DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say "well-played" by all sides!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I agree with this 90%.  The only slight modification I might make is that the "blame" also lies with a faulty system that doesn't produce great candidates for voters to choose from...

    [/QUOTE]

    The "system" as it were is perfect for doing what is has been warped to do; give you two candidates, exactly the same, different only in perception, allowing you to think that you are making a choice.  

    McDonalds or Burger King, Coke or Pepsi... it all contains trace amount of cancer and turds.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Obama is not a Muslim, or the Anti Christ or even liberal for that matter. The 1%'s have made more money % wise under Obama than they did under Bush. He is just plain and simply your cookie cutter Dem/Rep politician.

    He is no more qualified to be President of this country than GWB was. We are now going on almost 2 decades of poor leadership whether it be the President or congress. 

    The blame lies with the voters plain and simple.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with this 90%.  The only slight modification I might make is that the "blame" also lies with a faulty system that doesn't produce great candidates for voters to choose from, that doesn't generate enough competition for open seats and offices, and that creates little incentive for elected officials to place their constituents' interests over the interests of motivated individuals or groups who are willing to pay for access and favour. The voters are, ultimately, responsible for the system that exists too, although they may not be able to change it just by voting.  What we need is more activism from the people (voters or not) to force change to happen. As it is, we have a system that provides us with too few candidates to choose from, too few of whom are really any good, and that allows our representatives and officials to ignore our interests once they are elected and instead serve the interests of those with the motivation and money to secure their attention. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    From the CZECH REPUBLIC:  I think.

    The danger to AMERICA is not Barack Obama,but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for thier president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama,who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the Prince of Fools should not blind anyone to the the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.The Republic can survive Barack Obama,who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Wozzy, I see you had this to say today:

    "Yeah I'm a real nut job, meanwhile while you were sleeping, the bill turned law H.R. 347 taking away the right of free speech and to protest was passed.  Feel free to go to the government's own website to verify."

    See, right there ^^^ is why I think you present a disingenuous argument.  If I take what you wrote at face value I would assume the First Amendment has been removed from the Constitution.  On further examination, it has not.

    Had you used the word "limiting" in place of "taking away" it would have been far less inflammatory, but far more accurate.

    There is no end to people trying to frame that law in a way to incite their followers.  Personally, I'm not happy with the law.  But when I read sources that distort the actual text I realize they aren't interested in discussing facts at all.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Obama is not a Muslim, or the Anti Christ or even liberal for that matter. The 1%'s have made more money % wise under Obama than they did under Bush. He is just plain and simply your cookie cutter Dem/Rep politician.

    He is no more qualified to be President of this country than GWB was. We are now going on almost 2 decades of poor leadership whether it be the President or congress. 

    The blame lies with the voters plain and simple.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with this 90%.  The only slight modification I might make is that the "blame" also lies with a faulty system that doesn't produce great candidates for voters to choose from, that doesn't generate enough competition for open seats and offices, and that creates little incentive for elected officials to place their constituents' interests over the interests of motivated individuals or groups who are willing to pay for access and favour. The voters are, ultimately, responsible for the system that exists too, although they may not be able to change it just by voting.  What we need is more activism from the people (voters or not) to force change to happen. As it is, we have a system that provides us with too few candidates to choose from, too few of whom are really any good, and that allows our representatives and officials to ignore our interests once they are elected and instead serve the interests of those with the motivation and money to secure their attention. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    +1

    nice post prolate. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Obama is not a Muslim, or the Anti Christ or even liberal for that matter. The 1%'s have made more money % wise under Obama than they did under Bush. He is just plain and simply your cookie cutter Dem/Rep politician.

    He is no more qualified to be President of this country than GWB was. We are now going on almost 2 decades of poor leadership whether it be the President or congress. 

