Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 86 of 86
  1. #81  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,071
    Mods delete my above post. Thought this was the thread about the Lesbian only parking. That's what I thought I clicked on. This is what I get for posting while riding in a car. My apologies.

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #82  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    After watching the video, it's clear that:

    1. The preacher with the sign had a right to do what he did, but it was a risk

    2. The women in the group mostly yelled and approached the man, but did not do him overt violence

    3. It was the males in the group that grabbed the preacher's sign, got him on the ground, and hit him.

    This makes more sense in general.

    Oh, and the fat shirtless guy with his pants down to his asscrack--keep it classy, dude. Your appearance alone is enough to make gay pride look hysterically funny.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #83  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Sorry to have participated, but Lanie's ignorance had to be dealt with.
    Yeah true. But my finger hit the wrong link on Tapatalk and I thought I was on another thread when I posted that.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #84  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    Yeah true. But my finger hit the wrong link on Tapatalk and I thought I was on another thread when I posted that.
    That's ok.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Zimmerman, dear heart, has proven nothing.

    The Zimmerman case was a simple self-defense case. All of the evidence--witnesses, head wounds, and even the path of the gunshot itself-- points to Trayvon Martin having been on top of Zimmerman, beating his head to a pulp. Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot in self-defense.

    There has been no change in the evidence the whole time. There has only been a well-funded PR campaign that has created false "evidence" which either fell apart on the stand (Dee Dee, the neighbords) or didn't appear at all (Mary Cutcher).

    For you to invoke Zimmerman to support your attack on Nova is ludicrous and shows how little you know about the Martin-Zimmerman case.

    As for Nova, he talks big, but I don't him imagine shooting anyone, even in self-defense....unless his local Wal Mart gets too crowded.
    First of all, there is no attack on Nova (not from me anyway, where's your outrage at others? lol). You'd know it if I wanted to attack him or anybody else. I was asking for clarification on his position, which he's done that (thanks, Nova).

    Next, what I was trying to say was that even if you use a gun in self-defense, you might have to prove it was for self-defense later on (making the 2nd amendment useless in some cases). The reason you have to prove it is because somebody might claim that you did it out of malice or that you didn't have to go as far as you did (possible manslaughter charge). IOW, just because somebody hits you doesn't give you the right to use lethal force. You might end up having to prove that was necessary later on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #86  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    See my response to Lanie.
    Tracking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Since I am not immediately familiar with the post you are recalling, then it's difficult to answer you. I think you are assuming that there are conflicting positions on my part. I do support the right to free speech, and I do support the right to defend yourself when under physical attack. Neither of those rights is in conflict with my savage amusement at the prospect of Larry Keffer or Fred Phelps being bitchslapped in public.
    So, what you are saying is that while you support the right of people that you dislike to say things that you disagree with, you would still derive enjoyment from seeing them physically assaulted. Thanks for clearing that up. Saying that you support their right to free speech but want to see them assaulted for it doesn't strike you as contradictory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    You will note that the street preacher was assaulted in Seattle, not St. Petersburg. People in St Pete know that other people are armed and legally able to defend themselves.
    An armed society is a polite society.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •