Armed robbery--can it be legal?

theMAJORITY said:
Be happy--making our military equiptment is the best form of manufacturing we have anymore--and people make money--lol

Joking. You libs always bring up the war with any topic started. Now, I agree that we went in there under pretence, and I think we should have concentrated on Bin Laden after our buildings went down. It was a ploitical move to go aftyer Saddam, and we don't know the full truth of why we have gone to any war since WW2.

But--I think getting in there is keeping the radicals on the defense and not offence--I hope.

Have you ever seen how the radicals behead us? I used to trap animals for the fur, and did some hunting. I could pull the skin off a fox, and it does not bother me. I saw a beheading by the radicals, and it was the absolut most barbarric thing I have ever witnessed in my life. There were 4 behheadings on this site, and I did not want to wantch more than one. I could not sleep that night---and I know you don't have the intestional fortitude to bring yourself to the truth that they want to cut all of our heads off .

Watch a beheading soon. It will give you a great idea of what these people are capabable of.

OK--your not going to watch it--I know--so I will describe it to you now.

The man beheaded was a white man (not sure if he was a reporter or not--but he was definatly European decient) name Nick Berg.

The film was 5 min long, with about 4.5 min of Quran reading to the back of the head of Nick Berg.

There were five radical assalients, standing in a larg radious behind Berg--who was on his knees with his back to the 5 murders. The men were all coverd in black, and faces covered also. it was not a uniform, they were all wearing different clothes. The killer, which was the dirt bag in the center of the five men was reading from their bible. there was no source of comfort for Berg. No blind fold, no cigerette--totally consious and fully aware his head is about to be cut off because he has different religious beliefs from the killers.

as the center killer continued reading, his tempo accelerated and volume increased as he was nearing the end of the read. he then finished the read--and pulled out a blade about 20" long. He then grabbed the kneeling Berg by the hair at the top of his head and started to SAW off Bergs head. It was not a one wack, off with the head kind of thing. The blade was placed to the side of bergs neck, and the killer started sawing. Now Burg is kicking and screaming. I windered why there were four other killers ther--they were used to each grab a arm or leg to hold him down while his head was being sawed off. When the butcher got through the spinal cord--all kicking and screaming was finished--and the butcher slowed down his cutting tempo a bit (it was not real fast to begin with) as if he were cutting a nice piece of prime rib. Then, the head was held up for the vid camera, with blood dripping from the neck.

Now--Before I saw that--I have seen pictures of those killers holding up a head for a still camera---but I was naieve enough to believe that the person was dead before the head was cut off.


That video---put me in self defence mode.

Sweet dreams liberial.
Click to expand...

Come Chicken man, rebut my answer/question to your post. Bwack, bwack, bwack. Do you believe that it's ok for conservatives to lynch African Americans in order to preserve racial purity?
 
Mottleydude said:
Well the jury system is by no means a perfect system and it was meant to reflect the conscience of our communities. The problem is, is when you have a village of idiots. Stupid shit happens. On the whole, it's still one of, if not the best judicial system in the world. Despite what some fascist right winger says.
Click to expand...


Ohhh--I can see you have served jury duty also. lol I was on a couple of cases, one where we did deliberiate. I can not believe how stupid we really are as a people. 8 out of 12 of us had no concept of right and wrong when it comes to freedom and our rights. It ended up being a hung jury--I never found out what happend to the young black man that 4 of us knew was a witch hunt by our local police.

During the deliberiation--I came up with at least three senerios that fit withinn the facts of the case.--and these dupes did not realize that is reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
Mottleydude said:
Come Chicken man, rebut my answer/question to your post. Bwack, bwack, bwack. Do you believe that it's ok for conservatives to lynch African Americans in order to preserve racial purity?
Click to expand...


I have no problem expressing my opinions. What was your comment you want me to reply to?

as to the comment in this post of yours about lynching----no. Where did that question come from?

if you ask silly questions--I might look at another that makes sence to answer--but, if you really want a answer and ask me again (like I think you did--but not sure if it is the same silly question as above)--I will have no problem giving you an answer. I am not even scared to say "I don't know"---which I have never seen here before.
 
