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 >>
Make certain to copy and paste the entire sentence, as I'm fairly certain the catholic church does not have a sect designated solely for those who have sex with boys and those who do not. If there is, I'm completely unaware of it so please specify what this sect had been named so that I may be educated in this matter. Also, I don't recall saying my statement was fact. I actually added the little smiley as that generally indicates forum sarcasm. So I would actually say that you look foolish and your assessment of my statement was ignorant, as you are apparently unfamiliar with forum smileys
I never said anything about sects. My statement was and remains simply this. The Catholic church is not just confined to here in America WHERE THE SCANDAL you were referring to happened.
And I find nothing funny or anything to smile about with this situation.
<< <i>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.
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.
No, you're talking about teachers deviating from the course....and that's not ok, and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Nope, you're talking about freedom of employment, not freedom of speech.
Again you're delving into fair employment tactics. Irrelevant analogy.
No because now you're crossing into decency laws.
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.
>>
I don't know why I enjoy pretending to have intelligent conversations with someone who is not able to do so, but so help me I do.
Allow me to state the obvious:
You said "ALL" of us were protected by free speech then I listed 10 circumstances where I thought it less than certain that you would support an individual's right to free speech. As I suspected, of those 10 you were willing to restrict the free speech of individual Americans in 7 cases. You even made up rights called "freedom of employment" and a right to not "deviate from the course" to justify two of them. You look foolish for calling out pandrews because he was willing to restrict the free speech of someone with whom he disagreed, when you then justify restricting the free speech of 7 out of 10 people with whom you disagree.
Yes, for example, my calling you a pedophile in print would be libel. But all that means is that a majority of the people have already agreed to restrict free speech so as to exclude libel and passed a law to that effect. Pandrews believes that free speech should be restricted in a different way. What is the difference? If a law is passed to put NAMBLA out of business, are you then going to say that's OK? If there was no law against libel, would you be willing to fight for my right to print my ad? Why is the ACLU fighting the NAMBLA case and not fighting to overturn libel laws? A restriction on freedom of speech is a restriction on freedom of speech, isn't that your point?
We - Americans - have restricted free speech in too many ways to count. It started with the proverbial "Fire!" in a crowded theater and has expanded to include libel, employment restrictions, decency laws, and on and on and on. And the American people overwhelmingly approve of the restrictions that have been put in place; IMO, the American people - if enough were even aware of NAMBLA's existence - would just as overwhelmingly approve of shutting them up. Make no mistake, the ACLU in this fight - and in the vast majority of battles it has chosen to fight in the last 20 years - is fighting against the wishes of the majority of Americans. And that was not always the case; I am old enough to remember thinking very highly of the ACLU, and I hope I live long enough to see them return to the politically neutral organization that they used to be. {In fairness - kudos to them for fighting McCain-Feingold.}
And I most certainly do understand what the NAMBLA case is about. It is very similar in structure to a case several years back where a website was sued for posting names and addresses of abortionists with the unstated, but presumed, purpose of encouraging those who wanted to kill abortionists (at least one of whom was killed, if I remember correctly, although I may be confusing the actual case with the Law and Order "based on" episode). To my mind, encouraging ass-sex with minors is equally deplorable and the American people have a right to shut these people up. I would disagree with, but respect, a person who actually believed what you tried to pretend that you believe - that free speech was absolute and that neither of the defendants in these two cases should be silenced. The ACLU, on the other hand, will fight for one but not the other.
Now if NAMBLA could turn their attentions to ass-sex with ACLU lawyers, I think we could all be happy.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Although I may someday, I have not yet tired of pointing out in as painstaking detail as I can muster, that you are an idiot. So, having already done that, I was finished, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Hey, good way to be a good winner alpe...really classy!
Funny how you can post anything and say that you are outspoken and the rest of us are not classy.
Also do you believe in everyone's freedom of speech or just the ones that you agree with? For example does a Catholic have the right to put up his/her religous beliefs in a government building... or is it only ok for the agnostics/athiests to display their beliefs
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". - Gandhi
jrmac I simply was tired of debating the same point over and over with pandrews, as he's too short sighted to see that it wasn't nambla's actions that the ACLU was defending, it was their right to gather and speek.
I, too, am tired of debating cretans like you who are too chicken s**t to show their face in the open forum for fear of being ridiculed like the clown you are.
If you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to drop by the OF.
<< <i>as he's too short sighted to see that it wasn't nambla's actions that the ACLU was defending, it was their right to gather and speek. >>
no, you keep telling yourself that.. i completely understand that the ACLU is defending NAMBLA's right to gather and speak.. what i am saying is that *I* fully support the right of NAMBLA to gather in a mass grave and never say a word again..
Main Entry: Crete Pronunciation: 'krEt Variant(s): or Greek Krí·ti /'krE-tE/ Usage: geographical name island Greece in the E Mediterranean capital Iráklion area 3189 square miles (8260 square kilometers), population 536,980 - Cre·tan /'krE-t&n/ adjective or noun
Do you mean:
Main Entry: cre·tin Pronunciation: 'krE-t&n Function: noun Etymology: French crétin, from French dialect cretin, literally, wretch, innocent victim, from Latin christianus Christian 1 : one afflicted with cretinism 2 : a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person : CLOD, LOUT - cre·tin·ous /-t&n-&s/ adjective
Yes jrmac when your argument breaks down and you have nothing worthwhile to add, attack someone's spelling.
pandrews...let it go man. You got your ass absolutely handed to you in the OF, yet you take your anger out here. Pathetic. Then you resort to starting a thread entitled 'intimidating images'. I think the intimidating image for you is venturing back into the OF where you will get backhanded over and over again.
