Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So-o.....with Kerry's and the Prez's John Hancocks......

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    No it is not. It is regarding the members of the Tea Party. Nothing different from calling Obama a jug ear SOB or ape but that is not racist, right?
    Yes, it is. From the online urban dictionary:

    ". . . the insertion of one man's sack into another person's mouth. Used as a practical joke or prank, when performed on someone who is asleep, or as a sexual act . . .

    . . . At the frat house last night, when Tim was wasted an down on the floor, he got teabagged by, like, ten guys!"

    As the cousin of one gay man dead of HIV/AIDS, and the brother-in-law of another gay man dead of HIV/AIDS, it is a slur I have a lot of trouble with; which you already know. You may think it's funny, but I don't. Nor do a lot of other people, but hey, if having at least as many faces as Janus is your thing, then good on ya.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
      Are you demeaning the intelligence of our elected representatives and our electorate? I thought so...
      Err...no.

      To the best of my knowledge the statement "you would like to think that X is Y" does not imply that the opposite is true. If I wished state that the opposite was true I would say so directly.

      Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
      Being a member of the unintelligent and unwashed electorate, just let me say it's impossible to erect a wall to separate international obligations from domestic law.
      The treaty contains a tangle of reporting and data requirements that may well restrict the rights of citizen gun owners.

      In any case, these owners want more than the verbal assurances of the Secretary of State that it will have no effect on them. It's like they all of a sudden come from Missouri, whose state motto is "Show Me".
      As for the rest of your statement:

      1) Treaties often impose reporting conditions but in this case they relate to international sales statistics which are collected at the Customs barrier if not before as a matter of routine and other data which is already collected for domestic purposes.

      2) May doesn't cut it. If you or anyone else believes that the treaty may impose unfair restrictions on domestic gun ownership in the US it is incumbent upon you to point out precisely how and where this is the case. So far on-one has done this. Failing that you are left arguing from the position that any international treaty of any type can in theory, at any time be used to impose unfair restrictions on the rights of US Citizens as defined under the Bill of Rights. So don't sign any, ever.

      3) If you don't trust the Secretary of State and the State Department lawyers who worked on the draft document to do their jobs properly then again you can't trust them to sign or draft any international treaties, full stop, ever.

      4) Finally, if in the end it was somehow proven that the unlike any other Treaty in history this one did for some reason override the 2nd amendment there is a simple solution - unilateral withdrawal.
      Last edited by Monash; 02 Oct 13,, 14:11.
      If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by desertswo View Post
        As the cousin of one gay man dead of HIV/AIDS, and the brother-in-law of another gay man dead of HIV/AIDS, it is a slur I have a lot of trouble with; which you already know. You may think it's funny, but I don't. Nor do a lot of other people, but hey, if having at least as many faces as Janus is your thing, then good on ya.
        While in no way endorsing the use use of the colloquialism in question it should be pointed out that technically it is not possible to get AIDS from the practice in question since transmission requires the exchange of bodily fluids. In this instance the chances of that happening are remote/bordering on zero.
        If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Monash View Post
          As for the rest of your statement:

          1) Treaties often impose reporting conditions but in this case they relate to international sales statistics which are collected at the Customs barrier if not before as a matter of routine and other data which is already collected for domestic purposes.

          2) May doesn't cut it. If you or anyone else believes that the treaty may impose unfair restrictions on domestic gun ownership in the US it is incumbent upon you to point out precisely how and where this is the case. So far on-one has done this. Failing that you are left arguing from the position that any international treaty of any type can, at any time be used to impose unfair restrictions on the rights of US Citizens as defined under the Bill of Rights.

          3) If you don't trust the Secretary of State and the State Department lawyers who worked on the draft document to do their jobs properly then you can't trust them to sign or draft any international treaties, full stop, ever.

          4) Finally, if in the end it was somehow proven that the unlike any other Treaty in history this one did for some reason override the 2nd amendment there is a simple solution - unilateral withdrawal.
          Again, has it occured to you that Kerry and Obama have absolutely no intentions of asking the Senate to ratify?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by desertswo View Post
            You know, every time you use the term "tea bagger" you are diminishing yourself and your arguments in my eyes. In doing so you are simply displaying an elitist's dismissive attitude toward those less well educated than yourself. Whether that is how you view yourself or not does not matter; it is all about perceptions, and perceptions are reality to those who hold them. So please, do yourself and me a big favor and leave that one by the wayside. It simply is too vulgar for your observations of people who are simply and rightfully in fear of ever encroaching government by people who do not have their best interests at heart.
            Mike,

            The term has been used by TPers & their supporters themselves. Initially they clearly didn't know it had already been taken, but subsequently it has continued to be used on occasion. Early TPers sent tea bags to congressmen (or were urged to do so) & I've seen photos of people decked out in tea bags & with badges & signs using the phrase. People such as Jay Nordlinger & Andrew Breitbart also used the term.

