Gravitymaster 0 #51 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteIn case you missed it, I said it would never happen. In case you missed it, you also posted, "Maybe if they gave up on abortion, the Repubs would view that as a sign and give up something in return. That would really set things in motion, don't you think?" If you didn't mean that, then don't write it. And in case you can't understand basic English, my post also said that it'll never happen. Apparently you missed the sarcasm. I also said it would never happen and was only challellenging the poster to prove a point. If you can't keep up with the conversation, it may be time to be silent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #52 October 3, 2012 Quote Quote I'm still waiting to hear what issue you think the Dems will give up on just to get the ball rolling. Maybe if they gave up on abortion, Why do you want other people to give up their rights when you so zealously guard your own? Another one incapable of following a progression of a conversation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm still waiting to hear what issue you think the Dems will give up on just to get the ball rolling. Maybe if they gave up on abortion, Why do you want other people to give up their rights when you so zealously guard your own? Do you feel the same about the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments? Like it or not, a couple of your stances implicate each of the aforementioned. I disagree. Disagree all you want. Your posting history says otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #54 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm still waiting to hear what issue you think the Dems will give up on just to get the ball rolling. Maybe if they gave up on abortion, Why do you want other people to give up their rights when you so zealously guard your own? Do you feel the same about the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments? Like it or not, a couple of your stances implicate each of the aforementioned. I disagree. Disagree all you want. Your posting history says otherwise. Please provide an example.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #55 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm still waiting to hear what issue you think the Dems will give up on just to get the ball rolling. Maybe if they gave up on abortion, Why do you want other people to give up their rights when you so zealously guard your own? Do you feel the same about the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments? Like it or not, a couple of your stances implicate each of the aforementioned. I disagree. Disagree all you want. Your posting history says otherwise. Please provide an example. Why bother. All you will do is tap dance your way around the truth. Everyone here knows how you feel about the 2nd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #56 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm still waiting to hear what issue you think the Dems will give up on just to get the ball rolling. Maybe if they gave up on abortion, Why do you want other people to give up their rights when you so zealously guard your own? Do you feel the same about the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments? Like it or not, a couple of your stances implicate each of the aforementioned. I disagree. Disagree all you want. Your posting history says otherwise. Please provide an example. Why bother. All you will do is tap dance your way around the truth. Everyone here knows how you feel about the 2nd. Interpretation - GM made a claim but can't back it up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #57 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm still waiting to hear what issue you think the Dems will give up on just to get the ball rolling. Maybe if they gave up on abortion, Why do you want other people to give up their rights when you so zealously guard your own? Do you feel the same about the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments? Like it or not, a couple of your stances implicate each of the aforementioned. I disagree. Disagree all you want. Your posting history says otherwise. Please provide an example. Why bother. All you will do is tap dance your way around the truth. Everyone here knows how you feel about the 2nd. Interpretation - GM made a claim but can't back it up. Nope, GM has better things to do than to play your game on a subject that is so obvious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #58 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn case you missed it, I said it would never happen. In case you missed it, you also posted, "Maybe if they gave up on abortion, the Repubs would view that as a sign and give up something in return. That would really set things in motion, don't you think?" If you didn't mean that, then don't write it. And in case you can't understand basic English, my post also said that it'll never happen. Apparently you missed the sarcasm. I also said it would never happen and was only challellenging the poster to prove a point. If you can't keep up with the conversation, it may be time to be silent. My point was that democrats demonstrate more in the way of bipartisanship. I will list the examples again: 1. Clinton appointing a republican SecDef 2. John Kerry offering a VP slot to a republican 3. The OP (not necessarily a democrat, but certainly not posting in favor of the repubicans) stating that TWO parties are necessary. How tenuous you think the examples are is not relevant; it is still more than you can say for republicans. I asked you to prove me wrong and to provide either an example of a republican politician acting in the spirit of bipartisanship, or even a republican poster in these forums saying anything resembling "BOTH parties are necessary." You instead ignore the question and go on the usual rant about Pelosi Reid bHo etc. So thank you for proving my point. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #59 October 3, 2012 Both Parties are necessary. We have an adversarial system of government. The pendulum swings both ways. How many different ways do you want me to say it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #60 October 3, 2012 QuotePlease provide an example You take issue with the Second Amendment. You have advocated repeatedly that something should be done with nutters to keep society safe. Those range from banning guns from them (2nd Amendment), and include unwarranted searches and seizures (4th), lack of due process (5th and 14th Amendments), placement into custodial hospitals (6th and 8th Amendments). Etc. And I've understood those concerns you have, but have said myself that I don't know how to get them off the streets Constitutionally. We cannot force sick people to get medical treatment unless we can prove that they are an immediate risk of harm to themselves of others. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #61 October 3, 2012 Quote Quote Please provide an example You take issue with the Second Amendment. You have advocated repeatedly that something should be done with nutters to keep society safe. Those range from banning guns from them (2nd Amendment), and include unwarranted searches and seizures (4th), lack of due process (5th and 14th Amendments), placement into custodial hospitals (6th and 8th Amendments). Etc. And I've understood those concerns you have, but have said myself that I don't know how to get them off the streets Constitutionally. We cannot force sick people to get medical treatment unless we can prove that they are an immediate risk of harm to themselves of others. Cue the tap dancing music. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #62 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm still waiting to hear what issue you think the Dems will give up on just to get the ball rolling. Maybe if they gave up on abortion, Why do you want other people to give up their rights when you so zealously guard your own? Do you feel the same about the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments? Like it or not, a couple of your stances implicate each of the aforementioned. I disagree. Disagree all you want. Your posting history says otherwise. Please provide an example. Why bother. All you will do is tap dance your way around the truth. Everyone here knows how you feel about the 2nd. Interpretation - GM made a claim but can't back it up. Nope, GM has better things to do than to play your game on a subject that is so obvious. . QED - you can't back up your claim.