# My disgust



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

As of late I have grown disgusted with the Democrats in Congress. This disgust is only equaled by my contempt for the Republicans in who occupy the same office. I watched the Feingold censure. Certainly one would think that on such an issue as the wiretapping scandal. One in which the President is almost certainly in the wrong, that the Democrats would seize the opportunity to speak out against him. I watched as not a single Democrat would rise to support him. The old blood in the Democratic party are too comfortable in their seats, and because of this do not wish to make any radical move that may get them booted out of office. As such, despicable acts like breaking the law to wiretap American citizens, in direct violation of our Constitution is allowed to happen.

I have heard that Harry Reid, a man who I respect and admire, told a former Marine who happens to be a Democrat, Paul Hackett, who was running in Ohio to not run simply because he did not fit the "matrix". He is a strong willed, and reasonable Democrat with a good message, but because he refused to curtail his beliefs he was cast aside by the Democrats.

It is time to clean house in the Congress. We need new Democratic blood in the houses, with people who are willing to take a strong stance for what they believe in.

The Republicans are no better. They have held power for so long now that they feel untouchable, and as such are following their own interests in the place of the American citizens' interests.

I hope, nay I pray that someone with cross party appeal like John McCain breaks off from these two sickly, extreme parties and joins forces with someone with principles and balls like Paul Hackett to form their own third party. This would force both of the large parties to come back to the center, where the majority of Americans rest. What we need after years of extreme partisanship is a moderate uniter to mend America's wounds and bring us together as Americans, not just as Liberals and Conservatives.

God bless America, Tiger


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Tiger...you know, I actually agree with you....to a point.

The Democrats also make me sick. We disagree about Harry Reid (hopefully he'll lose his seat soon) though. The Republicans also make me sick too! They are WAYYY too far to the left! I will not be voting Republican this go around, and I will not be voting for Arnold in 2006 here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia either because he is too far to the left as well.

We agree but for completly polar opposite ways...Imagine that!

Jeff Given


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

OK ... I'll try this one more time ... I actually swore off this, but here goes anyway ...

per what you call .... "despicable acts like breaking the law to wiretap American citizens, in direct violation of our Constitution" <---- copy & paste there ...

Here's a Question or two or three or four ... and I ask it this way because this is real World circumstance.

We catch someone named Al Qieda bin Master-Mind somewhere in the Middle East, when we catch Al Qieda bin Master-Mind we also get his written documents and Computer and it's chalk full of "contact info" ... phone numbers and email addresses and the likes and many are in the good old USA.

Now since we know Al Qieda bin Master-Mind has been planning attacks and we know there is nothing he (or any of his Commrades) desire to do more than take out another 3,000 or more Americans on American soil.

What is it we should so with all this new, fresh as the driven snow "contact information" we just scooped up with Mr. Al Qieda bin Master-Mind???

Should we see what sort of communications are being passed into America through these contact sites?

How many people should we let know we have this information??

How long should we wait?? ...

Should we drag our feet since surely we might have some "nay-sayers" back home who confuse a WAR for another Sunny Day in America??

Might it be to our advantage to start monitoring those contacts ASAP in an effort to possibly gleen info before Mr. Al Qieda bin Master-Mind's commrades all realize we have Mr. Al Qieda bin Master-Mind in our custody????

To those who say we are no safer in America because of what GWB has the BALLS to do and who also refuse to realize that he does it for the right reason ... Just think about Mr. Al Qieda bin Master-Mind.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Should we see what sort of communications are being passed into America through these contact sites?


Absolutely



> How many people should we let know we have this information??


How ever many need it.



> How long should we wait?? ...


Not one minute.



> Should we drag our feet since surely we might have some "nay-sayers" back home who confuse a WAR for another Sunny Day in America??


Absolutely not!



> Might it be to our advantage to start monitoring those contacts ASAP in an effort to possibly gleen info before Mr. Al Qieda bin Master-Mind's commrades all realize we have Mr. Al Qieda bin Master-Mind in our custody????


Yes! I couldn't agree more! Neither could the people at F.I.S.A., who allow the president to install a wiretap immediatly, and get a warrant up to three whole days later.



