| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 8:53:52 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-joe-arpaio-obama-birther-20120301,0,5437098.story
Rest in Peace Conservative Warrior!!http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dies-natural-causes-website-reports/
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 9:19:30 PM
I think that I'm over the bad name calling! But...Did you know that originally the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were called the "Bill of Restrictions", on the Federal Government, not the Bill of Rights??
You know, I do want to call you a name here, and it's not a bad one. I would call you a misinformed Patriot! How about that?
I think that we both agree on much more than we disagree!!
But as most hard heads do, we argue about the simpleist of things!!
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| on a fishin mission |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 08:13:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
My Goodness Man, you have an even lesser knowledge of the U.S. Constitution than I thought before.
The First Amendment never states that there is a separation of Church and State. Only that there shall be no State (government) run (mandated) religion!
Am I loosing you here?
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!!
Actually the term seperation of Church and State appears nowhere in the Constitution. The term "thus building a wall of seperation between Chuch and State", was coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, refering to the first ammendment, and has been used numerour times since then.
From the 1st ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Make you want to call me some more bad names?
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 10:04:56 PM
But I won't! So answer me this. Do you have a clear understanding of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 10:02:09 PM
DUDE, you make me think about posting ugly words again!!!!!!
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 9:56:43 PM
To much time in the Do Jo????
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 9:34:31 PM
My Goodness Man, you have an even lesser knowledge of the U.S. Constitution than I thought before.
The First Amendment never states that there is a separation of Church and State. Only that there shall be no State (government) run (mandated) religion!
Am I loosing you here?
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 9:23:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
Back to square one. Rush had as much of a "reason" to call Sandra Fluke a "slut" as you had to call him a "POS" and "waste of air". Mixed Nutz also had a "reason" to call you all the names he called you. The only difference was in your minds and opinions of what "justified" your name-calling. This is what you can't grasp. Rush's "reasons" are as important to millions of people as yours are to millions of others.
You were doing so well before you chose to jump right back into that hole.
Quit playing pseudo-semantic games, and just answer these simple questions.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Rush most certainly had a reason to call her whatever he wanted, without slander though. When he slandered her he opened up a different playing field. As I have said before, I played to the opponents language. The difference though is that I did not attack anyone, I responded to name calling with name calling, but only to Rush's statement. There is a big difference, whether it is right or not, there is a difference. I also did not respond to MN calling me a mother ****er a loser or a imbesile, nor did I respond to any of the other people that called me names when I was certainly justified to do so.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
No, because I retaliated.
retaliate
#8194; #8194;[ri-tal-ee-eyt] Show IPA verb, -ated, -ating.
verb (used without object)
1.
to return like for like, especially evil for evil:
Would it be wrong to call Easy or Soup a derogatory name because I don't believe in something they say, yes. Would it be wrong to retaliate, no.
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
No, please see definition of retaliate. I have not preached against retaliation or that would be a double standard.
You talked earlier about principles. the only principles I have portrayed here is that we should allow people to speak their minds without slandering or libeling them. If you do slander or libel someone expect the same in return. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. While Newton's 3rd laws words work well here I understand his meaning as theories of motion. Think about it. If you kill someone, you too are killed, or at least robbed of your life metaphorically. If you steal something, you have to repay that debt, be it in prison or a fine. In Biblical terms, an eye for an eye. If you don't kill anyone, you're ok. If you don't steal anything, you're ok. See what I'm getting at here. Unprovoked calling someone a name is wrong, retaliation to someone calling you a name is not wrong in the eyes of our society. Did Rush call me a name, no, but he used bad langauage for a personal attack on a position I firmly believe in, the 1st ammendment right to free speech, while at the same time claiming the 1st ammendments right of seperation of church and state.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson
You never had a leg to stand on my friend, because you started the self righteous name calling, and personal attacks right out of the box!!
Refer to the first page of this topic will you?
And then proceed to explain your arguments!!
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 12:01:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
Please explaing the stand your ground law again.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now, if someone tries to mug you in public, you can shoot them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't shooting someone for trying to steal your wallet a RETALIATION? You argue in "principle" you have a right to retaliate in one thread and say its wrong in this thread. Who's playing into double standards now?
