|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Piss for brains (cavediver) writes:
Good to see that as long as Buz is around, Idiot America is alive and kicking Buz, dont bother, your trying to reason with puke bag liberals and we know that what is right or wrong is never an issue with liberals, its always about thier agendas. We also know that liberalism is a mental disorder and the ones you are trying to reason with are classic examples, dont waste your time. Buzz dont worry about the terroist's, these liberals will destroy your country from within, or they will slowly give it away one "right" at a time. I have two bumper stickers on the back of my car, one reads. "Atheism, Evolution and Humanism, AKA, Willful Stupidity", the other one says, Liberals and Criminals are birds of a feather and both are your REAL threat to National Security" Your wasing your time Buz but have fun anyway. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Bertot writes:
Piss for brains (cavediver) writes: Huntard writes:How nice of you. I wonder, do you happen to see how Cavediver treats people in his responses? Do you give him the same repremands that you do me and others, for off comments or sarcasm? Or is it just the fellas you disagree with?
First of all, I'm using every restraint I have right now to not sink to your level. So far it's working. Since I was not talking to you but that "bucket mouth" form the UK, you should not be offended in any respect, correct?
A few points: 1)I'm not a "liberal" at least not in the sense you mean. 2)What is your definition of liberal anyway? 3)Would you care to show how liberalism is indeed a mental disorder? 1. Really, exacally what kind of liberal are you? 2. Anyone who ignores simple principles of common sense to advance an agenda. 3. Would not anyone who ignores basic principles of common sense and rational need professional help?
If you don't respond to these points, I'll consider your post a waste of my time, but more importantly, that you don't even have a point and just wanted to piss people off. It almost worked. Trust me there is no goal here to piss people off. All anyone has to do with you fellas to get you torked off is simple disagree with you or have a different opinion about an issue and that sets you fellas running. Really Huntard you should not take responses to others so personal. The one I wrote it to probably understood its content and its sarcasm. Hes a bombastic clown that needs to be called on the carpet from time to time, or are you just ignoring his posts? D Bertot D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
CD
Oh Bertot, you do so love to prove the point. How does it feel to be a central part of that group that has made the USA the laughing stock of the intelligent world? Idiot America in deed for all to see You really are blind to your bombastic stupidity arent you? Being a part of the mainstream that refuse to acknowledge your arrogance as intelligence, is indeed an honor. Oh yeah thats right, none of this really exists anyway, Im just imagining it correct? Do you mean that type of intelligence. Give me a break clown. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
In the News. "Vatican forgives John Lennon for his Jesus comment". Wonderful. Hey cavediver I wrote some new lyrics just for you.
"Imagine theres no John Lennon, its easy if you try. Hey guess what theres not, hes dead" Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The H man writes:
First of all, sorry for losing it earlier. Was a bit mad about another thing, and needed to vent, shouldn't have done it, sorry.
The Bertot writes: If you can tolerate Cavedivers abuse mine should serve as no real problem. Apologies are not necessary with me, I expect such behavior from yourself and the other nutty liberals here, ha ha.
Bertot writes: I wonder, do you happen to see how Cavediver treats people in his responses? Do you give him the same repremands that you do me and others, for off comments or sarcasm? Or is it just the fellas you disagree with? Huntard writes:Yes, like I said above, was a bit pissed about something else, should've stayed away. Yes what? you do agree Cavediver is an abusive putz
I'd say this definition from merriam webster suits me: quote: 5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms "Not bound by authority", pretty much describes why liberals are tantamount to criminals for all intents and purposes. Thanks for the dictionary definition to cooroborate my point. Take a close look at it again.