    The blame lies with the voters plain and simple.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with this 90%.  The only slight modification I might make is that the "blame" also lies with a faulty system that doesn't produce great candidates for voters to choose from, that doesn't generate enough competition for open seats and offices, and that creates little incentive for elected officials to place their constituents' interests over the interests of motivated individuals or groups who are willing to pay for access and favour. The voters are, ultimately, responsible for the system that exists too, although they may not be able to change it just by voting.  What we need is more activism from the people (voters or not) to force change to happen. As it is, we have a system that provides us with too few candidates to choose from, too few of whom are really any good, and that allows our representatives and officials to ignore our interests once they are elected and instead serve the interests of those with the motivation and money to secure their attention. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    With a country of over 300 million people, it would seem to me that we could surely find better leaders than what has been over the past 20 years +. 

    Systems, rules, barriers of entry are put in place to discourage rather than encourage the type of leadership we need. 

    When congress is responsible for regulating itself by way of term limits and campaign contributions with no accountability to constituents, how does the system change? Who will change the system when constituents become disinterested? 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    Wozzy, I see you had this to say today:

    "Yeah I'm a real nut job, meanwhile while you were sleeping, the bill turned law H.R. 347 taking away the right of free speech and to protest was passed.  Feel free to go to the government's own website to verify."

    See, right there ^^^ is why I think you present a disingenuous argument.  If I take what you wrote at face value I would assume the First Amendment has been removed from the Constitution.  On further examination, it has not.

    Had you used the word "limiting" in place of "taking away" it would have been far less inflammatory, but far more accurate.

    There is no end to people trying to frame that law in a way to incite their followers.  Personally, I'm not happy with the law.  But when I read sources that distort the actual text I realize they aren't interested in discussing facts at all.



    So it is illegal to openly protest now, but you don't see this as crushing free speech, in the "land of the free?"   Boy our standards sure have gone to sht.  

    You agree the law is no good (evil), but disagree with the way I worded it?   So you don't mind getting raped as long as someone is whispering loving words into your ear... got it.

    I also wonder why something I posted on another thread has bled back over to this one, are you afraid to confront this openly where everyone can see the exchange or are you trying to blur the lines by having a discussion all over the place.  Again begging the question, if I am such a tinfoil hat wearing loon than why do you feel the need to respond and follow me around this site?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Yeah we get it Mel, you can cut and paste, you must have been wildly successful in preschool.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So it is illegal to openly protest now, but you don't see this as crushing free speech, in the "land of the free?"   Boy our standards sure have gone to sht.  

    You agree the law is no good (evil), but disagree with the way I worded it?   So you don't mind getting raped as long as someone is whispering loving words into your ear... got it.

    I also wonder why something I posted on another thread has bled back over to this one, are you afraid to confront this openly where everyone can see the exchange or are you trying to blur the lines by having a discussion all over the place.  Again begging the question, if I am such a tinfoil hat wearing loon than why do you feel the need to respond and follow me around this site?

    [/QUOTE]

    As Reagan would say:   "There you go again!"

    It is not illegal to openly protest.  Nice try.  That's a complete distortion.

    I brought your words here because there was already a political discussion going on here.   It seemed like the right thing to do.  I'm not "afraid" of internet exchanges. 

    I read MANY threads.  So, no, I'm not following you around.  Geesh.

    Other than that, I post as I please, exercising my First Amendment Right.  See!  It's still here!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to mellswitts' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    YES...IT MAKES ME A CANDIDATE FOR THE TEA PARTY PRESIDENCY....I'M AS SMART AS RUSH LIMBOIGAH OR SARAH "THE QUITTER" PALIN TOO...bwahahaha!

    [/QUOTE]

    If I knew what that was supposed to mean I would be concerned for my sanity.

    Don't be eating the glue with all that cut and pasting you're doing.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So it is illegal to openly protest now, but you don't see this as crushing free speech, in the "land of the free?"   Boy our standards sure have gone to sht.  

    You agree the law is no good (evil), but disagree with the way I worded it?   So you don't mind getting raped as long as someone is whispering loving words into your ear... got it.