Why do you pretend you can't comprehend the explanation I already gave? I told you that calling names in retaliation does not stop the name-calling, but shooting a would-be mugger stops a bodly threat. NO, stopping someone from mugging you is not "retaliation". It is PREVENTION and SELF-DEFENSE of your LIFE. Retaliation is getting someone BACK, AFTER they do something to you. Shooting someone who's holding you at gunpoint is not "retaliation". It's called SURVIVAL, and survival trumps the pettiness of name-calling any day! If you went back and shot the guy AFTER he mugged you and was walking off, THAT would be retailiation. That's more like what you did to Rush, and THAT is both wrong AND illegal--and it should be. I do NOT advocate retaliation. You do. Name-calling does not prevent ANY threat to your person whatsoever. It is retaliation, not prevention or self-defense, because it does not reduce threat to self. If anything, it creates more of a threat. This is pretty basic stuff here.
Also, when I spoke of the "stand your ground" law, I was speaking of a LAW, not a moral matter or a principle. I do not ADVOCATE shooting anyone, especially for a mere wallet, but I acknowledge the right of someone to protect his life from harm, and it's wrong for a government to prevent a man from protecting himself and others from a real threat. For you to compare that to retaliatory name-calling is nothing short of laughable!
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
You should take note that I previously said if someone attacks my position or me with bad language they should expect the same in return. Rush atacked my position, with bad language, on the 1st ammendment.
Ah, so, like I said, you alone set the rules from your own egocentric view--not the Bible, not society, but YOU, based on how YOU FEEL. Someone can attack half of the my position and our Constitutional rights with lies, propaganda, and political manipulation, and Rush can't mock her activist stunt by calling her names, noooooo, but if someone "attacks" a position that YOU hold, you're "justified" to fire away at them with the worst names in the book. Thanks for the fair and balanced explanation. LOL!
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's SAME "justification" Rush was using when he called Sandra Fluke a "slut". She attacked a "position I firmly believe in"--MY CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope he slandered her, calling someone a slut is slander, He is certaibly justified in attacking her position, but should not slander her.
What he said is no more "slander" than what you said. He isn't actually a piece of feces, but you said he is. It's more likely that Sandra Fluke is actually a slut than that Rush's body is comprised of fecal matter. Also, I don't "condone" his name-calling, but you said I did; nor am I a false Christian as you clearly implied. Nor did I support Mixed Nutz's name-calling, as you slanderously said I did. I could go on, but I just hope you--someday--start to see how you judge yourSELF without knowing it.
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
I can prove that he is a fat ass oxcotin eating junkie though, so I'll just refer to him in this way from now on using his own words to describe his own actions.
1. Nope, you said "POS" and "waste of air". So, is his body made of feces, or did you slander him? You tell us.
2. FYI, he no longer eats oxycontin, so that makes slander #2. (Libel really)
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
As far as a pos, I have made my point well that people who spew the filth he spews, justifies the comment and his way of thinking as a waste of o2.
LOL!!!!! You just showed us AGAIN how YOUR opinion of what "justifies" something is all that matters to you--NOT PRINCIPLES. Excellent proof of your egocentric double-standards.
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
Free speach does not include the right to slander.
Then, you need to repent.
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
I absoultely agree he should have retaliated and voiced his opinion, but he crossed the line and you continue to condone that crossing that line, which is slander, as being his right to free speech.
OH MY GOODNESS. DId y'all catch that. OFM just slandered (libelled) me while preaching about slander. Stop repeating the LIES for which you've already APOLOGIZED, OFM! I do NOT condone Rush's name-calling. I'm only showing you that yours is just as bad--if not worse. I'm showing you that your self-"justification" applies to everyone--not just YOU.
I am just glad that the whole world can come right here and read you showing us just how far off the moral compass of Obama supporters is and how they judge the world from absolute egocentrism and double-standards.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| on a fishin mission |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 11:17:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
Back to square one. Rush had as much of a "reason" to call Sandra Fluke a "slut" as you had to call him a "POS" and "waste of air". Mixed Nutz also had a "reason" to call you all the names he called you. The only difference was in your minds and opinions of what "justified" your name-calling. This is what you can't grasp. Rush's "reasons" are as important to millions of people as yours are to millions of others.
