Page 158 of 230 FirstFirst ... 58108148151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165168208 ... LastLast
Results 2,042 to 2,054 of 2985

Thread: Impeachment

  1. #2042
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Gladstone, Oregon (Portland)
    Posts
    1,758
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BBeerme View Post
    Yep, there's that ol' saying:
    If you're not a liberal when you are young, you don't have a heart. If you don't turn conservative as you become an adult, you don't have a brain.
    You got it. Glad we grew up. Gives me a thread idea.

  2. #2043
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    25,346
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Adlerberts-Protege View Post
    You got it. Glad we grew up. Gives me a thread idea.
    If you were a real tech, you'd solder a relay on that board and call it good to go.

    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

    I use 56% silver on everything except steel.

    Did you really need the " If you were a real tech " ??

  3. #2044
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    napping on the couch
    Posts
    13,201
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    To be honest Vin, I simply don't care about the Bill. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. It doesn't change anything in my life. I just go on treating people with respect (mostly) and avoid the people I don't want to be around.

    Like I've already said, yeah, I think it's silly to sue due to name calling. Otherwise I'd have started litigation years ago against ** for constantly calling me a lefty, that's not what I identify as. But, whether it be race/sex/identity crisis/politics/religion, there should be laws on the books to litigate people that go well beyond the limits of common decency. How many post reports do you field from someone getting their feelings hurt by words on a page? Mostly, I would hope, it's placated as an over reaction. On the rare worst offences, repercussions are given. Exact same thing with this Bill! The rules are there for the worst of offenders, a stick for when a carrot isn't enough.

    Look. It's my personal opinion that trans is a mental condition, I treat it as such. It's not ok! I'm certainly not defending their life choices, I simply comprehend that for some, it's not a choice - refer back to it's a mental condition. In that context, these people need to be afforded the same protections as any other mentally disabled person. IMO anyway.

    Look, again. Despite the above, I too fear the progression/regression of society. But fighting for a right to aggressively refer to someone by their genetic sex isn't a battle I'm interested in. If Johnny wants to be called Joanne, "I wish you well in the future Joanne, good luck!"
    But the point is, why would you support legislation to punish those that don't comply? Do you not see its a slippery slope. Like I said above, not fighting hard against these things, as we didn't from 1988 - 2009, ends badly. And likely puts you in a place sown the road that you cannot return from.

    You brought up ARP rules. Asking many times does Vin have do deal with messages because someone got called a name or had their feelings hurt. ARP has rules.

    But that's the way its supposed to work. ARP, has rules. Boy scouts have their rules. The local bowling alley has its rules. Etc. There is a world of difference between private organizations and people having rules vs the government.

    It's a slippery slope you don't want to start going down. You end up with molotov cocktails being tossed through windows of prestigious universities and mobs of entitled jerks stopping traffic in major cities. Then worse.



    Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
    “Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.”
    -Possibly said by Thomas Jefferson(but true even if he didn't)


    “What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace.”
    ― Definitely said by John Wesley

  4. Likes vin lashon liked this post
  5. #2045
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian8383 View Post
    But the point is, why would you support legislation to punish those that don't comply? Do you not see its a slippery slope. Like I said above, not fighting hard against these things, as we didn't from 1988 - 2009, ends badly. And likely puts you in a place sown the road that you cannot return from.

    You brought up ARP rules. Asking many times does Vin have do deal with messages because someone got called a name or had their feelings hurt. ARP has rules.

    But that's the way its supposed to work. ARP, has rules. Boy scouts have their rules. The local bowling alley has its rules. Etc. There is a world of difference between private organizations and people having rules vs the government.

    It's a slippery slope you don't want to start going down. You end up with molotov cocktails being tossed through windows of prestigious universities and mobs of entitled jerks stopping traffic in major cities. Then worse.



    Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
    In your opinion, why does ARP have the rules it does?

    It may require reminding how we got to here. Free speech and the affects of such.
    Last edited by Lahrs; 12-13-2019 at 12:05 AM. Reason: Spelling

  6. #2046
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    10,028
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    In your opinion, why does ARP have the rules it does?