<< <i>pandrews...let it go man. You got your ass absolutely handed to you in the OF, yet you take your anger out here. Pathetic. Then you resort to starting a thread entitled 'intimidating images'. I think the intimidating image for you is venturing back into the OF where you will get backhanded over and over again.
Now continue your lil circle jerk. >>
WTF? please point me to the thread where i got my ass handed to me.. i'm scared to venture back over there? dude, i post in the open forum all the time, and in fact i posted the last post in the thread you claim i'm scared to "venture back" to..
I find it amusing you continue to confuse my position of the ACLU vs. nambla.
I find it amusing everyone in that thread saw through your inability to seperate that the ACLU was not condoning nambla's actions.
Finally, I find it highly entertaining you are such a proponent of man-boy love. I guess you loathe the most which you are, huh spanky?
Keep your hands off those lil boys pandrews...your fellow inmates don't look down too kindly on child molsters. >>
A broken clock is right twice a day, but not Axtell...
1. pandrews is the only one who has actually staked out a position of the ACLU vs. NAMBLA - he's agin 'em both. I followed the thread and was amazed to find that Axtell is not alone in the vastness of his ignorance - the OF is positively full of morons. Or croutons, I get them confused. Every, and I mean every, poster on the OF who disagrees with pandrews position has taken the identical non-position that Axtell has taken here - FREE SPEECH IS ABSOLUTE. But nobody actually believes that, certainly not Axtell who only supports free speech in 3 out of 10 cases. Bottom line - if pandrews has confused your position on this case it is because you have not taken one that makes any sense. Explain why - amidst the thousands of restrictions on free speech that we have, and need, in this country - encouraging man-boy ass-sex is more vital to the freedom of our nation than say, the ability of a devout Muslim to practice his religion in the public school in which he spends one-third of his life, or STFU. Alternatively, point me to the "deviate from the lesson plan" clause of the Constitution that trumps "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]".
2. Pandrews' position on this case could not possibly be more clear - I believe it can be neatly summarized as "beat them all to death". That position in no way depends on the word "condoning" and he has never said that it does. To summarize: pandrews gets what the case is about, he has expressed an opinion regarding the ACLU's involvement, and he has explained why. The moron patrol has "seen through" nothing, they have simply been unable to collectively formulate a rebuttal at or above the third grade level....
3. .... and so they, and especially you, resort to cheap ad hominem attacks. At least I think calling someone a "molster" is bad; I am unfamiliar with the word.
I am as close to a free speech absolutist as you are likely to ever encounter (certainly more than you are, based on your score of only 3 on my free speech quiz) and I have no problem at all with beating all NAMBLA members with baseball bats until they lie unrecognizable in a pool of their own bodily fluids. Disagree with that position if you want to, but if you can't do that without resort to arguments which even you don't actually believe then what is the point of disagreeing in the first place? I'll wait while you check with the guys on the OF to find out what it is that you do actually believe.
{Yeah, I said I was finished; I lied.}
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
dallas take it over to the OF, unless you're not comfortable there, and feel at home with those here who share your short-sightedness. Dallas, what you want to do (beating them with bats until they are dead) is against the law....no one is condoning child abuse, no one is condoning man on boy sex. Why is it so goddamned hard for you 2 to see the difference between them?
and pandrews, where was your ass handed to you?
<< <i> Well, it looks like everyone except for Mr. Andrews, who is apparently invincibly ignorant, has come to understand the position of the ACLU with respect to freedom of speech on political matters. So I suppose it's time for me to move on to something else. >>
<< <i>Everyone is free to speak and lobby for any change in the law they'd like to see. Why can't you tell the difference between advocating for a change in the law and actually breaking the law? >>
<< <i> < have you ever had ass-sex with a little boy? >>
It's sad when a discussion of the freedom of speech comes down to this. I doubt that anyone here is advocating having sex with minors...why not try to keep the discussion in the land of common courtesy >>
<< <i>Enough with the questions. Let's speak in statements. No, no one here is advocating sex with minors. No, no one so far has come out as a NAMBLA supporter. What I and others who have posted to this thread do support is the right to free speach for all, regardless of the opinions expressed. I am not a NAMBLA supporter but I do believe that they have a right to free speech. The best way to deal with repugnant ideas is to confront them in public debate, not force them underground. >>
Over and over your ridiculous notion that the ACLU was advocating sex with minors was shone through by those in the of. I cannot help it if you cannot differentiate between the two (advocating child molestation and defending the right to freedom of speech).
Is seems as if someone here is a hypocrite and has some serious blinders on:
There seems to be a series of posts where Axtell is not as loved and agreed with as he would like everyone to believe on the OF.
There are a number of posts here and on the open forum where Axtell likes to point out that folks are being immature when they "attack" him/his point of view and asks them to constructively add to the debate. This is almost always followed by a personal attack (not relating to the issue) by Axtell in the same vein that his chastises others for doing.
I sure hope you don't live in a glass house.