You were doing so well before you chose to jump right back into that hole.
Quit playing pseudo-semantic games, and just answer these simple questions.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Rush most certainly had a reason to call her whatever he wanted, without slander though. When he slandered her he opened up a different playing field. As I have said before, I played to the opponents language. The difference though is that I did not attack anyone, I responded to name calling with name calling, but only to Rush's statement. There is a big difference, whether it is right or not, there is a difference. I also did not respond to MN calling me a mother ****er a loser or a imbesile, nor did I respond to any of the other people that called me names when I was certainly justified to do so.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
No, because I retaliated.
retaliate
#8194; #8194;[ri-tal-ee-eyt] Show IPA verb, -ated, -ating.
verb (used without object)
1.
to return like for like, especially evil for evil:
Would it be wrong to call Easy or Soup a derogatory name because I don't believe in something they say, yes. Would it be wrong to retaliate, no.
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
No, please see definition of retaliate. I have not preached against retaliation or that would be a double standard.
You talked earlier about principles. the only principles I have portrayed here is that we should allow people to speak their minds without slandering or libeling them. If you do slander or libel someone expect the same in return. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. While Newton's 3rd laws words work well here I understand his meaning as theories of motion. Think about it. If you kill someone, you too are killed, or at least robbed of your life metaphorically. If you steal something, you have to repay that debt, be it in prison or a fine. In Biblical terms, an eye for an eye. If you don't kill anyone, you're ok. If you don't steal anything, you're ok. See what I'm getting at here. Unprovoked calling someone a name is wrong, retaliation to someone calling you a name is not wrong in the eyes of our society. Did Rush call me a name, no, but he used bad langauage for a personal attack on a position I firmly believe in, the 1st ammendment right to free speech, while at the same time claiming the 1st ammendments right of seperation of church and state.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson
Oh, so as long as you're "retaliating" against someone you "despise", it's OK? Wow!!!! No wonder we disagree a lot. Your moral compass is way off.
You apparently either don't understand the Bible, haven't read it, or don't believe in it--or in Jesus. Simply put, retaliation is wrong. The Bible strictly forbids it in both Old and New Testaments. The eye-for-eye concept was a LAW for the JUDGES of Israel--the prescribed manner in which Israel's JUDGES were to carry out LEGAL PUNISHMENT for CONVICTED CRIMES, and also a LIMITATION on the punishment. It was NOT a PERMISSION slip for individual people to take PERSONAL REVENGE or "retaliation" on each other.
This is made clear through two passages. The first passage is Leviticus 19:18, which says, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD." The second is straight from the Lord Jesus, who says, in Matthew 5:38-39, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth': But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." This is why it's sometimes dangerous for people to go around quoting the Bible if they haven't studied it thoroughly.
Aside from that, Rush did not attack YOU anyway. You just BUSTED yourself by saying, "Unprovoked calling someone a name is wrong, retaliation to someone calling you a name is not wrong in the eyes of our society. Did Rush call me a name, no, but he used bad langauage for a personal attack on a position I firmly believe in, the 1st ammendment right to free speech"
CONGRATULATIONS!! That's SAME "justification" Rush was using when he called Sandra Fluke a "slut". She attacked a "position I firmly believe in"--MY CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
By the way, you don't speak for "our society" anymore than Rush does.
If retaliation "justifies" your bad language, then Rush was "justified" to be "retaliating" against a girl who is trying to raid our Constitutional religious freedom.
Also, don't look now, but you had just been arguing above that you were not saying it was right to call Rush names. Now, you are arguing that it's not wrong, and that it's "justified". OK, so it's not wrong, and it's "justified"--buuuuut, you're not saying it's "right". Man, you sure know how to blow your credibility like none I've ever met.
"The difference though is that I did not attack anyone, I responded to name calling with name calling, but only to Rush's statement."
FALSE. You just ADMITTED above that you attacked Mixed Nutz and me. Are you so bent on self-justification that you can't even stick to an admission already conceded?
