Come out of the bubble more often, nmn. My school district and my kids' school district say both all the time. Kids can say whatever they want and talk about their faih quite often in my class. I do as well.
I know you need an enemy and have to play th part of the oh so persecuted by the pagan sinners but Fox News is lying to you...shocking, I know!
Come out of the bubble more often, nmn. My school district and my kids' school district say both all the time. Kids can say whatever they want and talk about their faih quite often in my class. I do as well.
I know you need an enemy and have to play th part of the oh so persecuted by the pagan sinners but Fox News is lying to you...shocking, I know!
These are all outliers, NMN, and fine examples of confirmation bias that are disseminated to foment anger and paranoia. Looks like it's working:)
I would think you would be happy that students at my school (and really all over my state) can express themselves spiritually. Just have to have an enemy, don't you? And there's no way you could possibly be wrong...even if it serves your interests...wow..
You gave me four examples, NMN. Four (and a list which I'll get to in a minute). And that's assuming that they check out. Since I've wasted my time in the past chasing down similar Colonel Flagg-like red herrings, I'll just assume that the four are true. (Side note: if I list four examples of how people who own guns got shot with their own guns by criminals, does that make Nikto right?)
So, four examples. There are 98,817 public schools in this country (as of 2009-2010). Aren't you a scientist? What percentage is 4 out of 98,817? That's .004 percent of schools, right? (please do, check my math:))
But let's add in the list. Let's see...take off the Geneva College (private-they can do whatever they want), Cisco, Cargill, Hallmark (again, private), and all the city/state/federal issues because we are talking about schools. Not sure about CLS but let's include it with the other school cases to be safe...which brings our total from 4 to 10 (again, please do check my math). So that's 10 out of 98, 817. That makes .01 percent.
Ah, what the heck? I'm in a generous mood tonight. Let's pretend that all of the items on that list are viable...even the private companies whom we can now tell what to do. So that's 29 out of 98, 817. That makes .29 percent. Let's round up! .3 percent.
Holy Crap!! It's happening everywhere!!! Hide the kids!!
Now, as a scientist, what would you say if something happens .3 percent of the time...it's common, somewhat common, or not at all common? I'd say it's the last one and, if you are truly going to use the scientific method to prove your thesis, I'd say you need about a few more examples (at least five figures, no?) to show just how persecuted Christians are today in schools.
While you get started on your research, perhaps you might want to also explain why someone such as yourself (a conservative) is playing the victim card here. Tsk Tsk...:)
C) I was not doing an exhaustive survey because I am not your slave. I stopped looking when I felt I had enough evidence to make a reasonable case. (Of course, "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying camera" is the imposition of an unreasonable standard for evidence.)
D) You claimed it was crazy ("in the bubble") to think such incidents happen. My links show that they happen. My claim has been backed up with evidence.
E) Which is greater? 29 or 1? (29 = incidents I linked to. 1 = your own experience [which cannot be verified].)
Finally, given that you frequently use atheist arguments to attack the Bible, it's unreasonable to characterize your approach to "faith" as "Christian".
BTW, since your "god" is unable to do what any mere human can do (ghostwriting), what makes you think he is able to overcome death? Or simply walk or talk?
I stopped looking when I felt I had enough evidence to make a reasonable case.
.3 percent is a reasonable case? And some of those were private companies not to mention the other non school related issues. But if 29 is a reasonable case, then hear you go!
852 accidental deaths from firearms. 19,766 deaths from firearms that were intentional, 11, 101 homicides related to firearms. That's 31, 719 total deaths related to guns which makes 1.2 percent of all deaths are related to guns.
Gun deaths are rampant! That's four times your number. They must be taken away!!
At least, that's according to the parameters you laid out, right?
Students may express their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, art-work, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.
Students have a right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is unrelated to school curriculum or activities.
Students may display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages.
Should I go on? When was the last time you were actually in a school?
I just showed you the federal policy on religious expression in schools
Yes you did. But just because there is a standard does not mean that it is not being violated, actively undermined, or flat out ignored. For example:
— D.O.M.A.
