Where oh where is Axtell now, oh where oh where can he be
alpemomo
Posts: 355 ✭
in Sports Talk
Axtell,
what happened to the greatest team ever?
Run and hide like your Bucs fan-mate. I told you Texas would beat the Trojans...
what happened to the greatest team ever?
Run and hide like your Bucs fan-mate. I told you Texas would beat the Trojans...
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". - Gandhi
0
Comments
<< <i>Axtell,
what happened to the greatest team ever?
Run and hide like your Bucs fan-mate. I told you Texas would beat the Trojans... >>
I believe he's pulling a Stalin
link..
Holy sh*t
The USC team is still among the best to ever take the field, and this offense showed they are the best ever. Texas, with its supposedly dominating defense, got lit up just like everyone else during their amazing run.
Carroll opting to go for it on 4th and one, instead of punting was the key call of the game. Guess he figured that USC wasn't stopping anyone tonight.
It was a great game, and UT definitely showed a lot of heart.
And no, I'm not defending the ACLU defending NAMBLA, I'm defending the ACLU to exist and protect YOUR freedom of speech.
Hey, good way to be a good winner alpe...really classy!
Glad you cleared that up. Two things I can't stand...child molesters and sports bet welchers.
And yes, we need organizations like the ACLU, as unpopular as some of the causes they have to defend in the name of free speech.
Why don't you take the discussion about your hate of free speech over there?
<< <i>good to see your as useless as ever pandrews.
And yes, we need organizations like the ACLU, as unpopular as some of the causes they have to defend in the name of free speech.
Why don't you take the discussion about your hate of free speech over there? >>
heh.. i certainly dont hate free speech.. nice spin there, axtell.. but i dont believe ANYONE or ANY ORGANIZATION should EVER be allowed to defend NAMBLA.. the only rights anybody associated with NAMBLA should have is the right to die in front of a firing squad..
and its humorous that YOU'RE the one telling me to take the discussion to the open forum.. you always jump at the chance to get your little political opinions in, whether on this forum or not..
you hate us for our freedoms...like the freedom of speech.
Are you a terrorist?
<< <i>pandrews-
you hate us for our freedoms...like the freedom of speech.
Are you a terrorist? >>
axtell, you support the defense of NAMBLA,
do you rape little boys?
<< <i>pandrews-
you hate us for our freedoms...like the freedom of speech.
Are you a terrorist? >>
axtell, you support the defense of NAMBLA,
do you rape little boys?
I support free speech.
Now I know in your tiny little dome, with regressed brain functions, you can't see the forest for the trees, but when you say it's ok to repress one unpopular opinion, that spreads to another, then another, then next thing you know, we're in nazi germany with no freedoms whatsoever.
Thank you, I like my freedoms.
And no, I do not support the rape of little boys (though your fascinaion with the topic leads me to believe YOU do, however).
<< <i>one unpopular opinion >>
interesting how you describe child molestation as an "unpopular opinion"..
<< <i>
<< <i>one unpopular opinion >>
interesting how you describe child molestation as an "unpopular opinion".. >>
And it's interesting you seem so compelled to debate this topic.
Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?
<< <i>And it's interesting you seem so compelled to debate this topic.
Why do you hate freedom of speech so much? >>
in other words, you would like me to leave you alone regarding your support of child molestation?
No, I do not endorse NAMBLA or any of the things it stands for.
I find child molestation to be a horrible thing.
THAT BEING SAID, I value the freedoms our forefathers set in stone for this country. They didn't say 'freedom of speech for some' they said for all.
If you have a problem with freedom of speech for all, I am sure red China has a home for you, and would welcome you with open arms.
<< <i>They didn't say 'freedom of speech for some' they said for all. >>
including the child molesters/rapists you want to defend, right?
<< <i>If you have a problem with freedom of speech for all >>
yes, i have a problem with freedom of speech for men that rape little boys.. they have no freedoms as far as im concerned.. they have the freedom to die a brutal death and pass on to whatever awaits them in the afterlife..
I am saying the ACLU is doing the right thing in protecting their freedom of speech.
