OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 

     



    Here's an ex soldier who wants to re-fight the civil war.  An embarassment to military men and women everywhere if you ask me. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, here is a person who doesn't understand the oath a military person swore. To support and defend the constitution. Embarrassment? I know I'm not worried about you if something kicks off. You'll capitulate quite expeditiously. Funny thing. It's the last thing I want. But if it comes to that, I know the men from Boston will be on the opposite side of where they were 150 and 230 years ago respectively. That to me, is as sad of a thought as could be. And quite an indicator of where we are as a society. I used to loathe Robert E Lee for years growing up. Was he an embarrssment? I find now, no. At least I served, what about you?

    [/QUOTE]


    I served - 25 years - enlisted, warrant and full commissioned.  I find your comments advocating a shooting civil war in this country impossible to comprehend.  That you would make reference to supporting and defending the Constitution in the same paragarph is beyond astounding. 

    And I caution you to be quite careful about generalizing military service.  I can assure you I can find little if anything at all that you've posted that I can agree with.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure. Same as it was in the mid 1850s huh? All enemies foreign and domestic. Remember that lil nugget? I find your inability to comprehend what's happening moronic. Go check how many people have not registered their weapons in Connecticut. Go. Please check. 

    25 years? Must have been long ago. I am saddened that someone who apparently thought enough to serve 25 year can sit back and just let things go. That is a sad indictment of yourself, sir. Go ask WW2 vets. Nam Vets. Oath Keepers. I don't want a shooting war. But if that's what it takes to get the Constitution back to the forefront, get freedoms back to the people, then so be it. I won't stand in it's way. Prism, Obamacare, IRS, F&F, the list goes on an on. Patriot Act. More like the intolerable acts. Again, the likes of Adams, Hancock and the gang are hanging their heads in shame about people like you. Leave this here and it is a message for you and your ilk.

    John Adams: Oh posterity, you will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope that you will make a good use of it, for if you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Yeah that headache, if I'm reading it correctly is the stupid you are feeling. It burns doesn't it?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It does burn pretty bad.  I do feel pretty stupid reading your delusional ramblings.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Minutes run out on your Obama phone I take it? Yeah, I know, ramblings. Funny I just use facts. I can get a reference for every single fact I use. I know that's hard to process for those with limited mental capacity. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PhatVirginian's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Stating you are pro-choice is hardly the same thing as supporting killing babies after birth.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Not going to get into it with you too much about what pro-choice means - but IMO, your definition/interpretation of the word is a myth propogated by pro-lifers.

    IMO, pro-choice means just that.  It gives the individual the choice to decide whether or not she wishes to have an abortion or not.  The person making the decision has to live with herself for that choice. It sure isn't up to you.

    [/QUOTE]

    Change to read:

    IMO, pro-choice means just that.  It gives the individual the choice to decide whether or not she wishes to kill her child have an abortion or not.

    Make no mistake, abortion kills human life.

    Destroy a Bald Eagle egg and get fined $1500

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    AFNAV130, your views are your views - although I share none of them I would never presume to suggest that you're not entitled to them.  That said, it is a mistake to make assumptions and draw conclusions about people based solely on the fact that they do not see the world the way that you do.  I require no lecture from you on the oath I proudly took on mulitple occasions neither do I consider it appropriate for you to question, by any reference no matter how obtuse, the nature of my service nor its relevance to the world in which we live. 

    You appear to be making a mistake that I have seen made on more than one occasion and that is to apply one's own political and philosophical views as a benchmark for another's patriotism.  Know this:  one need not subscribe to one particular view of government and the role in it's place in the lives of Americans to be patriotic.  There are patriots across the political spectrum and to deny this is to deny reality. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 347pg's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 347pg's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    The feeble governor knowing her background, probably won't veto it on principle, and she'll sign off on it for political gain like the spineless and corrupt politician she probably is.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong again............

    [/QUOTE]

    How am I wrong? I said "probably won't".  

    She is a loser, but McCain scared the crap out of her. Good for him. Always like McCain. The last Republican with any balls or some principle.

    [/QUOTE]


    Your supposition was wrong.  You thought you knew how she would act and bad-mouthed her on that basis.

