Abraham Lincoln - The Civil War.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
…and sometimes even this?

Yeah, I know.

What do you mean you “know?”

Remember, there are no limits. Nothing is out of bounds. Any behavior or action is fair game.

There really aren’t any limits. Any attempt to limit your “freedoms” means that there are no freedoms at all.

Signed,

you, dustin, and mike.

P.S. To anyone just joining this discussion, my point was made with extreme sarcasm. Without laws, chaos would ensue.

Which is of course BS because even plundering warlords are highly organized.

bota,

Correction: Without laws, I would be fine, but, your life would be chaos.

JeffR

Without laws you would be unemployed.

My life is chaos, anarchic if you will, most of the time. So is everybody elses . 90% of the time human interactions are not regulated by laws that are enforced with violence and yet we do fine.

So yay! to chaos.

Anyway,

“Free men have free tongues”

Sophocles.

[/quote]

bota,

I’d have a “job.” I’d be taking your things. I’d just let my base urges run wild.

Even if we go along with your 90% figure, you’d have to acknowledge that you can get in some serious trouble the other 10% of the time.

If YOU didn’t have people restraining the 10 percenters, you’d be in real trouble.

JeffR

42

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:

As in you were the last civilized nation practicing so stopping it “triggered” the end?

All the other nation stopped it because they simply knew America would follow, thereby leading the way?

Lord Jesus…

bota,

I was hoping you’d avoid this thread. Unfortunately, you are like a bug drawn to light.

You had slaves in austria until America stopped you. I believe mauthausen concentration camp opened August 8th, 1938 and the Americans ended your slave practices May 5th, 1945.

Oh, you did say “civilized” nation. Therefore, technically you were correct. We were one of the last civilized nations practicing it.

JeffR

Seen this way American slavery ended in the 70´s with the draft and has not ended in Europe at all, which makes the original point moot, just from the other side.

Are you comparing being drafted into military service with Nazi slave camps? A bit of a stretch, even for you.

No, because the underlying philosophical assumptions are the same.[/quote]

Zap and Pat:

Just like a paper cut is the same as decapitation.

Hey, a “cuts a cut.”

JeffR

43

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
Are you comparing being drafted into military service with Nazi slave camps? A bit of a stretch, even for you.

No, because the underlying philosophical assumptions are the same.

No they are not. Next I expect you to compare a parent rearing his child to the Nazi death camps.
[/quote]

One are imprisoned and forced to work at gunpoint for the greater good and the other are restricted in their movement, hunted down when they leave the troops and forced to work, kill or die at gunpoint for the greater good.

No, no similarities there.

44

[quote]JeffR wrote:

If YOU didn’t have people restraining the 10 percenters, you’d be in real trouble.

JeffR

[/quote]

10 hours a week in a neighborhood watch is annoying, but hardly “real trouble”.

45

[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:

As in you were the last civilized nation practicing so stopping it “triggered” the end?

All the other nation stopped it because they simply knew America would follow, thereby leading the way?

Lord Jesus…

bota,

I was hoping you’d avoid this thread. Unfortunately, you are like a bug drawn to light.

You had slaves in austria until America stopped you. I believe mauthausen concentration camp opened August 8th, 1938 and the Americans ended your slave practices May 5th, 1945.

Oh, you did say “civilized” nation. Therefore, technically you were correct. We were one of the last civilized nations practicing it.

JeffR

Seen this way American slavery ended in the 70´s with the draft and has not ended in Europe at all, which makes the original point moot, just from the other side.

Are you comparing being drafted into military service with Nazi slave camps? A bit of a stretch, even for you.

No, because the underlying philosophical assumptions are the same.

Zap and Pat:

Just like a paper cut is the same as decapitation.

Hey, a “cuts a cut.”

JeffR

[/quote]

If you think you have the right to cut the other person for your benefit, disguised as whatever collectivist utopia the underlying assumptions are the same, yes.

46


As the South’s greatest Bard sang, it shall come to pass.

So gather ‘round, gather ‘round chillun’
Get down, well just get down chillun’
Get loud, well you can be loud and be proud
Well you can be proud, hear now
[b]Be proud you’re a rebel
'Cause the South’s gonna do it again and again[/b]

47

[quote]Dustin wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I cannot post under a thread started by bota. In every realm of human behavior, one can take things too far. bota throwing rocks at Lincoln is too far. If you are one of those jackasses (dustin) who thinks freedom of speech should not and does not have any limits, then you have to believe that anything goes.

If speech has limits, you silly bastard, it isn’t free speech. If speech is to have limits, who designates these limits, the fucking government? People who think like you?

You don’t like freedom of speech, or freedom for that matter. You want people to see the world in your delusional state.

You’re truly insane.

Dustin

[/quote]

My First Amendment class says your wrong. This morning in fact. What’s your argument for why speech should never have limits under any circumstances?

