Fascists quietly at work

cawacko said:
You said either rally with the ATF or against the states or stop complaining. Not quite: this is what went down
I don't own a gun and have only held one in my life. Why try to restrict my right to own one If you're a law abiding citizen with proper ID and residency, you can purchase a gun. What "restrictions" do you find so heinous and off putting? and not do shit about mother fucking gangsters or wanna be gangstas on the street who's illegally packing? Great, so when the ATF asks for more leverage with the military and private import industries to keep tabs on their shipments, you should be right there rallying for them, and demonizing the stonewall tactics by the forementioned groups against the ATF jurisdiction. When States PROVE that the illegal guns showing up on street crimes are being bought in other states with lesser or lax gun laws, then you should be right there screaming bloody murder to make the effort to keep the thugs from easier access. If you don't, then you can't complain. I said no problem I'll stop complaining along with a personal antedote. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

Because your personal antedote was bullshit....So since I don't care about guns enough to really study up on all the laws I'll stop complaining about all the murder and violence in Oakland and the use of illegal weapons. your underhanded way of trying to justify your original erroneous contention.

The problem is that as usual, you make statements and then avoid certain questions/facts...then you act as if butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. Sorry kid, ain't gonna fly here. Delude yourself that it does, if you must. The written record tells a different story.
 
Southern Man said:
Except none of those folks claims that label, Who said they did, you buffoon? THAT IS HOW THEIR CRITICS LABEL THEM BASED ON THEIR WORDS, based on the dictionary definitions. and we both know its a code word for Jew. No stupid, YOU read it from some equally moronic blogger and jumped on it like a tick to a dog's ass. Problem is, since I've just given you a list of neocons that contains MANY none Jews....it's just you and your idiot blogger trying to promote a lie. I've asked you stop using it before, and and doing so again. You trot this bullshit out like a stubborn child, because in reality you just can't rationally defend all the dreck that is spewed by your heros and advocates. So you create the false accusation of "racism" in hopes of distracting from how absurd your cause is, by which I just logically deconstructed.

STOP USING THE RACIST N WORD, TAICHILIBERAL.
Click to expand...

See above.....no one's buying this, jackass....but you keep it up....makes my job a lot easier.
 
bravo said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal

Quote:
Originally Posted by bravo View Post
A great example of what "willfully ignorant" posts look like.....

Could be that 'brain lock' ......


There is absolutely nothing in your post to refute you moron...you seriously think I'm gonna comment on the Stasi or the book 1984, fool....
Just because you cheer on the Jackass Party doesn't mean you have to act like the jackass you are.......
Click to expand...

You're not too bright, are you? You do realize that people will just click back and read the ENTIRE exchange in it's chronological order and see your folly?

Or maybe you don't.....not only are you dumb, but you're a lying coward as well. "Bravo" indeed.:rolleyes:
 
Taichiliberal said:
Because your personal antedote was bullshit....So since I don't care about guns enough to really study up on all the laws I'll stop complaining about all the murder and violence in Oakland and the use of illegal weapons. your underhanded way of trying to justify your original erroneous contention.

The problem is that as usual, you make statements and then avoid certain questions/facts...then you act as if butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. Sorry kid, ain't gonna fly here. Delude yourself that it does, if you must. The written record tells a different story.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be obtuse or argue for the sake of arguing. I made a general statement of why go after legit gun owners when there are thousands of illegals guns on the street. Your response was how you believe that guns that are purchased legally in some states are brought into other states and thus end up on the street illegally and to either fight the processes that allow that to happen or to shut up. I said I'm not all that familiar with gun laws so I'll prefer the shut up route. Straight forward to me but obviously you have a different opinion.

And if I'm understanding your postion correctly you are stating that if certain states had tighter gun rules then illegal would not be coming into Oakland like they are?

I must admit I've not heard the butter doesn't melt in your mouth comment before. Is that equivalent to one's shit not stinking? Not sure about the delusional comment either. I guarantee you sir i can put myself down far better than you can.
 
Taichiliberal said:
See above.....no one's buying this, jackass....but you keep it up....makes my job a lot easier.
Click to expand...

Actually my understanding of the genesis of neo-con was Jewish liberals who became conservative. In the game of politics of course 'one side' will often take words from the 'other side' and turn them into a negative like conservatives have tried to do with the term liberal for example.
 
