lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: 25+ U.S. States Declaring Sovereignty
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-10-2009, 10:49 AM   #41
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Here's the problem with your argument though, the situation is that Congress is arguably attempting to violate people's first and second amendment rights in violation of the United States Constitution. You could also arguably throw in due process while we're at it.
Whose argument? That has nothing to do with my argument.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 10:54 AM   #42
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Don't you though?

(1) They are taking taxpayer's money to bailout companies without the vote of the people.
This is what we elect representatives to the Senate and the House of Reps for. If we had to put every single resolution to a national vote, do you know how long it would take to do anything in this country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El
(2) They are limiting the rights to bare arms.
I'm wearing a tank top today, no one has stopped me and told me to cover up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El
(3) We left England because of a 7 cent tax rate. We are now up 30% or more in some states.
Currency and finances back then # currency and finances now, so this comparison is flawed and immaterial to the discussion at hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El
(4) Politically correctness is here; thus, limiting the freedom of speech.
What exactly is political correctness limiting, pray tell?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El
(5) ...
OH JESUS THE MARXIST ELLIPSIS ARE OUT TO GET ME THEY'RE OPPRESSING ME AND ARE GONNA TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El
Just to name a very few.
Few indeed.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 10:56 AM   #43
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Whose argument? That has nothing to do with my argument.
If Congress and the Executive branch are deliberately trying to destroy everything this country stands for, are you saying that people have no recourse.

Eliminating voices of opposition, attempts to hijack the election process, attempts to do away with the keystone amendment, excuse me but Congress is out of control.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:01 AM   #44
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
If Congress and the Executive branch are deliberately trying to destroy everything this country stands for, are you saying that people have no recourse.

Eliminating voices of opposition, attempts to hijack the election process, attempts to do away with the keystone amendment, excuse me but Congress is out of control.
This still does not address mimartin's post. You are simply spouting the same things you have been spouting since the beginning of this thread. When someone makes an argument, all you do is say 'well, see here's your problem' and then regurgitate the same tired rhetoric you've been spewing all over this forum.

This is a dishonest and fallacious tactic and does not speak well of your skills, integrity and rationality as a debater.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:16 AM   #45
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
This still does not address mimartin's post. You are simply spouting the same things you have been spouting since the beginning of this thread. When someone makes an argument, all you do is say 'well, see here's your problem' and then regurgitate the same tired rhetoric you've been spewing all over this forum.
How about next time before you decide to jump to conclusions you actually ask me about my reasoning.


Anyways in matters of Contract Law, the United States Constitution is considered a contract between the people and the Federal Government. However, considering the States in question and we could be looking at 30 states now only need 3 more states to have the needed 2/3's this is a very serious situation. Now granted those states would need to have votes in them to do this, but a lot of people are fed up with the Federal Government.

Quite frankly though, I'm not particularly surprised the Democrats are out for a power grab. The argument here is that the Federal Government is acting in violation of the US Constitution and effectively thumbing their noses at the contract between the Government and the people.

While mimartin may have a point that Texas can't secede on their own, we're looking at 60% of the States voicing outrage towards the Federal Government's Behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
This is a dishonest tactic and does not speak well of your skills, integrity and rationality as a debater.
I'm not using a dishonest tactic, and quite frankly personally attacking someone because you don't agree with them is a dishonest tactic.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:21 AM   #46
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
This still does not address mimartin's post. You are simply spouting the same things you have been spouting since the beginning of this thread. When someone makes an argument, all you do is say 'well, see here's your problem' and then regurgitate the same tired rhetoric you've been spewing all over this forum.

