Sarah Palin

Dixie said:
I think Apple may be in violation of his own proposal already... Isn't he somewhat encouraging pot smokers to attempt flying? What if someone is killed by a falling pot smoker? Can we lay the blame at Apple's feet for mentioning it here? Wye, I think we can, if we use his logic and reasoning!
Click to expand...

No, that's your logic and reasoning.

You're one strange dude, Dix.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You used the phrase of "sexually stunted" and what would happen if someone like Mojo read that and went on a killing spree?
Should we hold you responsible for his actions; because of his perception of you mentioning his "shortcomings"?
Click to expand...

Actually, I was referring to Conservative attitudes. Pent up tension. All that bottled up energy. Not good.
 
apple0154 said:
Actually, I was referring to Conservative attitudes. Pent up tension. All that bottled up energy. Not good.
Click to expand...

But you used a comment that someone might find disturbing and we can't be saying things that someone else might missconstrue to mean who knows what.
 
apple0154 said:
Well, I always leave room to consider opinions but I must say I've never, ever heard of someone having sex and then wanting to go out and commit violence. Is that how it works where you live?
Click to expand...

I guess you misinterpreted what I said again, moron. I didn't say we should ban sex, there is nothing wrong with sex between consenting adults. We were talking about imagery and how people react to it... remember? ...seeing cross hairs in political ads... billboards with bullet holes... like the lame correlation you made with epileptic seizures caused by strobes which trigger a reaction in the brain... did you forget what you were saying? So like... pornographic images could cause a pervert to become sexually stimulated and then he might go out and rape someone, maybe even kill them.... therefore, using your OWN IDEA regarding the political rhetoric, we should just remove these images from society! Think of how many potential rapes we might prevent?
 
Dixie said:
I guess you misinterpreted what I said again, moron. I didn't say we should ban sex, there is nothing wrong with sex between consenting adults. We were talking about imagery and how people react to it... remember? ...seeing cross hairs in political ads... billboards with bullet holes... like the lame correlation you made with epileptic seizures caused by strobes which trigger a reaction in the brain... did you forget what you were saying? So like... pornographic images could cause a pervert to become sexually stimulated and then he might go out and rape someone, maybe even kill them.... therefore, using your OWN IDEA regarding the political rhetoric, we should just remove these images from society! Think of how many potential rapes we might prevent?
Click to expand...

I addressed that. Pornographic images aid those folks who don't have partners to relieve themselves.

That's why, when I remarried, I chose a gal 9 years younger and childless.
 
apple0154 said:
I addressed that. Pornographic images aid those folks who don't have partners to relieve themselves.

That's why, when I remarried, I chose a gal 9 years younger and childless.
Click to expand...

Well pinhead, maps like the one Sarah Palin had on her website, aid those who seek to return America to it's glory again, through the peaceful democratic process. So we seem to have something we can finally agree on. Both things serve a fundamental purpose to someone, and shouldn't be banned because some nutjob goes over the edge and does something reprehensible, whether it is rape caused by viewing too much porn, or an anarchist who reads too much anti-government conspiracy theory garbage, shooting up a political rally. It's the same in both cases, we don't take away freedoms and liberties enjoyed by peaceable citizens, to protect ourselves from maniacs. It's just plain ignorant and stupid to do that, and when you start down that idiotic path, there is no fucking end.
 
Dixie said:
Well pinhead, maps like the one Sarah Palin had on her website, aid those who seek to return America to it's glory again, through the peaceful democratic process. So we seem to have something we can finally agree on. Both things serve a fundamental purpose to someone, and shouldn't be banned because some nutjob goes over the edge and does something reprehensible, whether it is rape caused by viewing too much porn, or an anarchist who reads too much anti-government conspiracy theory garbage, shooting up a political rally. It's the same in both cases, we don't take away freedoms and liberties enjoyed by peaceable citizens, to protect ourselves from maniacs. It's just plain ignorant and stupid to do that, and when you start down that idiotic path, there is no fucking end.
Click to expand...

It's not just nut jobs. Many demonstrations turn violent.

As for starting down a path the path we're currently going down is getting worse and as you said yourself, "When you start down ...(an) idiotic path there is no fucking end."
 
apple0154 said:
I addressed that. Pornographic images aid those folks who don't have partners to relieve themselves.