Last edited:
theMAJORITY said:
I have no problem expressing my opinions. What was your comment you want me to reply to?

as to the comment in this post of yours about lynching----no. Where did that question come from?

if you ask silly questions--I might look at another that makes sence to answer--but, if you really want a answer and ask me again (like I think you did--but not sure if it is the same silly question as above)--I will have no problem giving you an answer. I am not even scared to say "I don't know"---which I have never seen here before.
Click to expand...

My question came from your far fetched scenario that is a strawman of liberal postions (though I myself am a right center moderate and reformed republican) and is thus disengenous. So my question to you was based on the same rational as your strawman, except mine was not a strawman. It has been a historical fact that some conservatives, mainly in the past and in the south, have supported. Not to mention white juries in the south HAVE aquited murderers of black men, who murdered their victims on the basis of racial superiority or purity (meseginization).

So, though I am glad to see that you would not support such an extreme conservative position, it is a conservative position that is a historical fact, unlike your analogy and that is the point I was making to you.

I will go you one furhter. A real one of today. As a conservative do you defend the right of conservative clergy to refuse to marry interacial couples on the basis of race? That's not a hypothetical. My wife and I are an interacial couple and we were living in the south when we were married and we could not find a member of the clergy, even of our own church that would marry us and the reason they gave us is that they dissapproved of interacial marriages and there was no legal requirement for them to marry us. As my minister told me (and I subsequently told him to go fuck himself) he viewed our marriage in the same light as gay marriage. Now don't tell me that this isn't a position of many conservatives, even if you don't share it.
 
Mottleydude said:
My question came from your far fetched scenario that is a strawman of liberal postions (though I myself am a right center moderate and reformed republican) and is thus disengenous. So my question to you was based on the same rational as your strawman, except mine was not a strawman. It has been a historical fact that some conservatives, mainly in the past and in the south, have supported. Not to mention white juries in the south HAVE aquited murderers of black men, who murdered their victims on the basis of racial superiority or purity (meseginization).

So, though I am glad to see that you would not support such an extreme conservative position, it is a conservative position that is a historical fact, unlike your analogy and that is the point I was making to you.

I will go you one furhter. A real one of today. As a conservative do you defend the right of conservative clergy to refuse to marry interacial couples on the basis of race? That's not a hypothetical. My wife and I are an interacial couple and we were living in the south when we were married and we could not find a member of the clergy, even of our own church that would marry us and the reason they gave us is that they dissapproved of interacial marriages and there was no legal requirement for them to marry us. As my minister told me (and I subsequently told him to go fuck himself) he viewed our marriage in the same light as gay marriage. Now don't tell me that this isn't a position of many conservatives, even if you don't share it.
Click to expand...

First of all--I consider myself more of a libertarian than a conservative.

Second--I am not familuar with the slag term "strawman", and I don't know the definition.

Third--I hold no person down of any color or gender unless they want to hold me down like US(my ass)citizen and top spin. I beleive for the best society that we should work on bringing people up, instead of knocking them down so we can feel powerfull.

I firmly believe I have better huministic values than 90% in the world. I love to see people do well---not poorly. As many as possible. You sir--have never met a person as honest as I am---I promise you.

As far as interacial marriage--I don't have a problem with it. That is the way my father brought me up, and he is from Detroit. He used to tease me as a young man, that I would bring a black gal home someday---then he would say--I would not care. I would marry a black woman--but she would have to be sharp and pretty good looking, just like any other color woman I might think about hooking up with.

My older brother is a sharp, but liberial gay man on the West coast. I never ever heard a family argument over that issue. I don't agree with the lifestyle--but to each their own.

In casse you don't know this---one of my biggest American heros, if not the biggest American hero of mine is none other than---Rosa Parks.

I think ya have me all wrong man.
 
Last edited:
theMAJORITY said:
First of all--I consider myself more of a libertarian than a conservative.

Second--I am not familuar with the slag term "strawman", and I don't know the definition.

Third--I hold no person down of any color or gender unless they want to hold me down like US(my ass)citizen and top spin. I beleive for the best society that we should work on bringing people up, instead of knocking them down so I can feel powerfull.

I think ya have me all wrong man.
Click to expand...

A "strawman" is an argument in which you make a "strawman" out of the other persons argument and defeat that, instead of taking on their real argument. The "strawman" is very easy to defeat, and that's why you constructed it.