    It may require reminding how we got to here. Free speech and the affects of such.
    So if I understand you point then I can require everyone refer to me as Master of all or I can sue? If everyone is requires to call me that then does that not make me Master of all which would then require tribute from all.

    Good to know, everyone start sending cash!!!

  7. #2047
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    So if I understand you point then I can require everyone refer to me as Master of all or I can sue? If everyone is requires to call me that then does that not make me Master of all which would then require tribute from all.

    Good to know, everyone start sending cash!!!
    Sorry Master, you do not understand my point. I'll call you what ever you wish. It doesn't bestow on you any power over me.

    A person should be free from persecution. I don't go around making the life of a mentally challenged person harder, Aspergers for example. IMO, trans fits into that same camp, mentally challenged. Only known/seen a couple in passing, but what they all had in common was a look of struggle and depression. Why would I want to make it worse? It doesn't help them and does nothing for me.
    Last edited by Lahrs; 12-13-2019 at 11:18 AM. Reason: Spelling

  8. #2048
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Deep Southeast
    Posts
    8,239
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    To be honest Vin, I simply don't care about the Bill. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. It doesn't change anything in my life. I just go on treating people with respect (mostly) and avoid the people I don't want to be around.

    Like I've already said, yeah, I think it's silly to sue due to name calling. Otherwise I'd have started litigation years ago against ** for constantly calling me a lefty, that's not what I identify as. But, whether it be race/sex/identity crisis/politics/religion, there should be laws on the books to litigate people that go well beyond the limits of common decency. How many post reports do you field from someone getting their feelings hurt by words on a page? Mostly, I would hope, it's placated as an over reaction. On the rare worst offences, repercussions are given. Exact same thing with this Bill! The rules are there for the worst of offenders, a stick for when a carrot isn't enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    In your opinion, why does ARP have the rules it does?

    It may require reminding how we got to here. Free speech and the affects of such.
    I think we can agree upon the reality that (at present) these 'laws' don't necessarily affect us directly. I think also we are agreed upon the fact that treating others respectfully is important, and even 'second nature' for some. Part of our everyday lives. So, it can reasonably be asked: why should legislation of "respectful" treatment toward others be an issue?

    Aside from the fact that it says something unhealthy about our culture that such legislation exists, there are 'Big Picture' ramifications to be considered.

    You draw a comparison of Government legislation to the rules of ARP. It's one thing for a private enterprise to (rightly) make rules and enforce them, but how about if the Government decided it was up to the State to make and enforce the rules of ARP? And to decide and carry out the 'penalties' of violation?

    Or, how about if the Government decides that they will oversee your marriage? An argument with your wife may well turn into a civil lawsuit or even a State Prosecution.

    Does this seem far-fetched? To some, it might, but if one looks back over recent decades with an eye toward patterns, one can see how our cultural perspectives on important issues have changed. 20-30 years ago, no one would have thought that not only would the gay lifestyle be accepted, but same sex marriage, a myriad of genders, legislation dictating that men who "identify" as women can use the same public bathroom as your 13 yr old daughter...these would all have seemed insanity. Yet today, these are mandated. And criticism of such can result in civil, even criminal liability. At the very least, those who express disapproval are deemed and labeled as racist, bigoted, etc. How did we get here? Baby Steps.

    The point is that 20 years ago, we never would have dreamed that what generations before knew as unacceptable, immoral, even criminal has now not only been accepted, but mandated.

    How did this come about? Again, Baby Steps. And the tenacity of those who desired to push an agenda. It's like the frog who was boiled in a pot of water and had no idea, simply because it was a gradual change.

    Now, apply this to the issue of legislating "respect" for issues that 20 years ago were considered unthinkable. What kind of behavioral/thought legislation will we face in the next 20 years? Do you think that this type of legislation will remain as is, or will it evolve into something more? I think the answer is clear. It will evolve. Perhaps a better term is 'devolve'.

