Greg_W Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 Right on!!!! I want one. My birthday's coming up, too. Size XL. Thanks!!! Quote
icegirl Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 for a second I thought he was asking for what was in the shirt.. sorry. Quote
Greg_W Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 for a second I thought he was asking for what was in the shirt.. sorry. Nope, just the shirt. I did mention that my birthday is coming up, right? Quote
icegirl Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 yes, something about a school bus came up last time you mentioned it. how old are you going to be? Quote
Greg_W Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 School bus? Old enough to know what to do and young enough to deliver...for hours. Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 There is irony in that photo that is lost on the many of you. Quote
icegirl Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 that's what you keep saying. It's the ones who don't talk about their prowess that surprise you. Quote
jja Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 This is the shirt to get, drives the the old time revolutionary libs nuts - can't wait to wear it to a ropeup !! Quote
Greg_W Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 that's what you keep saying. It's the ones who don't talk about their prowess that surprise you. Uh, you asked...and keep asking, actually. I had that alarm system installed the other day. So, don't even think about breaking into my house and stealing all my odd matched socks again. Who does that? Quote
Fejas Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 climb that 5.9 at a grade of IV. hhhhhmmmmm, to do it clean or mix it up with the direct variation? Quote
icegirl Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 sorry about the socks, I just thought the resembled the ones I thought the dryer ate. Quote
scratchandsniff Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 Well Catbird, the irony was certainly lost on me. I want a shirt too, the peoples ability to have firearms is at the root of our freedoms as Americans. Who wants to give up your guns and let the polititians keep theirs? No Way. Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 Well Catbird, the irony was certainly lost on me. I want a shirt too, the peoples ability to have firearms is at the root of our freedoms as Americans. Who wants to give up your guns and let the polititians keep theirs? No Way. In Sierra Leone and Liberia guns are everywhere. Everyone has an AK47. Are they a free people? Quote
Greg_W Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 Well Catbird, the irony was certainly lost on me. I want a shirt too, the peoples ability to have firearms is at the root of our freedoms as Americans. Who wants to give up your guns and let the polititians keep theirs? No Way. In Sierra Leone and Liberia guns are everywhere. Everyone has an AK47. Are they a free people? I could be wrong, but aren't they using those guns to fight for their freedom? Or are you insinuating that because they have guns they are not free? I would posit that the strong have guns and they have oppressed the weak; this is the source of this "lack of freedom". Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 I submit that freedom to own guns and liberty are two entirely separate things. One should not be equated with the other. Quote
Greg_W Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 I submit that freedom to own guns and liberty are two entirely separate things. One should not be equated with the other. How do you think people enforce their liberty? How do you think the brave souls who fought for the ideal of life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness in this country won their liberty? WITH GUNS. With force. With the staunch belief and resolve that freedom was worth the sacrifice. How can you restrict liberty in such a way? Your statement implies that all are entitled to liberty, but not the freedom to choose how to defend that liberty. So, which is it? Are you going to tell me I'm free but bind my hands when it comes to how I fight when that freedom is threatened? One final thought, you are right in that they should not be equated with each other, per se. However, you need one to guarantee the other. Greg_W Quote
Greg_W Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 (edited) Join the military. That skirts the issue of securing my PERSONAL liberty, and the ways I choose to do that. And don't fall back on "that's what the police are for." Becuase they are not. Case law supports the assertion that the local police ARE NOT responsible for your personal safety or security. Edited March 10, 2004 by Greg_W Quote
rbw1966 Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 Case law supports the assertion that the local police ARE NOT responsible for your personal safety or security. Citations please? Not that I disagree, because I don't, but I'd be interested in reading these cases. Seems to me though that someone so ardently in favor of protecting the liberties of american citizens would be willing to actually put his ass on the line, money where his mouth is so to speak, and join the military. Until then its just double-speak for wanting to play with bang-bangs. Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 There is a phrase that applies here and that is "necessary but not sufficient". And I would argue about the word necessary too. Not ALL liberations have come through violent means. Look at the Czech and Slovak Republics for example. Quote
Greg_W Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 Case law supports the assertion that the local police ARE NOT responsible for your personal safety or security. Citations please? Not that I disagree, because I don't, but I'd be interested in reading these cases. Seems to me though that someone so ardently in favor of protecting the liberties of american citizens would be willing to actually put his ass on the line, money where his mouth is so to speak, and join the military. Until then its just double-speak for wanting to play with bang-bangs. I'll find the case; it happened back East. The military was not on my path; something I regret at times. What I hear you saying is that because I haven't served, I have no right to ardently believe, or speak about, personal freedom and the defense of same? This doesn't make sense to me, as protection of personal liberties is inherently PERSONAL (in my view). Are you relegating the defense of your rights to the government? Do you think they are the best one's to hold that trust? Greg_W Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.