    For all intents and purposes, McCain is a democrat.  He follows liberal ideas that you espouse which is why you like him.   These same "Principles" got us to where we're at today.  The country is a mess thanks to liberals.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are so wrong sir...just because he's not going after gays with a torch and holding a pitchfork doesn't mean he's a Democrat...get a grip dude!

    REALLY! That's just extreme talk...not surprising...you must have several loaded AR-15's at the ready ...am I correct?

    You lost...it's over...ALEC will push this "religous freedom" line in some other standard bill in some friendly southern state...it will go through the fed courts...it will eventually reach the Supreme Court...but you better act fast...because no one is beating Hillary in 2016, even a lot of Republican women will vote for her because she's a qualified woman, and three Justices, 2 staunch Republicans' will be 80 or over by then...very soon after she becomes President she'll appoint three Democrats to the court...they'll be around 40-50 years old, and be there for 30 more years..so get your bill to the state legislature soon, or it won't matter...

    THEN...you can have your right wing revolution.

    [/QUOTE]

    Qualified woman? Ahhh so you are a liberal. Mental problem with those types. Hilary is insanely un-qualified. Benghazi. "What does it matter?". Sure thing. Hubby touched everything that moved. Check that latest E. Hurley story? Yeah. She is an evil, vindictive, slimy disgusting individual. Put it this way. Any candidate, republican or democrat that the media puts out there as a candidate is the wrong person. Just another corrupt non thinking puppet. Hey, let's grab another Bush. Wait. No. If people weren't so dense nowadays, they wouldn't vote period. Or at least for anyone the media (ALL Media) tells you has a chance to win.

    As for your last part, a true believer in democracy wouldnever utter such a statement. It outs you for who you are. If you want a revolution, you will get it. Keep pushing, keep trying to shove your agenda down unwilling throats. You will see it in the end, and god willing, you'll actually have the temerity to fight for them. I do believe however, the first sign of war, you will be scurrying for the hills. That's what swine does. Hillary. Maybe she'll be there with you. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry...but you never mentioned the AR-15"s?...How man y do you have...how many rounds...I'm sure the FBI and the CIA haven't bought ALL the rounds yet...

    BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    POWER TO THE PEOPLE...COME THE REVOLUTION.........

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You do have a knack for making light of serious issues. It's fine. Underestimation is the best of all advantages. I wonder what the feeling of despair will be like for you. I'd go get some self help books. You'll need them because you won't be able to hide. You are to obvious. Bet if your life was on the line, you would say or do anything to stay alive, no matter how much you hold on to your "principles".

    [/QUOTE]


    smellymel3 is just a Rusty fake account.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 347pg's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 347pg's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    The feeble governor knowing her background, probably won't veto it on principle, and she'll sign off on it for political gain like the spineless and corrupt politician she probably is.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong again............

    [/QUOTE]

    How am I wrong? I said "probably won't".  

    She is a loser, but McCain scared the crap out of her. Good for him. Always like McCain. The last Republican with any balls or some principle.

    [/QUOTE]


    Your supposition was wrong.  You thought you knew how she would act and bad-mouthed her on that basis.

    For all intents and purposes, McCain is a democrat.  He follows liberal ideas that you espouse which is why you like him.   These same "Principles" got us to where we're at today.  The country is a mess thanks to liberals.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are so wrong sir...just because he's not going after gays with a torch and holding a pitchfork doesn't mean he's a Democrat...get a grip dude!

    REALLY! That's just extreme talk...not surprising...you must have several loaded AR-15's at the ready ...am I correct?

    You lost...it's over...ALEC will push this "religous freedom" line in some other standard bill in some friendly southern state...it will go through the fed courts...it will eventually reach the Supreme Court...but you better act fast...because no one is beating Hillary in 2016, even a lot of Republican women will vote for her because she's a qualified woman, and three Justices, 2 staunch Republicans' will be 80 or over by then...very soon after she becomes President she'll appoint three Democrats to the court...they'll be around 40-50 years old, and be there for 30 more years..so get your bill to the state legislature soon, or it won't matter...

    THEN...you can have your right wing revolution.

    [/QUOTE]

    Qualified woman? Ahhh so you are a liberal. Mental problem with those types. Hilary is insanely un-qualified. Benghazi. "What does it matter?". Sure thing. Hubby touched everything that moved. Check that latest E. Hurley story? Yeah. She is an evil, vindictive, slimy disgusting individual. Put it this way. Any candidate, republican or democrat that the media puts out there as a candidate is the wrong person. Just another corrupt non thinking puppet. Hey, let's grab another Bush. Wait. No. If people weren't so dense nowadays, they wouldn't vote period. Or at least for anyone the media (ALL Media) tells you has a chance to win.