Looking for a Glen Rice Inkredible and Alex Rodriguez cards
Axtell harbors the type of mindset which has almost effectively rendered our beloved country incapable of dealing with our problems swiftly. It is ironic that this nations beliefs, morals, and freedoms have subsequently gave birth to this type of scum.
<< <i>dallas take it over to the OF, unless you're not comfortable there, and feel at home with those here who share your short-sightedness. Dallas, what you want to do (beating them with bats until they are dead) is against the law....no one is condoning child abuse, no one is condoning man on boy sex. Why is it so goddamned hard for you 2 to see the difference between them? >>
Good god, no, I would not be comfortable on the OF; way to many idiots. I prefer it here where there is usually just the one.
Yes, beating them to death with bats is against the law - I meant that I see nothing morally wrong with it.
And no matter how many times you repeat the big lie - "no one is condoning child abuse" - that will not make it true. NAMBLA IS CONDONING CHILD ABUSE! NAMBLA IS CONDONING MAN ON BOY SEX! They want those pesky age of consent laws out of the way so they can continue doing what they're doing without fear of going to prison since they much prefer being the predator rather than the prey. They are condoning unspeakable acts against the most defenseless members of our society and I do not believe that they have a Constitutional right to do that. Why is that so goddamned hard for you and the rest of the moron patrol to understand?
Honestly, do you believe that if a group set up a website that lobbied for the repeal of those pesky anti-lynching laws, held conventions where they described in rapturous detail the joys of stringing up black folk, told all of its members that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it since the truth was that the black folk actually liked it, and then one of its members went out and lynched somebody that the ACLU would be defending that group against the lawsuit that would follow? Not even you are that stupid.
But, leaving the ACLU aside, please state for the record that you would be in favor of someone defending them because, gosh darn it, their right to free speech was being violated.
Also, I take it that you are generally opposed to the criminalization of things like "conspiracy" and "incitement" since you believe that out of an entire group that intends for a crime to be committed and discusses the crime in advance, only the one person who actually commits the crime should be held accountable. But I don't want to assume anything, so please confirm.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Axtell harbors the type of mindset which has almost effectively rendered our beloved country incapable of dealing with our problems swiftly. It is ironic that this nations beliefs, morals, and freedoms have subsequently gave birth to this type of scum.
<< <i> Good god, no, I would not be comfortable on the OF; way to many idiots. I prefer it here where there is usually just the one. >>
You mean there are too many people there who would see through your illogical and short-sighted ways, and you'd prefer to be here instead? I understand...change is difficult to accept.
<< <i> And no matter how many times you repeat the big lie - "no one is condoning child abuse" - that will not make it true. NAMBLA IS CONDONING CHILD ABUSE! NAMBLA IS CONDONING MAN ON BOY SEX! They want those pesky age of consent laws out of the way so they can continue doing what they're doing without fear of going to prison since they much prefer being the predator rather than the prey. They are condoning unspeakable acts against the most defenseless members of our society and I do not believe that they have a Constitutional right to do that. Why is that so goddamned hard for you and the rest of the moron patrol to understand? >>
Why is it so goddamned hard for you to understand that the INSTANT you take away one group's or individuals right to speak or gather, it opens the floodgates for countless others? And why is it so hard for you to realize that the ACLU was involved with NAMBLA because they were named in a lawsuit by a murder victim's parents, even though they had nothing to do with it. Why are you so goddamned dense?
<< <i> Honestly, do you believe that if a group set up a website that lobbied for the repeal of those pesky anti-lynching laws, held conventions where they described in rapturous detail the joys of stringing up black folk, told all of its members that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it since the truth was that the black folk actually liked it, and then one of its members went out and lynched somebody that the ACLU would be defending that group against the lawsuit that would follow? >>
Hey, it sounds like the KKK, doesn't it? They are allowed to exist, and put up such websites, no? If not the KKK, then any of the countless white supremecist parties in this country...and when are you going to get it through your f*****g head that it's not TALKING about these things which is illegal or wrong, it's DOING them? Damn are you really that frigging stupid?
<< <i>But, leaving the ACLU aside, please state for the record that you would be in favor of someone defending them because, gosh darn it, their right to free speech was being violated. >>
Again you know not of which you speak. Why don't you open your brain for a second and read the facts about why the ACLU got involved in the first place you twit.
"NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
Now shut your damn mouth and open your mind...it's a wonderful combination.
<< <i>...and when are you going to get it through your f*****g head that it's not TALKING about these things which is illegal or wrong, it's DOING them? >>
You had my hopes up; even though the better part of all of your responses missed the point, you were actually approaching the questions with something approximating logic. I was actually intrigued when I got to your response quoted above. "How will Axtell get himself out of the trap he just set for himself", I wondered, "when he gets to my last question?".
So I forged on, wading through what turned out to be a mostly off-point and overly long wet kiss from the ACLU's amen corner in the MSM. But, I thought, I will not fully appreciate the wonders of Axtell's razor-sharp mind when I get to that final answer if I have missed something important that came before.
At last the moment arrived ... I was at the end ... I could see the bottom of the page and Axtell's brilliant conclusion must be but a heartbeat away. "Talking about these things" is neither "illegal or wrong" quoth the oracle, and my feeble mind was confused by the existence of laws against conspiracy and incitement to riot and a hundred other "speech" crimes. But at last the moment had arrived when He of the Very Large Brain would resolve this seeming conflict for me and I could be at peace.
