Ken, like many on here...from the right and the left...you have a tendency to generalize. You also have a tendency to balk when those of us on the right don't fit your preconceived notions of what a "rightie" is. Like it or not...believe it or not...I DO have gay family members and I do have Black and Brown friends. My basis for liking them is NOT their sexuality or their color. Rather, it is their behavior a nd their actions. By the way, Ken...I don't happen to think all liberals are of the bleeding-heart, take-ALL-my-money, tree-hugger-to-the-point-of-nonsense, etc. variety either.

DomKen -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 10:13:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Thanks for your words, Kirata. Ken, like many on here...from the right and the left...you have a tendency to generalize. You also have a tendency to balk when those of us on the right don't fit your preconceived notions of what a "rightie" is. Like it or not...believe it or not...I DO have gay family members and I do have Black and Brown friends. My basis for liking them is NOT their sexuality or their color. Rather, it is their behavior a nd their actions. By the way, Ken...I don't happen to think all liberals are of the bleeding-heart, take-ALL-my-money, tree-hugger-to-the-point-of-nonsense, etc. variety either. Like I said, when people feel the need to protest that they have friends of some group, it is usually because they are bigots. I am not calling you a bigot I am simply pointing out that that you are being defensive and that if you never gave anyone reason to think you were a bigot then you would never have reason to have to write that you have friends or family in any group.

SadistDave -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 10:40:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime that has not been made public, they associate themselves. No matter what you and the rest of the Dim Bulb Society want to believe, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to question peoples associations with other people in a court of law. How well you know someone and how much you know about a case are pretty important in trying to decide your credibility as a witness. Anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. should be wondering about her credibility at the Heritage event after finding out that she has closely associated herself with a terrorist. -SD-

Zonie63 -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 11:22:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime that has not been made public, they associate themselves. No matter what you and the rest of the Dim Bulb Society want to believe, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to question peoples associations with other people in a court of law. How well you know someone and how much you know about a case are pretty important in trying to decide your credibility as a witness. Anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. should be wondering about her credibility at the Heritage event after finding out that she has closely associated herself with a terrorist. I don't really see it in such black-and-white, good-vs-evil way. I've met and talked with people who have immigrated from the Middle East, and as with anything, you meet all kinds. Some are very rabidly anti-terrorist, pro-US - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're ignorant or totally disconnected from the situation they came from. They might very well "know" some terrorists. They might even "know" the reasons/causes/motivations behind the terrorism on a level that many Westerners may not understand (and don't seem willing to understand, based on some reactions I've seen). If they have something to say, let 'em say it. As long they're talking and not killing, that may be a step in the right direction. As for the video of the panel discussion and the overall topic of terrorism/Benghazi, I'm not sure what you're proposing here. All I and others were doing was just responding to US citizens at a panel discussion and commenting on the conduct of a few of the participants. Just because there are those who don't believe in a rigidly black-and-white view of the perceived "enemy" (which still has yet to be defined), you liken that to "supporting terrorism." I suppose associations may be important. Do you have any friends or family members who have run afoul of the law? I do. A lot of people do. It may not be something people are proud of, and perhaps it might be a black mark in someone's "known associates file." But it doesn't prove anything, and it certainly wouldn't make someone into a criminal or terrorist just because they know someone who is. If someone was being accused of aiding and abetting, I think a court of law would require more than just "knowing" someone.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 12:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Thanks for your words, Kirata. Ken, like many on here...from the right and the left...you have a tendency to generalize. You also have a tendency to balk when those of us on the right don't fit your preconceived notions of what a "rightie" is. Like it or not...believe it or not...I DO have gay family members and I do have Black and Brown friends. My basis for liking them is NOT their sexuality or their color. Rather, it is their behavior a nd their actions. By the way, Ken...I don't happen to think all liberals are of the bleeding-heart, take-ALL-my-money, tree-hugger-to-the-point-of-nonsense, etc. variety either. Like I said, when people feel the need to protest that they have friends of some group, it is usually because they are bigots. I am not calling you a bigot I am simply pointing out that that you are being defensive and that if you never gave anyone reason to think you were a bigot then you would never have reason to have to write that you have friends or family in any group. What a load of B. S.. That's like saying that when liberals feel a need to protest something the right has done, it is because the liberals just wish they had done it first...or because a majority of the people picked up for speeding are driving a red car that anyone driving a red car is a speeder. What I did was defend myself against a generalized statement alluding to "if the cap fits". Funny how when you...and others on the left... defend yourself, it is simply a defense against an "unwarranted", "unknowledgeable", "unearned", whatever attack but when someone from the right defends themselves against a generalization, then we are still what we are being accused of. Because I suppose the best defense is just silence? Yes, we've all seen how well that works with you and several others...don't speak and it is because what you have said is true...speak and the only reason we are defending ourselves is because your accusation must be true.