Saying that liberals want to legalize armed robbery to give to charity is an instance of a strawman.
 
Watermark said:
A "strawman" is an argument in which you make a "strawman" out of the other persons argument and defeat that, instead of taking on their real argument. The "strawman" is very easy to defeat, and that's why you constructed it.

Saying that liberals want to legalize armed robbery to give to charity is an instance of a strawman.
Click to expand...

I did not say that. may be you are the strawman?

The armed robbery thing for charity was just an example to show how I feel about the liberials, deligating my money to the causes of their choice.

I never said liberials support armed robbey for charity (but it would not suprise me--and US(myass)citizen just may support it). I said I really don't see the difference in the armed robbery thing, and redistribution of wealth by our government.

In this case--the government is the armed robber, but for hire. If liberials want my disposable income--may they should have the balls like the robbers they are, and try it themselfs, instead of lobbying Washington to do it for them.

So, let me get this strawman thing correct, because it is not the best to define a word with the same word. A strawman is a person who instead of sticking to a issue that somebody else brings up, they change the topic to try to suit their needs, because they don't have a good argument for the orgional topic. Is that right?
 
Last edited:
theMAJORITY said:
I did not say that. may be you are the strawman?

The armed robbery thing for charity was just an example to show how I feel about the liberials, deligating my money to the causes of their choice.

I never said liberials support armed robbey for charity (but it would not suprise me--and US(myass)citizen just may support it). I said I really don't see the difference in the armed robbery thing, and redistribution of wealth by our government.

In this case--the government is the armed robber.
Click to expand...

Most people see the difference between armed robbery and redistribution of wealth. It's not like America really has any major wealth redistribution programs going on anyway.
 
Watermark said:
Most people see the difference between armed robbery and redistribution of wealth. It's not like America really has any major wealth redistribution programs going on anyway.
Click to expand...

Please explain the difference. Talk to me like I'm a 4 year old.

Armed robbery---for CHAIRTY--is redistrubution of wealth

strawman lol
 
theMAJORITY said:
Be happy--making our military equiptment is the best form of manufacturing we have anymore--and people make money--lol

Joking. You libs always bring up the war with any topic started. Now, I agree that we went in there under pretence, and I think we should have concentrated on Bin Laden after our buildings went down. It was a ploitical move to go aftyer Saddam, and we don't know the full truth of why we have gone to any war since WW2.

But--I think getting in there is keeping the radicals on the defense and not offence--I hope.

Have you ever seen how the radicals behead us? I used to trap animals for the fur, and did some hunting. I could pull the skin off a fox, and it does not bother me. I saw a beheading by the radicals, and it was the absolut most barbarric thing I have ever witnessed in my life. There were 4 behheadings on this site, and I did not want to wantch more than one. I could not sleep that night---and I know you don't have the intestional fortitude to bring yourself to the truth that they want to cut all of our heads off .

Watch a beheading soon. It will give you a great idea of what these people are capabable of.

OK--your not going to watch it--I know--so I will describe it to you now.

The man beheaded was a white man (not sure if he was a reporter or not--but he was definatly European decient) name Nick Berg.

The film was 5 min long, with about 4.5 min of Quran reading to the back of the head of Nick Berg.

There were five radical assalients, standing in a larg radious behind Berg--who was on his knees with his back to the 5 murders. The men were all coverd in black, and faces covered also. it was not a uniform, they were all wearing different clothes. The killer, which was the dirt bag in the center of the five men was reading from their bible. there was no source of comfort for Berg. No blind fold, no cigerette--totally consious and fully aware his head is about to be cut off because he has different religious beliefs from the killers.

as the center killer continued reading, his tempo accelerated and volume increased as he was nearing the end of the read. he then finished the read--and pulled out a blade about 20" long. He then grabbed the kneeling Berg by the hair at the top of his head and started to SAW off Bergs head. It was not a one wack, off with the head kind of thing. The blade was placed to the side of bergs neck, and the killer started sawing. Now Burg is kicking and screaming. I windered why there were four other killers ther--they were used to each grab a arm or leg to hold him down while his head was being sawed off. When the butcher got through the spinal cord--all kicking and screaming was finished--and the butcher slowed down his cutting tempo a bit (it was not real fast to begin with) as if he were cutting a nice piece of prime rib. Then, the head was held up for the vid camera, with blood dripping from the neck.

