And when you start to understand things in a real world context cal - I would be really happy to have a good faith discussion. Allowing guns on a plane isn't real world anything. If there wasn't one terrorist left in the world allowing guns on a plane is still an extremely stupid thing. Allowing guns in a mental institution is also an extremely stupid thing, and believe me, often the line between a flying soup can and a mental ward is pretty fuzzy.
"You touch my junk and I'll have you arrested"
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
And when you start to understand things in a real world context cal - I would be really happy to have a good faith discussion. Allowing guns on a plane isn't real world anything. If there wasn't one terrorist left in the world allowing guns on a plane is still an extremely stupid thing. Allowing guns in a mental institution is also an extremely stupid thing, and believe me, often the line between a flying soup can and a mental ward is pretty fuzzy.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Since when? :bowrofl:
Well - the hiatus is about to continue - I am on the road again in a bit... but, things looked like they had gotten pretty boring around here - without your token liberal to kick around...
Shortly you will be back to "Obama is bad", "Liberals are stupid", "MSNBC is wrong", "Right is right", "Butt kiss Sarah Palin" posts that have 3 responses and 90 views again...
Have fun with that...
What you mean is that when I accept your talking points without challenge....
Amazing, you can't even say that honestly...
Well, I'm still waiting.
It's been a few years and despite countless efforts to draw one out of you, you demonstrate a gross intellectual dishonesty. Your effort is to persuade, usually making a dishonest emotional appeal, rather than actually exchange ideas.
You make the statement, but you don't respond to the challenges to it.
Is it "extremely stupid" to allow them on trains, buses, stores, restaurants and movie theaters? Is it "extremely stupid" to even let the masses own them?
Why is being in the air different than being stuck on a train or bus when it comes to irritability? It's not.
You're reliance on the leftist, anti-gun imagery of all gun owners as being mouth breathing fools itching to shoot their weapons, always on the verge of snapping is tiresome. People who chose to carry on a plane would be no different than in any other sector of society.
You're rhetoric is hollow and tired.
And, frankly, you desperate arguments this afternoon have been pathetic and tedious.
No it's not.
Yes it is - people are weird on planes - many people have irrational fears - and plane travel is extremely stressful. This is real cal - we haven't allowed guns on planes for good reasons - they are different.
How dare you Cal - I have in no way portrayed all gun owners as that - in no way have I done that - I have gone out of my way to avoid that. I know many people who own guns and am a gun owner.
You want dishonest - there you have it Cal. If you have to revert to attributing statements to me that I never, ever said, your have moved beyond desperate. Your irrational hatred is showing Cal -
Oh - I happen to know that you have been listening to Beck once again, didn't he talk about this earlier this month? Your reliance on parroting a TV evangelist is extremely funny Cal -
Sure, just like you've never implied that the Tea Party events were racist.
You're extremely duplicitous and, generally, dishonest.
And foxpaw draws the last card in her deck.
The victim card.
No one hates you, foxpaws, at this point, you're actually just predictable and boring.
Your effort to provoke isn't going to work, foxpaws.
Besides, I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not aware of anyone publicly discussing the idea of increasing security by increasing liberty, in this case, represented by the legally carry a concealed weapon on a commercial airliner. But I don't know what you've been reading on media matters...
Now why don't you go slink off and come back with a new set of talking points in a month or so.
So - why should I bother - you are so obviously right, and I am merely a leftist pawn.
I haven't been to media matters in a long, long time - however I do have friends who write for slate - and are more than happy to regale me with Beckisms - it is a fun past time.
And I got to hear how I am a dishonest lying anti-American liberal scum very early posting on this thread. I get to hear that every time I am here cal - it is the canned response to anything I might say.
Once again - have fun with your little cheerleading rightest society here -
And guess what - '04 is right - in no way will they be letting guns on planes anytime soon - irking isn't it - you are in a no-win situation.
Oh, and timing is everything cal - odd how you and beck seem to be on the same cycle - coincidence - or maybe your stars are just in alignment...
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
Ok, I have read all of this thread, got through all the pissin matches, and now am ready to make a common sense synopsis of just what the hell is going on concerning the security in this country, and other parts of the world.
Now, too my limited knowledge, this country is the only one scanning and doing pat down body searches at airports.
This being the case, someone dropped the ball along the way when it comes to security.
First off, most, if not all the traveling american public are not terriorist, and wouldn't know a box cutter from a condom.
Second, they only want to get from point a too point b unobstructed. .
Why the hell are they searching the traveling public?
Answer, because some country in the middle east failed miserably at airport security, and allowed the 911 terriorist to get on planes and head for the united states.
Security for this country begins at our own borders, and ports of entry.
That is what is lacking in this country.
Pat dows and body scans at our airports have nothing too do with securing our borders and ports of entry.