    As for your last part, a true believer in democracy wouldnever utter such a statement. It outs you for who you are. If you want a revolution, you will get it. Keep pushing, keep trying to shove your agenda down unwilling throats. You will see it in the end, and god willing, you'll actually have the temerity to fight for them. I do believe however, the first sign of war, you will be scurrying for the hills. That's what swine does. Hillary. Maybe she'll be there with you. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry...but you never mentioned the AR-15"s?...How man y do you have...how many rounds...I'm sure the FBI and the CIA haven't bought ALL the rounds yet...

    BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    POWER TO THE PEOPLE...COME THE REVOLUTION.........

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You do have a knack for making light of serious issues. It's fine. Underestimation is the best of all advantages. I wonder what the feeling of despair will be like for you. I'd go get some self help books. You'll need them because you won't be able to hide. You are to obvious. Bet if your life was on the line, you would say or do anything to stay alive, no matter how much you hold on to your "principles".

    [/QUOTE]


    smellymel3 is just a Rusty fake account.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Gotcha.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PhatVirginian's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think this guy literally just said "god willing". He did. I just read it again to make sure I read it right.

    lmao

    [/QUOTE]

    Might as well add you to the list too. I want you to post your DU username. I know you have one. You and Mel. You have to.

    Your inability to reply in any serious form indicates you have no answer. 

    [/QUOTE]


    AFNAV, you're not the first poster to come to the same conclusion about how they reply.

    BTW, thanks for your service.

    [/QUOTE]


    BUST-CHISE..you are a bigger fool than this wackjob, and that is simply amazing...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    AFNAV130, your views are your views - although I share none of them I would never presume to suggest that you're not entitled to them.  That said, it is a mistake to make assumptions and draw conclusions about people based solely on the fact that they do not see the world the way that you do.  I require no lecture from you on the oath I proudly took on mulitple occasions neither do I consider it appropriate for you to question, by any reference no matter how obtuse, the nature of my service nor its relevance to the world in which we live. 

    You appear to be making a mistake that I have seen made on more than one occasion and that is to apply one's own political and philosophical views as a benchmark for another's patriotism.  Know this:  one need not subscribe to one particular view of government and the role in it's place in the lives of Americans to be patriotic.  There are patriots across the political spectrum and to deny this is to deny reality. 



    My views are my views. I have had them changed by logical, factual arguments. You have shown none, other than to manipulate my words and suggest the opposite. I say I believe a war is coming, you offer no proof of the opposite. You offer no factual instance of anything. That's my issue and one that irritates me. You have no answer for the issues I bring up because, well there are none. Other than vote everyone out, which won't happen.

    There are Patriots and the wanna be patriots. I commend the people of Conn. They get my appreciation. I actually have some " left " leaning principles if it's the right idea, because today you need to be somewhere in the middle. Not left, not right. 

    I often think about the overextension of the government. The inept leaders. The invasion of privacy. All of the anti-freedom laws that have been passed in the name of safety. The need to make bills (AZ) that are an unfortunate need because people look for trouble and the public(not aware enough) or the media (corrupt) buy it hook line or sinker.  Especially because it furthers their agenda of dismantling the foundation of the country. Break that, you can kold it however you want. I know for a fact, the founders would have started shooting a long, long time ago. Look at what set them off, compare it to now, it is worse. Of that, there can be no argument.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PhatVirginian's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think this guy literally just said "god willing". He did. I just read it again to make sure I read it right.

    lmao

    [/QUOTE]

    Might as well add you to the list too. I want you to post your DU username. I know you have one. You and Mel. You have to.

    Your inability to reply in any serious form indicates you have no answer. 

    [/QUOTE]


    AFNAV, you're not the first poster to come to the same conclusion about how they reply.

    BTW, thanks for your service.

    [/QUOTE]


    BUST-CHISE..you are a bigger fool than this wackjob, and that is simply amazing...