"I also did not respond to MN calling me a mother ****er a loser or a imbesile, nor did I respond to any of the other people that called me names when I was certainly justified to do so."
Actually, Mixed Nutz was retaliating against YOU. You made the first attacks and name-calling here, OFM. You also just said that retaliation justifies itself, so why did you complain about Mixed Nutz's retaliation? Man, this is like arguing with a Palestinian about terrorism.
As for "slander", that is nonsense. It was obvious from Rush's original statements that he was simply speaking in a figurative and argumentative manner to mock the activist's POLITICAL position and role in a national political drama, and he "justified" his comments as a "retaliation" on an attack on his Constitutional ideals--just like you just did.
If it's "slander" because he "can't prove she's a slut", then you slandered him because you can't prove he is a piece of feces or a waste of oxygen.
If you can't understand this, I am truly sorry, but Rush's "right to free speech" is as important as yours or hers. Also, it's good that you referred to Newton's laws. That's exactly what happened to Sandra Fluke. She attacked people's rights, and she got attacked in "retaliation".
You, sir, have just exemplified the most striking example of Liberal double-standards, self-righteousness, and closed-mindedness that I have ever, ever seen--anywhere, at any time. Thank you. That was my goal.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
quote:
Oh, so as long as you're "retaliating" against someone you "despise", it's OK? Wow!!!! No wonder we disagree a lot. Your moral compass is way off.
I was retaliating against a personal attack on another person. As I have stated many times, had Rush not called her a slut, I would not have become involed, at his level.
quote:
Simply put, retaliation is wrong.
Please explaing the stand your ground law again.
quote:
Right now, if someone tries to mug you in public, you can shoot them.
Isn't shooting someone for trying to steal your wallet a RETALIATION? You argue in "principle" you have a right to retaliate in one thread and say its wrong in this thread. Who's playing into double standards now?
quote:
Aside from that, Rush did not attack YOU anyway. You just BUSTED yourself by saying, "Unprovoked calling someone a name is wrong, retaliation to someone calling you a name is not wrong in the eyes of our society. Did Rush call me a name, no, but he used bad langauage for a personal attack on a position I firmly believe in, the 1st ammendment right to free speech"
You should take note that I previously said if someone attacks my position or me with bad language they should expect the same in return. Rush atacked my position, with bad language, on the 1st ammendment.
quote:
That's SAME "justification" Rush was using when he called Sandra Fluke a "slut". She attacked a "position I firmly believe in"--MY CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
Nope he slandered her, calling someone a slut is slander, He is certaibly justified in attacking her position, but should not slander her.
quote:
If it's "slander" because he "can't prove she's a slut", then you slandered him because you can't prove he is a piece of feces or a waste of oxygen.
I can prove that he is a fat ass oxcotin eating junkie though, so I'll just refer to him in this way from now on using his own words to describe his own actions. As far as a pos, I have made my point well that people who spew the filth he spews, justifies the comment and his way of thinking as a waste of o2.
quote:
If you can't understand this, I am truly sorry, but Rush's "right to free speech" is as important as yours or hers. Also, it's good that you referred to Newton's laws. That's exactly what happened to Sandra Fluke. She attacked people's rights, and she got attacked in "retaliation".
Free speach does not include the right to slander. I absoultely agree he should have retaliated and voiced his opinion, but he crossed the line and you continue to condone that crossing that line, which is slander, as being his right to free speech.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson |
| Easy |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 10:27:59 AM
Well stated Lee. It's the old ( Do as I say, Not as I do ) |
| hhi angler |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 10:20:35 AM
Howard Stern is political or does your memory fail when he was running as a candidate for NY Gov or having a rest stop named for him? |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 10:12:16 AM
Summary,
OFM, you feel "justified" in "attacking" Rush by calling him a "POS" and a "waste of air" because you were just "retaliating" against someone you "despise" because of the things he says, because he speaks opinions that insult someone or something important to you, and because you think he really is a piece of feces and a waste of oxygen by way of the thing he says. So, you won't admit to doing wrong, even though you say your whole involvement here was to stand on the principle that it's wrong to call someone bad names for speaking a disagreeable opinion publicly.