> To those who say we are no safer in America because of what GWB has the BALLS to do and who also refuse to realize that he does it for the right reason ... Just think about Mr. Al Qieda bin Master-Mind.


Having balls does not mean that you have to ignore the Constitution.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I also seem to agree with MT. 
Perhaps I don't agree on some of his specific points or personality choices, but I am disgusted with both parties in Congress, and expect better from them. 
Decoy, I'll tell you what troubles me about you're hypothetical plot line, precedent!
Lets say Dubya uses his Faith Based Initiative to fund religious charities most of us on this forum would support. Who's to say three administrations from now would do the same? I don't want to fund Hari Krishna charities! 
Lets say Dubya uses his Executive power to bend the rules and wiretap terrorist communications without the FISA court. Four Executives from now, are they going to use the same precedent to listen to you and me? Is there going to be an executive elected years from now that venemously opposes gun possesion, that will be able to use Dubya's precedent to go after us? I believe so.
It is this fear that gives me a dim view of some of the things Dubya pulls, and our weak congress. I look to our congress to grow a back bone, re assert their authority, and live up to their Constitutional obligation.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Im still so young...and yet so Jaded. I dont trust ANY politician any farther than I can throw them. every single one so far has let me down, in BIG ways. :eyeroll:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> The Republicans are no better. They have held power for so long now that they feel untouchable


Who has been in power, I think you need to recheck the records, Dem's had it for 40 years.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I have heard that Harry Reid, a man who I respect and admire,


Being in Nevada, I had to jump in here. I know I didnt quote you all the way, but it seems like the shiny polished look of this guy is fading even for non Nevadans. Thanks MT. You just gave me the most hope yet that the voters of Nevada will see Reid for who he really is and finally vote that POS outta office.

If you ever want some insight on Reid, PM me.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Who has been in power, I think you need to recheck the records, Dem's had it for 40 years.


The Republicans have had congress for 12 years, evidently it has been too long.

This reminds me of another daily show clip. A Democrat strategist said "It doesn't hurt if the Republicans keep screwing up. It only helps you. It is good to have an opponent who keeps making errors." To this, Ed Helms replied "I'm right there with you. I got mugged the other day, and this bum was beating me with a bottle. And I said you know what, i'm going to sit back and wait for him to accidentally hit himself with the bottle. Sure enough, he did. I mean was unconscious, but I think I won that."

That sums up my disgust with the Democrats.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

you get on plainsmans case for listening to conservative radio, but you think its O.K. to listed to "The Daily Show" for political advice? Did NPR tell you to do that?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> you get on plainsmans case for listening to conservative radio, but you think its O.K. to listed to "The Daily Show" for political advice? Did NPR tell you to do that?


I don't take my advice from the Daily Show. They are simply good at exposing stories that would normally be under wraps, and making a farce of those which are exposed. As to your dislike of NPR, that is beyond me.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

What's the Daily Show? :eyeroll:


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

The Daily Show is just a funny maybe sophmoric half hour comedy show that skewers current events. I think it is rather funny if you can laugh at yourself. 
In my case I have no choice.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> What's the Daily Show?


This speaks volumes.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

I like The Daily Show. It's presents a decidedly liberal slant, but it's still damn funny. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Burl


----------



## Scoonafish (Oct 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > What's the Daily Show?
> 
> 
> This speaks volumes.


 What speaks volumes? Because somebody does not rely on comedy central to watch the "news"? Weak.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> What speaks volumes? Because somebody does not rely on comedy central to watch the "news"? Weak.


Because he is so far out in right field that he has never even heard of the program. Certainly I dislike O'Reilly with every fiber of my being, but I still watch the show just to get a balanced perspective. Listening to one side alone is weak indeed.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

MT, try to be reasonable.
To suggest that someone is out of touch, underinformed, or suffers from some other form of ignorance because they don't watch cable tv is just silly. I have a friend here in town that doesn't own a tv, and yet this Purdue educated gentleman stays very well informed on current events by using the radio, internet and (who'd a thought,) the newspaper. 
I think you could add some validity to your arguements if you avoided these kinds of remarks.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> Because of their arrogance and self-importance anyone who disagrees with them must be either stupid or racist.