And then there it was - "Always lookng for upgrades to my sets!" Since I had been informed that I was "illogical", "short-sighted", "dense", and "frigging stupid" I gazed at the response for many minutes attempting to divine what I knew to be revealed wisdom from the One who, dare I say it, might possibly be a god. But an answer was not able to penetrate my denseness.
Then an evil voice spoke to me. One that surely was sent from Hell itself because the words it spoke were profane - they were words that attempted to plant the seed of doubt in my mind that perhaps Axtell was not what he claimed to be. That the knowledge he possessed was perhaps less than the sum of the rest of the mortals with whom he deigns to share his presence.
I fought this demon for as long as I could, but to no avail; what it was telling me was becoming clear before my very eyes - there was no answer to my last question. None at all. In fact, on closer inspection, he had not answered any of the questions I asked. Axtell was a false prophet after all, and there were lamentations and wailing and gnashing of teeth. I would have to find another hero.
One that was not a turd.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I never said anything about sects. My statement was and remains simply this. The Catholic church is not just confined to here in America WHERE THE SCANDAL you were referring to happened.
And I find nothing funny or anything to smile about with this situation.
Steve >>
I guess I'm uncertain as to why I feel the need to reply on this anymore as my input in this matter was merely intended to stir the proverbial stew, but as I mentioned the child molestation situation with priests in the catholic church has happened (or at least been reported) in other countries besides our own. This incident isn't singular either, so I'm unsure which particular "scandal" you may be referring to. Again, it doesn't really matter to me as I'm not in an official position to remedy the situation. Finally, I don't find humor in these incidents at all so please don't misunderstand my position. I do see irony in it though, but that's another post altogether...
<< <i> guess I'm uncertain as to why I feel the need to reply on this anymore as my input in this matter was merely intended to stir the proverbial stew,
Good. then stfu. it was an ignorant statement then and is an ignorant statement now.
anything else?
Steve >>
LOL, glad you could reply with such a well thought out, rational and intelligent reply yourself. Take a breather and try to realize that real life happens outside of these forums, not within them. They are merely here for our entertainment. Take those panties out of your crack and lighten up a little. Aside from that, hope your weekend goes well.
<< <i>Take a breather and try to realize that real life happens outside of these forums, not within theml. >>
There are people on these boards (who I won't name) whose only way of speaking out is through these forums...as they are unable (or unwilling) to voice their opinion in person.
<< <i>There are people on these boards (who I won't name) whose only way of speaking out is through these forums...as they are unable (or unwilling) to voice their opinion in person. >>
<< <i>There are people on these boards (who I won't name) whose only way of speaking out is through these forums...as they are unable (or unwilling) to voice their opinion in person. >>
There are people on these boards (who I won't name) whose only way of speaking out is through these forums...as they are unable (or unwilling) to voice their opinion in person. >>
With the amount of time you spend posting on these forums I am sure you don't have the time or balls to spout your propaganda in "person" either.
you are a meek lil wallflower who runs his mouth here, and in person, ehh I bet not so much.
I have never backed down from a lively debate in person or via a messageboard...though I suspect your side of the debates are more of the 'yes, sir, may I have another?' variety.
I have never backed down from a lively debate in person or via a messageboard...though I suspect your side of the debates are more of the 'yes, sir, may I have another?' variety. >>
Nope. You show all of the classic signs of a two bit loser taking his anger of a piss poor life out on a internet message board.
I am sure you have detailed studies of what constitutes a piss poor loser...oh wait, you look in the mirror every day to see that don't you boy?
WP-
all you've done is embarass yourself...dirtmonkey schooled you, then I rubbed some salt in the wounds. Don't be bitter, just accept defeat and move on.
i do recall saying that for one thread, in which you lamely tried to claim it meant forever. That was 15 flames ago.
Steve
edit to add: Oh i remm now. It was when you claimed you extended the olive branch by saying all I had to do was keep my obnoxious mouth out of your way and all would be ok.
I then PM'd you and said: I did not realise it at the time but you are an idiot? or somthing like that? I figured if you saying it was an olive branch then you must truly be an idiot? is that what you are referring to?
Bad form? You have a monopoly on that Ax!. All you do with your life is type away on a keyboard in some far off dark gloomy room. Between shifts at the quiki mart.
Comments
<< <i>Ohhh yeah.
You know it's a good thread when the words "pig" and "ass-sex" are both used.
Carry on. >>
Could almost be talking about Deliverance... Squeal like a pig, boy
<< <i>Dirt monkey
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 >>
Make certain to copy and paste the entire sentence, as I'm fairly certain the catholic church does not have a sect designated solely for those who have sex with boys and those who do not. If there is, I'm completely unaware of it so please specify what this sect had been named so that I may be educated in this matter. Also, I don't recall saying my statement was fact. I actually added the little smiley as that generally indicates forum sarcasm. So I would actually say that you look foolish and your assessment of my statement was ignorant, as you are apparently unfamiliar with forum smileys
I agree
I never said anything about sects. My statement was and remains simply this. The Catholic church is not just confined to here in America WHERE THE SCANDAL you were referring to happened.
And I find nothing funny or anything to smile about with this situation.
Steve
<< <i>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.
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.