The ACLU is not advocating children being molested. The ACLU is doing what it's always done; protected the freedoms of the private citizens in this country (yes, even you pandrews).
If someone wants to stand up and say they are attracted to boys is completely different than them molesting boys. One would be protected under the laws of this country (the former), the other would land you in jail.
I am sorry you are so dense you cannot see that the defense of opinions not grasped by the majority are as important to uphold as those that the majority rallies behind.
You would think for someone who seems to project such a 'rebel' image, you'd fight more valiantly for rights in this country. Turns out you're just a big government lap dog, waiting to be petted into submission where the things you say and think are dictated by the government.
When will you see that when you say it's ok to take away one person's freedom of speech, that just opens the door for all of us to lose it?
<< <i>blah.. >>
Well of course you're going to say that pandrews, in that pithy tone I am sure you think is so clever with today's kids.
You'll never admit that a group like NAMBLA has the same rights to freedom of speech and expression as everyone else.
You'll never admit that if you take away THEIR right, it may soon be YOUR right that is taken next.
You'll never admit that all it takes is ONE group to have their freedom of speech taken away...next it's groups opposed to the war, and they use the NAMBLA's loss of freedom of speech as the basis. And then it all goes downhill from there.
Admit pandrews, you want freedoms for those you agree with, and to hell with everyone else (even though you can't have one without the other).
<< <i>
You'll never admit that a group like NAMBLA has the same rights to freedom of speech and expression as everyone else.
>>
OF-FRIGGING-COURSE the scum should not have ANY rights WHATSOEVER..
but evidently you think they do?
what other freedoms do you think we should give CHILD RAPISTS?
<< <i>Why do you hate freedom of speech so much? >>
why do you enjoy sex with little boys so much?
<< <i>pandrews you'll never see the big picture, because you're too short sighted...you fail time and time again to see that it's not about defending sex with boys, it's about freedom of speech you twit. >>
so answer the question, are there any other freedoms you think child rapists (or even people who just WANT to rape children) should have?
The ACLU wasn't defending NAMBLA. If you opened your eyes and your mind you'd see what happened is:
the ACLU was denfending NAMBLA from a lawsuit filed from murder charges pressed by the parents of a 10 year old who was killed.
In the other thread (where this debate belongs, but you're too chicken s*** to show your face there), it was likened to the NRA being sued if someone was killed by a gun.
Neither body is liable, so neither should be sued.
Now go away, you're annoying me!
<< <i>The ACLU wasn't defending NAMBLA. >>
<< <i>the ACLU was denfending NAMBLA from a lawsuit filed from murder charges pressed by the parents of a 10 year old who was killed. >>
Which is it Axtell? Are they or aren't they defending?
How long have you been a member?
<< <i>Now go away, you're annoying me! >>
lol.. i bet i am.. i bet you'd also be annoyed if some NAMBLA freak decides he wants to have ass-sex with your little child.. but of course, you would want the ACLU to defend him, right?..
you still havent answered my question.. so the facts so far are:
- you believe NAMBLA has a right to exist
- you believe NAMBLA should enjoy freedom of speech and all the other freedoms U.S. Citizens enjoy
should I have the right to sue the NRA if some gun freak shoots and kills my 10 year old kid?
should I have the right to sue a fillm studio is some movie freak kills my 10 year old kid in a way he saw in a movie?
Yes, as much as I disagree with everything NAMBLA stands for, but absolutely they have the same freedom of speech as you and I. Because if you take it away from one person or organization, that's the first domino in thousands that would fall until all that's left is the government telling us what we can and cannot say.
So feel free to exercise your short-sighted agenda, pig.
and jrmac, either go over to the OF, or shut your trap. Quit trying to pile on.
That's right, it was on the sidelines and not coming to the aid of Stern, Opie/Anthony, Mancow, etc.
Additionally, I cannot fully support a group that fights fiercely for our bill of rights.....except for one......Amendment #2. The ACLU tries to downplay it by saying that is the NRA's job, by why does it try to avoid the topic many a times?
Overall, it is my impression that the ACLU is the Jesse Jackson for white people.
