Gravitymaster

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.

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.

what? you mean when someone uses your own tactics against you you don't like it? Or does it just mean that as often as you use that tactic you don't have many real responses?? I never claimed that mentally ill people have no rights. Your post was a STRAWMAN. So no response to you is needed Still waiting for the tap dancing to end and to hear your solution. Or we could just sit back and enjoy the continued hand wringing. Your choice.

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?

If keeping $Millions in offshore accounts netted him not one dollar reduction in taxes (to paraphrase Romney's claim), why is he (and Bain) paying high priced lawyers and accountants to set up these accounts in the Caymans? Does his money like the climate down there? www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/bains-offshore-strategies-grew-romneys-wealth.html?pagewanted=all You might want to enroll in some financial management classes. There you will learn that a diversified portfolio is a sign of a strong overall investment strategy. That includes investments in foreign markets. My guess is that if you have an IRA, that many of the mutual funds actually have investments in foreign stocks. You will also learn that Caymen Island Banks are not the shadowy places that most of the grossley uninformed think they are. They are actually quite commonly used as a place to gather investment money from around the world. Do you really believe that Transnational Corporations are a new concept? Want to buy a bridge? I have a nice one for sale. Right, what you don't have is a very good understanding of what Cayman Island Banks are used for nor how international investment money is gathered. Cute reply though, unfortunately no substance. We all (including you) know why Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg... banks are preferred, and the reason is NOT diversity. You just can't bring yourself to admit it. I've already told you what they are used for.

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.

If keeping $Millions in offshore accounts netted him not one dollar reduction in taxes (to paraphrase Romney's claim), why is he (and Bain) paying high priced lawyers and accountants to set up these accounts in the Caymans? Does his money like the climate down there? www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/bains-offshore-strategies-grew-romneys-wealth.html?pagewanted=all You might want to enroll in some financial management classes. There you will learn that a diversified portfolio is a sign of a strong overall investment strategy. That includes investments in foreign markets. My guess is that if you have an IRA, that many of the mutual funds actually have investments in foreign stocks. You will also learn that Caymen Island Banks are not the shadowy places that most of the grossley uninformed think they are. They are actually quite commonly used as a place to gather investment money from around the world. Do you really believe that Transnational Corporations are a new concept? Want to buy a bridge? I have a nice one for sale. Right, what you don't have is a very good understanding of what Cayman Island Banks are used for nor how international investment money is gathered. Cute reply though, unfortunately no substance.

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.

If keeping $Millions in offshore accounts netted him not one dollar reduction in taxes (to paraphrase Romney's claim), why is he (and Bain) paying high priced lawyers and accountants to set up these accounts in the Caymans? Does his money like the climate down there? www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/bains-offshore-strategies-grew-romneys-wealth.html?pagewanted=all You might want to enroll in some financial management classes. There you will learn that a diversified portfolio is a sign of a strong overall investment strategy. That includes investments in foreign markets. My guess is that if you have an IRA, that many of the mutual funds actually have investments in foreign stocks. You will also learn that Caymen Island Banks are not the shadowy places that most of the grossley uninformed think they are. They are actually quite commonly used as a place to gather investment money from around the world. Do you really believe that Transnational Corporations are a new concept?

So you want to throw up your hands like kelpdiver and say "Nothing can be done" and just wait for the next nutter to go on a shooting spree. We are still waiting for you to suggest a solution that doesn't violate Constitutional Rights. We won't be holding our breath. Please continue the hand wringing, instead.

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.

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.

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.

So the way the Dems treated the Repubs the first two years of the Obama Admin was just fine with you? All the Executive Orders and Czars is just dandy, huh? Telling us we have to pass bills before we can see what's in them doesn't bother you? Repubs and Dems have never gotten along. While it's true the polarization has rarely been this high, it's not unpresedented nor will it remain this way. Someimes it take some of the people causing it to either lose an election or to retire.

Maybe the Republicans should give up on abortion instead? In other words, you go first. See the problem? I'm not the one who made the post about compromising. In case you missed it, I said it would never happen. Please try and keep up with the concersation if you want to take part in it.

And lets not even get started on how the Dems rammed Healthcare Reform through. "We have to pass the bill so that you can know what's in it"-Pelosi A shining example of bi-partisanship, don't you think? Face it. Both parties do it and it's never going to stop. Even if Obama, Reid and Pelosi are not acting in the spirit of bipartisanship as you and lawrocket pointed out, my point still stands -- when was the last time a republican offered a SecDef or VP slot to a democrat? It doesn't happen. And let's not count the Zell from hell speech at the republican convention in 2004; that was pure BS. Republicans are too busy demonizing democrats. At least we've seen democrats try. Also, show me the last time a republican poster here acknowledged that BOTH parties are necessary for balance in congress as billvon did. I can't recall, but please -- prove me wrong. I think if republicans had their way, they would turn this country into a one-party system. I don't know how you figure your point stands. If Kerry offering McCain a V.P. spot is all you've got, then your point just collapsed. 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, 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?

I like watching him go from the silly to pathetic insults. I've just about got him there.

Nixon DID get us out of Vietnam. yet more soldiers (roughly 50/50) died during that *4 year* withdrawal than in the 3-4 years of heavy fighting under LBJ. So what. It took a surge to get us out of Iraq.

Nixon DID get us out of Vietnam. Not with his "secret plan" though. Try reading some history, you may find it enlightening. How do you know it wasn't his "Secret Plan"? It was a secret, remember?

Are drug lords "Law abiding, sane citizens"? Not what I said. Try again. You can figure it out if you REALLY REALLY think very very hard. Nothing to figure out. You are behind the curve and haven't realized it yet. Please keep posting, though. It's mildly entertaining to see you struggle.

Nixon DID get us out of Vietnam.

Are drug lords "Law abiding, sane citizens"? Not what I said. Try again.

Do you have the same disdain for the President and the Attorney General for putting assault weapons into the hands of the drug lords. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWuoR5LC1-4 Didn't think so.

I'm happy for you if it makes you feel better to add "sane". I'm sure you won't get much disagreement.

But Kallend is ready to put them behind (padded) bars. And you are surprised? Rather than addressing the problem of identifying and treating those who need mental help, the knee-jerk reaction is to trample on the Constitution. No - the article addresses the issue of properly treating the mentally ill. Nothing whatever to do with trampling the Constitution. The victims have Constitutional rights too. "Loonie with a Gun".... everyone on here knew exactly what you meant. Are you going to claim that the gunman was a sane, normal gun owner? That Engeldinger joins the ranks of such other sane, normal gun owners as Cho, Loughner and Kazmierczak. Not what I'm claiming at all and you know it. So you agree that Engeldinger is a nutter and had a gun which he used to kill multiple innocent people. Rather like the other nutters Cho, Kazmierczak, Holmes, Loughner... who used guns to kill multiple innocent people. Glad we got that out of the way. Right, and the laws need to be changed to better identify and treat people who need help because they are a danger to themselves and others without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens. Do you really need to go down this road again? We all know where we stand and where you stand.