    I also wonder why something I posted on another thread has bled back over to this one, are you afraid to confront this openly where everyone can see the exchange or are you trying to blur the lines by having a discussion all over the place.  Again begging the question, if I am such a tinfoil hat wearing loon than why do you feel the need to respond and follow me around this site?



    As Reagan would say:   "There you go again!"

    It is not illegal to openly protest.  Nice try.  That's a complete distortion.

    I brought your words here because there was already a political discussion going on here.   It seemed like the right thing to do.  I'm not "afraid" of internet exchanges. 

    I read MANY threads.  So, no, I'm not following you around.  Geesh.

    Other than that, I post as I please, exercising my First Amendment Right.  See!  It's still here!

    [/QUOTE]

    Per HR 347 it is illegal to openly protest in a "disorderly" way around federal facilities or individuals under secret service protection. In essence it's not a full on assault of the 1st amendment, but a side attack in that it restricts free speech and protests around those that probably need to be protested against.

    if you consider for a second who and where the secret service "guards", it is pretty much open to everyone and everywhere. Consider that many politicians guarded by the secret service attend various summits, the Olympics, concerts and many other venues, the bill will make it criminal under federal prosecution for protestors to protest in these venues. It creates free speech zones which tend to be far away from the public eye, and ever changing based on how law enforcement wants to define the zone. 

    You can read into this, or simply take it at face value. I tend to think it does limit free speech/the right to protest which is constitutionally protected. No where does it say free speech is limited to certain area, free speech zones. This to me is a bad precedent to set as the zones like the 100 mile constitution free zone around our borders, can be changed at will.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    You should really stop drinking and posting Mel.

    i see you have aced the cut and paste exam. Well done. Now turn off the TV and start thinking for yourself.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Obama is not a Muslim, or the Anti Christ or even liberal for that matter. The 1%'s have made more money % wise under Obama than they did under Bush. He is just plain and simply your cookie cutter Dem/Rep politician.

    He is no more qualified to be President of this country than GWB was. We are now going on almost 2 decades of poor leadership whether it be the President or congress. 

    The blame lies with the voters plain and simple.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with this 90%.  The only slight modification I might make is that the "blame" also lies with a faulty system that doesn't produce great candidates for voters to choose from, that doesn't generate enough competition for open seats and offices, and that creates little incentive for elected officials to place their constituents' interests over the interests of motivated individuals or groups who are willing to pay for access and favour. The voters are, ultimately, responsible for the system that exists too, although they may not be able to change it just by voting.  What we need is more activism from the people (voters or not) to force change to happen. As it is, we have a system that provides us with too few candidates to choose from, too few of whom are really any good, and that allows our representatives and officials to ignore our interests once they are elected and instead serve the interests of those with the motivation and money to secure their attention. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    From the CZECH REPUBLIC:  I think.

    The danger to AMERICA is not Barack Obama,but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for thier president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama,who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the Prince of Fools should not blind anyone to the the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.The Republic can survive Barack Obama,who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.

    [/QUOTE]

     Can't believe we live in a country that is dumb enough and lazy enough to vote such a numbskull in. Guy won't even sign up for his own healthcare bill.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Exactly and OBAMA is a congenitial liar with no credentials to be President.

    OBAMA supporters, can you dispute that??????????

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly and OBAMA is a congenitial liar with no credentials to be President.

    OBAMA supporters, can you dispute that??????????

    [/QUOTE]

    And the Republicans have put real winners up as candidates.....Last competent one we had was Reagan....Both Bushes were disasters..Dole was a major embarassment, McCain was derailed by fruitloop Palin, forced on him by the Christian Right,  and Romney a moderate and Mormon, didnt even get support of the Conservatives or the Christian Right....Sad part is the Republican party is so fractured now, they dont have any hope.....Hopefully the Conservative Independents like me can put Paul in.....

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly and OBAMA is a congenitial liar with no credentials to be President.

    OBAMA supporters, can you dispute that??????????