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #63 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuotePlease provide an example You take issue with the Second Amendment. You have advocated repeatedly that something should be done with nutters to keep society safe. Those range from banning guns from them (2nd Amendment), and include unwarranted searches and seizures (4th), lack of due process (5th and 14th Amendments), placement into custodial hospitals (6th and 8th Amendments). Etc. And I've understood those concerns you have, but have said myself that I don't know how to get them off the streets Constitutionally. We cannot force sick people to get medical treatment unless we can prove that they are an immediate risk of harm to themselves of others. The SCOTUS says banning guns from them is not a violation. Not me, not you, not GM. Scalia wrote it. i don't think I've proposed any violation of the other Amendments.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #64 October 3, 2012 QuoteIf you can't keep up with the conversation, it may be time to be silent. Is this your private thread now? I'll call you on your bullshit whenever I feel like it. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #65 October 3, 2012 QuoteThe SCOTUS says banning guns from them is not a violation. Not me, not you, not GM. Scalia wrote it. Once they have been adjudicated, then yes. I agree. Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had guns kept from them. The only way to do that is to violate their rights. I've never claimed that you have said that they should not have these rights. I have stated that your proposals necessarily implicate abrogations of those rights. In other words, you cannot accomplish your goals without violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #66 October 3, 2012 Quote Quote If you can't keep up with the conversation, it may be time to be silent. Is this your private thread now? I'll call you on your bullshit whenever I feel like it. Please...... continue to do so no matter how wrong you are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #67 October 3, 2012 >Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters >who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had >guns kept from them. >The only way to do that is to violate their rights. Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #68 October 3, 2012 Quote>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters >who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had >guns kept from them. >The only way to do that is to violate their rights. Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first. We can thank St. Ronald Reagan for putting the insane back on the streets of America.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #69 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuote>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters >who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had >guns kept from them. >The only way to do that is to violate their rights. Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first. We can thank St. Ronald Reagan for putting the insane back on the streets of America. Reagan put all the mutters with guns you post about on the streets? Wow, even long after his Presidency and death, you still blame him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #70 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters >who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had >guns kept from them. >The only way to do that is to violate their rights. Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first. We can thank St. Ronald Reagan for putting the insane back on the streets of America. Reagan put all the mutters with guns you post about on the streets? Wow, even long after his Presidency and death, you still blame him? Reading is a skill worth cultivating.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #71 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters >who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had >guns kept from them. >The only way to do that is to violate their rights. Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first. We can thank St. Ronald Reagan for putting the insane back on the streets of America. Reagan put all the mutters with guns you post about on the streets? Wow, even long after his Presidency and death, you still blame him? Reading is a skill worth cultivating. Yes it is. Did you bother checking the date on your "article"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 October 3, 2012 Quote>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters >who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had >guns kept from them. >The only way to do that is to violate their rights. Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first. None of these people were deemed insane in advance of these actions. Which was exactly what Lawrocket pointed out. It's fucking obvious that you can take away these rights after they have been found incompetent. But that's is as effective at preventing these incidents as it has been to ban people from swooping after they've proven themselves insufficiently skilled. We have a lot more survivors (who might say, don't do what I did) than we do actual fatalities. This leads many to propose - no swooping for anyone, or no swooping unless X Y and Z are met. Which is fine - you don't have a right to swoop, and the DZO isn't required to let you do so on his property. But constitutional rights enjoy more protection, cannot be taken away because something bad might happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #73 October 3, 2012 Quote>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters >who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had >guns kept from them. >The only way to do that is to violate their rights. Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first. Yes. But not until they've had due process. As I said, they had to be adjudicated that way. Kallend has posted many times about nutters blowing people away. Check out the crazy dude in Arizona - he never even had a traffic ticket. But he was weird, right? His was a case that did not fall through the cracks. There was no crack. Meanwhile, a fella gets pinched a couple of months ago for Facebook postings. An abuse that many applauded. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #74 October 3, 2012 >But that's is as effective at preventing these incidents as it has been to ban people >from swooping after they've proven themselves insufficiently skilled. We have a lot >more survivors (who might say, don't do what I did) than we do actual fatalities. Agreed. That only works if you can identify (and test) the swoopers who aren't competent to swoop before they kill themselves. Fortunately in the swooping world there are some signs that give you a good idea beforehand that something really bad is about to happen - very fast downsizing, showboating, toggle swoops, yard sales etc. The analog in the real world is a lot harder to identify. The guy who screams obscenities in his backyard while foaming at the mouth is easy. The guy who slowly loses his mind while peering at the black helicopters through his drapes is a lot harder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #75 October 3, 2012 QuoteQuote>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters >who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had >guns kept from them. >The only way to do that is to violate their rights. Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first. We can thank St. Ronald Reagan for putting the insane back on the streets of America. No. The Supreme Court put the nutters on the streets. Reagan happened to be the one in office when it was done. in 1975, the SCOTUS decided O’Connor v. Donaldson, UNANIMOUSLY holding: "A finding of 'mental illness' alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement… In short, a state cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends." Note: Donaldson was locked away for 15 years because he was accused of being mentally ill. Just kept away from society because society didn’t need a weirdo out there. In 1979, the SCOTUS held that the burden of proof to commit someone is on the government by "clear and convincing evidence." That changed stuff. Reagan was a champion of the RIGHTS of the mentally ill. See Lanterman-Petris-Short. "Blame Reagan" is the easy way. It's the same thing as saying, "Obama opened the doors to Super PAC Funding!" No, the SCOTUS did. Obama has no choice. Neither did Reagan. He did what he was required to do - release mentally ill people from custody. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)