Rush felt justified calling a left-wing political activist a "slut" because he was retaliating against her actions to destroy a fundamental right that is very important to him. He may even tell us that he really feels she is a slut, so to speak, just as you said about him being a piece of fecal dropping. Instead, he apologized.
OFM, I truly hope you learn that two wrongs don't make a right.
The bottom line here is that you "justify" calling people you "despise" bad names, but you forbid others the same. It's wrong to call someone names UNLESS OFM despises that person for his opinions and feels it's "justified" to fire away.
Excellent work here in showing us what is truly wrong with this country--the broken moral compass of the left.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 09:42:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
Back to square one. Rush had as much of a "reason" to call Sandra Fluke a "slut" as you had to call him a "POS" and "waste of air". Mixed Nutz also had a "reason" to call you all the names he called you. The only difference was in your minds and opinions of what "justified" your name-calling. This is what you can't grasp. Rush's "reasons" are as important to millions of people as yours are to millions of others.
You were doing so well before you chose to jump right back into that hole.
Quit playing pseudo-semantic games, and just answer these simple questions.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Rush most certainly had a reason to call her whatever he wanted, without slander though. When he slandered her he opened up a different playing field. As I have said before, I played to the opponents language. The difference though is that I did not attack anyone, I responded to name calling with name calling, but only to Rush's statement. There is a big difference, whether it is right or not, there is a difference. I also did not respond to MN calling me a mother ****er a loser or a imbesile, nor did I respond to any of the other people that called me names when I was certainly justified to do so.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
No, because I retaliated.
retaliate
#8194; #8194;[ri-tal-ee-eyt] Show IPA verb, -ated, -ating.
verb (used without object)
1.
to return like for like, especially evil for evil:
Would it be wrong to call Easy or Soup a derogatory name because I don't believe in something they say, yes. Would it be wrong to retaliate, no.
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
No, please see definition of retaliate. I have not preached against retaliation or that would be a double standard.
You talked earlier about principles. the only principles I have portrayed here is that we should allow people to speak their minds without slandering or libeling them. If you do slander or libel someone expect the same in return. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. While Newton's 3rd laws words work well here I understand his meaning as theories of motion. Think about it. If you kill someone, you too are killed, or at least robbed of your life metaphorically. If you steal something, you have to repay that debt, be it in prison or a fine. In Biblical terms, an eye for an eye. If you don't kill anyone, you're ok. If you don't steal anything, you're ok. See what I'm getting at here. Unprovoked calling someone a name is wrong, retaliation to someone calling you a name is not wrong in the eyes of our society. Did Rush call me a name, no, but he used bad langauage for a personal attack on a position I firmly believe in, the 1st ammendment right to free speech, while at the same time claiming the 1st ammendments right of seperation of church and state.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson
Oh, so as long as you're "retaliating" against someone you "despise", it's OK? Wow!!!! No wonder we disagree a lot. Your moral compass is way off.
You apparently either don't understand the Bible, haven't read it, or don't believe in it--or in Jesus. Simply put, retaliation is wrong. The Bible strictly forbids it in both Old and New Testaments. The eye-for-eye concept was a LAW for the JUDGES of Israel--the prescribed manner in which Israel's JUDGES were to carry out LEGAL PUNISHMENT for CONVICTED CRIMES, and also a LIMITATION on the punishment. It was NOT a PERMISSION slip for individual people to take PERSONAL REVENGE or "retaliation" on each other.
This is made clear through two passages. The first passage is Leviticus 19:18, which says, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD." The second is straight from the Lord Jesus, who says, in Matthew 5:38-39, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth': But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." This is why it's sometimes dangerous for people to go around quoting the Bible if they haven't studied it thoroughly.
Aside from that, Rush did not attack YOU anyway. You just BUSTED yourself by saying, "Unprovoked calling someone a name is wrong, retaliation to someone calling you a name is not wrong in the eyes of our society. Did Rush call me a name, no, but he used bad langauage for a personal attack on a position I firmly believe in, the 1st ammendment right to free speech"
CONGRATULATIONS!! That's SAME "justification" Rush was using when he called Sandra Fluke a "slut". She attacked a "position I firmly believe in"--MY CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
By the way, you don't speak for "our society" anymore than Rush does.