This is a dishonest and fallacious tactic and does not speak well of your skills, integrity and rationality as a debater.
Lets cutdown on the personal attacks. This is why several arguements go the wrong way, so lets agree to not enter into this type of regression. Comments like this gets visitors upset, and then you have a back and forth engagement of attacks. If you don't agree with his process, only make comments on his evidence. Don't attack him personally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
OH JESUS THE MARXIST ELLIPSIS ARE OUT TO GET ME THEY'RE OPPRESSING ME AND ARE GONNA TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH
I would appreciate it if you don't call me a Marxist. I wouldn't call you something on a personal level.
Yar-El is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:28 AM   #47
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Don't attack him personally.
But it was alright for him to attack me personally by questioning my knowledge of Texas history? Double standard indeed

Rogue Nine is correct; there is nothing in the response to my post that is relevant to my post.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:29 AM   #48
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
But it was alright for him to attack me personally by questioning my knowledge of history? Double standard indeed
My comments go for Garfield as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Rogue Nine is correct; there is nothing in the response to my post that is relevant to my post.
Rogue Nine is also a Administrator. He/she might be correct, but he/she must represent the intergirty of these forums. Garfield might be wrong in his approach, but that doesn't mean he deserves a personal attack. They are two grown adults, and they both should exercise some restraint. I don't want this thread to be closed because of them.
Yar-El is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:33 AM   #49
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
But it was alright for him to attack me personally by questioning my knowledge of Texas history? Double standard indeed
Actually it's more of I switched bases without making a transition. Not sure where I personally attacked you though?

Anyways sorry if you took anything personal, that's not my intent and I will concede your point on the Texas secession item. Should have remembered the events that took place during reconstruction following the Civil War.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:45 AM   #50
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Lets cutdown on the personal attacks. This is why several arguements go the wrong way, so lets agree to not enter into this type of regression. Comments like this gets visitors upset, and then you have a back and forth engagement of attacks. If you don't agree with his process, only make comments on his evidence. Don't attack him personally.
I simply summarized what he was doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El
I would appreciate it if you don't call me a Marxist. I wouldn't call you something on a personal level.
I was poking fun at the fact you didn't give an example for your fifth point, but merely left an ellipsis. I was not calling you a Marxist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Rogue Nine is also a Administrator. He/she might be correct, but he/she must represent the intergirty of these forums. Garfield might be wrong in his approach, but that doesn't mean he deserves a personal attack. They are two grown adults, and they both should exercise some restraint. I don't want this thread to be closed because of them.
Nobody asked you to be a moderator, so stop trying to play one. Now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Actually it's more of I switched bases without making a transition. Not sure where I personally attacked you though?

Anyways sorry if you took anything personal, that's not my intent and I will concede your point on the Texas secession item. Should have remembered the events that took place during reconstruction following the Civil War.
Good, you admit that you completely switched topics and you conceded the point that mimartin was making. That is an appropriate response to his post.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:47 AM   #51
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,631
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
I would appreciate it if you don't call me a Marxist. I wouldn't call you something on a personal level.
I believe Niner didn't call you a Marxist. He seems to be making a statement that the reason you gave is nothing more than sensationalist.

*EDIT* Niner used his azn ninja skills to beat me to it...

And, not to be a pedant, but 'England' as an International power ceased to exist after 1707.






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:59 AM   #52
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
I was poking fun at the fact you didn't give an example for your fifth point, but merely left an ellipsis. I was not calling you a Marxist.
I didn't get it the first time, so thanks for explaining why you made the statement.

~snip~

You really don't understand the concept of 'now', do you?

Last edited by Rogue Nine; 03-10-2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason: edited out backseat moderating
Yar-El is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 12:04 PM   #53
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
I simply summarized what he was doing.
Don't give me that song and dance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
I was poking fun at the fact you didn't give an example for your fifth point, but merely left an ellipsis. I was not calling you a Marxist.
Problem here is that Yar-El isn't being a sensationalist, and he was being serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Nobody asked you to be a moderator, so stop trying to play one. Now.
He wouldn't have to if you hadn't gone out of your way to try to pick a fight with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Good, you admit that you completely switched topics and you conceded the point that mimartin was making.
I conceded only that he was right about Texas and secession on its own. When I make an error I'll admit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
That is an appropriate response to his post.
I can think of a lot of things to say towards you right now, but since they would be flaming I won't say them. I will say that in my opinion you need to stop with the incindiary remarks directed towards myself or other members because they don't contribute to your credibility at all.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 12:34 PM   #54
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Actually it's more of I switched bases without making a transition. Not sure where I personally attacked you though?
I fail to see how this is a switch of bases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Study your history, Texas is the only state in the Union that was a country before joining the United States.
Sounds to me like you are saying I don’t know what I am taking about and have no knowledge of Texas history. This is an insult to a true Texan.