— Immigration Law
— Tim Geithner
— The Second Amendment
— The Constitutional requirement that a budget be passed every year.
— The Ninth and Tenth Amendments (enumerated powers design of the Constitution)*
Etc., etc., etc.
Why should the First Amendment's guarantee of the "free exercise" of religion be any different? Oh wait, it's not.
* "[The question is], whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states. It is notorious, that, in the convention, an attempt was made to introduce into the constitution a power to encourage manufactures; but it was withheld. Instead of granting the power to congress, permission was given to the states to impose duties, with the consent of that body, to encourage their own manufactures; and thus, in the true spirit of justice, imposing the burthen on those, who were to be benefited." — Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” — Mark 8:11–12
What were Jesus' other miracles? Chopped liver? The Pharisees were well aware of Jesus' miracles (in fact, this occurred just after the feeding of the 4,000), but they weren't satisfied. In other places, Jesus called those people demanding even more signs "evil and adulterous". The problem is that no amount of evidence or signs would EVER be enough for them.
“He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” — Luke 16:31
Jesus eventually proved His point by raising Lazarus from the dead. So did the Pharisees finally believe Him? Nope! That miracle is what prompted the Pharisees to start looking for a way to murder Jesus. Demanding even more evidence was just a dodge; a way to pretend that they cared about evidence and truth. But they didn't care about either of those things. All they cared about was rejecting Jesus and His teachings. Their demand for even more evidence was nothing more than cynically manufacturing an excuse to reject him. In the end, no amount of evidence was ever enough for them; not even Jesus himself rising from the dead.
The simple fact is that you are just like those Pharisees. You refuse any evidence you don't like. You do it so frequently that it earned a spot as a Standard Response (#7).
Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?
Yet when challenged on it, you simply refused to even acknowledge the challenge, let alone retract the lie. That is NOT the action of someone who cares about the truth. (Or who does not engage in indoctrination.) Rather, that is someone just like those Pharisees, who earned these kinds of statements from Jesus:
Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. — John 8:43–44
In fact, right after Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for demanding even more signs which they would also ignore, Jesus followed up on that incident:
Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” … Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. — Matthew 16:6, 12 (paralleled less clearly in Mark 8:14-21)
So you should understand that I'm not losing one wink of sleep of the demands of a proven and unrepentant liar who can't even count (4? 29?); a liar who thinks dancing goalposts is a central technique of critical thinking.
I've made my point. I don't need to prove anything more to you. Indeed, it's not possible.
I expected a lot more for someone (s) whose only conviction is their own vanity.
That is just soooooo rich coming from you. I think the irony of that statement could feed me for the next month. No need to spend any more money on groceries!
Yet when challenged on it, you simply refused to even acknowledge the challenge, let alone retract the lie.
it's just too easy, dude. I don't like to speak ill of the dead, for one thing, and that's why I didn't respond to your calls for "proof." I don't do end zone dances.
In thinking about your unrepentant lying, it occurred to me that when you made this statement, that's exactly what you did. Oh, no specifics that could be refuted, mind you. Just a vague, shapeless accusation ("speaking ill") about "the dead".
Tell me, Mark. What does it feel like to use a denial to do what you're denying doing? Do you get off on such underhand "beating your wife" slander?
I didn't respond to your calls for "proof."
Oh Gosh. I'm sorry. Is sticking to actual reality too hard for you? I guess just Making S*** Up is just soooo much easier.
Note: I did not ask you for proof in this cased. I provided it to you. All I asked you to do was to acknowledge the truth and retract an obvious lie.
I don't do end zone dances.
When I read this, it was a definite WTF?!? moment. I've figured out why. Once again, you failed (deliberately?) to understand what I wrote. Here's another crack at it:
a liar who thinks dancing goalposts is a central technique of critical thinking.
I'll tell you what, NMN. Let's agree on a definition of "chest thumping" and then I will show a video from the NRA meeting of chest thumping. How does that sound?
Now, I love Charlton Heston but this speech was a fine example of chest thumping.
Some excerpts...
the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country.
One camp would be the majority - people who believe our Founders guarenteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families and our country. The other camp would be a large minority - people who believe that we will buy security if we will just surrender these freedoms.