No, you're talking about teachers deviating from the course....and that's not ok, and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Nope, you're talking about freedom of employment, not freedom of speech.
Again you're delving into fair employment tactics. Irrelevant analogy.
No because now you're crossing into decency laws.
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.
>>
I don't know why I enjoy pretending to have intelligent conversations with someone who is not able to do so, but so help me I do.
Allow me to state the obvious:
You said "ALL" of us were protected by free speech then I listed 10 circumstances where I thought it less than certain that you would support an individual's right to free speech. As I suspected, of those 10 you were willing to restrict the free speech of individual Americans in 7 cases. You even made up rights called "freedom of employment" and a right to not "deviate from the course" to justify two of them. You look foolish for calling out pandrews because he was willing to restrict the free speech of someone with whom he disagreed, when you then justify restricting the free speech of 7 out of 10 people with whom you disagree.
Yes, for example, my calling you a pedophile in print would be libel. But all that means is that a majority of the people have already agreed to restrict free speech so as to exclude libel and passed a law to that effect. Pandrews believes that free speech should be restricted in a different way. What is the difference? If a law is passed to put NAMBLA out of business, are you then going to say that's OK? If there was no law against libel, would you be willing to fight for my right to print my ad? Why is the ACLU fighting the NAMBLA case and not fighting to overturn libel laws? A restriction on freedom of speech is a restriction on freedom of speech, isn't that your point?
We - Americans - have restricted free speech in too many ways to count. It started with the proverbial "Fire!" in a crowded theater and has expanded to include libel, employment restrictions, decency laws, and on and on and on. And the American people overwhelmingly approve of the restrictions that have been put in place; IMO, the American people - if enough were even aware of NAMBLA's existence - would just as overwhelmingly approve of shutting them up. Make no mistake, the ACLU in this fight - and in the vast majority of battles it has chosen to fight in the last 20 years - is fighting against the wishes of the majority of Americans. And that was not always the case; I am old enough to remember thinking very highly of the ACLU, and I hope I live long enough to see them return to the politically neutral organization that they used to be. {In fairness - kudos to them for fighting McCain-Feingold.}
And I most certainly do understand what the NAMBLA case is about. It is very similar in structure to a case several years back where a website was sued for posting names and addresses of abortionists with the unstated, but presumed, purpose of encouraging those who wanted to kill abortionists (at least one of whom was killed, if I remember correctly, although I may be confusing the actual case with the Law and Order "based on" episode). To my mind, encouraging ass-sex with minors is equally deplorable and the American people have a right to shut these people up. I would disagree with, but respect, a person who actually believed what you tried to pretend that you believe - that free speech was absolute and that neither of the defendants in these two cases should be silenced. The ACLU, on the other hand, will fight for one but not the other.
Now if NAMBLA could turn their attentions to ass-sex with ACLU lawyers, I think we could all be happy.
take it over to the open forum if you want to debate this...I am done on the topic, and the fine folks here are tired of it as well.
Funny how you can post anything and say that you are outspoken and the rest of us are not classy.
Also do you believe in everyone's freedom of speech or just the ones that you agree with? For example does a Catholic have the right to put up his/her religous beliefs in a government building... or is it only ok for the agnostics/athiests to display their beliefs
<< <i>take it over to the open forum if you want to debate this...I am done on the topic, and the fine folks here are tired of it as well. >>
Let me translate this for all you good people:
I can't come up with anything intelligent to say. Let someone who has a full brain debate you on the topic.
I, too, am tired of debating cretans like you who are too chicken s**t to show their face in the open forum for fear of being ridiculed like the clown you are.
If you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to drop by the OF.
<< <i>as he's too short sighted to see that it wasn't nambla's actions that the ACLU was defending, it was their right to gather and speek. >>
no, you keep telling yourself that.. i completely understand that the ACLU is defending NAMBLA's right to gather and speak.. what i am saying is that *I* fully support the right of NAMBLA to gather in a mass grave and never say a word again..
<< <i>cretans >>
I'm not from Greece.
Main Entry: Crete
Pronunciation: 'krEt
Variant(s): or Greek Krí·ti /'krE-tE/
Usage: geographical name
island Greece in the E Mediterranean capital Iráklion area 3189 square miles (8260 square kilometers), population 536,980
- Cre·tan /'krE-t&n/ adjective or noun
Do you mean:
Main Entry: cre·tin
Pronunciation: 'krE-t&n
Function: noun
Etymology: French crétin, from French dialect cretin, literally, wretch, innocent victim, from Latin christianus Christian
1 : one afflicted with cretinism
2 : a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person : CLOD, LOUT
- cre·tin·ous /-t&n-&s/ adjective
he called some religious people in the open forum "bibliophiles"..
pandrews...let it go man. You got your ass absolutely handed to you in the OF, yet you take your anger out here. Pathetic. Then you resort to starting a thread entitled 'intimidating images'. I think the intimidating image for you is venturing back into the OF where you will get backhanded over and over again.
Now continue your lil circle jerk.
<< <i>pandrews...let it go man. You got your ass absolutely handed to you in the OF, yet you take your anger out here. Pathetic. Then you resort to starting a thread entitled 'intimidating images'. I think the intimidating image for you is venturing back into the OF where you will get backhanded over and over again.