            The evolution of the word 'tea bagger' - The Week

            Advocating sending tea bags in 2001.

            Talk Radio Thwarts Tennessee Income Tax - Los Angeles Times

            Another one from 2009. I can dig up way more, trust me.

            The Humble Libertarian: A Reminder To Tea Bag The Fools In Washington DC On April 1st

            Check out the photo here - taken in 2010

            The Slur That Must Not Be Named | The Washington Independent

            Obviously critics of the Tea Party movement were happy to use the bat placed in their hands by TPers to whack them over the head with, but the self-righteous rage on the part of countless conservative websites is more about tribal politics & labelling than about any of the evil & nasty things supposedly being done to poor conservatives by evil liberals. If you use teabags as one of the symbols of your movement and use the term 'teabagger' and refer to 'teabagging' then you don't get to play hurt when someone uses the term to describe you.

            By all means request that the tem not be used, but the tone is unwarranted.

            Originally posted by desertswo View Post
            Yes, it is. From the online urban dictionary:

            ". . . the insertion of one man's sack into another person's mouth. Used as a practical joke or prank, when performed on someone who is asleep, or as a sexual act . . .

            . . . At the frat house last night, when Tim was wasted an down on the floor, he got teabagged by, like, ten guys!"
            The 'gay slur' thing is yet another beat up. The act in question can be performed by hetrosexuals or homosexuals. It wasn't an 'anti-gay slur' of any significance before conservatives wanted to act like it was. More game playing.

            As the cousin of one gay man dead of HIV/AIDS, and the brother-in-law of another gay man dead of HIV/AIDS, it is a slur I have a lot of trouble with; which you already know. You may think it's funny, but I don't. Nor do a lot of other people, but hey, if having at least as many faces as Janus is your thing, then good on ya.
            As someone with several homosexuals in my immediate family, one of whom died of HIV/AIDS I don't give a shit about the term. Not one tiny little bit. I've been dealing with the issue of anti-gay discrimination all of my adult life. This is NOT on the radar.

            I am a great deal more pissed off about the same conservatives who have demonized & discriminated against homosexuals for generations trying to pretend that they are the victims of some great slur. I'm not accusing you personally and I don't doubt your genuiness, but there are a great many conservatives who were happy enough to crow about 'God's punishment' back before combination therapy came about (some still do). Plenty more would happily see homosexuals permanently relegated to the status of second-class citizens (and I'm not just talking gay marriage). With all due respect to yourself (and I have a great deal of respect for you) they can shove their faux offence. For every one who is genuine there are another hundred just using it as another way to score points - every bit as cynical & hypocritical as those they claim to criticize.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Monash View Post
              Err...no.

              To the best of my knowledge the statement "you would like to think that X is Y" does not imply that the opposite is true. If I wished state that the opposite was true I would say so directly.



              As for the rest of your statement:

              1) Treaties often impose reporting conditions but in this case they relate to international sales statistics which are collected at the Customs barrier if not before as a matter of routine and other data which is already collected for domestic purposes.

              2) May doesn't cut it. If you or anyone else believes that the treaty may impose unfair restrictions on domestic gun ownership in the US it is incumbent upon you to point out precisely how and where this is the case. So far on-one has done this. Failing that you are left arguing from the position that any international treaty of any type can, at any time be used to impose unfair restrictions on the rights of US Citizens as defined under the Bill of Rights.

              3) If you don't trust the Secretary of State and the State Department lawyers who worked on the draft document to do their jobs properly then you can't trust them to sign or draft any international treaties, full stop, ever.

              4) Finally, if in the end it was somehow proven that the unlike any other Treaty in history this one did for some reason override the 2nd amendment there is a simple solution - unilateral withdrawal.

              Monash:

              We're going in circles here. I am not giving you my opinion of the treaty, but how gun rights folks view it.