    [/QUOTE]

    You can't even come up with any true rebuttal. None. You have no current or historical knowledge with which to debate. Wackjob? Highly doubtful. Funny, they said that about some guys a couple hundred years ago. They were nut jobs too. People like you lost that time too.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 347pg's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 347pg's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:



    The feeble governor knowing her background, probably won't veto it on principle, and she'll sign off on it for political gain like the spineless and corrupt politician she probably is.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong again............

    [/QUOTE]

    How am I wrong? I said "probably won't".  

    She is a loser, but McCain scared the crap out of her. Good for him. Always like McCain. The last Republican with any balls or some principle.

    [/QUOTE]


    Your supposition was wrong.  You thought you knew how she would act and bad-mouthed her on that basis.

    For all intents and purposes, McCain is a democrat.  He follows liberal ideas that you espouse which is why you like him.   These same "Principles" got us to where we're at today.  The country is a mess thanks to liberals.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are so wrong sir...just because he's not going after gays with a torch and holding a pitchfork doesn't mean he's a Democrat...get a grip dude!

    REALLY! That's just extreme talk...not surprising...you must have several loaded AR-15's at the ready ...am I correct?

    You lost...it's over...ALEC will push this "religous freedom" line in some other standard bill in some friendly southern state...it will go through the fed courts...it will eventually reach the Supreme Court...but you better act fast...because no one is beating Hillary in 2016, even a lot of Republican women will vote for her because she's a qualified woman, and three Justices, 2 staunch Republicans' will be 80 or over by then...very soon after she becomes President she'll appoint three Democrats to the court...they'll be around 40-50 years old, and be there for 30 more years..so get your bill to the state legislature soon, or it won't matter...

    THEN...you can have your right wing revolution.

    [/QUOTE]

    Qualified woman? Ahhh so you are a liberal. Mental problem with those types. Hilary is insanely un-qualified. Benghazi. "What does it matter?". Sure thing. Hubby touched everything that moved. Check that latest E. Hurley story? Yeah. She is an evil, vindictive, slimy disgusting individual. Put it this way. Any candidate, republican or democrat that the media puts out there as a candidate is the wrong person. Just another corrupt non thinking puppet. Hey, let's grab another Bush. Wait. No. If people weren't so dense nowadays, they wouldn't vote period. Or at least for anyone the media (ALL Media) tells you has a chance to win.

    As for your last part, a true believer in democracy wouldnever utter such a statement. It outs you for who you are. If you want a revolution, you will get it. Keep pushing, keep trying to shove your agenda down unwilling throats. You will see it in the end, and god willing, you'll actually have the temerity to fight for them. I do believe however, the first sign of war, you will be scurrying for the hills. That's what swine does. Hillary. Maybe she'll be there with you. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry...but you never mentioned the AR-15"s?...How man y do you have...how many rounds...I'm sure the FBI and the CIA haven't bought ALL the rounds yet...

    BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    POWER TO THE PEOPLE...COME THE REVOLUTION.........

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You do have a knack for making light of serious issues. It's fine. Underestimation is the best of all advantages. I wonder what the feeling of despair will be like for you. I'd go get some self help books. You'll need them because you won't be able to hide. You are to obvious. Bet if your life was on the line, you would say or do anything to stay alive, no matter how much you hold on to your "principles".

    [/QUOTE]


    smellymel3 is just a Rusty fake account.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe...I am not Rusty...your hate for him blinds you to reason...you have to be the single most hateful so-called "Christian" I have ever run across..

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    Obama and the progressives have failed us in almost every way. Economically, Obamacare, and in Foriegn policy. He takes credit for more USA oil and gas production- but it is only private land, and fed permits are down. But then if oil and gas are bad why is he bragging that he is responsible for the increase? Why the delay on the Pipe Line?

    Then there is Fast & Furious. the IRS , Benghazi

    He and they have all predictably failed

    So where is the criticism from you on the left side? Just one time?

     



    I criticize Obama plenty.  I criticize Obama for not getting rid of the abomination that is Guantanamo.  I criticize Obama for perpetuating endless war and the increasing the use of drones.  I criticize Obama for perpetuating the National Security State.  I critcize Obama for Obamacare (albeit for very different reasons than you since amusingly it was and always has been a conservative plan).  I criticize Obama for attempting deficit reduction in the middle of a recession.  I criticize Obama for many things.  What I don't do is pretend that conservative proposals aren't the same or worse on most of these issues.  I do not criticize him for many of the things you posted here because they are simply falsehoods that have been put forth as fact by the Faux News propaganda machine.