Now continue your lil circle jerk. >>
WTF? please point me to the thread where i got my ass handed to me.. i'm scared to venture back over there? dude, i post in the open forum all the time, and in fact i posted the last post in the thread you claim i'm scared to "venture back" to..
and now you insult my sports thread?
you definitely support man-on-boy love..
I find it amusing you continue to confuse my position of the ACLU vs. nambla.
I find it amusing everyone in that thread saw through your inability to seperate that the ACLU was not condoning nambla's actions.
Finally, I find it highly entertaining you are such a proponent of man-boy love. I guess you loathe the most which you are, huh spanky?
Keep your hands off those lil boys pandrews...your fellow inmates don't look down too kindly on child molsters.
<< <i>I find it amusing everyone in that thread saw through your inability to seperate that the ACLU was not condoning nambla's actions >>
is this the thread where i got my ass handed to me?
you got your ass handed to you right here in the thread youre reading now..
<< <i>Yes jrmac when your argument breaks down and you have nothing worthwhile to add, attack someone's spelling. >>
My argument didn't break down, I was simply wondering if you really meant to call me a resident of Crete.
Where else can you have this type of entertainment?
Steve
edit to add: oops I forgot it did have some sports talk in it too. (at one time)
<< <i>pandrews-
I find it amusing you continue to confuse my position of the ACLU vs. nambla.
I find it amusing everyone in that thread saw through your inability to seperate that the ACLU was not condoning nambla's actions.
Finally, I find it highly entertaining you are such a proponent of man-boy love. I guess you loathe the most which you are, huh spanky?
Keep your hands off those lil boys pandrews...your fellow inmates don't look down too kindly on child molsters. >>
A broken clock is right twice a day, but not Axtell...
1. pandrews is the only one who has actually staked out a position of the ACLU vs. NAMBLA - he's agin 'em both. I followed the thread and was amazed to find that Axtell is not alone in the vastness of his ignorance - the OF is positively full of morons. Or croutons, I get them confused. Every, and I mean every, poster on the OF who disagrees with pandrews position has taken the identical non-position that Axtell has taken here - FREE SPEECH IS ABSOLUTE. But nobody actually believes that, certainly not Axtell who only supports free speech in 3 out of 10 cases. Bottom line - if pandrews has confused your position on this case it is because you have not taken one that makes any sense. Explain why - amidst the thousands of restrictions on free speech that we have, and need, in this country - encouraging man-boy ass-sex is more vital to the freedom of our nation than say, the ability of a devout Muslim to practice his religion in the public school in which he spends one-third of his life, or STFU. Alternatively, point me to the "deviate from the lesson plan" clause of the Constitution that trumps "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]".
2. Pandrews' position on this case could not possibly be more clear - I believe it can be neatly summarized as "beat them all to death". That position in no way depends on the word "condoning" and he has never said that it does. To summarize: pandrews gets what the case is about, he has expressed an opinion regarding the ACLU's involvement, and he has explained why. The moron patrol has "seen through" nothing, they have simply been unable to collectively formulate a rebuttal at or above the third grade level....
3. .... and so they, and especially you, resort to cheap ad hominem attacks. At least I think calling someone a "molster" is bad; I am unfamiliar with the word.
I am as close to a free speech absolutist as you are likely to ever encounter (certainly more than you are, based on your score of only 3 on my free speech quiz) and I have no problem at all with beating all NAMBLA members with baseball bats until they lie unrecognizable in a pool of their own bodily fluids. Disagree with that position if you want to, but if you can't do that without resort to arguments which even you don't actually believe then what is the point of disagreeing in the first place? I'll wait while you check with the guys on the OF to find out what it is that you do actually believe.
{Yeah, I said I was finished; I lied.}
and pandrews, where was your ass handed to you?
<< <i> Well, it looks like everyone except for Mr. Andrews, who is apparently invincibly ignorant, has come to understand the position of the ACLU with respect to freedom of speech on political matters. So I suppose it's time for me to move on to something else. >>
<< <i>Everyone is free to speak and lobby for any change in the law they'd like to see. Why can't you tell the difference between advocating for a change in the law and actually breaking the law? >>
<< <i> < have you ever had ass-sex with a little boy? >>
It's sad when a discussion of the freedom of speech comes down to this. I doubt that anyone here is advocating having sex with minors...why not try to keep the discussion in the land of common courtesy >>
<< <i>Enough with the questions. Let's speak in statements. No, no one here is advocating sex with minors. No, no one so far has come out as a NAMBLA supporter. What I and others who have posted to this thread do support is the right to free speach for all, regardless of the opinions expressed. I am not a NAMBLA supporter but I do believe that they have a right to free speech. The best way to deal with repugnant ideas is to confront them in public debate, not force them underground. >>
Over and over your ridiculous notion that the ACLU was advocating sex with minors was shone through by those in the of. I cannot help it if you cannot differentiate between the two (advocating child molestation and defending the right to freedom of speech).
There seems to be a series of posts where Axtell is not as loved and agreed with as he would like everyone to believe on the OF.
There are a number of posts here and on the open forum where Axtell likes to point out that folks are being immature when they "attack" him/his point of view and asks them to constructively add to the debate. This is almost always followed by a personal attack (not relating to the issue) by Axtell in the same vein that his chastises others for doing.
I sure hope you don't live in a glass house.