That's why, when I remarried, I chose a gal 9 years younger and childless.
Click to expand...
The "rationalization" exhibited in that first statement is galactic in response to dixies post....

and

that personal note of yours is just evidence of the desperation you both must have been feeling to get together.

I guess both of these facts just escape your notice completely.
 
apple0154 said:
It's not just nut jobs. Many demonstrations turn violent.

As for starting down a path the path we're currently going down is getting worse and as you said yourself, "When you start down ...(an) idiotic path there is no fucking end."
Click to expand...

The only demonstrations I have ever seen turn violent, are LIBERAL demonstrations! Tea Parties have been rallying for two years, without the first hint of violence. And Jared Loughner was not a TEA party demonstrator-turned-violent, was he? Nope... he was a crazy person who crashed a meet-n-greet.

If you think the path is getting worse, why do you want to continue down the path? Is it your goal to make it as worse as possible or something? Do you really think banning certain images and certain speech, is going to stop crazy people from doing crazy shit? Or is this just another liberal attempt to exploit a tragedy to try and squelch right-wing political speech?

As I pointed out before, we had the Fairness Doctrine in place for almost 50 years, from 1948 to 1986.. look at how many "acts of violence" we endured... the assassinations of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, MLK... Attempted assassinations of Ford and Reagan. Not to mention Wallace and others who were targeted, and we haven't even gotten into all the demonstration violence. That's what happens whenever you silence Free Speech!
 
Dixie said:
Do you really think banning certain images and certain speech, is going to stop crazy people from doing crazy shit?
Click to expand...

symbols known to incite liberals....

In_god_we_trust.jpg


ten_commandments.jpg


images
 
bravo said:
The "rationalization" exhibited in that first statement is galactic in response to dixies post....

and

that personal note of yours is just evidence of the desperation you both must have been feeling to get together.

I guess both of these facts just escape your notice completely.
Click to expand...

The reality is we both enjoy sex. OMG!! Who would have ever thought it's natural for human beings to desire sex.

Do you know why religions, if not condemning sex, place so many restrictions and conditions on it? It's because religion has to make people subservient and what better way to do that than to take a natural human function, an innate quality, and restrict it in some way. It sets up a constant inner battle and that's precisely what religion plays/preys on. Condemn a natural human quality and reap the rewards of the ensuing guilt. But like all religions a little cash goes a long way to finding salvation.

On the up side the human race is slowly climbing out of that dark pit called organized religion. In a sense it's like the industrial revolution or the information revolution. We're changing in spite of ourselves and that's a very good thing.

But, hey, if one finds comfort in guilt, in fighting an imaginary "battle", in feeling that denying themselves what the Creator instilled in us is in some way virtuous, then by all means knock yourself out.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But you have to be careful of the words you use, seeing as how that's been the main topic this past week.
Click to expand...

No one has to tell me the importance of choosing the right words! When dating, after my divorce, I quickly learned one wrong word could mean the difference between a ticket to Heaven or going home alone. :(
 
Dixie said:
The only demonstrations I have ever seen turn violent, are LIBERAL demonstrations! Tea Parties have been rallying for two years, without the first hint of violence. And Jared Loughner was not a TEA party demonstrator-turned-violent, was he? Nope... he was a crazy person who crashed a meet-n-greet.

If you think the path is getting worse, why do you want to continue down the path? Is it your goal to make it as worse as possible or something? Do you really think banning certain images and certain speech, is going to stop crazy people from doing crazy shit? Or is this just another liberal attempt to exploit a tragedy to try and squelch right-wing political speech?

As I pointed out before, we had the Fairness Doctrine in place for almost 50 years, from 1948 to 1986.. look at how many "acts of violence" we endured... the assassinations of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, MLK... Attempted assassinations of Ford and Reagan. Not to mention Wallace and others who were targeted, and we haven't even gotten into all the demonstration violence. That's what happens whenever you silence Free Speech!
Click to expand...

No one is talking about silencing speech.

Perhaps an analogy will help. When in a court room and the Judge asks if one has anything to say that person is permitted to speak freely. That does not mean the person is permitted to curse and swear or threaten the Judge.

Also, there is a line between free speech and slander. Why shouldn't there be a line between stating opinions in a civilized manner as opposed to using metaphors connoting* violence and harm?

* Connoting: to signify or suggest (certain meanings, ideas, etc.) in addition to the explicit or primary meaning: The word “fireplace” often connotes hospitality, warm comfort, etc. (Dic.com)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top