              It is not a matter of trust in the State Department folks who worked on the treaty. The terms of the treaty will be applied domestically in some fashion. The question is how and how will it affect people's gun rights. You say not at all; they say, we want to be sure.
              Last edited by JAD_333; 02 Oct 13,, 14:05.
              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                Again, has it occured to you that Kerry and Obama have absolutely no intentions of asking the Senate to ratify?
                If they don't ask what can happen? They can't impose restrictions on gun ownership by Presidential decree so that is a non issue. The only circumstance that might allow anything to occur would require the Senate and Congress to publicly oppose ratification of the Treaty, then chicken out and refuse to veto/oppose any attempts by the President to implement it! and in what Universe does that work? Again this whole line of this argument is based on the idea that the Senate won't ratify the Treaty because of the (hypothetical) risk it poses to the 2nd Amendment - yet logically if they don't ratify it there's no risk ?
                Last edited by Monash; 02 Oct 13,, 14:09.
                If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                  I am a great deal more pissed off about the same conservatives who have demonized & discriminated against homosexuals for generations trying to pretend that they are the victims of some great slur.
                  I would hasten to point out that conservatives in general do not demonize homosexuals. Some no doubt do. It might be better to refer to those who do as ignorant.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Monash View Post
                    If they don't ask what can happen? They can't impose restrictions on gun ownership by Presidential decree so that is a non issue. The only circumstance that might allow anything to occur would require the Senate and Congress to publicly oppose ratification of the Treaty, then chicken out and refuse to veto/oppose any attempts by the President to implement it! and in what Universe does that work? Again this whole line of this argument is based on the idea that the Senate won't ratify the Treaty because of the (hypothetical) risk it poses to the 2nd Amendment - yet logically if they don't ratify it there's no risk ?
                    The administration can play ball with the other signatories but not incur any UN sanctions if they fail to.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Monash View Post
                      If they don't ask what can happen? They can't impose restrictions on gun ownership by Presidential decree so that is a non issue. The only circumstance that might allow anything to occur would require the Senate and Congress to publicly oppose ratification of the Treaty, then chicken out and refuse to veto/oppose any attempts by the President to implement it! and in what Universe does that work? Again this whole line of this argument is based on the idea that the Senate won't ratify the Treaty because of the (hypothetical) risk it poses to the 2nd Amendment - yet logically if they don't ratify it there's no risk ?
                      I've listed three treaties that the US has signed that the Senate refuses to ratify. The reasoning are many but until Obama asks the Senate to ratify and by the looks of it, it won't happen, end user notification, ie a gun registry, will not happen. Gun owners are not required by law to register their firearms and there is no provision both technically nor legally at the moment for the US to report that Chinese, Italian, Russian, German firearms are not being used for terror purposes.

                      As things stand right now, the US is incapable of obeying the tenets of this Treaty. So unless there is a registry, the US cannot and will not obey this Treaty and that will violate the 2nd Amendment.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                        Mike,

                        The term has been used by TPers & their supporters themselves. Initially they clearly didn't know it had already been taken, but subsequently it has continued to be used on occasion. Early TPers sent tea bags to congressmen (or were urged to do so) & I've seen photos of people decked out in tea bags & with badges & signs using the phrase. People such as Jay Nordlinger & Andrew Breitbart also used the term.

                        The evolution of the word 'tea bagger' - The Week

                        Advocating sending tea bags in 2001.

                        Talk Radio Thwarts Tennessee Income Tax - Los Angeles Times

                        Another one from 2009. I can dig up way more, trust me.

                        The Humble Libertarian: A Reminder To Tea Bag The Fools In Washington DC On April 1st

                        Check out the photo here - taken in 2010

                        The Slur That Must Not Be Named | The Washington Independent

                        Obviously critics of the Tea Party movement were happy to use the bat placed in their hands by TPers to whack them over the head with, but the self-righteous rage on the part of countless conservative websites is more about tribal politics & labelling than about any of the evil & nasty things supposedly being done to poor conservatives by evil liberals. If you use teabags as one of the symbols of your movement and use the term 'teabagger' and refer to 'teabagging' then you don't get to play hurt when someone uses the term to describe you.

                        By all means request that the tem not be used, but the tone is unwarranted.



                        The 'gay slur' thing is yet another beat up. The act in question can be performed by hetrosexuals or homosexuals. It wasn't an 'anti-gay slur' of any significance before conservatives wanted to act like it was. More game playing.



                        As someone with several homosexuals in my immediate family, one of whom died of HIV/AIDS I don't give a shit about the term. Not one tiny little bit. I've been dealing with the issue of anti-gay discrimination all of my adult life. This is NOT on the radar.

                        I am a great deal more pissed off about the same conservatives who have demonized & discriminated against homosexuals for generations trying to pretend that they are the victims of some great slur. I'm not accusing you personally and I don't doubt your genuiness, but there are a great many conservatives who were happy enough to crow about 'God's punishment' back before combination therapy came about (some still do). Plenty more would happily see homosexuals permanently relegated to the status of second-class citizens (and I'm not just talking gay marriage). With all due respect to yourself (and I have a great deal of respect for you) they can shove their faux offence. For every one who is genuine there are another hundred just using it as another way to score points - every bit as cynical & hypocritical as those they claim to criticize.
                        Why do you believe I'm a conservative? I'm probably the only pure civil libertarian you are ever likely to meet in this life or any other. My distrust of big government comes honestly. I was once one of its pawns, and beyond the day to day joy of my life's work, I didn't enjoy that other aspect. I worked inside the belly of the beast; up close an personal, and learned to REALLY hate those elected bastards and their toadies. I have no use for politicians or the shit they peddle in the guise of being "good for me." That goes equally for both sides of the aisle, so please, you may call me many things, but conservative isn't one of them.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          IMO, The bottom line is....They wont get gun owners guns. Your going to have to kill them first and they are going stand behind the Second Amendment. And probably shoot right back.