48

Varq, what’s that last picture of? I can’t make it out so well.

49

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
…and sometimes even this?

Yeah, I know.

What do you mean you “know?”

Remember, there are no limits. Nothing is out of bounds. Any behavior or action is fair game.

There really aren’t any limits. Any attempt to limit your “freedoms” means that there are no freedoms at all.

Signed,

you, dustin, and mike.

[/quote]

So because I believe in free speech, unlike yourself, I am now in favor of breaking laws, physically hurting and/or assaulting an individual.

And you came to this conclusion based off what?

This is why people on this board give you such a hard time. Next time take a few minutes to think about what I said, instead of making ridiculous assumptions.

Dustin

50

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

My First Amendment class says your wrong. This morning in fact. What’s your argument for why speech should never have limits under any circumstances?
[/quote]

It sounds like Jeff is teaching your class. :slight_smile:

Well, we could probably spend the next week discussing this. The whole reason I responded to Jeff, initially, is because Orion (I believe it was) stepped out of line (in Jeff’s view) and dared to say something negative about a politician that lived 140 years ago. Jeff then wanted him to be banned. See, Jeff’s idea of discourse is about as narrow and small as his dick is, so it’s pretty often that people step out of line. He doesn’t know how to disagree with people, so he just calls them “liberals”, or whatever.

People can make a case to have speech limited to an extent, like screaming fire in a theater or a passenger yelling that there’s a bomb on an air plane. Those are easy examples but generally speaking, I can’t think of too many instances where speech should be limited.

Dustin

51

Jsbrook:

Check this out:

Earlier in this thread dustin wrote this:

Then he responded to you by writing this.

Then he has the audacity to question someone else’s intelligence.

You’d think that he would, at least, contradict himself on another thread. Or wait for more than 1 or 2 days.

What a joke.

JeffR

52

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Jsbrook:

Check this out:

Earlier in this thread dustin wrote this:

If speech has limits, you silly bastard, it isn’t free speech. If speech is to have limits, who designates these limits, the fucking government? People who think like you?

Then he responded to you by writing this.

People can make a case to have speech limited to an extent, like screaming fire in a theater or a passenger yelling that there’s a bomb on an air plane. Those are easy examples but generally speaking, I can’t think of too many instances where speech should be limited.

Then he has the audacity to questions someone else’s intelligence.

You’d think that he would, at least, contradict himself on another thread. Or wait for more than 1 or 2 days.

What a joke.

JeffR

[/quote]

You conveniently ignore my other post in which I pointed out your inability to read an individual’s post, comprehend it, and then make a coherent response. Instead you assume on thing, because I didn’t agree with you. I can copy and paste that post if you wish, just to remind you. It would save me the trouble of responding to you again.

The examples I mentioned, I thought, would be assumed as actions one wouldn’t do. They have nothing to do with speech in the public arena, whether it be political, social, racial, etc. That was what I was responding to in your post when you thought it was right to ban Orion because he said something naughty about Honest Abe.

Now how you’ll twist this post into a “victory” for you is beyond me, but I’m sure you’ll try to spin it anyhow.

Can you just admit that you were wrong? If not, just admit that your a jack-boot wearing fascist. That way others will understand why you say the things you do.

Dustin

53

dustin, you wrote earlier in this thread:

You followed it up with:

I really don’t have much to add.

Either speech has it’s limits, or it doesn’t.

Your first paragraph left no doubt that speech has no limits. Then you decided to “designate” limits on free speech. This is after inferring that people shouldn’t be able to “designate” limits on free speech.

That you took two positions on the same issue isn’t surprising to me.

Of course, most of us would agree with your second position.

Most of us wouldn’t want pornography shown to 4 year olds.

Most of us believe in the concept of “fighting words.” For instance if a troll, like bota, attacks someone we respect or love, they should be punished.

Most of us wouldn’t stand for a naked bum waving his member at our mother and screaming, “SUCK IT.”

In summary, I’ll say that I really am not surprised that you didn’t acknowledge your error. Further, I’m not shocked that your simple world-view doesn’t allow you to think through the ramifications of your stances.

You spoke of “victory.” I have to tell you that the only victories I find satisfying are ones gained against worthy foes. These victories are hard-fought and interesting.

You aren’t and it wasn’t.

JeffR

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varq, what’s that last picture of? I can’t make it out so well. [/quote]

Soldiers piling dead Indians into a mass grave after the battle of Wounded Knee.

55

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what’s that last picture of? I can’t make it out so well.

Soldiers piling dead Indians into a mass grave after the battle of Wounded Knee.[/quote]

Sad event, that one. Just damn, that’s depressing.

56

[quote]JeffR wrote:
dustin, you wrote earlier in this thread:

If speech has limits, you silly bastard, it isn’t free speech. If speech is to have limits, who designates these limits, the fucking government? People who think like you?

