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

Lucas Gonze lucas.gonze at gmail.com
Tue Aug 7 08:43:28 PDT 2012


On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III <j3 at barrera.org> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list