                          What they need to do is put the responisbility on the owner. Not the gun.

                          They need to execute those that commit these hanious crimes immediately after a fair trial without the inclusion of "he a had a poor childhood shit". So lets relieve him/her/them of it altogether.

                          US prisons are full of " law shirking pets" that lawyers get off while the victims suffer.

                          Our Laws have not kept up with society and until it does...welcome to the wild west.

                          The completely pathetic thing about all of this is the criminal doesnt have to take any responsibility for their own actions while they continue to allow these scum lawyers and law makers to blame the gun itself. An inadimate object.

                          Lets blame the match for the fire as well...fucking idiots.

                          Change the death penalty laws, not the gun laws. When they see these crimals executed under the Courts authority. Thats whats going to change things not removing guns, thats just going to make things worse and only the criminals will have them and you cannot tell me they will get all of them.

                          But you can execute all of the hanious criminals that commit these acts. And set an example for society to both accept and follow.

                          Let their parents cry and scream and let society prosper.
                          Last edited by Dreadnought; 02 Oct 13,, 15:32.
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                            you may call me many things, but conservative isn't one of them.
                            Well noted, Captain Gray Hair, Sir!
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                              Why do you believe I'm a conservative? I'm probably the only pure civil libertarian you are ever likely to meet in this life or any other. My distrust of big government comes honestly. I was once one of its pawns, and beyond the day to day joy of my life's work, I didn't enjoy that other aspect. I worked inside the belly of the beast; up close an personal, and learned to REALLY hate those elected bastards and their toadies. I have no use for politicians or the shit they peddle in the guise of being "good for me." That goes equally for both sides of the aisle, so please, you may call me many things, but conservative isn't one of them.
                              Didn't worked that long for the beast,but I got enough hints that this is the case.Thing is ,this will eventually lead to conclusions that are better left only in the form of thoughts.
                              This whole system is so out of touch with life and reality that IT WILL eventualy go the way of the dinosaurs.
                              Go Switzerland
                              Those who know don't speak
                              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                                Mike,

                                The term has been used by TPers & their supporters themselves. Initially they clearly didn't know it had already been taken, but subsequently it has continued to be used on occasion. Early TPers sent tea bags to congressmen (or were urged to do so) & I've seen photos of people decked out in tea bags & with badges & signs using the phrase. People such as Jay Nordlinger & Andrew Breitbart also used the term.

                                The evolution of the word 'tea bagger' - The Week

                                Advocating sending tea bags in 2001.

                                Talk Radio Thwarts Tennessee Income Tax - Los Angeles Times

                                Another one from 2009. I can dig up way more, trust me.

                                The Humble Libertarian: A Reminder To Tea Bag The Fools In Washington DC On April 1st

                                Check out the photo here - taken in 2010

                                The Slur That Must Not Be Named | The Washington Independent

                                Obviously critics of the Tea Party movement were happy to use the bat placed in their hands by TPers to whack them over the head with, but the self-righteous rage on the part of countless conservative websites is more about tribal politics & labelling than about any of the evil & nasty things supposedly being done to poor conservatives by evil liberals. If you use teabags as one of the symbols of your movement and use the term 'teabagger' and refer to 'teabagging' then you don't get to play hurt when someone uses the term to describe you.

                                By all means request that the tem not be used, but the tone is unwarranted.



                                The 'gay slur' thing is yet another beat up. The act in question can be performed by hetrosexuals or homosexuals. It wasn't an 'anti-gay slur' of any significance before conservatives wanted to act like it was. More game playing.



                                As someone with several homosexuals in my immediate family, one of whom died of HIV/AIDS I don't give a shit about the term. Not one tiny little bit. I've been dealing with the issue of anti-gay discrimination all of my adult life. This is NOT on the radar.

                                I am a great deal more pissed off about the same conservatives who have demonized & discriminated against homosexuals for generations trying to pretend that they are the victims of some great slur. I'm not accusing you personally and I don't doubt your genuiness, but there are a great many conservatives who were happy enough to crow about 'God's punishment' back before combination therapy came about (some still do). Plenty more would happily see homosexuals permanently relegated to the status of second-class citizens (and I'm not just talking gay marriage). With all due respect to yourself (and I have a great deal of respect for you) they can shove their faux offence. For every one who is genuine there are another hundred just using it as another way to score points - every bit as cynical & hypocritical as those they claim to criticize.
                                Ditto. He said exactly my sentiments.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X