[3deroticer]

Now hold on, no one ever ban for political views? I have to disagree on that personally.

I betray the liberal for defending McCain, even though many consider me as a liberal. Now in this case instead of using the "R" word to incite an emotional trigger to rile the base, it's the "Hitler" reference to paint the Sara Palin's fan. I hold the liberals on this forum to higher standard and not play those games, I'll admit that. I could care less if the other side does it, as I think its help to see the hole their digging. In all case that Q_BE list as the liberals playing the Hitler games, in both cases Moved on.org removed the entry for the contest for a political ads using Goodwin law type ads against Bush, and apologized for the entry. And Hugo Chevez? when was he consider to be a liberal? I still say stick with the fact and find specifically the quote of the offending party for the action that warrant an Apology.

"Oct 20, 2010: for ignoring an explicit warning from a mod telling him NOT to post about a subject, 3Deroticer earns a week off."

The subject was about a political view of a Republican (John McCain)

unless I am mistaken, I can personally contest that one person did get ban for political views. If not, specifically point out the offending quote that got me ban, because I am not clear on that point. What was my offending action and quote that made you shut down political opinion? Maybe you would like people to think of John McCain as being what he was portray being that way, but I had to ask for proof, and a direct quote from the horses mouth before I become a party to that emotional trigger word that are design to get people riled up, and also become party of riling up hate for the Hitler comparison to Sara Palin.

[SamV]

Having just read (scanned) the last dozen posts or so since the shooting in Arizona, I would suggest everyone take a step or two back from their keyboards and take a few deep breaths and calm down.

Name calling, character assignation and finger pointing does little to bolster the point one is trying to make, especially if the point in question is whether the current lack of civility in politics or elsewhere contributed to the tragic actions of one mentally troubled individual.

Now hopefully after everyone has calmed down a bit it will be possible to resume this conversation without all the vitriol.

Sam "Thanking you for taking the time to read this and give it your due consideration" V

[Palomine]

Now hold on, no one ever ban for political views? I have to disagree on that personally.

I betray the liberal for defending McCain, even though many consider me as a liberal. Now in this case instead of using the "R" word to incite an emotional trigger to rile the base, it's the "Hitler" reference to paint the Sara Palin's fan. I hold the liberals on this forum to higher standard and not play those games, I'll admit that. I could care less if the other side does it, as I think its help to see the hole their digging. In all case that Q_BE list as the liberals playing the Hitler games, in both cases Moved on.org removed the entry for the contest for a political ads using Goodwin law type ads against Bush, and apologized for the entry. And Hugo Chevez? when was he consider to be a liberal? I still say stick with the fact and find specifically the quote of the offending party for the action that warrant an Apology.

"Oct 20, 2010: for ignoring an explicit warning from a mod telling him NOT to post about a subject, 3Deroticer earns a week off."

The subject was about a political view of a Republican (John McCain)

unless I am mistaken, I can personally contest that one person did get ban for political views. If not, specifically point out the offending quote that got me ban, because I am not clear on that point. What was my offending action and quote that made you shut down political opinion? Maybe you would like people to think of John McCain as being what he was portray being that way, but I had to ask for proof, and a direct quote from the horses mouth before I become a party to that emotional trigger word that are design to get people riled up, and also become party of riling up hate for the Hitler comparison to Sara Palin.

You disagree with that because you can't be objective about it. As the EXACT TEXT YOU QUOTED makes clear, you were banned for doing something after being explicitly told not to do it... THAT was why you got banned. I'm not going to debate that whole thing with you again... but felt compelled to clarify your misstatement of fact. The fact that you consider the incident to be 'political' has ZERO to do with what got you banned: it was your behavior. Period.

PS: and I suggest you drop that subject again now... since you bringing it up yet again is (for the second time since your temp ban) technically the same violation. I told you not to post about that topic because of your behavior, and I'm not going to re-iterate that again.

If you bring it up again, you'll get temp banned again... is that clear enough for you? And THAT ban will have NOTHING to do with politics EITHER: it'll have EVERYTHING to do with you knowingly going against an instruction from a forum mod. AGAIN.

Is that clear enough for you 3D? I ask you PLEASE DON'T force me to temp ban you again... I've ignored you violating that TWICE since last time but can not do so again. You mention that incident for any reason in the forum or in chat and you will not receive a third 'second chance'. So please finally drop that subject.

[Shara]

besides that was funny 

[3deroticer]

besides that was funny 

Must be an inside joke between you 2 !?!?

[pedonbio]

Having just read (scanned) the last dozen posts or so since the shooting in Arizona, I would suggest everyone take a step or two back from their keyboards and take a few deep breaths and calm down.

Name calling, character assignation and finger pointing does little to bolster the point one is trying to make, especially if the point in question is whether the current lack of civility in politics or elsewhere contributed to the tragic actions of one mentally troubled individual.