DomKen -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 4:03:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Thanks for your words, Kirata. Ken, like many on here...from the right and the left...you have a tendency to generalize. You also have a tendency to balk when those of us on the right don't fit your preconceived notions of what a "rightie" is. Like it or not...believe it or not...I DO have gay family members and I do have Black and Brown friends. My basis for liking them is NOT their sexuality or their color. Rather, it is their behavior a nd their actions. By the way, Ken...I don't happen to think all liberals are of the bleeding-heart, take-ALL-my-money, tree-hugger-to-the-point-of-nonsense, etc. variety either. Like I said, when people feel the need to protest that they have friends of some group, it is usually because they are bigots. I am not calling you a bigot I am simply pointing out that that you are being defensive and that if you never gave anyone reason to think you were a bigot then you would never have reason to have to write that you have friends or family in any group. What a load of B. S.. That's like saying that when liberals feel a need to protest something the right has done, it is because the liberals just wish they had done it first...or because a majority of the people picked up for speeding are driving a red car that anyone driving a red car is a speeder. What I did was defend myself against a generalized statement alluding to "if the cap fits". Funny how when you...and others on the left... defend yourself, it is simply a defense against an "unwarranted", "unknowledgeable", "unearned", whatever attack but when someone from the right defends themselves against a generalization, then we are still what we are being accused of. Because I suppose the best defense is just silence? Yes, we've all seen how well that works with you and several others...don't speak and it is because what you have said is true...speak and the only reason we are defending ourselves is because your accusation must be true. No. No one had accused you of anything. The post you are referring to was in response to someone else. You are defending yourself against an accusation not made. I'm pointing out that there is likely a reason you feel so defensive.

DomKen -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 4:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime that has not been made public, they associate themselves. No matter what you and the rest of the Dim Bulb Society want to believe, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to question peoples associations with other people in a court of law. How well you know someone and how much you know about a case are pretty important in trying to decide your credibility as a witness. Anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. should be wondering about her credibility at the Heritage event after finding out that she has closely associated herself with a terrorist. Bullshit. People know other people. Unfortunately that even includes people who get involved in bad stuff. That is simply life. It doesn't make that person a criminal or a terrorist. You need to read the First Amendment. It has something interesting to say about the freedom to assemble with anyone we want.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/24/2014 6:51:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Thanks for your words, Kirata. Ken, like many on here...from the right and the left...you have a tendency to generalize. You also have a tendency to balk when those of us on the right don't fit your preconceived notions of what a "rightie" is. Like it or not...believe it or not...I DO have gay family members and I do have Black and Brown friends. My basis for liking them is NOT their sexuality or their color. Rather, it is their behavior a nd their actions. By the way, Ken...I don't happen to think all liberals are of the bleeding-heart, take-ALL-my-money, tree-hugger-to-the-point-of-nonsense, etc. variety either. Like I said, when people feel the need to protest that they have friends of some group, it is usually because they are bigots. I am not calling you a bigot I am simply pointing out that that you are being defensive and that if you never gave anyone reason to think you were a bigot then you would never have reason to have to write that you have friends or family in any group. What a load of B. S.. That's like saying that when liberals feel a need to protest something the right has done, it is because the liberals just wish they had done it first...or because a majority of the people picked up for speeding are driving a red car that anyone driving a red car is a speeder. What I did was defend myself against a generalized statement alluding to "if the cap fits". Funny how when you...and others on the left... defend yourself, it is simply a defense against an "unwarranted", "unknowledgeable", "unearned", whatever attack but when someone from the right defends themselves against a generalization, then we are still what we are being accused of. Because I suppose the best defense is just silence? Yes, we've all seen how well that works with you and several others...don't speak and it is because what you have said is true...speak and the only reason we are defending ourselves is because your accusation must be true. No. No one had accused you of anything. The post you are referring to was in response to someone else. You are defending yourself against an accusation not made. I'm pointing out that there is likely a reason you feel so defensive. God, I love the way you pick and choose when to be literal.

SadistDave -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 9:03:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime that has not been made public, they associate themselves. No matter what you and the rest of the Dim Bulb Society want to believe, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to question peoples associations with other people in a court of law. How well you know someone and how much you know about a case are pretty important in trying to decide your credibility as a witness. Anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. should be wondering about her credibility at the Heritage event after finding out that she has closely associated herself with a terrorist. Bullshit. People know other people. Unfortunately that even includes people who get involved in bad stuff. That is simply life. It doesn't make that person a criminal or a terrorist. You need to read the First Amendment. It has something interesting to say about the freedom to assemble with anyone we want. This isn't a First Amendment issue, unless perhaps you're functionally retarded, which would explain volumes about you DK. However, since you seem to think it is, please cut and paste the part of the First Amendment that states people cannot be held responsible for their words and actions. For instance, you might explain why someone has the Constitutional right to yell "fire!" In a crowded theater, and the unConstitutionality of conspiracy laws. You might also explain the unConstitutionality of requiring permits and legal oversight for gatherings such as parades, fairs, and festivals. For extra credit, you might explain how the non-existant Constitutional freedom from responsibility for ones words, actions, and associations make it illegal for courts to allow surveillance on citizens suspected of criminal behavior based on their speech and or associations. -SD-