 :bop:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > What speaks volumes? Because somebody does not rely on comedy central to watch the "news"? Weak.
> 
> 
> Because he is so far out in right field that he has never even heard of the program. Certainly I dislike O'Reilly with every fiber of my being, but I still watch the show just to get a balanced perspective. Listening to one side alone is weak indeed.


I could use the same logic to accuse you of being so far in the left field you hadnt heard about terrorist arrests here in the US, and you claim to be informed. He hasnt heard of The Daily Show, so what!

You're reaching again MT.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Being "up to the moment" on POP CULTURE certainly should not to be confused with being up to date on Current World Events.

BTW ... Just exactly where is it that GWB is doing anything Unconstitutional anyway?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> BTW ... Just exactly where is it that GWB is doing anything Unconstitutional anyway?


I think it goes something like this............ it is not written in the constitution that he can do it, therefore it stands to reason he can't do it so it must be unconstitutional. I think that's how they see it in their little world.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I think it goes something like this............ it is not written in the constitution that he can do it, therefore it stands to reason he can't do it so it must be unconstitutional. I think that's how they see it in their little world.


Nay, he can do it under the law, but chose to break the law as opposed to going through the proper avenues, because (this is what is presumed) he lacked the information to get a warrant. His actions were illegal, and it is rather bothersome that you would lay down your rights complacently and let the president stomp on them. That is quite an unAmerican attitude.



> I could use the same logic to accuse you of being so far in the left field you hadnt heard about terrorist arrests here in the US, and you claim to be informed. He hasnt heard of The Daily Show, so what!


I suppose you could, but then again the Daily Show is quoted in quite a few news programs and has been running for over ten years. My point is simply that Zog doesn't get his news from a very wide variety of sources. No reaching needed.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

The daily show is NOT a news source. It is a news based comedy show. You might as well be getting all your important political news by reading Doonesbury, Mallard Fillmore, and Prickly City in your local funny paper.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gun Owner said:


> The daily show is NOT a news source. It is a news based comedy show. You might as well be getting all your important political news by reading Doonesbury, Mallard Fillmore, and Prickly City in your local funny paper.


Precisely why I don't use it as such. I use it to show me stories that might have otherwise been under wraps. If I want investigative journalism I turn to CNN or MSNBC.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

MT said:


> Because if you wish to prove the existence of something, the burden rests on you, not the person who does not believe in its existance


Mt then said:


> he lacked the information to get a warrant. His actions were illegal


Okay.... prove it or shut up.

MT said:


> That is quite an unAmerican attitude.


So now I'm un-American. You're a real piece of work kid. You wouldn't know what it was to be a real American if it bit you in the ***. Ever think about getting off your fat butt and becoming part of this society you constantly cry and whimper about&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; of course not. Most likely you pee in your pants every time you think about having to go out and get a job and pay your own way in this world. Better wake up little boy, you can't sponge off mommy and daddy for ever.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Okay.... prove it or shut up.


Why should I shut up? Shall we let a likely breach of the Constitution go on without punishment? How would Watergate have turned out if Woodward and Bernstein were told to put up and shut up before the case was resolved?

Is it not enough to arouse suspicion that Bush stated that whenever he talks about wiretapping, he is talking about getting a warrant from a court, and then went on to say that he did indeed authorize warrantless wiretapping. Had this been a Democratic president that would have warranted impeachment. Why should it be any different for a Republican?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> Had this been a Democratic president that would have warranted impeachment. Why should it be any different for a Republican?


Holy crap kid, Clinton lied under oath admittedly and we did NOHTING to him.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Holy crap kid, Clinton lied under oath admittedly and we did NOHTING to him.


He was impeached. Where were you during the last years of the Clinton administration?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

MT said:


> Quote:
> Because if you wish to prove the existence of something, the burden rests on you, not the person who does not believe in its existance





MT said:


> Quote:
> he lacked the information to get a warrant. His actions were illegal





Gohon said:


> Okay.... prove it or shut up.





Militant_Tiger said:


> Why should I shut up?


You should cease and desist in this case because by using your own earlier words and logic(from above), you can't prove what Bush did was illegal. You have no proof. And as you said....the burden rests on you. If you expect others to follow and respect your reasoning and logic, you should also follow the very same logic you profess. Either provide Gohon with proof or apologize.

Period.