    [/QUOTE]

    And the Republicans have put real winners up as candidates.....Last competent one we had was Reagan....Both Bushes were disasters..Dole was a major embarassment, McCain was derailed by fruitloop Palin, forced on him by the Christian Right,  and Romney a moderate and Mormon, didnt even get support of the Conservatives or the Christian Right....Sad part is the Republican party is so fractured now, they dont have any hope.....Hopefully the Conservative Independents like me can put Paul in.....

    [/QUOTE]

     As to recent history MY man was Giuliani ... had all the credentials.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly and OBAMA is a congenitial liar with no credentials to be President.

    OBAMA supporters, can you dispute that??????????

    [/QUOTE]

    And the Republicans have put real winners up as candidates.....Last competent one we had was Reagan....Both Bushes were disasters..Dole was a major embarassment, McCain was derailed by fruitloop Palin, forced on him by the Christian Right,  and Romney a moderate and Mormon, didnt even get support of the Conservatives or the Christian Right....Sad part is the Republican party is so fractured now, they dont have any hope.....Hopefully the Conservative Independents like me can put Paul in.....

    [/QUOTE]

     As to recent history MY man was Giuliani ... had all the credentials.

    [/QUOTE]

    Guiloaning for me too

    Btw mccain was up +5with palin before the crash and then Obama went ahead.+5 to stay 

    Palin also more than held her own in the Biden debate. I think Biden made a factual errorbevery 3 minutes including a lie on lebannon. good ol joe was, is and always will be a disgrace 

     ". Stand up Chuck" if u know what I mean

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    cc In what universe do you live? And as for the jewell, you might as well throw in loud mouth " the Donald"

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And dont forget that Liberal Democrat presidents are also labled as the Anti-Christ by these same people...

    [/QUOTE]


    label OBAMA for me......LIAR, is my label ,followed by despicable,et.al

    [/QUOTE]


    Weak tea from someone who brews the stuff on a daily basis.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly and OBAMA is a congenitial liar with no credentials to be President.

    OBAMA supporters, can you dispute that??????????

    [/QUOTE]

    And the Republicans have put real winners up as candidates.....Last competent one we had was Reagan....Both Bushes were disasters..Dole was a major embarassment, McCain was derailed by fruitloop Palin, forced on him by the Christian Right,  and Romney a moderate and Mormon, didnt even get support of the Conservatives or the Christian Right....Sad part is the Republican party is so fractured now, they dont have any hope.....Hopefully the Conservative Independents like me can put Paul in.....

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know where the votes come from to elect Paul. ALTHO, the way Obama is going,nobody will own up to voting for him and hopefully the Dems will take it in the shorts in the next 2 elections.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Weak P anti who's your president, or daddy 4 that matter Contiue to whine its enjoyable

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Per HR 347 it is illegal to openly protest in a "disorderly" way around federal facilities or individuals under secret service protection. In essence it's not a full on assault of the 1st amendment, but a side attack in that it restricts free speech and protests around those that probably need to be protested against.

    if you consider for a second who and where the secret service "guards", it is pretty much open to everyone and everywhere. Consider that many politicians guarded by the secret service attend various summits, the Olympics, concerts and many other venues, the bill will make it criminal under federal prosecution for protestors to protest in these venues. It creates free speech zones which tend to be far away from the public eye, and ever changing based on how law enforcement wants to define the zone. 

    You can read into this, or simply take it at face value. I tend to think it does limit free speech/the right to protest which is constitutionally protected. No where does it say free speech is limited to certain area, free speech zones. This to me is a bad precedent to set as the zones like the 100 mile constitution free zone around our borders, can be changed at will.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is a blank check cut to curtail any and all free speech, it is open to interpretation as to be liberally applied in anyway the powers that be see fit.  The bottom line, it is unconstitutional according to American Jurisprudence legal encyclopedia:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    You can read what the ACLU says about 347.  They have modest concerns.  

    https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/hr-347

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to billge's comment:

    Weak P anti who's your president, or daddy 4 that matter Contiue to whine its enjoyable




    IF you are talking to me ....bilge

     

Share