    These type of cultural changes never remain the same. And given the way our cultures are heading...given the reality that Government corruption always exists and always finds a way:

    How long until the Gov't decides that it should possess and exercise total control over the masses? Again, it may seem far-fetched at present, but is the reality of these matters. Our recent examples are 'in our face', but unrecognized by many. Most, even.


    Look. It's my personal opinion that trans is a mental condition, I treat it as such. It's not ok! I'm certainly not defending their life choices, I simply comprehend that for some, it's not a choice - refer back to it's a mental condition. In that context, these people need to be afforded the same protections as any other mentally disabled person. IMO anyway.

    Look, again. Despite the above, I too fear the progression/regression of society. But fighting for a right to aggressively refer to someone by their genetic sex isn't a battle I'm interested in. If Johnny wants to be called Joanne, "I wish you well in the future Joanne, good luck!"
    Again, we agree. And most of us don't require legislation to be respectful. But why isn't the legislation already on the books enough? Don't the segments that decree that no discrimination take place based on gender, race, sexual orientation...aren't these enough? They should be, but perhaps there are other reasons for this legislation to be pushed through. If you thought so, you'd be onto something.

    This is much longer than I hoped, but honestly, there are so many underlying elements to this issue...there is much that remains unsaid. For the purposes of this discussion, the point is that, while you and I and most of the world are unaffected (at least directly & presently), this is not where it ends. If allowed to continue, we will all be affected.

    Examine where the last 20 years have brought us. Think about where this type of legislation will bring us in 20 more?

    Baby Steps.

  9. #2049
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Deep Southeast
    Posts
    8,239
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    In your opinion, why does ARP have the rules it does?

    It may require reminding how we got to here. Free speech and the affects of such.
    To reiterate a point: A private enterprise should have rules of conduct and means of enforcement. But do we really want The State to manage our private affairs and mandate opinions? No. To allow it to do so is asking for trouble. It's where we're heading.

    While you or I would call Johnny Joanie, if that was what that person wanted, mandating that we do so is beyond ridiculous, and places us on the road to what was only speculated by Asimov and Huxley.

  10. #2050
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Deep Southeast
    Posts
    8,239
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    So if I understand you point then I can require everyone refer to me as Master of all or I can sue? If everyone is requires to call me that then does that not make me Master of all which would then require tribute from all.

    Good to know, everyone start sending cash!!!
    I can manage one, but not the other, Master BNM.

  11. #2051
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post
    To reiterate a point: A private enterprise should have rules of conduct and means of enforcement. But do we really want The State to manage our private affairs and mandate opinions? No. To allow it to do so is asking for trouble. It's where we're heading.

    While you or I would call Johnny Joanie, if that was what that person wanted, mandating that we do so is beyond ridiculous, and places us on the road to what was only speculated by Asimov and Huxley.
    It is not 'mandating opinion'. On the contrary, allowing for productive debate!

    We see here many different views. All are allowed, and encouraged. Infractions, as I understand it, are given for the language used. Not the opinion given. I view Canadian law the same way. I can think and do anything I want, just not be an AH about it and victimize somebody. Which would infringe on their rights.

    Though I too fear 'liberal creep' , I could just as easily claim a conservative policy is slowly taking us towards neo-Nazism. For better and worse, balance is needed.

    Look, I'm not even advocating for trans rights. Not in my wheelhouse. I'm defending anybody's right to be anything they want. Of course I have my limits, co-bathroom use being one of them... Calling Sally Sam, couldn't care less.
    Last edited by Lahrs; 12-13-2019 at 01:46 PM.

  12. #2052
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Deep Southeast
    Posts
    8,239
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    It is not 'mandating opinion'. On the contrary, allowing for productive debate!

    We see here many different views. All are allowed, and encouraged. Infractions, as I understand it, are given for the language used. Not the opinion given. I view Canadian law the same way. I can think and do anything I want, just not be an AH about it and victimize somebody. Which would infringe on their rights.

    Though I too fear 'liberal creep', I could just as easily claim a conservative policy is slowly taking us towards neo-Nazism. For better and worse, balance is needed.