    The point about oil and gas production is false.  When Romney and Obama debated this topic (which is where this talking point originated) oil and gas production were up on both public and private lands since Obama entered office.  The number of permits had decreased, but production had not.  In fact the industry was sitting on an additional 7,000 permits that were not being used.  The idea that Obama has somehow massively restricted the industry's access to federal lands for harvesting fossil fuels is nonsense.

    Fast and Furious was a faux scandal.  Conservatives spent months screaming about how Obama was to blame.  They even wasted taxpayer dollars into a whole investigation into it that was led up by a Special Investigator named Michael Horowitz.  His almost 500 page report shows definitively that the Arizona ATF agents and prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office there were responsible for the operation, not the White House or the Justice Department in Washington and that the primary source of the inaccurate testimony given to Congress was the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke.

    The IRS "scandal" was even more laughable.  First of all the IRS commissioner that was in office when this supposed "scandal" took place was a Bush appointee.  Second of all plenty of liberal groups were targeted as well (using keywords like Occupy instead of Tea Party) and finally if you look at all of the organizations that have received tax exempt status since 2010 (which the IRS does publish) about 2/3 were conservative groups.  That seems like a strange way discriminate against conservatives doesn't it?  The real kicker is that none of this has been tied to Obama in any meaningful way.

    And of course Benghazi is just as ridiculous.  What exactly is your point about Benghazi?  I could spend pages refuting the 10 million or so talking points that have been developed between then and now so until I know which talking point(s) you are referring to I'll defer to Robert Gates (you know that Republican guy that served under both Bush and Obama).

    "Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were"


    "We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."


    "I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," (referring to all of the surface to air missiles that Gaddafi had "lost")

    "It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    Minutes run out on your Obama phone I take it? Yeah, I know, ramblings. Funny I just use facts. I can get a reference for every single fact I use. I know that's hard to process for those with limited mental capacity. 



    I don't know if you can get a reference for every fact you use because you've never actually provided any facts in any of your inchorent bs.  Why don't you lock yourself in your basement and wait for the next civil war to begin.  LMAO @ U.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PhatVirginian's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think this guy literally just said "god willing". He did. I just read it again to make sure I read it right.

    lmao

    [/QUOTE]

    Might as well add you to the list too. I want you to post your DU username. I know you have one. You and Mel. You have to.

    Your inability to reply in any serious form indicates you have no answer. 

    [/QUOTE]


    AFNAV, you're not the first poster to come to the same conclusion about how they reply.

    BTW, thanks for your service.

    [/QUOTE]


    BUST-CHISE..you are a bigger fool than this wackjob, and that is simply amazing...

    [/QUOTE]

    You can't even come up with any true rebuttal. None. You have no current or historical knowledge with which to debate. Wackjob? Highly doubtful. Funny, they said that about some guys a couple hundred years ago. They were nut jobs too. People like you lost that time too.

    [/QUOTE]

    I have a perfectly correct rebuttal to you...I have copied our back and forth entries, and the others on this page...I'm sure Homeland Security will be able to track you from your IP address...good luck explaining to the federal marshalls what you meant when you threatened a couple of us by asking for our identity info and spoke in favor of violent revolution....you know it's a violation of federal law to do that, to threaten someone online......and BTW...you are a wackjob.....a real wackjob...so enjoy the rest of your day... :)

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    You know what DU is? Democratic underground. It's a website. I asked for your screen name lol. Yeah I'm real worried about a guy who just trolled an account to cause problems. And where did interested you? Oh the list? Yeah cause I know who you are. I don't truly care. The list was the people who can't see things for what they are. Don't see how that's a threat. Of course, you resign to this when you know you can't respond factually. Too bad really.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You know what DU is? Democratic underground. It's a website. I asked for your screen name lol. Yeah I'm real worried about a guy who just trolled an account to cause problems. And where did interested you? Oh the list? Yeah cause I know who you are. I don't truly care. The list was the people who can't see things for what they are. Don't see how that's a threat. Of course, you resign to this when you know you can't respond factually. Too bad really.