Southern Man said:
Except none of those folks claims that label, and we both know its a code word for Jew. I've asked you stop using it before, and and doing so again.

STOP USING THE RACIST N WORD, TAICHILIBERAL.
Click to expand...

img.functions.php
 
Taichiliberal said:
Great, so when the ATF asks for more leverage with the military and private import industries to keep tabs on their shipments, you should be right there rallying for them, and demonizing the stonewall tactics by the forementioned groups against the ATF jurisdiction. When States PROVE that the illegal guns showing up on street crimes are being bought in other states with lesser or lax gun laws, then you should be right there screaming bloody murder to make the effort to keep the thugs from easier access. If you don't, then you can't complain.
Click to expand...

Actually Taich, they did in San Francisco a few years back (even though it got overturned by the courts) so even in my drunken state I knew why it was on the brain. I'm not sure if you live here but at the time is was talked about quite heavily in the local news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0962828620080110
 
Taichiliberal said:
See above.....no one's buying this, jackass....but you keep it up....makes my job a lot easier.
Click to expand...

You mean this:

cawacko said:
Actually my understanding of the genesis of neo-con was Jewish liberals who became conservative. In the game of politics of course 'one side' will often take words from the 'other side' and turn them into a negative like conservatives have tried to do with the term liberal for example.
Click to expand...
 
cawacko said:
Actually my understanding of the genesis of neo-con was Jewish liberals who became conservative. In the game of politics of course 'one side' will often take words from the 'other side' and turn them into a negative like conservatives have tried to do with the term liberal for example.
Click to expand...

THis is correct. This is when jews realized they could abuse American Nationalist sentiment to create their New world order or Olam Ha Ba, as it's called in the talmud.

It's ideologically commited to war, globalization, and destroying the american middle class.
 
Some people are like me on this issue. Nothing fires me up more than someone trying to restrict my already restricted rights to own/transfer ownership of my firearms. Everytime something like this is introduced I will make folks in my circle aware of it and who is responsible for it. This is a make or break issue for many of us so we like to stay aware of what is happening ... behind the scenes or at the forefront. Gun hating Democrats would do well to pay attention. Many of us would vote democratic most all of the time except for a couple of things. This is one.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Take The F Scale!

http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm

What is Fascism?

Definition of terms:

· Transcendence: Belief that the state can transcend social conflict and blend all social classes into a harmonious whole. Belief in the power of political ideology to transcend human nature and produce a better world.

· Cleansing (ethnic): Favoring one or more ethnic or racial groups over others, either by granting special privileges or imposing disabilities; deportation of ethnic minorities, or worse.

· Cleansing (political): Silencing the political opposition so that the transcendent aims of fascism can be realized. Restricting the freedom of speech, outlawing opposition parties, imprisoning political opponents (or worse) and indoctrinating youth in fascist principles.

· Statism: Promoting a high degree of state intervention in personal, social, or economic matters. Belief that the state can accomplish anything.

· Nationalism: Belief in the inherent unity of a population with distinct linguistic, physical, or cultural characteristics and its identification with a nation-state. Belief that the nation possesses special attributes that make it superior to other nations in some or all ways.

· Paramilitarism: "Grass roots", populist squadrism aimed at coercing opponents and obtaining popular approbation by acting as a supplementary police force.
Click to expand...

dude, why even try to show them that this is not fascism? they wont listen.

additionally, i think you should all quit about complaining about gun control. the gun-related violence in the US is about 300% higher than in any other industrialized country. imo, my right to LIFE still over-rules your right to "bear arms," which i still think only means that you can pump iron until your arms look like those of a bear.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Because your personal antedote was bullshit....So since I don't care about guns enough to really study up on all the laws I'll stop complaining about all the murder and violence in Oakland and the use of illegal weapons. your underhanded way of trying to justify your original erroneous contention.