DomKen -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 11:14:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime that has not been made public, they associate themselves. No matter what you and the rest of the Dim Bulb Society want to believe, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to question peoples associations with other people in a court of law. How well you know someone and how much you know about a case are pretty important in trying to decide your credibility as a witness. Anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. should be wondering about her credibility at the Heritage event after finding out that she has closely associated herself with a terrorist. Bullshit. People know other people. Unfortunately that even includes people who get involved in bad stuff. That is simply life. It doesn't make that person a criminal or a terrorist. You need to read the First Amendment. It has something interesting to say about the freedom to assemble with anyone we want. This isn't a First Amendment issue, unless perhaps you're functionally retarded, which would explain volumes about you DK. However, since you seem to think it is, please cut and paste the part of the First Amendment that states people cannot be held responsible for their words and actions. For instance, you might explain why someone has the Constitutional right to yell "fire!" In a crowded theater, and the unConstitutionality of conspiracy laws. You might also explain the unConstitutionality of requiring permits and legal oversight for gatherings such as parades, fairs, and festivals. For extra credit, you might explain how the non-existant Constitutional freedom from responsibility for ones words, actions, and associations make it illegal for courts to allow surveillance on citizens suspected of criminal behavior based on their speech and or associations. You are completely full of shit. Try reading and understanding what I wrote. Not the stupid crazy shit you wish I wrote. Then get back to me.

Musicmystery -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 11:37:22 AM)
You're both full of it. Dave was nuts in his post, and you went with a weird 1st Amendment tangent, while he responded with a perversion of Holmesian folklore, leaving you to your trademark ad hominem. Neither one of you are grounded in reading and understanding anything each other wrote. Nor do you appear interested in doing so.

DomKen -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 1:08:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You're both full of it. Dave was nuts in his post, and you went with a weird 1st Amendment tangent, while he responded with a perversion of Holmesian folklore, leaving you to your trademark ad hominem. Neither one of you are grounded in reading and understanding anything each other wrote. Nor do you appear interested in doing so. You are as equally full of shit as Dave. If you cannot read the First that is not my fault.

SadistDave -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 1:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime that has not been made public, they associate themselves. No matter what you and the rest of the Dim Bulb Society want to believe, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to question peoples associations with other people in a court of law. How well you know someone and how much you know about a case are pretty important in trying to decide your credibility as a witness. Anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. should be wondering about her credibility at the Heritage event after finding out that she has closely associated herself with a terrorist. Bullshit. People know other people. Unfortunately that even includes people who get involved in bad stuff. That is simply life. It doesn't make that person a criminal or a terrorist. You need to read the First Amendment. It has something interesting to say about the freedom to assemble with anyone we want. This isn't a First Amendment issue, unless perhaps you're functionally retarded, which would explain volumes about you DK. However, since you seem to think it is, please cut and paste the part of the First Amendment that states people cannot be held responsible for their words and actions. For instance, you might explain why someone has the Constitutional right to yell "fire!" In a crowded theater, and the unConstitutionality of conspiracy laws. You might also explain the unConstitutionality of requiring permits and legal oversight for gatherings such as parades, fairs, and festivals. For extra credit, you might explain how the non-existant Constitutional freedom from responsibility for ones words, actions, and associations make it illegal for courts to allow surveillance on citizens suspected of criminal behavior based on their speech and or associations. You are completely full of shit. Try reading and understanding what I wrote. Not the stupid crazy shit you wish I wrote. Then get back to me. I'm full of shit because you cannot explain your own position? I think you'll be hard pressed to find a more unconvincing argument Ken. I'm sure you'll keep trying though... -SD-