Last edited by mimartin; 03-10-2009 at 01:47 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 02:27 PM   #55
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Sounds to me like you are saying I don’t know what I am taking about and have no knowledge of Texas history. This is an insult to a true Texan.
mimartin, in all seriousness how could I possibly know you were from Texas since it isn't in your profile?
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 02:42 PM   #56
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
mimartin, in all seriousness how could I possibly know you were from Texas since it isn't in your profile?
Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you - would mean you didn't get asked questions like that.




"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 02:47 PM   #57
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7 View Post
Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you - would mean you didn't get asked questions like that.
Pot calling the kettle black jonathan7, and I've usually found that people here know next to nothing about history.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 03:00 PM   #58
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
I'd argue that most those posting here have a fairly good knowledge of history, different interpretations persist of course, but that doesen't mean those who disagree with you lack historical knowledge.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 03:06 PM   #59
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mur'phon View Post
I'd argue that most those posting here have a fairly good knowledge of history, different interpretations persist of course, but that doesen't mean those who disagree with you lack historical knowledge.
They actually usually don't and one of my passions is history, I have a minor in history so I probably know more about history than most people here. Is there areas I don't know as much about, yes though overall I probably know more about history than the norm.

Also I tend not to think that people know what they are talking about when they've continually launched personal attacks towards me. (which you have to admit is understandible) Usually that is a classic case of not being able to win on logic so they try charecter assassination.


Anyways here's an article from ABC about the Obama Administration trying to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

Though I sincerely doubt what they consider to be assault weapons to actually be assault weapons.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 03:17 PM   #60
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,631
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
They actually usually don't and one of my passions is history, I have a minor in history so I probably know more about history than most people here. Is there areas I don't know as much about, yes though overall I probably know more about history than the norm.
Kindly keep such assumptions to yourself. They serve no purpose, and people don't like to be 'educated' by people who proclaim their superiority over them.

I'm an amateur student of history myself, but i'm not going to correct people, or shout about it at every opportunity.







Last edited by Astor; 03-10-2009 at 03:42 PM.
Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 03:30 PM   #61
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Can we get back on topic instead of the highly transparent bashfest...
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 03:41 PM   #62
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Groups like Texas Secede believe Texas has the right to secede from the union, but according the March 30, 1870 Act passed by Congress, Texas does NOT have that right.
Thanks Mimartin, that's exactly what I was referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
your skills, integrity and rationality as a debater.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7 View Post
Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you - would mean you didn't get asked questions like that.

& QFE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Can we get back on topic instead of the highly transparent bashfest...
Wouldn't have to be if you didn't go around and assume that everyone else is less intelligent than you are, when it's likely not true.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 03:49 PM   #63
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Thanks Mimartin, that's exactly what I was referring to.
Technically if 2/3s of the states decide to dissolve the Constitution of the United States and leave this country they can. Congressional bill or no congressional bill.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
Wouldn't have to be if you didn't go around and assume that everyone else is less intelligent than you are, when it's likely not true.
Only reason I don't think highly of some people here is their tendency to be unable to have a civil conversation, rather instead they go to attack the person they are debating, deliberately. If I insult someone it's usually accidental, but quite a few people here do it deliberately quite often...


Now can we please get back to the topic about the sovereignty thing.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 03:52 PM   #64
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Technically if 2/3s of the states decide to dissolve the Constitution of the United States and leave this country they can.
That's not secession, that's a dissolution of the entire country into constituent pieces >:|

Completely different and irrelevant. Try to stay on topic please.