Now, about that game. I hate college football with a passion, but that TD run by Reggie Bush was just to sweeeeetttttt!!! I just hope he becomes a superstar in the NFL. I only wanted to see USC win so I wouldn't have to hear all these hicks from Texas say "Don't mess with Texas!!" and "Everything is better in Texas!!"
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
<< <i>Yes,...NAMBLA...absolutely they have the same freedom of speech as you and I. >>
ok.. so you have hopes of living in a world where NAMBLA members can "freely speak" to your little child about having consensual ass-sex..
you believe nambla shouldn't have the right to free speech (and whoever the hell else you disagree with).
I believe ALL in this country are protected under the right to free speech.
I also believe you are a MORON who cannot grasp that the second you take away one's right to free speech, you open the floodgates to it being rescinded for a LOT of minority opinions.
I am done debating you on this. Have a good day, you twit.
<< <i>pandrews I am tired of debating you on this. >>
i bet..
<< <i>you believe nambla shouldn't have the right to free speech >>
correct, they shouldnt even be allowed to exist..
<< <i>I believe ALL in this country are protected under the right to free speech. >>
correct, you believe in the right for a grown man to discuss sexual relations with your little child..
<< <i>I also believe you are a MORON who cannot grasp that the second you take away one's right to free speech, you open the floodgates to it being rescinded for a LOT of minority opinions. >>
and you view man-on-boy sex as simply a "minority opinion"..
good stuff, axtell..
BTW, doesn't NAMBLA and the catholic church walk hand in hand? I mean, both their leaders like to have sex with young boys yet we allow them to exsist
<< <i>Well actually, they do really have the right to exsist. It doesn't mean we have to sanction, legalize or condone their behavior, but they still have the right to exsist as a group. If men want to get together and talk about humping young fellers, I guess they have that right but they still have to abide by the laws set to protect minors. >>
ok, so you also agree that nambla's grown men have the right to encourage your children to have sex with them.. thats the kind of free speech they want..
<< <i>
I believe ALL in this country are protected under the right to free speech.
>>
I doubt that, but let's see.
You believe that all restrictions on so-called "hate speech" at colleges and universities are wrong.
You believe that all citizens have the right to utter obscenities in any and all circumstances.
You believe that all citizens have the right to use racial epithets in any and all circumstances.
You believe that all restrictions on political campaign advertising such as McCain-Feingold are wrong.
You believe that students at public schools should have the right to engage in prayer or proselytizing while at school.
You believe that teachers have the right to proselytize to students at school.
You believe that employers have the right to advertise "Whites only, please".
You believe that employers have the right to say "Nice rack, sweetie" to their better endowed female employees.
You believe that NBC has the right to show "Deep Throat" at 9:00 AM on a Saturday morning.
You believe that I have the right to take out a full-page ad in the Reader's Digest proclaiming that Axtell lusts for little boys.
Since you said you support ALL free speech, I assume that you agree with each of the 10 points above. If not, please tell me which of the above cross a line that is more offensive to you than ass-sex with an 8 year old boy.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>Well actually, they do really have the right to exsist. It doesn't mean we have to sanction, legalize or condone their behavior, but they still have the right to exsist as a group. If men want to get together and talk about humping young fellers, I guess they have that right but they still have to abide by the laws set to protect minors. >>
ok, so you also agree that nambla's grown men have the right to encourage your children to have sex with them.. thats the kind of free speech they want.. >>
Do you really read anything? I don't recall saying they have the right to proposition minors for sex. Again, I did mention that they have the right to exsist so long as they abide by the laws we all have to. Having sex with minors is illegal, so I don't agree that NAMBLA has the right to encourage children to have sex. If they want to have a group that talks about it, fine... I really don't care, so long as they don't act upon their illegal urges.
Dirt monkey that was an IGNORANT thing to say. The Catholic Church is in many countries . The problem that you allude to happened here in America.
regards,
Win
<< <i>
You believe that all restrictions on so-called "hate speech" at colleges and universities are wrong. >>
Those are private institutions, therefore not bound to the same freedom of speech. Just like we don't have freedom of speech here. If the mods want to delete something they find offensive, they have that right.