    [/QUOTE]


    This place is full of morons, psychopaths and mental defectives...and you, buddy, are just about the most deranged person I've seen here in 6 years on these theads...truly sick and dangerous....get out of the bunker and let the sun hit your face...it can't hurt.....get help, you neeed it...and I'm NOT making light when I say that...you need serious help...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    I actually considered replying, yet again, but I really do have better things to do with my time than to continue to attempt to open a closed mind.  And by that I do not mean see things my way but simply to acknowledge that there may very well be opposing views that have some level of legitimacy.  I see no evidence to suggest that such an acknowledgement is even possible. 

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You know what DU is? Democratic underground. It's a website. I asked for your screen name lol. Yeah I'm real worried about a guy who just trolled an account to cause problems. And where did interested you? Oh the list? Yeah cause I know who you are. I don't truly care. The list was the people who can't see things for what they are. Don't see how that's a threat. Of course, you resign to this when you know you can't respond factually. Too bad really.




    This place is full of morons, psychopaths and mental defectives...and you, buddy, are just about the most deranged person I've seen here in 6 years on these theads...truly sick and dangerous....get out of the bunker and let the sun hit your face...it can't hurt.....get help, you neeed it...and I'm NOT making light when I say that...you need serious help...

    [/QUOTE]

    6 years? Why an account just made 5 days ago. Interesting. See you just called me deranged. That's not nice. Sick and dangerous. I highly doubt that either. But you can feel that way. too bad really. Then again Pelosi called people Nazis. Guess that's okay. Whatever man. Or woman. Whatever.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 347pg's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    The feeble governor knowing her background, probably won't veto it on principle, and she'll sign off on it for political gain like the spineless and corrupt politician she probably is.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Wrong again............

    [/QUOTE]

    How am I wrong? I said "probably won't".  

    She is a loser, but McCain scared the crap out of her. Good for him. Always like McCain. The last Republican with any balls or some principle.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are so wrong.  You know he backed publicly Al-Queda rebels in Syria right? You know the ones who execute kids in the street? Word is, if McCain is for it, the right way is the opposite direction. You keep on and on that this is a war on gays or whatnot. It isn't. So if some guy doesn't want to photograph two dudes who, well ay know what, that's a moral rejection for him. To hell with religion. So answer this. If some person, kindly and politely said in my conscience I can't do this sorry, would the appropriate course of action be to then just say thank you, I understand and then just move on? I'm sure there are plenty of gay photographers. Much like I would think someone might not want to photograph Muslims, if they had a relative die on 9/11. Would that not be fair? This isn't color, or gender or race. You are using arguments that don't hold water. Your intent is good, misguided though as it is. One neesa to make sure things don't get out of control.  No one is calling for gays to be shot, or imprisoned or treated across the board as bad. However they need to start corralling their mouthpieces before some people with not enough intestinal fortitude start something that can't be stopped. I'm talking about the dissolution of gender identity. Start limiting that, and you might see progress. By the way, I don't have a truck with big tires. A Mustang Cobra and a Dodge Viper. I don't fit your stereotype I suppose.

    [/QUOTE]

    Timothy McVeigh was an ex-soldier.  Would it be fair for people to discriminate against veterans because of that? By your reasoning it would be. 

    [/QUOTE]

    They already do. See the recent dHS handbook on terrorist classification. Veterans are listed. Anyone on that list is and will be discriminated against. Can you believe that returning veterans are thought of this way? Disgusting. They send them over to fight in illegitimate wars, mess them up and then point to them as potential terrorists. Guess what group didn't make that list?  any mention of Muslim or Islamic has been taken off that list. It's a brave new America we live in rusty.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, just read the posts by AFNAV130 and you'll see why the DHS did what they did.  Guy wants a war because people exercising their political freedom disagree with him and thinks he's defending the Constitution.  Those are the kinds of veterans who are a threat to the nation.  They're like Timothy McVeigh. 

    If you're talking about the DHS profile that was written back in 2011, it does include Islamists, as well as both left-wing and right-wing extremists. Remember, Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist and he was a right winger who thought he was defending liberty by blowing up a daycare center.  He is proof that the DHS knows what it's doing. 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    AFNAV130, your views are your views - although I share none of them I would never presume to suggest that you're not entitled to them.  That said, it is a mistake to make assumptions and draw conclusions about people based solely on the fact that they do not see the world the way that you do.  I require no lecture from you on the oath I proudly took on mulitple occasions neither do I consider it appropriate for you to question, by any reference no matter how obtuse, the nature of my service nor its relevance to the world in which we live. 