When an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because their story needs a villan. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief, to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.
Our mission is to remain a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment, even if it has no other friend on the planet. We cannot let tragedy lay waste to the most rare and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin said that.
But our essential reason for being is this. As long as there is a Second Amendment, evil can never conquor us. Tyranny, in any form, can never find footing within a society of law-abiding, armed, ethical people.
The Second Amendment. There can be no more precious inheritance. That's what the NRA preserves. Now, if you disagree, that's your right and I respect that. But we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it, or be told, "Do not come here. You are unwelcome in your own land."
Here is a video clip in which people cheer at some of the more boisterous lines...
Obviously, you are going to disagree that this is chest thumping (another reason why I really don't want to waste time talking about this) but it clearly is...that, and it's really tone deaf...just as the response was after Sandy Hook.
We kept a respectful distance then, as NRA has tried to do now. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do.
Huh? His giving a speech (one of many) in which people are TALKING!
That speech doesn't match the speech Michael Moore twisted the hell of out in his movie. I haven't been able to find out why, but both speeches were apparently given the same day.
I find it fascinating how you cut and pasted only parts of that speech— just like Michael Moore did—to make it sound more arrogant than it was. In other words, you're still cutting and pasting so you can lie about what was actually said.
But even before we get to the speech itself, you've already ignored what the NRA did in relation to this meeting. First of all, it was an annual convention scheduled YEARS in advance. Part of that convention includes meetings they are legally REQUIRED to hold (that means required by the government) as part of their non-profit status. Their "chest thumping" move was to CANCEL EVERYTHING THEY COULD LEGALLY CANCEL!!!
Whooooo boy! That's tone, all right! They're such nasties, aren't they?!?
Oh, and in the letter they sent out announcing the cancellations, they wrote this:
"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.
Boy, that "chest thumping" sure comes through loud and clear, don't it?!?
The very first line you copied is classic lying via selective quoting. You even jumped in right in the middle of a sentence. Here's what you copied:
the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country.
Now here's the full paragraph:
But we're not the rustic, reckless radicals they wish for. No, the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church or grocery store. That's us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinarypeople - war heroes, sports idols, several U.S. presidents and yes, movie stars.
Wait, something feels different here. What is it?
Let's start with that first sentence. What does he mean by "rustic, reckless radicals they wish for?" That would be what he had already discussed:
I see our country teetering on the edge of an abyss. At its bottom brews the simmering bile of deep, dark hatred. Hatred that's dividing our country politically, racially, economically, geographically, in every way.
Whether it's political vendettas, sports brawls, corporate takeovers, or high school gangs and cliques, the American competetive ethic has changed from "let's beat the other guy" to "let's destroy the other guy." Too many are too willing to stigmatize and demonize others for political advantage, money or ratings.
The villification is savage. This week, Rep. John Conyers slandered 3 million Americans when he called the NRA "merchants of death" on national television, as the First Lady nodded in agreement. A hideous editorial cartoon by Mike Peters ran nationally, depicting children's dead bodies sprawled out to spell N-R-A. The countless requests we've received for media appearances are in fact summons to public floggings, where those who hate firearms will predictably don the white hat and hand us the black.
This harvest of hatred is then sold as news, as entertainment, as government policy. Such hateful, divisive forces are leading us to one awful end: America's own form of Balkanization. A weakened country of rabid factions, each less free, and united only by hatred of one another.
Villification? Hatred? Divisiveness?
It MUST have been an overactive imagination! A "paranoid fantasy!" No one would do that, would they? I mean, No one would say stuff like this:
I can almost here [sic] the mouth foam oozing out of the mouth of the gun rights folks…
Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?
Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying
they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants
they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference
the colossal level of impotence
…just how fucked up the Right is these days…
a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!
And I didn't even bother delving into comments or going further than the front page. So when he described the vilification, was he overstating things? No, he wasn't.
(And I gotta say it, Mark. These statements you made are just dripping with condescension, bravado, and yes, chest thumping.)