Shame on us all
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>dallas take it over to the OF, unless you're not comfortable there, and feel at home with those here who share your short-sightedness. Dallas, what you want to do (beating them with bats until they are dead) is against the law....no one is condoning child abuse, no one is condoning man on boy sex. Why is it so goddamned hard for you 2 to see the difference between them?
>>
Good god, no, I would not be comfortable on the OF; way to many idiots. I prefer it here where there is usually just the one.
Yes, beating them to death with bats is against the law - I meant that I see nothing morally wrong with it.
And no matter how many times you repeat the big lie - "no one is condoning child abuse" - that will not make it true. NAMBLA IS CONDONING CHILD ABUSE! NAMBLA IS CONDONING MAN ON BOY SEX! They want those pesky age of consent laws out of the way so they can continue doing what they're doing without fear of going to prison since they much prefer being the predator rather than the prey. They are condoning unspeakable acts against the most defenseless members of our society and I do not believe that they have a Constitutional right to do that. Why is that so goddamned hard for you and the rest of the moron patrol to understand?
Honestly, do you believe that if a group set up a website that lobbied for the repeal of those pesky anti-lynching laws, held conventions where they described in rapturous detail the joys of stringing up black folk, told all of its members that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it since the truth was that the black folk actually liked it, and then one of its members went out and lynched somebody that the ACLU would be defending that group against the lawsuit that would follow? Not even you are that stupid.
But, leaving the ACLU aside, please state for the record that you would be in favor of someone defending them because, gosh darn it, their right to free speech was being violated.
Also, I take it that you are generally opposed to the criminalization of things like "conspiracy" and "incitement" since you believe that out of an entire group that intends for a crime to be committed and discusses the crime in advance, only the one person who actually commits the crime should be held accountable. But I don't want to assume anything, so please confirm.
<< <i>Axtell harbors the type of mindset which has almost effectively rendered our beloved country incapable of dealing with our problems swiftly. It is ironic that this nations beliefs, morals, and freedoms have subsequently gave birth to this type of scum.
Shame on us all
And what mindset is that oh wise one?
Freedom of speech is that troubling to you?
<< <i>
Good god, no, I would not be comfortable on the OF; way to many idiots. I prefer it here where there is usually just the one.
>>
You mean there are too many people there who would see through your illogical and short-sighted ways, and you'd prefer to be here instead? I understand...change is difficult to accept.
<< <i>
And no matter how many times you repeat the big lie - "no one is condoning child abuse" - that will not make it true. NAMBLA IS CONDONING CHILD ABUSE! NAMBLA IS CONDONING MAN ON BOY SEX! They want those pesky age of consent laws out of the way so they can continue doing what they're doing without fear of going to prison since they much prefer being the predator rather than the prey. They are condoning unspeakable acts against the most defenseless members of our society and I do not believe that they have a Constitutional right to do that. Why is that so goddamned hard for you and the rest of the moron patrol to understand? >>
Why is it so goddamned hard for you to understand that the INSTANT you take away one group's or individuals right to speak or gather, it opens the floodgates for countless others? And why is it so hard for you to realize that the ACLU was involved with NAMBLA because they were named in a lawsuit by a murder victim's parents, even though they had nothing to do with it. Why are you so goddamned dense?
<< <i>
Honestly, do you believe that if a group set up a website that lobbied for the repeal of those pesky anti-lynching laws, held conventions where they described in rapturous detail the joys of stringing up black folk, told all of its members that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it since the truth was that the black folk actually liked it, and then one of its members went out and lynched somebody that the ACLU would be defending that group against the lawsuit that would follow? >>
Hey, it sounds like the KKK, doesn't it? They are allowed to exist, and put up such websites, no? If not the KKK, then any of the countless white supremecist parties in this country...and when are you going to get it through your f*****g head that it's not TALKING about these things which is illegal or wrong, it's DOING them? Damn are you really that frigging stupid?
<< <i>But, leaving the ACLU aside, please state for the record that you would be in favor of someone defending them because, gosh darn it, their right to free speech was being violated. >>
Again you know not of which you speak. Why don't you open your brain for a second and read the facts about why the ACLU got involved in the first place you twit.
"NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
Now shut your damn mouth and open your mind...it's a wonderful combination.
<< <i>...and when are you going to get it through your f*****g head that it's not TALKING about these things which is illegal or wrong, it's DOING them?
>>
You had my hopes up; even though the better part of all of your responses missed the point, you were actually approaching the questions with something approximating logic. I was actually intrigued when I got to your response quoted above. "How will Axtell get himself out of the trap he just set for himself", I wondered, "when he gets to my last question?".
So I forged on, wading through what turned out to be a mostly off-point and overly long wet kiss from the ACLU's amen corner in the MSM. But, I thought, I will not fully appreciate the wonders of Axtell's razor-sharp mind when I get to that final answer if I have missed something important that came before.
At last the moment arrived ... I was at the end ... I could see the bottom of the page and Axtell's brilliant conclusion must be but a heartbeat away. "Talking about these things" is neither "illegal or wrong" quoth the oracle, and my feeble mind was confused by the existence of laws against conspiracy and incitement to riot and a hundred other "speech" crimes. But at last the moment had arrived when He of the Very Large Brain would resolve this seeming conflict for me and I could be at peace.