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> you can't prove what Bush did was illegal. You have no proof. And as you said....the burden rests on you.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179323,00.html

There are those who state that his actions were illegal, and those who state that his actions were legal. The majority of the latter come from those directly associated with this administration.

The difference between this situation and that of the supposed WMDs is that, in all likelihood, all of the information that will ever be turned up about the existence of the WMDs has already come out. Multiple cases are still in court over the NSA wiretapping issue. As such, none of us can give a definitive answer as none of us have all the facts. Based on what I have seen, it seems that the president's actions were probably illegal, but that could change as more facts come out.

From where we stand now, the president still lied to the American people by claiming that he would get warrants to preform wiretaps, and then coming out and stating that he approved of wiretaps withour warrants.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

This is your quote MT:


> This is really what gets me. When there is insufficient evidence to prove your point, you fabricate it.


I think it applies to you now.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> He was impeached. Where were you during the last years of the Clinton administration?


And what happened, NOTHING, they had evidence to prove he lied, he admitted he lied. Hell you were still leaving yellow streaks in your diaper at the time most of this shook down.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

MT


> It would take one hell of a man to reject the ability to avoid responsibility for his actions.


Clinton didn't want to take responsibility for his actions either, you guys are cracked right outa the same mold.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> And what happened, NOTHING, they had evidence to prove he lied, he admitted he lied. Hell you were still leaving yellow streaks in your diaper at the time most of this shook down.


I would call impeachment something, considering he is the second president ever to be impeached.



> Clinton didn't want to take responsibility for his actions either, you guys are cracked right outa the same mold.


Given the chance, everyone would duck responsibility.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> Given the chance, everyone would duck responsibility


Not a chance kid, this statement speaks volumes about what kind of person you are.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> I would call impeachment something, considering he is the second president ever to be impeached.


What came of it, NOTHING.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't think you fully understand what impeachment is.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

NOTHING came of it, I don't think you can comprehend that.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I don't think you fully understand what impeachment is.


MT what came of the impeachment? Humor me... I don't think I understand what your driving at? Did he leave office? Did he serve jail time? Was he fined?

Other than them passing a confidence vote to impeach... what were the outcomes of the action?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Where in the Constitution does it say information indicating a threat should be ignored at the time it is discovered?

Maybe some folks still choose to ingnore important words.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT what came of the impeachment? Humor me... I don't think I understand what your driving at? Did he leave office? Did he serve jail time? Was he fined?


You're missing the point here. He was impeached, that was the objective in and of itself. Just like a censure. Certainly, it could have gone further, but what came of the impeachment was... impeachment.



> Where in the Constitution does it say information indicating a threat should be ignored at the time it is discovered?


The crime he is charged with is breaching the right to privacy. That is assuming I understood you correctly.


----------



## Scoonafish (Oct 9, 2005)

I want to know a few things.

1. Where in the constitution it says we need a warrant to spy on our enemies that want us destroyed?

2. What abuses against American citizens has happend? I would like an example os this.

3. Why is it illegal to wiretap a non-US citizen that has contacts overseas with suspected terrorists?

4. What freedoms have we lost?

5. Since when have have have our enemies been guaranteed the same rights under our constitution?


----------



## Scoonafish (Oct 9, 2005)

Then I want to know what charges have been filed. And I want to see where in the constitution it says there is a right to privacy. Especialy against those that have the intrest of killing us.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Scoonafish said:


> Then I want to know what charges have been filed. And I want to see where in the constitution it says there is a right to privacy.


Unlawful search and seizure would probably cover the right to privacy pretty well, but I agree with what you said earlier about these rights being guaranteed only for our citizens, and certainly not extended overseas.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> You're missing the point here. He was impeached, that was the objective in and of itself. Just like a censure. Certainly, it could have gone further, but what came of the impeachment was... impeachment


What came of the impeachment was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. No matter how much you try spin it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Where in the constitution it says we need a warrant to spy on our enemies that want us destroyed?


Since when do American citizens constitute "enemies"? Moreover, how do you know who they are spying on? It may be you.



> What abuses against American citizens has happend? I would like an example os this.


We wouldn't know, it is a covert operation and modern wiretaps cannot be detected.



> Why is it illegal to wiretap a non-US citizen that has contacts overseas with suspected terrorists?