<< <i>
You believe that all citizens have the right to utter obscenities in any and all circumstances.
>>
Sure...since when is saying a 'naughty' word against the law? Tacky? Yes, but illegal? no.
<< <i>
You believe that all citizens have the right to use racial epithets in any and all circumstances. >>
Again tacky, but illegal? Nope.
<< <i>
You believe that all restrictions on political campaign advertising such as McCain-Feingold are wrong. >>
I can't speak to this as I don't know what it's about...but if its about truth in political campaigns, then no, as you're talking about libel and falsifying information for political gains.
<< <i>You believe that students at public schools should have the right to engage in prayer or proselytizing while at school. >>
They absolutely have the right to do so as long as it (a) doesn't interfere with the school's teaching agenda and (b) those who don't want to aren't subjected to do so.
<< <i>You believe that teachers have the right to proselytize to students at school. >>
No, you're talking about teachers deviating from the course....and that's not ok, and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
<< <i>You believe that employers have the right to advertise "Whites only, please". >>
Nope, you're talking about freedom of employment, not freedom of speech. But if the same employer wants to have a web blog or newsletter that relates his white supremecists point of views, then absolutely he has the right to do so as long as it doesn't interfere with his work. What someone wants to do in their free time is their perogative.
<< <i>You believe that employers have the right to say "Nice rack, sweetie" to their better endowed female employees. >>
Again you're delving into fair employment tactics. Irrelevant analogy.
<< <i>You believe that NBC has the right to show "Deep Throat" at 9:00 AM on a Saturday morning. >>
No because now you're crossing into decency laws.
<< <i>You believe that I have the right to take out a full-page ad in the Reader's Digest proclaiming that Axtell lusts for little boys. >>
Libelous...its not true and you'd be opening yourself to a hefty little lawsuit.
I find it humorous that you all come out of the woodwork and have no idea what this case is really about.
NAMBLA is being named in a lawsuit in which a 10 year old boy was killed...one of the accused is a member of NAMBLA. The ACLU has come to the defense as a parent organization has no legal liability in a case like this. It would be if the NRA were named in a lawsuit in which someone was shot to death, and the accused was a card carrying NRA member.
<< <i>
ok, so you also agree that nambla's grown men have the right to encourage your children to have sex with them.. thats the kind of free speech they want.. >>
How do you know? are you a member?
pandrews no one here is defending nambla you twit. what is being defended is the freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
But then you are too STUPID to realize it.
<< <i>No because now you're crossing into decency laws. >>
yeah, and NAMBLA doesnt do that..
Clown.
<< <i>BTW, doesn't NAMBLA and the catholic church walk hand in hand?
Dirt monkey that was an IGNORANT thing to say. The Catholic Church is in many countries . The problem that you allude to happened here in America.
regards,
Win >>
You respond as though priests sleeping with boys has been a singular incident, when it's been reported on many more occasions. Further, it has been reported in other countries besides our own. Finally, the comment was intended as borderline sarcasm so settle down bud.
I most certaintly did not. To say The Church like you did implied the whole church and that is just not true.
Had you said the American catholic church you would have been correct.
Regards,
Win
<< <i>You respond as though priests sleeping with boys has been a singular incident,
I most certaintly did not. To say The Church like you did implied the whole church and that is just not true.
Had you said the American catholic church you would have been correct.
Regards,
Win >>
LOL, too funny. Again, these incidents have happened in other countries besides our own. Further, I didn't know the catholic church seperated itself by churches in countries who have sex with boys and those who do not.
Ohhh yeah.
You know it's a good thread when the words "pig" and "ass-sex" are both used.
Carry on.
<< <i>Ohhh yeah.
You know it's a good thread when the words "pig" and "ass-sex" are both used.
Carry on. >>
Well pandrews is intimately familiar with both.
I didn't know the catholic church seperated itself by churches in countries
That is what made your statement IGNORANT
If you're going to state things as fact make sure you have the facts.
you look foolish when you do not.
regards,
Win