And then there it was - "Always lookng for upgrades to my sets!" Since I had been informed that I was "illogical", "short-sighted", "dense", and "frigging stupid" I gazed at the response for many minutes attempting to divine what I knew to be revealed wisdom from the One who, dare I say it, might possibly be a god. But an answer was not able to penetrate my denseness.
Then an evil voice spoke to me. One that surely was sent from Hell itself because the words it spoke were profane - they were words that attempted to plant the seed of doubt in my mind that perhaps Axtell was not what he claimed to be. That the knowledge he possessed was perhaps less than the sum of the rest of the mortals with whom he deigns to share his presence.
I fought this demon for as long as I could, but to no avail; what it was telling me was becoming clear before my very eyes - there was no answer to my last question. None at all. In fact, on closer inspection, he had not answered any of the questions I asked. Axtell was a false prophet after all, and there were lamentations and wailing and gnashing of teeth. I would have to find another hero.
One that was not a turd.
<< <i>I agree
I never said anything about sects. My statement was and remains simply this. The Catholic church is not just confined to here in America WHERE THE SCANDAL you were referring to happened.
And I find nothing funny or anything to smile about with this situation.
Steve >>
I guess I'm uncertain as to why I feel the need to reply on this anymore as my input in this matter was merely intended to stir the proverbial stew, but as I mentioned the child molestation situation with priests in the catholic church has happened (or at least been reported) in other countries besides our own. This incident isn't singular either, so I'm unsure which particular "scandal" you may be referring to. Again, it doesn't really matter to me as I'm not in an official position to remedy the situation. Finally, I don't find humor in these incidents at all so please don't misunderstand my position. I do see irony in it though, but that's another post altogether...
Of course, I was 16 years old at the time
<< <i>I have a Sports Talk Forum confession to make. I have fondled 16 year old girls.
Of course, I was 16 years old at the time
Yes, I did as well
Actually, I was always into older women. My wife is a whole 6 months older than I am.
Good. then stfu. it was an ignorant statement then and is an ignorant statement now.
anything else?
Steve
<< <i> guess I'm uncertain as to why I feel the need to reply on this anymore as my input in this matter was merely intended to stir the proverbial stew,
Good. then stfu. it was an ignorant statement then and is an ignorant statement now.
anything else?
Steve >>
LOL, glad you could reply with such a well thought out, rational and intelligent reply yourself. Take a breather and try to realize that real life happens outside of these forums, not within them. They are merely here for our entertainment. Take those panties out of your crack and lighten up a little. Aside from that, hope your weekend goes well.
<< <i>Take a breather and try to realize that real life happens outside of these forums, not within theml. >>
There are people on these boards (who I won't name) whose only way of speaking out is through these forums...as they are unable (or unwilling) to voice their opinion in person.
<< <i>There are people on these boards (who I won't name) whose only way of speaking out is through these forums...as they are unable (or unwilling) to voice their opinion in person.
>>
Talking about yourself again, NAMBLA?
LOL
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>There are people on these boards (who I won't name) whose only way of speaking out is through these forums...as they are unable (or unwilling) to voice their opinion in person.
>>
Talking about yourself again, NAMBLA? >>
Oooh burn on me!
You're so witty.
Steve
<< <i>Ax 3 pages ago you said you were done with this thread. be done already with it. it is a crappy thread.
Steve >>
And yet you can't help yourself, can you WP?
<< <i>
There are people on these boards (who I won't name) whose only way of speaking out is through these forums...as they are unable (or unwilling) to voice their opinion in person. >>
With the amount of time you spend posting on these forums I am sure you don't have the time or balls to spout your propaganda in "person" either.
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
It was advice Ax, nothing more then that.
steve
you are a meek lil wallflower who runs his mouth here, and in person, ehh I bet not so much.
I have never backed down from a lively debate in person or via a messageboard...though I suspect your side of the debates are more of the 'yes, sir, may I have another?' variety.
WP, let it go man...just let sleeping dogs lie.
<< <i>
I have never backed down from a lively debate in person or via a messageboard...though I suspect your side of the debates are more of the 'yes, sir, may I have another?' variety.
>>
Nope. You show all of the classic signs of a two bit loser taking his anger of a piss poor life out on a internet message board.
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
Agreed, I wouldn't want to embarrass you further.
Steve
I am sure you have detailed studies of what constitutes a piss poor loser...oh wait, you look in the mirror every day to see that don't you boy?
WP-
all you've done is embarass yourself...dirtmonkey schooled you, then I rubbed some salt in the wounds. Don't be bitter, just accept defeat and move on.
You though can think what you wish.
hey didn't you say 4 times that you were through with this thread?
Or was that just another one of your lies (like you saying I haven't owned you repeatedly?)
no, that was you that said that.
remm i said speak for yourself MUTT?
Steve
You're making crap up now?
bad form, sir, bad form.
i do recall saying that for one thread, in which you lamely tried to claim it meant forever. That was 15 flames ago.
Steve
edit to add: Oh i remm now. It was when you claimed you extended the olive branch by saying all I had to do was keep my obnoxious mouth out of your way and all would be ok.
I then PM'd you and said: I did not realise it at the time but you are an idiot? or somthing like that? I figured if you saying it was an olive branch then you must truly be an idiot? is that what you are referring to?
<< <i>Oh you never said that?
You're making crap up now?
bad form, sir, bad form. >>
Bad form?
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