_EW_

Quote:
Usually that is a classic case of not being able to win on logic so they try charecter assassination.
Wow. Irony abounds.



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 04:03 PM   #65
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
That's not secession, that's a dissolution of the entire country into constituent pieces >:|

Completely different and irrelevant. Try to stay on topic please.
Well it's potentially only 3 states away from that having a possibility of happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
Wow. Irony abounds.
That would believable if it wasn't usually at least six people ganging up and bashing one to two individuals. That actually qualifies as harassment.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 04:12 PM   #66
Jan Gaarni
Grand Moff
 
Jan Gaarni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,806
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Fine, take it up with the authorities and get back on topic.




Empire At War Moderator
&
SWGalaxies Moderator

- What we do in life, echoes in eternity!
- May the pants be with you!

A smile is the shortest distance between people - Victor Borge!


Custom Avatar by Wraith 8
Jan Gaarni is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 04:17 PM   #67
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Gaarni View Post
Fine, take it up with the authorities and get back on topic.
I already have (at least on the forums), a few hours ago and I know someone else did as well.


Anyways, the argument for the states to declare themselves sovereign is that the Federal Government is in violation of the Constitution.

Some states are refusing to take bailout money due to the strings that are attached to that money.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 05:23 PM   #68
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Anyways, the argument for the states to declare themselves sovereign is that the Federal Government is in violation of the Constitution.
Argument is flawed, because I fail to see current government's violation of the Constitution.
Quote:
Some states are refusing to take bailout money due to the strings that are attached to that money.
Then they'll probably collapse, because their governors were too partisan enough to accept a handout.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 07:15 PM   #69
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Pot calling the kettle black jonathan7, and I've usually found that people here know next to nothing about history.
This is possibly my most favourite post ever on Lucasforums, I like it so much I might frame it on my wall... Have you ever considered a career in comedic irony? I think you could make a lot of money!

Quote:
Originally Posted by j7
Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I've usually found that people here know next to nothing about history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j7
Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I've usually found that people here know next to nothing about history.



"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 08:20 PM   #70
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7 View Post
This is possibly my most favourite post ever on Lucasforums, I like it so much I might frame it on my wall... Have you ever considered a career in comedic irony? I think you could make a lot of money!
Yeah, I've considered it except for the fact I rarely joke about anything, I'd actually wouldn't mind being the next Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, but then I don't think I would care for the constant death threats.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 08:22 PM   #71
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Yeah, I've considered it except for the fact I rarely joke about anything, I'd actually wouldn't mind being the next Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, but then I don't think I would care for the constant death threats.
I'm not sure if he was being serious

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 08:25 PM   #72
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
I'm not sure if he was being serious
Couldn't care less what he thinks at this point.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 08:28 PM   #73
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Couldn't care less what he thinks at this point.
Oh. Just letting you know

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 08:24 AM   #74
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,254
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Okay, only thing is, I don't that I'm being threatened by the government, and there is no reason to think so.
Hmm.

Quote:
Sorry, but I don't see this "abusive government". Perhaps if you could supply some reason, then maybe I'd actually feel threatened and resort to violent anarchy, as you're proposing.
Ah. Well, from what garfiled mentioned which is, in sum, potentially affecting the constitution negatively which may or may not be in the process indefinitely... I wouldn't say no reason in the absolute sense, but that could be a long shot. As a side detractor, Humans also run the government--anyone who could make a mistake. Have you not said in the past that capitalism can be ****ed up as a result of human nature? I'd contend governemnt isn't exactly immune from this either. However you have probably made that clear enough somewhere else...

