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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're trying that hateful un-American ridiculous guilt by association again. It's still not acceptable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-

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.

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.

quote:

Congress shall make no law... the right of the people peaceably to assemble

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.