If retaliation "justifies" your bad language, then Rush was "justified" to be "retaliating" against a girl who is trying to raid our Constitutional religious freedom.
Also, don't look now, but you had just been arguing above that you were not saying it was right to call Rush names. Now, you are arguing that it's not wrong, and that it's "justified". OK, so it's not wrong, and it's "justified"--buuuuut, you're not saying it's "right". Man, you sure know how to blow your credibility like none I've ever met.
"The difference though is that I did not attack anyone, I responded to name calling with name calling, but only to Rush's statement."
FALSE. You just ADMITTED above that you attacked Mixed Nutz and me. Are you so bent on self-justification that you can't even stick to an admission already conceded?
"I also did not respond to MN calling me a mother ****er a loser or a imbesile, nor did I respond to any of the other people that called me names when I was certainly justified to do so."
Actually, Mixed Nutz was retaliating against YOU. You made the first attacks and name-calling here, OFM. You also just said that retaliation justifies itself, so why did you complain about Mixed Nutz's retaliation? Man, this is like arguing with a Palestinian about terrorism.
As for "slander", that is nonsense. It was obvious from Rush's original statements that he was simply speaking in a figurative and argumentative manner to mock the activist's POLITICAL position and role in a national political drama, and he "justified" his comments as a "retaliation" on an attack on his Constitutional ideals--just like you just did.
If it's "slander" because he "can't prove she's a slut", then you slandered him because you can't prove he is a piece of feces or a waste of oxygen.
If you can't understand this, I am truly sorry, but Rush's "right to free speech" is as important as yours or hers. Also, it's good that you referred to Newton's laws. That's exactly what happened to Sandra Fluke. She attacked people's rights, and she got attacked in "retaliation".
You, sir, have just exemplified the most striking example of Liberal double-standards, self-righteousness, and closed-mindedness that I have ever, ever seen--anywhere, at any time. Thank you. That was my goal.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| on a fishin mission |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 08:36:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
I mean, what if Howard Stern had called the girl a slut. Would he be under the same scrutiny, or would he be "just being Howard Stern"?
If it were Howard Stern it would have not made mainstream media and I would not have heard about it. Howard Stern is also not a political commentator or does he claim to be "Saving the soul of America".
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson |
| on a fishin mission |
Posted - 03/27/2012 : 08:27:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
Back to square one. Rush had as much of a "reason" to call Sandra Fluke a "slut" as you had to call him a "POS" and "waste of air". Mixed Nutz also had a "reason" to call you all the names he called you. The only difference was in your minds and opinions of what "justified" your name-calling. This is what you can't grasp. Rush's "reasons" are as important to millions of people as yours are to millions of others.
You were doing so well before you chose to jump right back into that hole.
Quit playing pseudo-semantic games, and just answer these simple questions.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Rush most certainly had a reason to call her whatever he wanted, without slander though. When he slandered her he opened up a different playing field. As I have said before, I played to the opponents language. The difference though is that I did not attack anyone, I responded to name calling with name calling, but only to Rush's statement. There is a big difference, whether it is right or not, there is a difference. I also did not respond to MN calling me a mother ****er a loser or a imbesile, nor did I respond to any of the other people that called me names when I was certainly justified to do so.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
No, because I retaliated.
retaliate
#8194; #8194;[ri-tal-ee-eyt] Show IPA verb, -ated, -ating.
verb (used without object)
1.
to return like for like, especially evil for evil:
Would it be wrong to call Easy or Soup a derogatory name because I don't believe in something they say, yes. Would it be wrong to retaliate, no.
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
No, please see definition of retaliate. I have not preached against retaliation or that would be a double standard.