Am I drawing a blank? Please tell me if I am...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
This is what we elect representatives to the Senate and the House of Reps for. If we had to put every single resolution to a national vote, do you know how long it would take to do anything in this country?
That as it may be...could it hurt to have the checks and balances... a bit less on the precarious side of things? I don't think it would.
Or maybe I'm just crazy for having reasonable skepticism?
Quote:
I'm wearing a tank top today, no one has stopped me and told me to cover up.
Simple classical semantics turns of phrase. Had no idea you were a comedian.
Quote:
What exactly is political correctness limiting, pray tell?
In a possible word, specificity. It paints people of a group all one stripe without recognizing that there can be variations amongst that group of people. I.E. White, black, native american, mexican, asian, mutt, etc...

In general I'd think most of us would appreciate being able to discern nuances and have our perspectives stand out from one another even if we would agree with a general viewpoint, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Yeah, I've considered it except for the fact I rarely joke about anything, I'd actually wouldn't mind being the next Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, but then I don't think I would care for the constant death threats.
Well, fine, except there is more to it than that. --and I have a more or less realistic perspective what it takes to get into mass media (not necessarily make it, though, but maybe something that might help) if you'd care enough to talk to me about it.

...OK, I gotta pull out a Stop. Garfield, seriously, I am probably the closest thing you have to an ally here on LF outside your friends list. Please hear me out. I may be doing this at great risk of being infracted myself for it, there are certianly enough moderators, super moderators, and administrators here to see it and act upon it. Also on the other side I am risking alienating others like the conservatives and the neutrals.

==========

Firstly, you don't really need to dignify everyone's post with a response, let alone respopnding something serious. These people have caught onto that and I'm not sure you realize it. These people are dicking with you, to be sure. I can see that you don't enjoy the animosity. Isn't a logical step to figure out why they are dicking with you? I'm sure half of these goads aren't even worth 1/10th your time more than just reading them and seeing them for what they are. So WHY do you do it? Is it absolutely necessary for you to respond to *every* thing? Why???

I realize you are a serious guy. I'm not taking anything away from it. There must be a more effective way to do it, though. I'd even be willing to help on that.

Secondly, maybe understanding and utilizing a little sense of humor yourself might go a long way in understanding others' posts? Hannity comes across a lot easier going to me than Mark LeVinn usually does. Bill O'reilley--meh, not my cup of joe, but hey... whatever moats ya.

Point being, part of the appeal of anyone is their persona. Any popular public figure knows how to send a message in general. They know how to effectively send an impression. They also know target audiences--fans, opposition, and neutral alike and how they each respond, and to what. Most importantly, they know how they generally come across. I am not sure you do.

Am I telling you to stop your conservatism? NO WAY. There will always be a need for it--and there is nothing that anyone hating it can do about that fact because that is life.

I see many here in general opposition to you who might agree with at least some more of the points you are making if you'd concentrate on that instead of nailing *every* thing with a response. Wouldn't you agree making a point and covering it on all sides is a convincing way to go about things?

Thirdly: I am a friendly voice, and I am not patronizing you. DO NOT take this the wrong way. As-is, HOWEVER: You are not helping your cause!

As an independent in a niche who probably leans more to the right, I am probably a minority here on LF as well. However I am a reasonable guy-even if some of the libs don't want to think so. That's THEIR problem, not mine.

In general, if you are serious about your politics and going into the radio field, then perhaps it is time for that. If most people here are just clowns who like to hear themselves talk and want no opposition, then frankly they are not worth your time and effort. You would be too good for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Couldn't care less what he thinks at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Oh. Just letting you know

_EW_
See? That's *exactly* what I am talking about. This is what also attracts so many others to be jackasses to you. I am not doing this in public to humiliate you...I am trying to get you to see what is going on. Please?

I'm not telling you to leave LF at all...but maybe ask that you seriously rethink what you are doing and how... Please?

You can take what I have said and you can choose to
1) heed it because I am trying to help you
2) ignore it
3) hate me for it

However, I really wish you would just stop and look around--consider what I have tried to tell you.

As for everyone else...go ahead and pour on the hate at me--all it means to me is that I have gotten the better of you.