So back to that paragraph, he goes on to contrast the demonization of leftists like you with the reality of who the NRA membership is:
the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church or grocery store. That's us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinarypeople - war heroes, sports idols, several U.S. presidents and yes, movie stars.
Is there anything in there that is inaccurate or untrue? No, there is not, then it is NOT chest thumping. It's a statement of FACT.
Continuing on…
One camp would be the majority - people who believe our Founders guarenteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families and our country. The other camp would be a large minority - people who believe that we will buy security if we will just surrender these freedoms.
Oops, it seems you "forgot" the first sentence of that paragraph (again):
In the past ten days, we've seen these brutal blows attempting to fracture America into two such camps.
So he's still describing the Us vs. Them type of B.S. you spew almost Every. Single. Day.
From there is when he goes on to describe who the NRA members are. So why did you put your "extracts" out of order, hmmm? Another Michael Moore technique, perhaps?
Then he goes back to the main problem he wants to offer a solution to:
But the screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile and confrontational and disrespectful, that too many on both sides have forgotten that we are, first, Americans.
I am asking all of us, on both sides, to take one step back from the edge of that cliff. Then another step and another, however many it takes to get back to that place where we're all Americans again...different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation...indivisible. This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop. Because so much more connects us than divides us. And because tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are scheming evil things. All of us will do every meaningful thing we can to prevent it. But each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us.
America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction.
A call to stop fighting? Wow, that SO the epitome of "chest thumping"! [/sarc]
Again, who is engaging in "screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners"? Have you read your own writing lately Mark? Are you willing to step back from the verbal warfare and actually have an honest and rational discussion with us? We've been trying. (And getting so pissed off at your dishonesty from time to time that we do call you names.)
And that's where we get to the next part you quoted:
When an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because their story needs a villan. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief, to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.
What's "chest thumping" about that? Again, I refer you to your own writings on this very blog. It's a statement of fact.
The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all too often bloom upon fresh graves.
I remember a better day, when no one dared politicize or profiteer on trauma. We kept a respectful distance then, as NRA has tried to do now. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do.
But today, carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos and a reactionary package of legislation. reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles, as news anchors race to drench their microphones in the tears of victims.
Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be "brought to you by sponsors." That's pornography. It trivializes the tragedy, it abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commplace.
More "chest thumping"? Not! Or are you claiming that a condemnation of the crassness of the "never let a good crisis go to waste" crowd and a call for human decency and respect for the victims' pain is "pompous or arrogant"?
And we're often cast as the villain. That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it.
Okay, this is a slight bit of aggressiveness. But what do you expect when people like you lie about us? What do you expect us to do? Just roll over and bare our throats for you? Or simply swallow the s*** sandwich you're spreading around, then say "Thank you. Please sir, may I have another?" Get real, Mark.
And that's where your next quoted section picks up:
Our mission is to remain a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment, even if it has no other friend on the planet. We cannot let tragedy lay waste to the most rare and hard-won human right in history.
A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin said that.
Again, "chest thumping"? Have you so quickly forgotten this post you put up? These are the ideas, the principles that we recognize as not only real and worthwhile, but essential for freedom.
Let's go back to more that you skipped:
If you like your freedoms of speech and of religion, freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press and of privacy, to assemble and to redress grievances, then you'd better give them that eternal bodygueard called the Second Amendment. The individual right to bear arms is freedpm's insurance policy, not just for your children but for infinite generations to come
That is its singular, sacred beauty, and why we preserve it so fiercely. No, it is not a right without rational restrictions. And it's not for everyone. Only the law-abiding majority of society deserves the Second Amendment. Abuse it once and lose it forever. That's the law. But remarkably, the NRA is far more eager to prosecute gun abusers than those who oppose gun ownership altogether..as if the tool could be more evil than the evildoer.
Wait! What?!? "We think it's a good to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" is chest thumping/dancing in the blood of children?
Face it, Mark. This is more discussion of big ideas and principles. The kind of discussion you claim to want to have, but run away from at every opportunity or attempt to shut down with one of your hand waving, "because I said so" dismissals. You only think it's "chest thumping" because he has the temerity disagree with YOU.