So, basically anyone who disagrees with you. I'm sorry but that's not a very good one. No. just anyone who refuses to adhere to authority as is indicated by the definition. Anyone who ignores rational sane behavior in place of anarchy D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DA writes:
That's class. Make fun of the dead guy. While I liked some of his music and the beatles are my favorite group.I pretty much thought he was a nut when he was alive as well. So to be totally consistent I made fun of him when he was abusive twords Christianity as well. The Bertot -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DA writes
So I guess the White Rose movement in Nazi Germany were evil, liberal anti-authoritarian anarchists. They were definately not rational or sane since many of them were arrested and executed, right? Or how about the civil rights movement of the 60's. They were definately anti-establishment, many were arrested for disobeying state laws promoting discriminetation and segregation of African Americans. Or why not got back to the very foundation of this country. Rebel colonialists according to the British monarchy were considered anarchists and dare I say "liberal" Actually most if not all of these examples are anrchy and liberalism. The results which came about may be more benificial than the previous condition, but the end does not justify the means. In the instances where there is obvious physical abuse and death, for no obvious or justified reason, the government is not acting in a sane manner, so a person has a given right to protect and defend themselves, or have others protect them. Otherwise it should be non violent change that brigs about change in policies. While protest is a given right, it should not result in violence, which is characteristic of so many groups on both sides, neither of which is sane and both are anrchist. Tryanny in whatever form is not justified, even if you want to start another country. While England (no doubt one of Cavedivers realatives, ha ha) were tyranical, no amount of violence is justified to affect change. Thats assuming morality is not subjective and there is a definate right and wrong. But then this is where the discussion starts all over again, around and around we go. "Render unto Ceaser those things that are Ceasers and unto God the things that are Gods". "We must obey God rather than man", "Submit to them that have the rule over you". "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for they are ordained of God" etc, etc. Yes even the ones that go astray as did the great king Saul. Yet David would not bring an accusation against Gods annointed or lift a hand to harm him. Michael would not do this either against Lucifer, he only carried out Gods orders to cast him out. Christ only advocated non adherence when it was in conflict with Gods commands or wishes. Yet he never advocated violene or change that resulted in mental, physical abuse or loss of life. However, if one does not recognize even a standard of morality then it becomes a free for all. Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DA writes:
Really? As opposed to you lot who run an ILLEGAL prison and torture people? That's not criminal at all, now is it? Really. I did not know I was doing this? Am I getting paid for it, because I could use the money. What prison are you refering to? As I suspected, I thought you were oblivious to cavedivers obvious abuse. How in the world could you ever be objective? D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DA writes:
BTW, liberalism is not synonomous with anarchy. Where do you get this from?
Most if not all activist liberals advocate anarchy through thier actions. For example when Onfrie and others openly admit that they smoke pot and take ILLEGAL drugs they are involving themselves in ANRCHY against the law. If they are not then please tell me what they are doing. Are they simply advocating thier liberalism?
That is everyone has equal rights and freedoms as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted and radified by the UN as well as those in the US Declaration of Independence. Oh, only if this were practiced it would be a wonderful world. Freedom is not freedom to do anything you want but freedom with in the law. Equal rights are not the right to violate the law in practice or intention. I certainly do not agree with such things as property tax or inheritence tax, but I am required to follow the law regardless of my personal convictions as to why I dont like it or think it is wrong.
However, I do agree basically with your premise that change in laws and legislation should be done in a non-violent manner if possible unless it immediately endangers the lives of fellow human beings. Even the colonists initially attempted to peacefully change the unjust laws that were binding against them. Basically? While I am an American citizen and proud of my country. The colonists were anarchist no matter how you twist it. The other examples you provided do not fall within this category because one nation defending itself against another is defense not anarchy. One nation is independant of anothers laws and rules. I can say this to you because I am not a Squid or anchor clanker as yourself but was a member of a real service The Air Force, ha ha. But swabbies have thier functions as well I suppose, Ha ah again.
I guess you don't approve of the colonialist cause for the Revolutionary War than? The British specifically said the colonialists were committing tyrany. How about overthrowing apartheid in South Africa? The overthrow of the British in India? The overthrow of colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries? A persons life is not decided in a single action or even several. The colonists were an anrchists. What they were for thier whole life as relates to God is a different story. Situation ethics is a myth and in violation to Gods will. If I lie aboout someone in a closet because someone will kill them if I tell, its still a lie. My favorite Old Testament character Abraham lied to Pharoah about his wife to protect her and keep her, but it was lie nonetheless. Except for insolated icesodents, he was overall faithful to God and called the Father of the faithful.
What about your war in general? WWII? Should we not have come to aid of our allies? Where do you draw the line? You say YOUR war. Do you not agree that we should defend ourselves or others that need assistance from AGGRESSORS? Cavediver would be a prisoner now if it were not for my relatives taking a stance against the Nazis and he would not be able to bore me with his Vacuous speeches, ha ha.
vacuous” ”/vækyus/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vak-yoo-uhs] Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective 1. without contents; empty: the vacuous air.2. lacking in ideas or intelligence: a vacuous mind. 3. expressing or characterized by a lack of ideas or intelligence; inane; stupid: a vacuous book. 4. purposeless; idle: a vacuous way of life. Ha ha again D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024