Support Sharon Angle
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 17 Jul 2010 10:59 In article <wclark2-486A3B.10401417072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <MPG.26ab5f9797d4ee3398a10e(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <9d71926e-68b4-4eba-a73b- > > 01c1268afd1f(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > On Jul 16, 12:12�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > In article <24ea92f5-8dbc-456c-9b10- > > > > 2589dc299...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > Why is armed insurrection bad? Isn't it the duty of those governed to > > > > > > throw off the shackles of the government when the government becomes > > > > > > oppressive? #1 and #2 provide you with the ability to do this and > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > it amazing that our founders codified the rights of the people to do > > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > The government has not become oppressive or anything remotely > > > > > resembling it. I don't think it's a bad thing that we've had orderly > > > > > changes of government every four years for 234 years without a shot > > > > > ever being fired. > > > > > > > > Let's start with the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. > > > > > > Neither of those prevented the reelection of the incumbent president. > > > > We were talking about armed insurrection. Both of which qualify. And, > > the government is moving towards being oppressive. > > BS. It doesn't happen to be your chosen political slant, so you behave > like a child throwing toys out of the pram. Look up at the top of this particular post. It explicitly says "Why is armed insurrection bad?". This was in reference to previous comment in this thread about armed insurrection and how it enabled the colonies to break away from England and form the US of A. Your problem is that you neither subscribe to freedom of speech nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Both of which are as critical today as they were 230 odd years ago to ensure the liberty of the people.
From: William Clark on 17 Jul 2010 12:30 In article <MPG.26ab8f52f1f6f2a398a112(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-486A3B.10401417072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <MPG.26ab5f9797d4ee3398a10e(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <9d71926e-68b4-4eba-a73b- > > > 01c1268afd1f(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 12:12�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <24ea92f5-8dbc-456c-9b10- > > > > > 2589dc299...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com > > > > > says... > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is armed insurrection bad? Isn't it the duty of those > > > > > > > governed to > > > > > > > throw off the shackles of the government when the government > > > > > > > becomes > > > > > > > oppressive? #1 and #2 provide you with the ability to do this and > > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > it amazing that our founders codified the rights of the people to > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > > The government has not become oppressive or anything remotely > > > > > > resembling it. I don't think it's a bad thing that we've had > > > > > > orderly > > > > > > changes of government every four years for 234 years without a shot > > > > > > ever being fired. > > > > > > > > > > Let's start with the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. > > > > > > > > Neither of those prevented the reelection of the incumbent president. > > > > > > We were talking about armed insurrection. Both of which qualify. And, > > > the government is moving towards being oppressive. > > > > BS. It doesn't happen to be your chosen political slant, so you behave > > like a child throwing toys out of the pram. > > Look up at the top of this particular post. It explicitly says "Why is > armed insurrection bad?". This was in reference to previous comment in > this thread about armed insurrection and how it enabled the colonies to > break away from England and form the US of A. Well, if you prefer to live 200 years in the past, good for you. Most of us have moved on to the 21st century. > > Your problem is that you neither subscribe to freedom of speech nor the > right of the people to keep and bear arms. Both of which are as critical > today as they were 230 odd years ago to ensure the liberty of the > people. Stupid BS. You need to drop the cliches and start thinking for yourself.
From: BAR on 17 Jul 2010 13:31 In article <wclark2-491AE7.12302417072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > We were talking about armed insurrection. Both of which qualify. And, > > > > the government is moving towards being oppressive. > > > > > > BS. It doesn't happen to be your chosen political slant, so you behave > > > like a child throwing toys out of the pram. > > > > Look up at the top of this particular post. It explicitly says "Why is > > armed insurrection bad?". This was in reference to previous comment in > > this thread about armed insurrection and how it enabled the colonies to > > break away from England and form the US of A. > > Well, if you prefer to live 200 years in the past, good for you. Most of > us have moved on to the 21st century. Human nature hasn't changed for thousands of years. Why should I expect that it should change in just the last 200 years? > > > > Your problem is that you neither subscribe to freedom of speech nor the > > right of the people to keep and bear arms. Both of which are as critical > > today as they were 230 odd years ago to ensure the liberty of the > > people. > > Stupid BS. You need to drop the cliches and start thinking for yourself. I assume that by your lack of a counter argument that your truly do not believe in freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You cannot expect others to defend for your what you will not defend for yourself.
From: kenpitts on 17 Jul 2010 17:56 On Jul 15, 8:51 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 7:57 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <7860b860-9880-45f3-bed8-571b47fafa25 > > @w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > On Jul 14, 9:47 pm, kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 13, 5:45 pm, Anonymous <cri...(a)ecn.org> wrote: > > > > > > GET HE DUNG REID OUT. > > > > > Oh man, would I ever love it if Reid was shown the door. > > > > > Ken > > > > I'm no fan of Harry Reid, but this Angle woman is a wack-job. > > > And, Reid isn't a whack job? > > Angle is no different from Tim McVeigh, except that she hasn't blown > anything up. She said the government should be overthrown through an > armed insurrection. Do you know of anything Reid has said that's > comparable to that?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Amazing. Ken
From: Alan Baker on 17 Jul 2010 18:50
In article <8a8jvoFdfaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:22d39422-590d-4b9a-8f8e-8e6a3152d2dd(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 15, 7:57 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <7860b860-9880-45f3-bed8-571b47fafa25 > > @w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 9:47 pm, kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 13, 5:45 pm, Anonymous <cri...(a)ecn.org> wrote: > > > > > > > GET HE DUNG REID OUT. > > > > > > Oh man, would I ever love it if Reid was shown the door. > > > > > > Ken > > > > > I'm no fan of Harry Reid, but this Angle woman is a wack-job. > > > > And, Reid isn't a whack job? > > Angle is no different from Tim McVeigh, except that she hasn't blown > anything up. She said the government should be overthrown through an > armed insurrection. Do you know of anything Reid has said that's > comparable to that? > ----------------------------------------- > > She didn't exactly say that. > > You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there > for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against > a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a > country to have a revolution every 20 years. > > I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps > going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment > remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? > I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out. So she suggested that Harry Reid should be killed and you're OK with that? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |