Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Cronies. Duh.

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Cronies. Duh.

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Cronies. Duh.

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Heretic. :P

Oh, I'm sorry - that was rather tyrannical of me, wasn't it? :lol:

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Heretic. :P

Oh, I'm sorry - that was rather tyrannical of me, wasn't it? :lol:

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Heretic. :P

Oh, I'm sorry - that was rather tyrannical of me, wasn't it? :lol:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

(T)here is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War.

I'd like to say:

"You take it upon yourself to redefine... away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience... You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.... I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant."

Oh, crud.... I've gotten myself confused. Which of us is the tyrant again?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

(T)here is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War.

I'd like to say:

"You take it upon yourself to redefine... away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience... You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.... I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant."

Oh, crud.... I've gotten myself confused. Which of us is the tyrant again?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

(T)here is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War.

I'd like to say:

"You take it upon yourself to redefine... away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience... You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.... I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant."

Oh, crud.... I've gotten myself confused. Which of us is the tyrant again?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

ok, that's what i thought you were trying to do.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

possibly so, but sadly, i remain unconvinced, because i have no idea what you're talking about.

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:

pot, kettle, etc.


TK

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

ok, that's what i thought you were trying to do.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

possibly so, but sadly, i remain unconvinced, because i have no idea what you're talking about.

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:

pot, kettle, etc.


TK

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

ok, that's what i thought you were trying to do.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

possibly so, but sadly, i remain unconvinced, because i have no idea what you're talking about.

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:

pot, kettle, etc.


TK

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?

A rather elegant way way to condense all constitution liberties to 25 words or less.... GJ TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?

A rather elegant way way to condense all constitution liberties to 25 words or less.... GJ TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?

A rather elegant way way to condense all constitution liberties to 25 words or less.... GJ TK

Then again... you'd better watch what you say TK, or the Left will put a fatwa out on you. You've just espoused the concept of Natural Law.