The problem is that as usual, you make statements and then avoid certain questions/facts...then you act as if butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. Sorry kid, ain't gonna fly here. Delude yourself that it does, if you must. The written record tells a different story.
Click to expand...

cawacko said:
I'm not trying to be obtuse or argue for the sake of arguing. The chronology of the discussion suggests otherwise. I made a general statement of why go after legit gun owners when there are thousands of illegals guns on the street. I previously asked you to explain how is someone going "after legit gun owners"...to date, I get nothing from you but repeating the same accusation. Your response was how you believe that guns that are purchased legally in some states are brought into other states and thus end up on the street illegally Not a belief, son...a bonafide FACT, a matter of history. The Virginia to New York City pipeline was a celebrated cause by one of our politicians. If you like, I can give you the links for documentation. and to either fight the processes that allow that to happen or to shut up. Not quite....as the record shows, at one point I responded to you that if you truly believed in your assertions then you should become involved in keeping the agencies that would do as you want from being interferred with by special interests on Capitol Hill. I said IF you are unwilling to do so, then you can't complain (inferring that would make you a hypocrit of sorts). I said I'm not all that familiar with gun laws so I'll prefer the shut up route. Then that should have ended the discussion. Straight forward to me but obviously you have a different opinion. You forget your little parting shots, which essentially keep reaffirming your assertions in a snide way. That's what I pointed out, and that's what you're trying to pretend doesnt' exist. The record speaks otherwise.
And if I'm understanding your postion correctly you are stating that if certain states had tighter gun rules then illegal would not be coming into Oakland like they are? I mentioned that as ONE possibility...ONE avenue to stem the tide....I didn't say it was the be all, end all.

I must admit I've not heard the butter doesn't melt in your mouth comment before. Is that equivalent to one's shit not stinking? Not sure about the delusional comment either. I guarantee you sir i can put myself down far better than you can.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes...that's nice. But that doesn't alter or disprove what I said above. I'd say we're done here.
 
cawacko said:
Actually my understanding of the genesis of neo-con was Jewish liberals who became conservative. In the game of politics of course 'one side' will often take words from the 'other side' and turn them into a negative like conservatives have tried to do with the term liberal for example.
Click to expand...

FYI: the term was originally coined as "neoconservative", by a writer named Harrington in 1973 magazine article about welfare...not about "jewish liberals". Some people say neoconservatives were "influenced" by the career of an American Marxist/Leninist turned Social Democrat in the 1930's named Shachtman, who was Jewish. But as history shows, "new conservatives" or "neocons" for short, are not exclusively Jewish, or recognized as such.
 
Southern Man said:
You mean this:
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by cawacko
Actually my understanding of the genesis of neo-con was Jewish liberals who became conservative. In the game of politics of course 'one side' will often take words from the 'other side' and turn them into a negative like conservatives have tried to do with the term liberal for example.
Click to expand...

No, I mean this:

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=528698&postcount=34"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Fascists quietly at work[/ame]
 
leaningright said:
Some people are like me on this issue. Nothing fires me up more than someone trying to restrict my already restricted rights to own/transfer ownership of my firearms. Everytime something like this is introduced I will make folks in my circle aware of it and who is responsible for it. This is a make or break issue for many of us so we like to stay aware of what is happening ... behind the scenes or at the forefront. Gun hating Democrats would do well to pay attention. Many of us would vote democratic most all of the time except for a couple of things. This is one.
Click to expand...

What gets me is that people have NO problem accepting all the paperwork and bureaucratic hassle of owning a car, or transfering ownership, or changing license for relocation to another state, etc.

Yet these same people feel that an instrument whose sole purpose is to kill (whether for food or self defense) does NOT merit the same or similar scrutiny. I find that mindset amazing.

Yes, there are some people who hate guns...but they are NOT the majority of people who are pushing gun laws. Those who see ANY gun control as a prelude to banning guns or confiscation of their weapons are either unnecessarily panicking because they are not well informed, or essentially are disdainful/suspicious of the federal gov't in general.

We cannot go back to the days where any schmoe can buy any type of weapon, wear it whenever/wherever they want, and buy/sell them to whomever, wherever they want. Been there, done that...which is why society evolved LAW ENFORCEMENT to developed ways to try and keep gun violence down and guns out of the hands of criminals. Nothing is perfect, but to ignore the reality and history is not the answer.
 
Taichiliberal said:
FYI: the term was originally coined as "neoconservative", by a writer named Harrington in 1973 magazine article about welfare...not about "jewish liberals". Some people say neoconservatives were "influenced" by the career of an American Marxist/Leninist turned Social Democrat in the 1930's named Shachtman, who was Jewish. But as history shows, "new conservatives" or "neocons" for short, are not exclusively Jewish, or recognized as such.
Click to expand...
Linky?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top