You talked earlier about principles. the only principles I have portrayed here is that we should allow people to speak their minds without slandering or libeling them. If you do slander or libel someone expect the same in return. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. While Newton's 3rd laws words work well here I understand his meaning as theories of motion. Think about it. If you kill someone, you too are killed, or at least robbed of your life metaphorically. If you steal something, you have to repay that debt, be it in prison or a fine. In Biblical terms, an eye for an eye. If you don't kill anyone, you're ok. If you don't steal anything, you're ok. See what I'm getting at here. Unprovoked calling someone a name is wrong, retaliation to someone calling you a name is not wrong in the eyes of our society. Did Rush call me a name, no, but he used bad langauage for a personal attack on a position I firmly believe in, the 1st ammendment right to free speech, while at the same time claiming the 1st ammendments right of seperation of church and state.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 9:24:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
After a little soul searching today, I will apologize to "on a fishin mission" expressly. Not because I'm afraid of him, nor because I'm unwilling to meet him face to face. I would really like to do just that. Not for a confrontation, but rather an ongoing civil discussion of ideas, and ideals.
After all of the personal attacks (I'm guilty too) I personally apologize to Fishinmission, right here and now, for the derogatory, and insulting remarks I've posted towards him!!
Like you've said before OFM, I think my emotions have gotten the better of my discretion here.
So that's it.
Take it or leave it!!
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!!
I accept and offer the same apology.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson
Good!! Game on!
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| skinneej |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 8:01:54 PM
I mean, what if Howard Stern had called the girl a slut. Would he be under the same scrutiny, or would he be "just being Howard Stern"? |
| jstrange |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 6:16:08 PM
It is painfully obvious now that the only reason ofm backed up was to punt and regroup. He has not repented at all. He'll platitude his butt off just so he can come around from an oblique angle to get at his original target. IOW, he's not sorry a bit.
Umm, you gonna eat that?
Thousands have died to save my freedom. Only one has died to save my soul! |
| Easy |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 5:10:41 PM
Not, a pretty picture!
Wish I knew how to import pictures!
http://www.fotosearch.com/comp.asp?pp_sku=csp807&image_name=k8074899&src=eti+http%3a%2f%2fsearch%2ecomcast%2enet%2f%3fcat%3dweb%26con%3dbetae%26q%3d%2bprune%2bpictures%26offset%3d10&src2=%2ceti |
| saltydog235 |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 4:05:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Easy
I give Howard credit for having better taste than that. Man, can you picture any kids born from that union? UUGGLY.
Pretty sure that Pelosi's prunes have dried up by this point.
Mark
Mako 262 Twin Yammaha F200s
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid" John Wayne
|
| Easy |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 3:11:06 PM
I give Howard credit for having better taste than that. Man, can you picture any kids born from that union? UUGGLY. |
| soup |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 2:10:37 PM
Howard Stern is in bed with Nancy Pelosi? Wow, what a site that would be? |
| skinneej |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 12:26:41 PM
What if it was Howard Stern? |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 11:35:22 AM
Back to square one. Rush had as much of a "reason" to call Sandra Fluke a "slut" as you had to call him a "POS" and "waste of air". Mixed Nutz also had a "reason" to call you all the names he called you. The only difference was in your minds and opinions of what "justified" your name-calling. This is what you can't grasp. Rush's "reasons" are as important to millions of people as yours are to millions of others.
You were doing so well before you chose to jump right back into that hole.
Quit playing pseudo-semantic games, and just answer these simple questions.
1. Were you wrong to call Rush Limbaugh a "POS" and "waste of air"? Yes or no?
2. Was it a double-standard for you to preach against name-calling while calling people names (or defendng your name-calling)?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| on a fishin mission |
Posted - 03/26/2012 : 11:32:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
"JUSTIFY -- transitive verb
1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable"
Unbelievable. Now, you're saying that you were "justified" in calling Rush a "POS" and "waste of air", but "maybe not" "right", but you won't say you were "wrong". Wow, like your overall argument here, that is beyond irrational. If you're going to resort to that kind of pseudo-semantic nonsense, then this discussion is a waste of time. Again, Rush and Mixed Nutz could use the same "justified" argument in calling you and Sandra Fluke names.
Man, just either admit that you were wrong to call the names, and thus, argued from a hypocritical position, or just let it go, and have a nice day.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Again, doesn't mean I was right in doing so but that I had reason for doing so.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