    You appear to be making a mistake that I have seen made on more than one occasion and that is to apply one's own political and philosophical views as a benchmark for another's patriotism.  Know this:  one need not subscribe to one particular view of government and the role in it's place in the lives of Americans to be patriotic.  There are patriots across the political spectrum and to deny this is to deny reality. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Good post ATJ.  A guy who does the military proud. 

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    AFNAV130, your views are your views - although I share none of them I would never presume to suggest that you're not entitled to them.  That said, it is a mistake to make assumptions and draw conclusions about people based solely on the fact that they do not see the world the way that you do.  I require no lecture from you on the oath I proudly took on mulitple occasions neither do I consider it appropriate for you to question, by any reference no matter how obtuse, the nature of my service nor its relevance to the world in which we live. 

    You appear to be making a mistake that I have seen made on more than one occasion and that is to apply one's own political and philosophical views as a benchmark for another's patriotism.  Know this:  one need not subscribe to one particular view of government and the role in it's place in the lives of Americans to be patriotic.  There are patriots across the political spectrum and to deny this is to deny reality. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Were you navy?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to raptor64d's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]


    dont have enuf time rite now but quickly:

    I met McCain - he is a horses butt

    Mel - Living Constitution - We are on the same page but there is a diffrent definition of "living constituition" which I am not for - So I think we can move on

    Pro_ I will check the link you gave. but I do remember at the time he was running in 2008  that the 4th trimester issue came up, And it was about when babies lived after  a failed abortion, I do remember that what he talked about in committee was then turned to "Not Present" on the vote.

    He is unabashedly pro abortion and any one for partial birth can be said to be in favor of infanticide - thank you Sen Monyhan

    To me there is nothing that comes out of Obama mouth that can believed. be it Rev Wright, or that he wasnt always for gay marriage. or that he didnt support the fanny freddi mess in the 1990's and after,  before it failed us all

    And add Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, HRC etc to the list

    Which reminds me - there is a lot of bashing here about bigots on Gay marriage - Did you call Obama a bigot when he wasnt for gay marriage? or did you know he was lying? After all he only changed his opinion after the Biden gaffe? a yr and half ago

    But on the biggest point

    Obama and the progressives have failed us in almost every way. Economically, Obamacare, and in Foriegn policy. He takes credit for more USA oil and gas production- but it is only private land, and fed permits are down. But then if oil and gas are bad why is he bragging that he is responsible for the increase? Why the delay on the Pipe Line?

    Then there is Fast & Furious. the IRS , Benghazi

    He and they have all predictably failed

    So where is the criticism from you on the left side? Just one time?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Awesome post and way to many facts and points for most of our liberal friends to understand. They really don't get the fact Omoron was anti-gay marriage and aborition until recently.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. Another one. Finally some sense. People are just fools. Liberals live in a fantasy world. Facts are stubborn.  They use very thin arguments to try to make them seem legitimate. They don't work. People say I'm an idiot for suggesting war is a possibility. I wish I was. Keep laying the facts down.  When they try to refute them, they just look dumb. And comparing the OKC bombing to 9/11? That's supremely idiotic. No offense to OKC, but did over 3k people die? Don't think so. It was nowhere near as catastrophic.  At least in scale.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Always ready for open thoughtful debate, And always have to remember to check facts before i write.

    For Pro as promised

    Best Answer Voter's Choice

    Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

    At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

    Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

    We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

    Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...   I have a simple answer - why would there even be a debate . Believe him if you wish - nut his histroy of not telling the truth is long and deep.[/QUOTE]

    This is the bill I mentioned in an ealier post.  It's not about supporting so-called fourth trimester abortions.  So can I assume that quoting this is an admission that the 4th trimester abortion accusation has no merit?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to raptor64d's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]


    dont have enuf time rite now but quickly:

    I met Mccain - he is a horses butt

    Mel - Living constitution We are on the same page but there is a diffrent definition of "living constituition" which I am not for - So I think we can move on

    Pro_ I will check the link you gave. but I do remember at the time he was running in 2008  that the 4th trimester issue came up, And it was about when baies lived aftter a failed abortion, I do remember that what he talked about in committee was then turned to Not Present on the vote.