He then goes into statistics about what the NRA does to promote safe gun ownership. That's a bad thing, how, exactly?
But our essential reason for being is this. As long as there is a Second Amendment, evil can never conquor us. Tyranny, in any form, can never find footing within a society of law-abiding, armed, ethical people.
Thus the question you refuse to answer:
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
But guess what? Mr. Heston goes on to answer that question!
The majesty of the Second Amendment, that our Founders so divinely captured and crafted into your birthright, guarantees that no government despot, no renegade faction of armed forces, no roving gangs of criminals, no breakdown of law and order, no massive anarchy, no force of evil or crime or oppression from within or from without can ever rob you of the liberties that define your Americanism.
And when they ask, "So indeed you would bear arms against government tyranny?...The answer is, "No. That could never happen, precisely because we have the Second Amendment."
Let me be absolutely clear. The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing. ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals.
You constantly claim (using your standard "because I say so" tactic) that the idea that a tyranny could happen in this country is a "paranoid fantasy". But what is a tyranny? How does it succeed? It is the exercise of Power over the population. And the ultimate Power is the ability to project overwhelming physical force. Thus the ONLY GUARANTEE that such force cannot be used is the ability of the general population to react with equal or greater force.
In order for tyranny to succeed, it is absolutely necessary for the population to be weaker than the government; in other words, disarmed. THAT is the lesson of history. King George attempted to engage in tyranny against the colonies. But he was not successful at disarming them. (Though he tried.) The result is that the general population consisting largely of farmers managed to defeat the most powerful military force of the time to win their freedom.
You remember this quote, don't you?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
The man who wrote that succeeded in disarming "the subject races". To do, he made use of gun control laws put into place before he came to power. In fact, they were very much like the one Diane Feinstein is proposing. One of those features of their gun control laws was a "hunting" exception just like you think is so appropriate. Because his victims were disarmed, he succeeded in his tyranny, producing one of the most infamous regimes (but not the deadliest) in history. In Every. Single. Case. where mass murder succeeded, the population was almost entirely disarmed. There is no record of such tyranny succeeding in an well armed society.
That is the final guarantee of freedom. That is the pearl of great price (in this world) for which men have, and will continue to give their lives for. And that is why the only effective guarantee against tyranny must never be given up: effective fighting guns.
Given all that, let's get back to the last part you quoted:
The Second Amendment. There can be no more precious inheritance. That's what the NRA preserves. Now, if you disagree, that's your right and I respect that. But we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it, or be told, "Do not come here. You are unwelcome in your own land."
Now you have been told why the Second Amendment is so precious. (I almost wrote, "now you know", but then I remembered who I'm talking to.) Given the lessons of history and the principles they've taught us, no other position is possible. So how is that "pompous or arrogant"? Or as the Random House Dictionary puts it: "boasting"?
Let's take one final look at his speech: the conclusion where he states his call to action:
Let's go from this place renewed in spirit and dedicated against hatred. We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat and a country to unite. We may have differences, yes. And we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight and evermore, let it always set on we, the people...secure in our land of the free and the home of the brave.
So what part of that is "chest thumping"? The healing? How about the uniting? The opposition to hatred?
Bottom line: As you surmised, there is no way that speech was "chest thumping". But unlike you, I didn't simply assert it and walk away. I examined almost the entire speech. I even looked at the NRA's actions surrounding that speech.
You're still a liar. And now you've added cherry picking quotes (Fallacy! = unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE) to your list of lies.
Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do.
Huh? His giving a speech (one of many) in which people are TALKING!
Giving a speech at a private meeting 10 days after the murders vs., say, running out to find the nearest news media cameras within hours of the shooting to attempt to score political points about guns, guns, guns, gotta get rid of all the guns? Your double-standard dishonesty continues.
I haven't been able to find out why, but both speeches were apparently given the same day.