    Look, I'm not even advocating for trans rights. Not in my wheelhouse. I'm defending anybody's right to be anything they want. Of course I have my limits, co-bathroom use being one of them... Calling Sally Sam, couldn't care less.
    We are actually on the same page as far as the 'at present' aspect ("local thinking") is concerned. I can safely say I don't disagree with a single point you've made here.

    But on the big picture level (global thinking), we are on very thin ice. You mention Leftism/Conservatism, but the only reason the Left is mentioned at all in my assertions is that they are the current "danger".

    Using the ARP example, The State management may allow for debate now, legislating only "respect", how long before they do start legislating opinion, as they, for all intents and purposes have in the case of Pronoun Legislation.

    Shall I have you prosecuted, jailed or fined because I want to be called 'Mr. Lashon', but you call me 'Vin'?

    My comments apply to Government as a whole. Left or Right is not at issue here accept insofar as the current 'creep' ( a descriptive term) you mention is being led by the Left.

    The point is that "creep" is "creep" and, in context to Governmental/legislative "creep", these seemingly "innocuous" bits of legislation are only the beginning. And we haven't even discussed the LGBTxxxxxxx agenda, which they have managed to advance to a degree we never would have imagined 20 years ago. Wheels within wheels.

  13. #2053
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post
    We are actually on the same page as far as the 'at present' aspect ("local thinking") is concerned. I can safely say I don't disagree with a single point you've made here.

    But on the big picture level (global thinking), we are on very thin ice. You mention Leftism/Conservatism, but the only reason the Left is mentioned at all in my assertions is that they are the current "danger".

    Using the ARP example, The State management may allow for debate now, legislating only "respect", how long before they do start legislating opinion, as they, for all intents and purposes have in the case of Pronoun Legislation.

    Shall I have you prosecuted, jailed or fined because I want to be called 'Mr. Lashon', but you call me 'Vin'?

    My comments apply to Government as a whole. Left or Right is not at issue here accept insofar as the current 'creep' ( a descriptive term) you mention is being led by the Left.

    The point is that "creep" is "creep" and, in context to Governmental/legislative "creep", these seemingly "innocuous" bits of legislation are only the beginning. And we haven't even discussed the LGBTxxxxxxx agenda, which they have managed to advance to a degree we never would have imagined 20 years ago. Wheels within wheels.
    We are very close on many topics Mr Lashon. Ultimately, I'm just more to the center on social policy.

  14. #2054
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    napping on the couch
    Posts
    13,201
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    It is not 'mandating opinion'. On the contrary, allowing for productive debate!

    We see here many different views. All are allowed, and encouraged. Infractions, as I understand it, are given for the language used. Not the opinion given. I view Canadian law the same way. I can think and do anything I want, just not be an AH about it and victimize somebody. Which would infringe on their rights.

    Though I too fear 'liberal creep', I could just as easily claim a conservative policy is slowly taking us towards neo-Nazism. For better and worse, balance is needed.

    Look, I'm not even advocating for trans rights. Not in my wheelhouse. I'm defending anybody's right to be anything they want. Of course I have my limits, co-bathroom use being one of them... Calling Sally Sam, couldn't care less.
    There is a difference that changes everything. It's the difference between private enterprises and government making the rules.

    And neo-Nazism doesn't come from conservatism, rule of law and definitely not from too much free speech. Quite the opposite. In fact a main reason Nazis were able to take over was that opposition speech was repressed with threats, violence, political pressure and murder.

    I could also get deeper into Constitutional Conservatism that has one of its cornerstones being individual liberty. Which is at the opposite end of the spectrum from any neo-Nazi philosophy. They are an imaginary group of collective of thugs no different from groups that actually exist such ANTIFA, BLM, Occupy Wall St., fascist student groups, etc.