To prove a point one way or the other: If there were some equivalent of order 66 to go into effect tomorrow, and fascist tyranny were here all of a sudden, how many of you people here would RATHER see garfield as an ally?
How many of you, all differences and disagreements aside, would rather fight the tyranny ALONGSIDE him as opposed to fighting him amidst all the tyranny?
Put another way, do you hate Garfield? Why or why not? I'll wait some days before I check back in here to post what I believe it all means.

Y'all can help or not help. Whatever. I'll do what I'll do anyhow.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 11:57 AM   #75
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
So, we have the amazing Private Messaging system here at LucasForums. It's absolutely stellar for this kinda off-topic personal conversation style of messaging. You should consider it.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 03:35 PM   #76
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
That as it may be...could it hurt to have the checks and balances... a bit less on the precarious side of things? I don't think it would.
Or maybe I'm just crazy for having reasonable skepticism?
Yar-El's point was that the government was apparently taking the people's money without their vote. Unfortunately, his assertion isn't true, because the people are the ones who elect their representatives to the government. This is the way it's been ever since the inception of our country. The people voted them into office and trusted them to speak up for them. The people did vote on the resolution; they just did it through their elected representatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
Simple classical semantics turns of phrase. Had no idea you were a comedian.
Yar-El needs to learn to use the appropriate words if he doesn't want to have his statements misinterpreted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
In a possible word, specificity. It paints people of a group all one stripe without recognizing that there can be variations amongst that group of people. I.E. White, black, native american, mexican, asian, mutt, etc...
What are you talking about? I don't see how this relates to Yar-El's (flawed and erroneous) point that political correctness = limiting freedom of speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
I'll wait some days before I check back in here to post what I believe it all means.
No, you won't because this is neither the topic nor the forum to do it in.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 07:06 PM   #77
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,254
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
What are you talking about? I don't see how this relates to Yar-El's (flawed and erroneous) point that political correctness = limiting freedom of speech.
Well maybe it doesn't connect. Not sure how applicable this is to today...I guess this is recollection of history, then. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with free speech on some level or another, though. How it could be limited by authority in some sense.

If I'm not mistaken, the way it (PC) was first implemented was as policy to prevent getting too specific about anyone or anything because it might be distasteful and offensive. I.E. about an idividual, to that individual or a certain group thereof (be it associated or NOT with individual in question). This got Stalin some major favor and thumbs up on his way into office as it expedited debate in a seemingly formal manner...

Soon enough though, people got the idea that certain distasteful/offensive things said equal hate speech, even if under specific examination it wasn't.
Or perhaps if you just speak out of turn and "offend" someone.
Maybe it isn't to that point yet, but, if (well intentioned) rules came down because of this in a much more intrusive way, it might.
Put another way, it can be the building blocks for dictatorship. "No speaking out of turn" as it were.

Whether or not we are in jeopardy of that happening today with the government, I would have to examine closer on all levels of free speech in order to say for sure. I guess it would help to imagine something general in modern times as indicators.
Bullying in the workplace for example:

BECAUSE I SAID SO: discouraging clarification when you ask why-- Pretty self evident I'd think. Not just a bad parenting tactic either. Usually followed up with threats or what have you. You aren't stopped from asking, however you are discouraged from it for fear of retribution by authorities applicable.

Y'all shut up now (for lack of better term): perhaps you witnessed an injustice to a coworker. Caught up in the blame game, he/she is about to get the grill, and you wish to tell the higher-ups the truth to avoid further miscarriage. (perhaps your immediate boss again, though not always mind you) In order to do that, though, you must speak out of turn and make yourself look bad on the formality side of things. The formality is where PC comes in. Especially if whatever establishment you work for is total formality nazi-ville. In some cases the higher-ups catch on and want to hear you out. Unfortunately, most of the time, higher-ups are inclined to *not* believe you since either
a>You have "offended" them. You are out of order. How dare you?! and/or
b>they have known your boss longer.
The establishment can now (albeit, bloatedly) claim you are insubordinate and willfully disruptive to the work environment. Your coworker still gets punished or canned, and you now have painted a target on your head. You weren't stopped from it, just punished for it.