Because it IS US citizens that are being wiretapped, and nothing says that they have to have any suspected relations to terrorists.

You see, the problem with these sorts of things is not the intent, but that one can be assured that if the possiblity for abuse exists, it will be exploited.



> What freedoms have we lost?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is a little number I call the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.



> Since when have have have our enemies been guaranteed the same rights under our constitution?





> Especialy against those that have the intrest of killing us.


Again, where on Earth do you get this notion that it is our enemies?



> Then I want to know what charges have been filed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran ... versy#ACLU

Go to 7 in the contents area, it lists all of the legal challenges.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I don't know what he smok'in


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Since when do American citizens constitute "enemies"?


Military Oath.....

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against *all enemies, foreign and domestic;* that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Does Ethel & Julius Rosenberg or Jonathan Pollard ring a bell?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Since when do American citizens constitute "enemies"? .


Timothy McVeigh, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla.........


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> I don't know what he smok'in


MT is a girl... of the female species...


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I for one would not want to get on GWB's case real hard til I came to grips with the Word ... "UNREASONABLE" ...

In daily American Law enforcment Cops do plenty of stuff without a warrant when they have "Reasonable Cause" to persue a lead ...

What constitutes "Reasonable"???

If we pick up a contact through "Al Qieda bin MasterMind" somewhere in the Middle East and that contact leads to a communication right back here in the good old USA ... Does that mean we should hang up on possibly one of the hottest bits of info in the War on Terror? Does it mean the office of the President is in Jeopardy because we persued it??

Law enforcement does all sorts of things in an effort to stop crime and they do it without warrants because there is previous "Case History" to support what they are doing ...

We are now living in a realm we have never had to exist in previously ... There isn't a bunch of case history for what we are doing right now ...

To believe checking on communications from foriegn countries even if they extend into the USA ... during a time of War ... with an enemy who looks and acts very civilian in nature ... and agressively infiltrates American Society and uses the freedoms we Americans hold dear ... to our disadvantage.

Well to think that acts by our government now, and under these circumstances would lead to some future President one day listening to me and Arctic Plainsman and by doing so undo what James Madison put on paper nearly 225 years ago just seems absurd to me ... and makes no sense other than to extend the untidey hatred of the Left toward this President.

If it proves to be Illegal ... so be it ...

But MT's "DISGUST" is betrayed by the simple fact that near No-One was willing to stand by the Censure motion.

Now there is a statment worth paying attention to ... And it isn't coming from some absurd web site or some niche of Pop Culture ... it's real life Actions by those in charge of running America ...

even if it Disgusts MT

or so it seems to me.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

GREAT post DecoyDummy....

That just about sums it up. Thanks for taking the time to write up a well thought out reply...

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I for one would not want to get on GWB's case real hard til I came to grips with the Word ... "UNREASONABLE" ...


Makes sense to me.



> If we pick up a contact through "Al Qieda bin MasterMind" somewhere in the Middle East and that contact leads to a communication right back here in the good old USA ... Does that mean we should hang up on possibly one of the hottest bits of info in the War on Terror? Does it mean the office of the President is in Jeopardy because we persued it??


Do you know what my problem is with the blokes who agree with this program? You assume that it is going to be tracking down terrorists. This is simply not true. They could use this program to monitor anyone making an overseas call. If the government was a perfect agency and we could trust it to act responsibly at all times, this would make sense. Because it is not, you are simply breaking down one of our core freedoms.



> If it proves to be Illegal ... so be it ...


What in God's name are you trying to protect this country for if you are willing to let the very rights that make it the best country in the world erode?



> Now there is a statment worth paying attention to ... And it isn't coming from some absurd web site or some niche of Pop Culture ... it's real life Actions by those in charge of running America ...


By those who are too weak to stand up for something righteous and important such as this.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp ... &b=1389573



> Timothy McVeigh, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla.........


Does this constitute the majority of Americans? Because we have produced some terrorists ourselves means that it is ok to tap any American citizen that the government pleases? I think not.

A question that is open to all of you, why did Bush avoid using the FISA court system? What is the reasoning?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

It's not required 8)


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Yea, MT quit PM'ing me with garbage:



> Dear Alaskan BrokeBack King,
> 
> Why do you hate America and the principles that it stands for?
> 
> ...