You followed it up with:

People can make a case to have speech limited to an extent, like screaming fire in a theater or a passenger yelling that there’s a bomb on an air plane. Those are easy examples but generally speaking, I can’t think of too many instances where speech should be limited.

I really don’t have much to add.

Either speech has it’s limits, or it doesn’t.

Your first paragraph left no doubt that speech has no limits. Then you decided to “designate” limits on free speech. This is after inferring that people shouldn’t be able to “designate” limits on free speech.

Most of us wouldn’t want pornography shown to 4 year olds.

Most of us believe in the concept of “fighting words.” For instance if a troll, like bota, attacks someone we respect or love, they should be punished.

Most of us wouldn’t stand for a naked bum waving his member at our mother and screaming, “SUCK IT.”

In summary, I’ll say that I really am not surprised that you didn’t acknowledge your error. Further, I’m not shocked that your simple world-view doesn’t allow you to think through the ramifications of your stances.

JeffR
[/quote]

My error was not being specific for you.

Why you can’t differentiate between free speech and showing porn to 4 year olds is beyond me. Speech shouldn’t be limited when saying something negative about Lincoln. The “bum” example you gave above isn’t free speech, its assault. Screaming “fire” in a theater isn’t free speech, it’s a crime. Protesting the Vietnam War is free speech.

I’m talking about one thing, while you’re talking about another.

My world view isn’t simple, by any stretch. Your world view consists of Republicans and liberals. Your world view wants to see people punished for having the audacity to speak out against a fucking politician that lived 140 years ago.

Are you getting my point?

I hope so because I’m literally hours away from hopping on a plane to Iraq. If you want to continue this “debate”, if I may call it such, you’re going have to give me several days before I can get online.

Dustin

57

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Your world view wants to see people punished for having the audacity to speak out against a fucking politician that lived 140 years ago.
[/quote]

And if HR 1955 passes the Senate and is signed by the President, then Jeff’s worldview will become law.

Consider that.

58

[quote]Dustin wrote:
JeffR wrote:
dustin, you wrote earlier in this thread:

If speech has limits, you silly bastard, it isn’t free speech. If speech is to have limits, who designates these limits, the fucking government? People who think like you?

You followed it up with:

People can make a case to have speech limited to an extent, like screaming fire in a theater or a passenger yelling that there’s a bomb on an air plane. Those are easy examples but generally speaking, I can’t think of too many instances where speech should be limited.

I really don’t have much to add.

Either speech has it’s limits, or it doesn’t.

Your first paragraph left no doubt that speech has no limits. Then you decided to “designate” limits on free speech. This is after inferring that people shouldn’t be able to “designate” limits on free speech.

Most of us wouldn’t want pornography shown to 4 year olds.

Most of us believe in the concept of “fighting words.” For instance if a troll, like bota, attacks someone we respect or love, they should be punished.

Most of us wouldn’t stand for a naked bum waving his member at our mother and screaming, “SUCK IT.”

In summary, I’ll say that I really am not surprised that you didn’t acknowledge your error. Further, I’m not shocked that your simple world-view doesn’t allow you to think through the ramifications of your stances.

JeffR

My error was not being specific for you.

Why you can’t differentiate between free speech and showing porn to 4 year olds is beyond me. Speech shouldn’t be limited when saying something negative about Lincoln. The “bum” example you gave above isn’t free speech, its assault. Screaming “fire” in a theater isn’t free speech, it’s a crime. Protesting the Vietnam War is free speech.

I’m talking about one thing, while you’re talking about another.

My world view isn’t simple, by any stretch. Your world view consists of Republicans and liberals. Your world view wants to see people punished for having the audacity to speak out against a fucking politician that lived 140 years ago.

Are you getting my point?

I hope so because I’m literally hours away from hopping on a plane to Iraq. If you want to continue this “debate”, if I may call it such, you’re going have to give me several days before I can get online.

Dustin

[/quote]

dustin,

If you are going in harm’s way, I hope you stay safe.

Best of luck.

As for this discussion, I think you have better things to do right now than post on the forums.

JeffR

59

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Your world view wants to see people punished for having the audacity to speak out against a fucking politician that lived 140 years ago.

And if HR 1955 passes the Senate and is signed by the President, then Jeff’s worldview will become law.

Consider that.[/quote]

Here is a summary of the bill.

I’ll let everyone decide whether they think it has merit.

[quote]H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.

4/19/2007–Introduced.
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.[/quote]

Instead of being a complete head-in-the-sander, like varq, I think it might be a good idea to learn what are the root causes of homegrown terrorism. Further, it certainly seems reasonable to learn their methodologies.

IT EVEN PROTECTS CIVIL LIBERTIES-----GASP!!!

THE HORROR!!!

JeffR

60

Make up your mind, Jeff. Am I a head-in-the-sander, a sideline-sitter, or a jackass?

Anyway, I thought you’d be flattered by my saying that your worldview might become law. Can’t please nobody these days.