Tweet
Guys, take it to another thread.
-
Golfing since 67 -
Then why doesn't Sweden get hit with terrorists flying 747s? Or anyone else, for that matter? The reason is that the US is viewed as the greatest threat/problem by these terrorists. If we ****ed off they'd leave us alone.You are foolish. Not doing anything got 9/11.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
David Floyd said I would hide? There he goes again.Originally posted by David Floyd
Fine, go hide.
You are making statements and saying I support these statements. I never made such statements. Catch my drift?I offered you a chance to explain this statement. I do so again. Eh?
You mean, don't do as Dubya and Co. did? And everyone else does as well?
You need help.
I had enough with this useless debate.
Next!For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
No they wouldn't.Originally posted by David Floyd
If we ****ed off they'd leave us alone.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Eh?David Floyd said I would hide? There he goes again.
Then why don't you tell us all what you said, then. What it sounded like you said was that it was OK to limit free speech to defend national security, yet we could defend national security without compromising freedom.You are making statements and saying I support these statements. I never made such statements. Catch my drift?
Good comeback.You need help.
Then explain to me why the US was hit with 747s on 9/11, rather than, say, Botswana.No they wouldn't.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
Limit free speech? Umm... I don't care what the media does.. or any political organization (except those I am aligned with) for that matter.Originally posted by David Floyd
Eh?
Then why don't you tell us all what you said, then. What it sounded like you said was that it was OK to limit free speech to defend national security, yet we could defend national security without compromising freedom.
Has to do with the US being the sole superpower.Then explain to me why the US was hit with 747s on 9/11, rather than, say, Botswana.
Anyways.. I am leaving this dumb debate before Ming gets me on the BBQ.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
OK, then, my mistake, I misunderstood you. I'm not gonna argue it except to say that your earlier statements were highly ambiguous.Limit free speech? Umm... I don't care what the media does.. or any political organization (except those I am aligned with) for that matter.
And, as such, the US is the one doing most of the ****ing around with other nations, right?Has to do with the US being the sole superpower.
Why would Ming BBQ you, unless you were breaking the rules?Anyways.. I am leaving this dumb debate before Ming gets me on the BBQ.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
No they weren't.Originally posted by David Floyd
except to say that your earlier statements were highly ambiguous.
And, as such, the US is the one doing most of the ****ing around with other nations, right?
So let the world go to hell!
I am through with you.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Fez,
You said,
Then I said,They are endangering national security by making the branches of government get wrapped up in some baseless charges
Then you said,Individual liberty is vastly more valuable than national security
It's reasonable to assume that if you believe national security is more important than individual liberty, you also believe that individual liberty can be restricted in favor of national security.No.
I assume you see the ambiguity of your position?
Exactly the attitude that rightly earns us the contempt of much of the world, and if we didn't have that attitude people would probably like us more. If people liked us more, it's less likely we'd be a target for terrorists - people don't blow themselves up on a whim or against people who aren't bothering them, now do they?So let the world go to hell!Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
Your attitude is what deters other from talking with you. You are nothing but a stuck up person with a oversized ego.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
OK, bud. In other words, you ran out of material.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
I never run out of material. I just ran out of patience to argue with somebody like you.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Too late. It was already Fezzed. David apparently wanted to add to the train wreck.Originally posted by Tingkai
Guys, take it to another thread.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
and to add fuel to the fire:
you still haven't answered my question. why is it arrogant?
with which you responded:
I just said they were arrogant, not that they should be silenced. Sure I hate there opinions as wrong as they are... but I can't disabled the reply button on this forum.
to which i respond again, why is it arrogant?
let's make a point here. fez has clarified his position: he doesn't want them silenced, but he does feel them to be stupid and arrogant. i want to know exactly why.
I'd rather be living than killed by a terrorist attack. National security doesn't have to make freedom diminish.
why is individual liberty not more important than national security?
i too would rather be living than killed by a terrorist attack. however, i would also like to have that life as free of government intervention as possible. i am not prepared to hand over my rights simply "to feel safer".
why? plenty of reasons. chief amongst them is that the government's idea of security isn't a very good idea of security, nor is it very secure. police states are rife with corruption and backdoor deals, allowing plenty of threats in when they're close friends of those in power. even if it's not a police state, the government's efforts will undoubtedly be ham-handed: just look at america's TSA and airport security. i don't want my rights exchanged for more worthless crap like that designed to make me feel safer than actually be safer.
second is that although national security does not have to diminish rights and freedoms, the way governments often go about implementing national security often comes into direct conflict with those freedoms and rights. i'd rather have the rights than the security.
third is the trite old line, "if we do this... the terrorists will win." i hate that line, but it's very true in this case. terrorism's main goal is to strike fear into its victims' hearts. this fear of death by terrorism, no matter how unlikely, leads to a strange willingness to exchange freedoms and liberties for security. this fear is destroying the foundation of what our nation was built on.
Responsible government in your opinion means anarchy? Right? Well that is unacceptable.
i have to agree with floyd here: government and anarchy are mutually exclusive terms. in many ways, i'm libertarian, and would like to have the tiniest government possible. in my opinion, a responsible government would be one that chooses personal liberties over security.
why is that unacceptable?
why is floyd not credible?B♭3Comment
-
Too late. It was already Fezzed.
I strongly suggest you all simply add Fez to your Ignore List. I did long ago, threads are now much more pleasant to read, at least as long as the likes of David Floyd can resist taking the bait ... (ahem!)
The Ignore List is your Friend. Trust me, you feel no need to rebutt what you cannot see.Comment
Comment