Now--Before I saw that--I have seen pictures of those killers holding up a head for a still camera---but I was naieve enough to believe that the person was dead before the head was cut off.


That video---put me in self defence mode.

Sweet dreams liberial.
Click to expand...



and your god bush has not even achieved his first stated objective on his "WOT". Catching OBL....
 
theMAJORITY said:
First of all--I consider myself more of a libertarian than a conservative.

Second--I am not familuar with the slag term "strawman", and I don't know the definition.

Third--I hold no person down of any color or gender unless they want to hold me down like US(my ass)citizen and top spin. I beleive for the best society that we should work on bringing people up, instead of knocking them down so we can feel powerfull.

I firmly believe I have better huministic values than 90% in the world. I love to see people do well---not poorly. As many as possible. You sir--have never met a person as honest as I am---I promise you.

As far as interacial marriage--I don't have a problem with it. That is the way my father brought me up, and he is from Detroit. He used to tease me as a young man, that I would bring a black gal home someday---then he would say--I would not care. I would marry a black woman--but she would have to be sharp and pretty good looking, just like any other color woman I might think about hooking up with.

My older brother is a sharp, but liberial gay man on the West coast. I never ever heard a family argument over that issue. I don't agree with the lifestyle--but to each their own.

In casse you don't know this---one of my biggest American heros, if not the biggest American hero of mine is none other than---Rosa Parks.

I think ya have me all wrong man.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we have a lot in common.

A "strawman" is a rhetorical device in a debate where you purposefully misrepresent or exagerate your opponents position in a manner that is easy to refute and then attack that position which they never held in the first place. That is you build up a strawman so that you can knock it down. However, they are logical fallacies and a good debator will cream you if you attempt to use one. The reason they will cream you is because you have not actually refuted their argument. You've only set up a strawman (i.e. a logical fallacy).

A lot of conservative debators are famous for their Strawman Arguents. Rush Limbaugh in particular is the King of the Strawman (that and supposition....."now just suppose.....")

Some examples of conservative strawmen.

Liberals Hate America.

If you opposed the Iraq invasion you don't support the troops.

Those who believe in evolution are godless athiest.

Those who support gay marriage want to destroy families.

Liberals who oppose building a fence across the Mexican border want to leave our country defenceless. (I like this one, not only is it a strawman.....it's a pretty damned good pun! :-).

Don't get me wrong. Their are certainly liberal debators that use strawman arguments, it just seems to be a more commonly used rhetorical device with conservatives.
 
The armed robbery thing for charity was just an example to show how I feel about the liberials, deligating my money to the causes of their choice.

Never the less. It is still a strawman. Most liberals don't want to deligate your money to the cause of their choice. That is your strawman.
 
Mottleydude said:
The armed robbery thing for charity was just an example to show how I feel about the liberials, deligating my money to the causes of their choice.

Never the less. It is still a strawman. Most liberals don't want to deligate your money to the cause of their choice. That is your strawman.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that they don't want to spend tax dollars in a way that they prefer?
 
Mottleydude said:
Sounds like we have a lot in common.

A "strawman" is a rhetorical device in a debate where you purposefully misrepresent or exagerate your opponents position in a manner that is easy to refute and then attack that position which they never held in the first place. That is you build up a strawman so that you can knock it down. However, they are logical fallacies and a good debator will cream you if you attempt to use one. The reason they will cream you is because you have not actually refuted their argument. You've only set up a strawman (i.e. a logical fallacy).

A lot of conservative debators are famous for their Strawman Arguents. Rush Limbaugh in particular is the King of the Strawman (that and supposition....."now just suppose.....")

Some examples of conservative strawmen.

Liberals Hate America.

If you opposed the Iraq invasion you don't support the troops.

Those who believe in evolution are godless athiest.

Those who support gay marriage want to destroy families.

Liberals who oppose building a fence across the Mexican border want to leave our country defenceless. (I like this one, not only is it a strawman.....it's a pretty damned good pun! :-).

Don't get me wrong. Their are certainly liberal debators that use strawman arguments, it just seems to be a more commonly used rhetorical device with conservatives.
Click to expand...

But I do hate America, don't support the troops at all, I'm a godless atheist, and I want to destroy families. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top