The "from my cold dead hands" speech (if that is what you are referring to) was actually given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, not the same day. Moore did, in fact, twist it in his film to make it seem like Heston said it in 1999. Why it's bad when Moore does this stuff but not bad when James O'Keefe does it is another discussion:)
I find it fascinating how you cut and pasted only parts of that speech
Yet I linked it in its entirety. The points that I highlighted were only a few examples of chest thumping, which was what we were discussing. Even take as a whole, it's chest thumping, by the definition that we both agreed upon. I'll happily rescind all of my quotes and put the speech as a whole out there for others to judge. If there is any sort of unbiased forum to which you'd like to submit it, feel free to do so. Perhaps we could have it peer reviewed?
Anyway, your long paragraphs are an example of why I didn't want to have this discussion. Your perception of this issue will never allow you to be impartial.
The "from my cold dead hands" speech (if that is what you are referring to) was actually given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, not the same day.
Yet again, proof positive that you make up your mind without even bothering to check the evidence.
Yes, the "from my cold dead hands" is from the speech you said it was. But that's not the part Moore used that I was referring to.
I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here.
That phrase does not appear in the speech you linked to. But since that phrase does appear in a speech that was genuinely given that same day, it would seem that Mr. Heston gave two speeches. That is what I was referring to.
How do you honestly expect to accurately analyze information when you're so completely and willfully obtuse about that information?
…but not bad when James O'Keefe does it…
You've been told this before, liar. He DIDN'T do that. And released the full recordings to PROVE it. But please, by all means, keep lying to everyone.
Even take as a whole, it's chest thumping, by the definition that we both agreed upon.
Nope, it doesn't fit the definition. YOU only see it as "pompous and arrogant" because any disagreement with YOU is automatically "pompous and arrogant". (And of course, you completely miss the irony of that.)
your long paragraphs are an example of why I didn't want to have this discussion.
In other words, "It's too long. I didn't read it. Besides, my mind is made up anyway and I don't want to be bothered by the facts."
And you know this for certain? How? His word? It's not _______ when we do it! By the way, have you seen how hard up Project Veritas is for money these days? I think the breaking the law and sex toy boat dealio didn't really help him. Hey, how does that sex toy thing jibe with your Christian morality?
But, please, by all means, hitch your wagon to that star! That's good for several dozen more election victories!
Uh... By watching them? You say he didn't make the full videos available -- prove it. Show us the dishonest edits. You know, the ones that are obvious from a single camera recording a conversation, not like those of a "serious" media interview where at least 2 cameras are rolling and viewpoints are constantly switching. Show us the edits.
Well, I guess if it's on the teevee, then it must be real. You don't hold O'Keefe to the same standard as you do Moore. Moore not only uses editing to get his points across but he entraps his interviewees to perhaps say things that aren't true or slanted in a certain way. O'Keefe does the same thing but it's OK when he does it because you like what he does. Where do you think he learned it from?
I'll take your non comments about his law breaking and dildo party as further evidence of your hypocrisy.
He earned his lumps on the trespass charge. Personally, I think that was a stupid move.
But I guess lawlessness is okay when Obama does it. Hmmmmm?
dildo party
That appears to be a deliberate (and false) smear campaign being carried out by a hard core leftist who pretended to be a conservative. See here, here, and here. (Notice that she is being closely supported by "BreitbartUnmasked", a full blown sociopath and convicted bomber by the name of Brett Kimberlin.)
Tsk tsk, nmn. Any critical thinker knows the answer to that is neither:) Of course, it is a "gotcha" question (see: all you have) so I guess that make sense. I find it funny, though, how easily you believe someone like O'Keefe, simply because you like what he says. So much for the scientific method. At least I admit that Moore is manipulative.
What exactly did O'Keefe do that was the same as Moore?
What Moore and O'Keefe both do is show up somewhere and ask someone, "So...how long have you been beating your wife?" They frame the information you seeing via camera in such a way that the viewer is immediately convinced of whatever they want you to be convinced of. Nearly all documentary filmmakers do this, although I would call O'Keefe more of a reality TV guy.
So, the questions you guys are asking me are the wrong ones. You should be asking just how real is Reality TV?