DomKen -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 1:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime that has not been made public, they associate themselves. No matter what you and the rest of the Dim Bulb Society want to believe, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to question peoples associations with other people in a court of law. How well you know someone and how much you know about a case are pretty important in trying to decide your credibility as a witness. Anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. should be wondering about her credibility at the Heritage event after finding out that she has closely associated herself with a terrorist. Bullshit. People know other people. Unfortunately that even includes people who get involved in bad stuff. That is simply life. It doesn't make that person a criminal or a terrorist. You need to read the First Amendment. It has something interesting to say about the freedom to assemble with anyone we want. This isn't a First Amendment issue, unless perhaps you're functionally retarded, which would explain volumes about you DK. However, since you seem to think it is, please cut and paste the part of the First Amendment that states people cannot be held responsible for their words and actions. For instance, you might explain why someone has the Constitutional right to yell "fire!" In a crowded theater, and the unConstitutionality of conspiracy laws. You might also explain the unConstitutionality of requiring permits and legal oversight for gatherings such as parades, fairs, and festivals. For extra credit, you might explain how the non-existant Constitutional freedom from responsibility for ones words, actions, and associations make it illegal for courts to allow surveillance on citizens suspected of criminal behavior based on their speech and or associations. You are completely full of shit. Try reading and understanding what I wrote. Not the stupid crazy shit you wish I wrote. Then get back to me. I'm full of shit because you cannot explain your own position? I think you'll be hard pressed to find a more unconvincing argument Ken. I'm sure you'll keep trying though... -SD- No, I just refuse to defend the strawman you erected. Get back to me when you actually read and understand what I wrote not the crazy shit you wish I wrote.

Musicmystery -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 2:53:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You're both full of it. Dave was nuts in his post, and you went with a weird 1st Amendment tangent, while he responded with a perversion of Holmesian folklore, leaving you to your trademark ad hominem. Neither one of you are grounded in reading and understanding anything each other wrote. Nor do you appear interested in doing so. You are as equally full of shit as Dave. If you cannot read the First that is not my fault. I can read it just fine, thanks. I also can read whether that's the topic. The Voices in your head aren't real, Ken.

DomKen -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 5:34:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You're both full of it. Dave was nuts in his post, and you went with a weird 1st Amendment tangent, while he responded with a perversion of Holmesian folklore, leaving you to your trademark ad hominem. Neither one of you are grounded in reading and understanding anything each other wrote. Nor do you appear interested in doing so. You are as equally full of shit as Dave. If you cannot read the First that is not my fault. I can read it just fine, thanks. I also can read whether that's the topic. The Voices in your head aren't real, Ken. Damn you're truly an idiot. The Founders clearly knew that assholes would try and prevent people from associating with each other as they chose so they put this in the Constitution just to make sure they couldn't actually do so. quote: Congress shall make no law... the right of the people peaceably to assemble So it is on topic and you are butting in for no apparent reason as usual.

Musicmystery -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 7:22:02 PM)
Whatever the Voices tell you, Ken. Whatever they tell you.

SadistDave -> RE: Shouldn't we be better than this? (6/25/2014 8:52:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime that has not been made public, they associate themselves. No matter what you and the rest of the Dim Bulb Society want to believe, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to question peoples associations with other people in a court of law. How well you know someone and how much you know about a case are pretty important in trying to decide your credibility as a witness. Anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. should be wondering about her credibility at the Heritage event after finding out that she has closely associated herself with a terrorist. Bullshit. People know other people. Unfortunately that even includes people who get involved in bad stuff. That is simply life. It doesn't make that person a criminal or a terrorist. You need to read the First Amendment. It has something interesting to say about the freedom to assemble with anyone we want. This isn't a First Amendment issue, unless perhaps you're functionally retarded, which would explain volumes about you DK. However, since you seem to think it is, please cut and paste the part of the First Amendment that states people cannot be held responsible for their words and actions. For instance, you might explain why someone has the Constitutional right to yell "fire!" In a crowded theater, and the unConstitutionality of conspiracy laws. You might also explain the unConstitutionality of requiring permits and legal oversight for gatherings such as parades, fairs, and festivals. For extra credit, you might explain how the non-existant Constitutional freedom from responsibility for ones words, actions, and associations make it illegal for courts to allow surveillance on citizens suspected of criminal behavior based on their speech and or associations. You are completely full of shit. Try reading and understanding what I wrote. Not the stupid crazy shit you wish I wrote. Then get back to me. I'm full of shit because you cannot explain your own position? I think you'll be hard pressed to find a more unconvincing argument Ken. I'm sure you'll keep trying though... -SD- No, I just refuse to defend the strawman you erected. Get back to me when you actually read and understand what I wrote not the crazy shit you wish I wrote. I seem to understand the topic better than you do Ken. I simply asked you to explain a few little things about your ridiculous assertion that this has anything to do with the First Amendment. I haven't created any strawmen Ken. I used yours. Since you refuse to explain how the First Amendment protects people from wrongdoing, or makes it possible to conduct surveillance on people who say suspicious things or hang out with suspicious people, I have to believe you're just grasping at straws. You keep pushing this narrative, but you still haven't explained why it's legal for cities and states to refuse people the right to assemble if they do not meet certain requirements. The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes that you are just talking out of your ass again... You have a childs understanding of the Constitution, that is largely incomplete and incorrect. I think this notion that you may, in truth, be delusional is the first thing MM and I have actually agreed on in months... -SD-

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125