That is where the main focus should be, not in massarging someone's groin in an airport.
We need to quadripple our efforts on border security, as well as ports of entry.
We don't ned to stop and search grand ma and grandpa at the airport,we need to find these fools that want to blow us up, long before they reach this country.
Bob.
Now, too my limited knowledge, this country is the only one scanning and doing pat down body searches at airports.
This being the case, someone dropped the ball along the way when it comes to security.
First off, most, if not all the traveling american public are not terriorist, and wouldn't know a box cutter from a condom.
Second, they only want to get from point a too point b unobstructed. .
Why the hell are they searching the traveling public?
Answer, because some country in the middle east failed miserably at airport security, and allowed the 911 terriorist to get on planes and head for the united states.
Security for this country begins at our own borders, and ports of entry.
That is what is lacking in this country.
Pat dows and body scans at our airports have nothing too do with securing our borders and ports of entry.
That is where the main focus should be, not in massarging someone's groin in an airport.
We need to quadripple our efforts on border security, as well as ports of entry.
We don't ned to stop and search grand ma and grandpa at the airport,we need to find these fools that want to blow us up, long before they reach this country.
Bob.
You shouldn't bother. The spin isn't working.
You should just discuss these things honestly.
Doubling down with the victim card...
And then following up with a little bitterness...
I certainly don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Nor do I know of any formal effort being undertaken to institute such a change. That was not my point in mentioning it, I think it's interesting because such restrictions are more symptomatic of a greater problem and erosion of our freedoms in exchange for the false promise of security.
K
Klenora
Guest
I think all this thread should be closed like all the others since there's no debate - just finger-pointing and name-calling.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
1. You're not a moderator.
2. You're right about the debate part - but the only person refusing to debate is foxpaws.
3. This kind of discussion is instructive and very, very predictable and typical - you can see foxpaws morph from logical fallacies to passive aggressive victimhood in about 2 pages.
K
Klenora
Guest
Then why do you even respond?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You're asking me this, while responding in a thread that you think should be closed?
If you're uncomfortable with the idea of disagreement, or if you like special treatment that being a girl on the internet provides you, then this isn't a the sub-forum forum for you. And your characterization of the forum is simply incorrect.
Do you have any to contribute to the thread?
Do you have an opinion or observation that you'd like to express and support?
K
Klenora
Guest
I'm not the only one that contributes and gets no responses to these threads. And yes, I am responding to ask why you continue when you can predict what is going to be said/done. It appears that it is strictly a personal attack against one person. Now you're trying to attack me for being female? THAT's what I am uncomfortable with! How did you get to be a moderator with that type of attitude? Is everyone like that on here? Do you seriously think this forum is for men only? If that's the case, then I will surely leave, because I didn't come here to be treated like a piece of meat.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh my dear Lord. Talk about an overreaction. Please stop flattering yourself.
You're welcome to take your ridiculous indignation elsewhere.
I think my point was pretty clearly made, you WILL NOT be treated differently than anyone else in this forum, gender or status are of no significance. It doesn't matter if your the Administrator/owner of the webpage or one of those "uber-rare girls on the internet." If you'd like such special treatment, this isn't the sub-forum for you.
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
If someone is stupid enough to fire a gun on a plane, more than likely, all will die if that bullet goes throught the skin of the plane.
That is just an aluminum layer we are talking about, and once it has a hole in it, it will widen with decompression, and rip the plane apart.
You still think it's ok to take a gun onboard with the risk of killing everybody?
Bet none of you gun people thought about that litle ditty.
Bob.
That is just an aluminum layer we are talking about, and once it has a hole in it, it will widen with decompression, and rip the plane apart.
You still think it's ok to take a gun onboard with the risk of killing everybody?
Bet none of you gun people thought about that litle ditty.
Bob.
It was addressed already on the first page.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=744377&postcount=30
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
EPIC, EPIC FAIL.
Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,987
- Reaction score
- 1
Someone's been watching one too many movies....
ford nut
Local nut case
ROFL...welcome to the LVC politics forum.
If you carry a gun and pound a bible you will fit well in here.
But....have any opinions away from the far right you will get savaged.
It matters not what sex you are or the color of your skin......but it can be used as a tool to carry out the cruelty.
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
I agree 100%.
Where are you getting that?
We do have at least one member on this forum who DOES try and leverage her femininity to her advantage in her attempts to frustrate discussion of ideas on their merits. If you have not been around this forum for a while, you are not familiar with that factor (and how it plays out) and are not going to be able to make sense of this forum.
Do you think it is rude to call someone out on their attempts to mislead and subvert honest discussion?
If you want to have a mutually respectful discussion of ideas on their merits, we would love to have you. You are right about many of these threads not being able to maintain civil discourse, but you need to look at why that is and what actions in particular are causing that.