    Ok, neo-Nazis aren't 100% imaginary. But come on.......they are made up of a couple hundred pasty losers stinking up their parents basements. Far left violent groups are all over the place causing real pain and suffering to regular people. And they ABSOLUTELY intimidate individuals and repress civil rights. Walk down the street with a Trump hat or put a Trump sticker on your car or a Trump yard sign. See what happens. Then do the same with an Obama or Hillary hat/sticker/yard sign. Repression of free speech is used solely by the left using collective mob force. They can't win open honest debates so they rely on fascistic group force.

    Look what the collective nearly did to Nickolas Sandman. The little toothless Indian and the Black Hebrew Isrealites were the evil villains I that story, yet they nearly destroyed the boy. It was us individuals and Fox News pushing back that got the truth out. But it was an insanely hard battle to overcome the lying collective left.

    It's no different than what we see with the Ukraine and Russia thing. They use dozens or hundreds of small lies from hundreds of individuals and groups to create a collective big lie. You attempt to debate these people and shoot down the hundreds of small lies that make up this massive fraud going on in the halls of congress. You shoot down one lie and they bring up 100 others. You shoot down one of those 100 lies and they bring up the other 99. You shoot down one more of those lies, now they have 98 but they will also then bring the first lie you shot down back into the argument. So there are now 99 again. And the pattern continues. And to the outsider watching from another country, it may appear on the surface to be a argument that makes no headway and goes in circle and that both sides are to blame. I'm telling you, it's not both sides. It's the onslaught of the lies from the collective left. The media, entertainment, corporate leftism, politicians, etc.

    Look at the thread about Trump and his tariffs. We now know they were wrong and we were right. Will they admit it? Never. The best we will get from them is to drop the subject for a few years. But they will go back to it. All of them. The media, the lefties and conspiracy nuts on ARP, academia, entertainment, etc. The collective left and their lies.

    How about the tax cuts and deregulation by Trump? They argued for a couple years it was a handout to the wealthy and the little guy is going to screwed. Well the evidence is in. They were wrong. Do they admit it? Nope. They will drop it and pretend it didn't happen. Waiting till the time is right to pull the same arguments out of the mud again.

    Look at GC and his bike accident. Insisting he was correct according to traffic laws in California. Insisting we dig into the traffic code book. So we did. And MG and later myself posted the exact traffic laws pertaining to his accident. The company did EXACTLY what was required according to the code book he was citing in his accusations against them. We dug into the book and quoted the text and gave footnotes to chapter and verse. The argument was settled. The guys in the truck did EXACTLY what they were required to do. GC went away. Like the dozens of pages of arguing didn't happen. No apology. No admitting he was wrong. He just slinked away. But he will be back someday with the same type nonsense.

    It's what they do. They are completely dishonest and dishonorable. Truth means noting to these people. Dealing with this is where the frustration you see comes from. They will use any tactic and move goal posts. They will overload the debate with dozens or hundreds of lies and misinformation. You drown in the sea of misinformation coming at you from every angle.

    This Ukraine thing is exactly the same. And the truth is finally coming out. Sure I told many here they were idiots. But polite debate wouldn't have uncovered the truth. They almost destroyed Trump with hoaxes. And if he didn't fight back harshly with guys like me calling out the left as the liars and idiots they are, they would have succeeded. Think about that. They would have taken down a duly elected President, the leader of the free world with a complete hoax if we resorted to only polite, civil debate.

    I don't say leftism is evil lightly. Some philosophies are evil. And individuals need to fight tooth and nail against collective evil. The Karl Rove/Bush/Romney style of defense does not work. Its unfortunately inadequate to stopping them. We have over 20 years of losing to this dishonest movement to prove that is true.

    Please let that fact sink in. They would have removed the US President from office over a hoax. A hoax conspired by a leftist/progressive collective and if not for Trump and guys like me belittling this evil onslaught and anyone that buys into it, it would have succeeded. If our side fought this impeachment, the Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoax like Mitt Romney would have, Trump would be out of the White House today.

    Long post. Sorry about that. But it's 100% true. And we didn't make these rules of engagement. They use a collective onslaught against individuals. So us individuals need to fight fiercely or they will win. As they did between 1988 and 2009.

Page 158 of 230 FirstFirst ... 58108148151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165168208 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •