You are at netAirspace : Forum : The Combustion Chamber - Off-Topics : General Off-Topics

I'm glad I've learned not to worry about about what ifs and maybes.

jpetekUA777 wrote:

ANCFlyer wrote:
There's nothing wrong JP,

Why are you taking my words completely out of context?

I guess I'm missing your point . . .

Silly me . . . I assumed the date chosen to be offensive to you, or some such. Based on your initial response I guessed you thought it offensive to you. If I'm taking you out of context, perhaps a better explanation of your position is warranted . . .

Mark wrote:I'm glad I've learned not to worry about about what ifs and maybes.

Mark, I don't think you care about much at all lately, since your standard reply is to "relax, sit back, have a beer".

ANCFlyer wrote:Mark, I don't think you care about much at all lately, since your standard reply is to "relax, sit back, have a beer".

Well... The health plan is being debated and compromised; let's see what comes of it. North Korea issued mariner warnings in the past couple of days that indicate the missile launch won't be toward the US. We're not trillions in debt yet; only 5% of the stimulus has been spent. I'm not too worried about the budget, since it now includes the Iraq and Afghan wars (which Bush funded differently). Iran's got internal problems; good for them.

I'm just not flying off the handle everytime something's reported on the news. We've been through crap before and have come out of it. These "trying" times will be no different.

ANCFlyer wrote:Silly me . . . I assumed the date chosen to be offensive to you, or some such. Based on your initial response I guessed you thought it offensive to you.

Oh, Christ...what did I ever say about a date?

You know it was about calling it 'd-day', and you even agreed with me initially..

ANCFlyer wrote:I got $100 US that says the Veterans there would cringe at the thought

And now I have no clue about your last resposne.

I asked if there was anything wrong with questioning with the thread starter really advocates with this thread, and I get read a laundry list of your problems with Obama.. as if you thought I asked if there was anything wrong with him or the country, or something. What gives?

jpetekUA777 wrote:what exactly is the thread starter advocating here?

Nothing really, the threadstarter was making an interrogative statement, he added a poll with 4 options which can be answered any way one would please since the ability to place four votes has been included, and he even threw in a couple of satirical poll answers and put the thread in "General Off-Topics" rather than "Politics" so people could have some fun with it.

jpetekUA777 wrote:Is this like a strong metaphor for voting out incumbents... or ???

Ok.

jpetekUA777 wrote:I wouldn't take it so seriously if it wasn't for all the secessionist and revolutionary propaganda that has been thrown around. Nothing surprises me anymore.

This thread exists in a vacuum, as far as it is concerned no other threads exist.

Mark wrote:We're not trillions in debt yet...

11.4 Trillion and counting

Click Click D'oh wrote:

Mark wrote:We're not trillions in debt yet...

11.4 Trillion and counting

My point is, people are obsessing over the proposed budgets. There's a graph floating around that's really popular with the conservatives that tries to compare future budgets to Bush's (which conveniently excluded war expenditures).

No. The people spoke last November. Democracy is beautiful isn't it.

davestan_ksan wrote:No. The people spoke last November. Democracy is beautiful isn't it.

Ignoring the First Amendment again eh Dave???

Boris wrote:Ignoring the First Amendment again eh Dave???

Where did I say anything about the First Amendment "again" Boris? What part of my statement isn't true? Where did I say people couldn't talk about it? I said we shouldn't invade DC. My opinion. Quit trying to argue with me based on twisted logic and misinterpretations.

Why is this not in politics, btw?

Cadet57 wrote:Why is this not in politics, btw?

Queso wrote:

jpetekUA777 wrote:what exactly is the thread starter advocating here?

Nothing really, the threadstarter was making an interrogative statement, he added a poll with 4 options which can be answered any way one would please since the ability to place four votes has been included, and he even threw in a couple of satirical poll answers and put the thread in "General Off-Topics" rather than "Politics" so people could have some fun with it.)

Maybe Boris is alluding to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech?

davestan_ksan wrote:

Boris wrote:Ignoring the First Amendment again eh Dave???

Where did I say anything about the First Amendment "again" Boris? What part of my statement isn't true? Where did I say people couldn't talk about it? I said we shouldn't invade DC. My opinion. Quit trying to argue with me based on twisted logic and misinterpretations.

Right here is where you implied that people shouldn't speak out against the government, which is specifically protected by the First Amendment.

davestan_ksan wrote:No. The people spoke last November.

I guess you think everyone should just shut up and take it for the next four years...

miamiair wrote:Maybe Boris is alluding to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech?

Dave was answering the threadstarter. That had absolutely nothing to do with discussion of the rally/protest that was discussed later in the thread.


What exactly is wrong with Dave saying.. no, we shouldn't invade* D.C., and that the only 'invasions' that have happened and should happen is at the ballot box? Where does he trample on the first amendment, as accused?

* has been left purposely ambiguous in the thread

Boris wrote:Right here is where you implied that people shouldn't speak out against the government, which is specifically protected by the First Amendment.

No way. He implied 'we' shouldn't 'invade' Washington. Whatever the hell that means. Why is everyone so quick to the gun with first amendment stuff when it is not warranted and when no one is advocating free speech suppression whatsoever.

jpetekUA777 wrote:

Boris wrote:Right here is where you implied that people shouldn't speak out against the government, which is specifically protected by the First Amendment.

No way. He implied 'we' shouldn't 'invade' Washington. Whatever the hell that means. Why is everyone so quick to the gun with first amendment stuff when it is not warranted and when no one is advocating free speech suppression whatsoever.

I notice you artfully left out the part where Dave said:

davestan_ksan wrote:No. The people spoke last November.

The clear implication is "you lost, now put up and shut up..."

If you can't see a First Amendment issue with that, there's no need to discuss it...

Boris wrote:Right here is where you implied that people shouldn't speak out against the government, which is specifically protected by the First Amendment.

davestan_ksan wrote:No. The people spoke last November.

I guess you think everyone should just shut up and take it for the next four years...

Don't be so dense. Where did I say "the people spoke so therefore you should shut up?" Nowhere. Exactly. Why are you looking to argue with me? Like Jpete said, I was answering the thread starting question. You're looking for an argument where there isn't one.

jpetekUA777 wrote:Why is everyone so quick to the gun with first amendment stuff when it is not warranted and when no one is advocating free speech suppression whatsoever.

Been wondering that as well. Lack of a better argument? Looking to stir up the shit? Trying to create oppression where there isn't any?

OK, folks. This was put in General Off-Topics, because it was not meant to be a serious political discussion. It was meant to be tongue and cheek.

Let's just cool off a bit. We'll re-open it again in a little while. In the meantime - I suggest everyone go in search of their sense of humor. Mmmmmmmmmmkay?