Just some examples of how speech *could* be limited. I know this is only workplace. Still, I have a hard time believing such venom can't seep elsewhere. After all it is dealing with people. So it does need to be watched carefully.

The case (I think) that is trying to be made here:
--we ought to examine what hate speech is a bit closer,
--we need to be wary of controls to specific outlets of free speech even if those outlets are something we disagree on or dislike immensely as such rulings can backfire drastically
--if severe rulings are made against people just for something they said, it ought to raise eyebrows

Quote:
No, you won't because this is neither the topic nor the forum to do it in.
Okay, then I won't. My bad.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 11:28 PM   #78
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
I highly doubt this is leading to a new secession movement.

Those that don't think the government is overstepping it's bounds REALLLLLY need to look at what has been going on. Or do you support the USA PATRIOT ACT. Hey just because it was primarily supported by Republicans, and I happen to be a Republican, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. In fact it is even more relevant now. When you combine that over-reaching with further over-reaching being done by this administration it should worry anyone in this country that enjoys their liberty.

It is rather funny that people somehow feel ok with removing the right to keep and bear arms. It won't stop criminals from getting them. Heck I can make my own black powder. Anyone can. And making a black powder firearm is not that difficult(I did). It is one of our rights, regardless of how easy it is to skirt prohibition(hehe funny how that word seems rather appropriate) of firearms. How long will it be until another right gets taken away?


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-13-2009, 02:33 AM   #79
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,254
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
I highly doubt this is leading to a new secession movement.
Thank you. There is a purpose to declaring their sovereignty. However secession is not it.
Quote:
Those that don't think the government is overstepping it's bounds REALLLLLY need to look at what has been going on. Or do you support the USA PATRIOT ACT. Hey just because it was primarily supported by Republicans, and I happen to be a Republican, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. In fact it is even more relevant now.
Yeah, they can basically listen in to your phone conversations any time they want without a warrant. Which is complete and utter bull****. If that isn't stepping on the first amendment, I don't know what is. Bah, patriot act. It is anything BUT. REAL patriot stuff supports and strengthens the constitution. Glad to see you on the same page, Tommycat.
Quote:
When you combine that over-reaching with further over-reaching being done by this administration it should worry anyone in this country that enjoys their liberty.
Yeah. In fact, I wonder...are there any plans by this current administration to attempt to put this act to rest? Just curious...

I believe there has been enough infighting within the republican party lately that now if one were to closely examine the result there are multiple different opinions about it in the republican party.
--- Some were for it without question. (Shortsighted and probably are retracting that to parrot the others, NOW that they are the scourge)
--- Some were for it only if it had limitations to it and wore off after a certain time. This is understandable as it was then, but now this group is licking its wounds as the calls get louder all the time to put the patriot act away.
--- Some were against it totally because it allowed government interference into our personal lives and screwed with the privacy act. Basically more government that wasn't necessarily law enforcement though could claim to be under that guise in the form of national/homeland security. In a generalized sense it was more government and thus contradicting their principle of being for less government.

Those on 'the right' who scrutinized (if not opposed) it did so because:
1) the potential overstepping seen then which they predicted (correctly) would happen, and has come to pass.
2) it defys the very principle of of "less government" that has long distinguished conservatives as I said above.

So this has lead to a conflict; a contradiction if you will. I find people all the time using this contradiction calling 'the right' imperialists. Hearing only what they want to hear.
You'd say: "I supported the patriot act to keep us safe, but it largely needs limitations on both its scope and focus, and its time duration limited. It has sorely needed them from the beginning"
They'd hear something like: "I supported the patriot act , limitations . sorely needed them from the beginning."
Ah, thank god for attention deficit disorder.