Now hopefully after everyone has calmed down a bit it will be possible to resume this conversation without all the vitriol.

Sam "Thanking you for taking the time to read this and give it your due consideration" V

My post has virtually nothing to do with politics, or the topic of this thread. It's personal.

[Shara]

My post has virtually nothing to do with politics, or the topic of this thread. It's personal.

[Real]

IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND! or just Over 9,000 is an over-used meme that was started by the japanese anime show 'Dragonball Z', where characters would use scouters to detect power levels.

I used it because I had been looking at 4chan and meant it in the sense that it's been done before.

What makes you think Sarah Palin is one of my political idols?

ah i see, i fucks with that meme.  and i must admit that in my hasty reply i attributed your post to angelus.

let me be clear on my point of view;  i dont hold anyone but the shooter directly responsible, frankly i think things like the online petitions to arrest palin floating around the net are pretty silly.  few if any on the extreme right genuinely wanted for this to happen but they have to be held accountable for the gun worshipping, self righteous frenzy they knowingly rile the militia set political fringe into in order to fill their pockets and ballot boxes.  that's why she took down the target map immediately that she now claims was never a target map. 

she's a fucking pig at the trough of american misery and she's been exposed imo.  one of the very few positives of this horrible tragedy is that this woman will never hold high office in america.  not now.

[3deroticer]

Well, Sara Palin lost the redneck hunter fans, because she revealed that she knows nothing about hunting and fishing. That should narrow her demographic quite a bit with anyone holding a gun. Although the shooter did take on her style of elk hunting into the crowd.

[3deroticer]

Prove it.  Everything I've been reading about this guy is that he is a 100 percent lunatic, like the VT Shooter.  Socially inept, not that smart.  Prove to me he is some sort of hardcore Republican, because he's NOT.  One of his favorite books is the Communist manifesto!

How does the book make him not be a Republican? And I think most are not saying that he is a republican but more in line with a anti-govt Tea Party type.

[Real]

in her camp's sad and shameless attempt to backpedal from her idiotic actions they insisting the map's crosshairs were in fact "surveyor's symbols".  but in typical idiotic palin camp fashion they forgot the fact she acknowledged them being bullseyes in one of her tweets.
https://twitter.com/#!/jmartpolitico/status/24142650655375360

this cunt's true colors continue to shine right through, but at least we know that privately she knows shit has hit the fan for her and her irresponsible bleating.

[TheZookie007]

The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America’s Constitution.

This is actually true.

[3deroticer]

freedom of religion, and the right to bear arm

What else is there? ..........I'll be back, I got to get my gun!

[rtpoe]

It's more interesting to see what *isn't* in there!

For example, nowhere does it explicitly state that there is a "Freedom of Religion". The only times religion is mentioned are in Article VI, Section 3: "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." and in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Nor does it define a "militia" as mentioned in the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Far too many people forget the part about the well-regulated militia.

Other things not covered are how the US acquires new territory, and how that territory becomes new states. That's why there was such a big fuss over the Louisiana Purchase. People thought Jefferson was overstepping his authority. And the rule saying that a VP takes over when the President dies, leaves office, or is otherwise unable to fulfill the duties of the office doesn't come in until the 25th amendment - AFTER Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Coolidge, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson all took office after the death of their predecessors.

And sometimes what *is* in there is so couched in obscure legalese that you can't understand it without annotations. Here's the second paragraph of Article III, Section 3:

"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

Any idea what that means? Without looking it up?

Let me leave you with this peroration from Jill Lepore's essay, "The Commandments", in the current issue of the New Yorker:

The Constitution is ink on parchment. It is forty-four hundred words. And it is, too, the accreted set of meanings that have been made of those words, the amendments, the failed amendments, the struggles, the debates—the course of events—over more than two centuries. It is not easy, but it is everyone’s. It is the rule of law, the opinions of the Court, the stripes on William Grimes’s back, a shrine in the National Archives, a sign carried on the Washington Mall, and the noise all of us make when we disagree. If the Constitution is a fiddle, it is also all the music that has ever been played on it. Some of that music is beautiful; much of it is humdrum; some of it sounds like hell.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/01/17/110117crat_atlarge_lepore#ixzz1AglYlQHO

[rtpoe]

And with regards to the Tucson Shootings, I have one question...

The Glock 9mm pistol can hold a magazine with up to thirty rounds. I've read varying estimates of the rate of fire, depending on the specific model - from 40 rounds per minute to over a thousand. In any case, the exact rate isn't going to make much difference to those at the receiving end.

Such a handgun can have one and only one purpose: to kill or wound as many people as possible as fast as possible, while still being able to be carried in a concealed manner on your person.

My question is: why the hell is anyone able to purchase one of these legally? Any rational reason for wanting to own a weapon can be satisfied with something far less dangerous to innocent bystanders.