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Not very nice MT

I got censured when I refered to you as weedhopper. :eyeroll: 
Alot of used to use that term in referece to you.

Please STOP your name calling condsending PM's or maybe a bunch of us will turn into whinners also. :******:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I've sent.... one of those. I'll knock it off, but no reason to make a mountain out of a mole hill.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Timothy McVeigh, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla.........
> 
> 
> Does this constitute the majority of Americans? Because we have produced some terrorists ourselves means that it is ok to tap any American citizen that the government pleases?


You asked when an American citizen is viewed as an enemy. I simply provided examples of American citizens that were enemies.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Indeed, but that cannot be used as justification to monitor other Americans as if they were the enemy.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> I've sent.... one of those. I'll knock it off, but no reason to make a mountain out of a mole hill.


Good, I think it's childess :eyeroll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Apology accepted in advance :lol:


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Hold it fellas, Jose Padilla hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and so far, I think his Constitutional rights have been badly violated. This Dude is an American, and is entitled to all rights! Yes, we think he probably is guilty, but,.....
Everyone here should be able to remember Richard Jewell? The wrongly accused Olimpic Park bomber in Atlanta? Our main man Dan Rather was pivotal in unjustly trying him in the press, and son-of-a-gun, he was innocent. Whoops! My bad! sorry about your ruined reputation and that whole behind bars thing.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

It would seem that you have written more than one nasty PM MT.



> From: Militant_Tiger
> To: racer66
> Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 1:41 pm
> Subject: Grow up or feel the sting of the pimp hand
> ...


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Name the guy on the right.

http://www.shootersforum.com/attachment ... entid=4075

The thread works I tried it...........


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> Dan Rather was pivotal in unjustly trying him in the press, and son-of-a-gun, he was innocent.


Yea, we know what kind of creditibility Dan Rather has......Zero.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Zogman that sure hits the nail on the head. Great comic!
:bowdown: :thumb:


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I've sent.... one of those. I'll knock it off, but no reason to make a mountain out of a mole hill.


Ummm...liar.

MT Wrote:

"You get five years for impersonating a police officer, I wonder what you get for impersonating an administrator?"

MT also wrote:

"Your name fits you well."

When asked to explain MT wrote:

"No, I like keeping you in the dark."

You see class, MT can't stop lying and can not keep going with out getting caught. Remember someone's supposed 'nam experience? The more you keep talking the more proof of BS becomes apparent.

Ignore it and it will go away....again.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You see class, MT can't stop lying and can not keep going with out getting caught. Remember someone's supposed 'nam experience? The more you keep talking the more proof of BS becomes apparent.


No, I don't. What are you rambling on about now?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

You've been busted on here lying so many times we'd have to start a whole new forum just to post them.[/quote]


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Racer you consider honest mistakes and a weak stand on any issue as a lie. I have the feeling that if we agreed on the issues discussed here that you would not make such a claim.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I just got home, and have been reading through some of the posts. I am disappointed that it has again returned to name calling. I suppose I will be forced to lock some threads, and that is perhaps the goal of some people.
I can read the frustration in the words many of you have. The saddest part is we have lost the mainstream liberals that we enjoyed talking with. I would guess it is in the fear that when anger is prevalent in posts that they will be attacked for their views. 
Radical liberals and radical conservatives are useful in that they showcase the extreme of each side that we all must be watchful of. It detracts greatly from the form, but as long as no one is calling names I can't curtail freedom of speech. 
Perhaps S F Rude has the answer. I like to talk with nearly everyone, but I am afraid there are people who do not want us to find common ground between liberals and conservatives. As sportsmen and women I would have thought us bound together by sincere concern for the second amendment, but evidently that isn't true for everyone. We are united when PETA type people post on here, but in the political arena some are successful in driving a wedge between sportsmen. I miss tailchaser, bigdaddy, and many of the others. When we are honest with one another and find common ground we can call our representatives and say with some pride that on this form we have accomplished agreement. 
I will, I am afraid, be forced to lock some threads. My apologies to those who have kept a cool head, and also to those frustrated. I understand the frustration, but must lock some, and possibly edit or delete, I don't know I have not read through all of them as of yet.


----------