    He is unabashedly pro abortion and any one for partial birth can be said to be in favor of infanticide - thank you Sen Monyhan

    To me there is nothing that comes out of Obama mouth that can believed. be it Rev Wright, or that he wasnt always for gay marriage. or that he didnt support the fanny freddi mess in the 1990's and after before it failed us all

    And add Pelosi, Reid, Durbin HRC etc to the list

    Which reminds me - there is a lot of bashing here about bigots ao Gay marriage - Did you call Obama a bigot when he wasnt for gay marriage? or did you know he was lying.? After all he only changed his opinion after the Biden gaffe? a yr and ahlf ago

    But on the biggest point

    Obama and the progressives have failed us in almost every way. Econimically, Obamacare, and in Foriegn policy. He takes credit for more USA oil and gas production- but it is only private land, and fed permits are down. But then if oil and gas are bad why is he bragging that he is responsible for the increase? Why the delay on the pipie Line?

     then there is Fast and Furious. the IRS , Benghazi

    He and they have all predictably failed

    So where is the criticism from you on the left side? Just one time?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Awesome post and way to many facts and points for most of our liberal friends to understand. They really don't get the fact Omoron was anti-gay marriage and aborition until recently.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. Another one. Finally some sense. People are just fools. Liberals live in a fantasy world. Facts are stubborn.  They use very thin arguments to try to make them seem legitimate. They don't work. People say I'm an idiot for suggesting war is a possibility. I wish I was. Keep laying the facts down.  When they try to refute them, they just look dumb. And comparing the OKC bombing to 9/11? That's supremely idiotic. No offense to OKC, but did over 3k people die? Don't think so. It was nowhere near as catastrophic.  At least in scale.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Making excuses for Timothy McVeigh now? McVeigh is every bit as evil as Bin Ladin--just not as smart. 

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    AFNAV130, your views are your views - although I share none of them I would never presume to suggest that you're not entitled to them.  That said, it is a mistake to make assumptions and draw conclusions about people based solely on the fact that they do not see the world the way that you do.  I require no lecture from you on the oath I proudly took on mulitple occasions neither do I consider it appropriate for you to question, by any reference no matter how obtuse, the nature of my service nor its relevance to the world in which we live. 

    You appear to be making a mistake that I have seen made on more than one occasion and that is to apply one's own political and philosophical views as a benchmark for another's patriotism.  Know this:  one need not subscribe to one particular view of government and the role in it's place in the lives of Americans to be patriotic.  There are patriots across the political spectrum and to deny this is to deny reality. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Were you navy?

    [/QUOTE]

    Aye, and a yard wide!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    AFNAV130, your views are your views - although I share none of them I would never presume to suggest that you're not entitled to them.  That said, it is a mistake to make assumptions and draw conclusions about people based solely on the fact that they do not see the world the way that you do.  I require no lecture from you on the oath I proudly took on mulitple occasions neither do I consider it appropriate for you to question, by any reference no matter how obtuse, the nature of my service nor its relevance to the world in which we live. 

    You appear to be making a mistake that I have seen made on more than one occasion and that is to apply one's own political and philosophical views as a benchmark for another's patriotism.  Know this:  one need not subscribe to one particular view of government and the role in it's place in the lives of Americans to be patriotic.  There are patriots across the political spectrum and to deny this is to deny reality. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Were you navy?

    [/QUOTE]

    Aye, and a yard wide!

    [/QUOTE]


    That explains it. I don't think AFN counts service in the age of sail as actually having been in the military.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    AFNAV130, your views are your views - although I share none of them I would never presume to suggest that you're not entitled to them.  That said, it is a mistake to make assumptions and draw conclusions about people based solely on the fact that they do not see the world the way that you do.  I require no lecture from you on the oath I proudly took on mulitple occasions neither do I consider it appropriate for you to question, by any reference no matter how obtuse, the nature of my service nor its relevance to the world in which we live. 

    You appear to be making a mistake that I have seen made on more than one occasion and that is to apply one's own political and philosophical views as a benchmark for another's patriotism.  Know this:  one need not subscribe to one particular view of government and the role in it's place in the lives of Americans to be patriotic.  There are patriots across the political spectrum and to deny this is to deny reality. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Were you navy?

    [/QUOTE]

    Aye, and a yard wide!

    [/QUOTE]


    That explains it. I don't think AFN counts service in the age of sail as actually having been in the military.

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey, had he been along on some of those boarding parties when we kicked the Barbary Pirates a_ss he'd be singing a different tune.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share