Quote:
It is rather funny that people somehow feel ok with removing the right to keep and bear arms. It won't stop criminals from getting them. Heck I can make my own black powder. Anyone can. And making a black powder firearm is not that difficult(I did). It is one of our rights, regardless of how easy it is to skirt prohibition(hehe funny how that word seems rather appropriate) of firearms. How long will it be until another right gets taken away?
Careful, you might be charged with the "slippery slope" fallacy because it hasn't happened yet and you don't have absolutely definitive evidence that the right to bear arms will disappear--even if some people only want to just limit it a little bit. Of course you can trust politicians, right? They're mostly if not all moral and ethical people who won't do aaaaanything wrong when you aren't looking. Or try to push bills through congress really quickly and silently. Or do anything to further their own agendas. After all, it is only "proper" to hyper-focus on an issue and not the integrity of the one talking about it, because otherwise that's an ad-hominem. Besides, if you try to view it from a larger picture you're just muddying the waters.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-13-2009, 05:28 AM   #80
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
I highly doubt this is leading to a new secession movement.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Those that don't think the government is overstepping it's bounds REALLLLLY need to look at what has been going on. Or do you support the USA PATRIOT ACT. Hey just because it was primarily supported by Republicans, and I happen to be a Republican, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. In fact it is even more relevant now. When you combine that over-reaching with further over-reaching being done by this administration it should worry anyone in this country that enjoys their liberty.
Its been worrying me since the day I got into politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
It is rather funny that people somehow feel ok with removing the right to keep and bear arms. It won't stop criminals from getting them. Heck I can make my own black powder. Anyone can. And making a black powder firearm is not that difficult(I did). It is one of our rights, regardless of how easy it is to skirt prohibition(hehe funny how that word seems rather appropriate) of firearms. How long will it be until another right gets taken away?
Wont happen. Only the extremists want to get rid of guns for good. And, if I recall, you still have the right to own a firearm, talk freely, etc so I'm not sure I understand where you are going with that. Frankly, if a right gets taken away it is your fault, as well as everyone Else's for allowing that to happen. But, again, so far you can go down to the mart and pick up an ak-47 so I'm not entirely seeing the problem, or much of a slope in your point unless I am missing something.

Canada is a clear example of a country that loves their guns and loves their hunting, but has a pretty low murder rate especially with guns. This pattern follows with some others, and in the end I've come to my own conclusion that, in the end, there is just something up with the people (obviously).

A gun is a gun. It has no emotions. No feelings. It just is. It takes a person to pick that up and shoot someone, and I would much rather prefer the money going into banning guns to be instead placed into programs that try to find the origins of gun violence.

And before you point it out, I do realize that with guns gone all you get is more stabbings/beatings/etc. In the end you can't really keep people from killing one another regardless, but if that was a 100% case all around then every country and group on earth would have the same rate of murder which just isn't true.

While I am for control over heavy weaponry being kept out of civilian hands, I got no problem with anyone having a gun. I just believe we should stick to our course and make sure the guns that we do legally give out go to sane minded folk, and not given out like candy like extremists on the other side would like.

In the end, it would take a massive shift for us to give up our guns. And yes, I did say "us". As long as we are in our mind set, guns will stay in people's hands. But all it takes is a savvy leader to come around and convince us to let them go.

Guns will not be taken out of our cold dead hands. We will hand them over with our warm hands, or simply never give them up in the first place.

That is unless someone can somehow forceable take guns from the majority, in which case they would have one hell of a fight on their hands.

So, again, we shouldn't be investing in getting rid of guns as much as we should be investigating on why our murder rate is so high. Is it because of poverty? Is it because of stress? Daily demands? A society bred on violence? Masculine attitudes imprinted on children? Or even the availability of said weapons?

Regardless, I'm going to have to follow GTA's statement in saying that it is, in the end, a slippery slope fallacy. Sure, it could slide and tumble down to the point of all guns being banned. But, regardless, it is human nature that is deciding this battle and with or without our precious guns... people are going to kill each other. Of course, I know you realize that but I felt it needed to be pointed out in the context of the argument.

Also, as I said in the other thread, should we just make a gun control thread? It seems to be popping up an awful lot as of late.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > 25+ U.S. States Declaring Sovereignty

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.