[FoRK] Fwd: Rand Paul: Obama Just Banned 1 Million Firearms

Joseph S. Barrera III j3 at barrera.org
Tue Aug 7 01:02:01 PDT 2012


plonk

On 8/7/2012 12:48 AM, Damien Morton wrote:
> I should probably take a few moments to explain what exactly is going
> to happen to you, Martin Willis, you shivering cowardly mass of pig
> vomit.
>
> When I am done with you, women will see your face and shriek, my god,
> what kind of creature am I looking upon.
>
> These women will then huddle to comfort each other, when confronted
> with the extreme bitterness embodied in your two-faced ruinous
> political philosophy.
>
> After I am done with you, the psychological scars you bear will be so
> repellent, that children will scream out in fear when they see you.
> They will sing horrible songs about you, and your infamy will rival
> cooties and the boogyeman.
>
> This is my curse, which you will bear from now and in all time, you
> obsequious pile of mastadon turd.
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Damien Morton <dmorton at bitfurnace.com> wrote:
>> Obviously, Martin Wills, you have elected not to engage in any further
>> discussion about your Spartan theory of civics. At the same time, you
>> have probably not decided to accept my sort-of apology, Not a problem.
>>
>> Tomorrow,  I will, as politely as is possible, attempt to completely
>> destroy your world view.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Damien Morton <dmorton at bitfurnace.com> wrote:
>>> Is there some way we can talk about your position that only members of
>>> the armed forces should be citizens and vote?
>>>
>>> Obviously some will agree and some will disagree, but surely any
>>> discussion will involve having questions asked of you?
>>>
>>> I mean, you put the opinion out there on a public mailing list, whose
>>> purpose is discussion, so your position can hardly be considered
>>> private.This list can be a bit roughhouse sometimes, and I have been
>>> on the receiving end of flames myself.
>>>
>>> In our our first exchange, I was drunk and belligerent, and that
>>> surely got us off on the wrong foot. I regret that my first writing
>>> might be preventing us having further discussion.
>>>
>>> I hope you will reconsider you willingness to debate these issues.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:38 PM,  <mdw at martinwills.com> wrote:
>>>> Does asking stupid questions make you feel less stupid?  How about a
>>>> stupid question that is worded so it makes the other person think that you
>>>> are less stupid?  How about comments from others commenting on the
>>>> stupidness of your question.. Does it make you feel more or less stupid?
>>>>
>>>> Quit playing word games and think. That is what supposedly makes you
>>>> different from the other organisms on this planet.
>>>>
>>>> --Martin--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The <timeless and inerrant> constitution, "Dont f_ck with it", does
>>>>> that include the amendments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does amending the constitution constitute "f_cking with it"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't swearing allegiance pretty much the same as swearing to uphold?
>>>>> If not, can anyone swear to uphold the constitution, or does it have
>>>>> to be within the context of some government sponsored lethal force
>>>>> organisation? Is being a member of a government sponsored lethal force
>>>>> organisation the only way to uphold the constitution?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does a willingness to kill and be killed (in harms way), make
>>>>> someone a more worthy citizen? What if you were in the armed services,
>>>>> but never left, e.g. the Pentagon - does that mean you were in harm's
>>>>> way?
>>>>>
>>>>> What if you were willing to be in harm's way, but there wasn't an
>>>>> opportune war to go to, does that count?
>>>>>
>>>>> What about your military/paramilitary sisters, do they count?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you talk a little more about how, in your service, you have
>>>>> personally contributed to upholding the constitution? Like, were there
>>>>> any specific actions you took that resulted in the constitution being
>>>>> more upheld, versus less upheld if you hadn't taken that action?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:52 AM,  <mdw at martinwills.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A little broader...  Those SWORN to uphold the US Constitution including
>>>>>> all law enforcement and reserves (active and retired).  I happen to have
>>>>>> had US Navy, PD, and currently Air Force commitments upholding the
>>>>>> constitution.  As my past and present brothers would say "Don't F**K
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> it!".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:07 AM,  <mdw at martinwills.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Only those people
>>>>>>>> who have put themselves in harms way to protect the Constitution
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> allowed to change it (enough said on my view).
>>>>>>> And remember: "Service guarantees citizenship"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does this mean the US needs to be committed to an enduring series of
>>>>>>> wars to ensure the size of its pool of citizen/veterans?
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> FoRK mailing list
>>>>>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> FoRK mailing list
>>>>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FoRK mailing list
>>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork



More information about the FoRK mailing list