In other words, you've never watched O'Keefe's videos. Nor can you point to the edits. Yes, he posed as something he wasn't. The ACORN reps and others on tape freely agreed to assist in fraud and criminal activity. You're only pissed at O'Keefe because he exposed some of your fellow travelers for actually being what their many detractors always claimed they were. And ACORN, the Democrats, and most of the press immediately claimed editing, taking out of context, fraudulent criminal behavior on the part of O'Keefe. And after giving them time to really stick their necks out, the entire video was released. After reluctantly conceding that it really had happened, it was claimed it was just one person at one office, blah, blah, blah. Then another bit of tape released from somewhere else, and the whole sequence was repeated. Then at another place, and ACORN, Dems, and leftists pundits responded exactly the same as if they'd learned nothing in the preceding weeks.
The trespass was stupid, but the reaction and the initial charges were way over the top. Compare the reaction to David Gregory and NBC's violation of Washington, D.C.s strict gun control laws. Laws are for little people, right?
Once again demonstrating your cargo cult mentality.
A "beating your wife" question makes you guilty no matter how you answer it. (You need to answer the slander upon which the question is based. "I have never beaten my wife.")
A question which can be answered directly in a morally appropriate manner is NOT a "beating your wife" question. For example, "I want to commit this crime. Will you help me?" is not such a question. The morally correct is some variation of "No." (A legitimate variation is "let me get some paperwork" then going and calling the police.) In other words, there is an easy way out.
O'Keefe gave the Acorn people, the poll officials, and everyone else the kind of questions where they had a legitimate opportunity to do the right thing. Only those people didn't, by their own CHOICE, or policy of the place where they worked.
Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" indirectly asserting that the subject has beaten her at some point).
This has been explained to you several before, Mark. Why do you still fail to understand?
Either way, the real purpose of "stopping" ACORN was a complete failure....people still turned out to vote for Democrats. Seems like a pretty hollow victory to me. Btw, this would be an example of how winning the argument doesn't really matter.
You're only pissed at O'Keefe
I'm not pissed at O'Keefe. I'm saddened by your willful ignorance and complete lack of critical thinking. Let's say that they are all unedited and take O'Keefe at his word. It's still entrapment and it would never fly in a court of law. Yet, to you, it's guilty until proven innocent...odd, coming from someone who wraps themselves in the Constitution. Conservatives like to squawk about rights but if they don't like someone or a group, they're guilty. Period.
Further, what about the all the offices he was kicked out of? Where are those videos? I'd like to see all the videos he shot or attempted to shoot (in their entirety) at ACORN and Planned Parenthood. Place the ones that you've seen over and over again with the ones that he didn't release so they are in context. What would that tell you?
Oh, and how are Planned Parenthood and NPR doing these days?
You're asking the wrong question, Larry. It should be, "Do I care that ACORN no longer exists?" The answer is no. And O'Keefe's time is pretty much done. The organizations that he likely is going to target (assuming he ever gets any money) are prepared for him now.
44 comments:
This is something we agree on.
We trust our teachers to provide education, not indoctrination.
Irony alert!
Projection alert!
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
it just can't be led in any way…
Not even by the students themselves. Nor are students permitted to mention God or Jesus, especially in their own speeches.
Come out of the bubble more often, nmn. My school district and my kids' school district say both all the time. Kids can say whatever they want and talk about their faih quite often in my class. I do as well.
I know you need an enemy and have to play th part of the oh so persecuted by the pagan sinners but Fox News is lying to you...shocking, I know!
Come out of the bubble more often, nmn. My school district and my kids' school district say both all the time. Kids can say whatever they want and talk about their faih quite often in my class. I do as well.
I know you need an enemy and have to play th part of the oh so persecuted by the pagan sinners but Fox News is lying to you...shocking, I know!
In the bubble?
Teacher punishes student for responding “God bless you” to a friend’s sneeze
Punishment For Graduation Speech Taken To Appeals Court
Tennessee school district tells teachers to hide from students if they pray
High School Punishes Student For Saying Homosexuality Is Wrong
"Not indoctrination"… Riiiiiiiigght…
A whole list of incidents
Who's "in the bubble", again?
You are.
These are all outliers, NMN, and fine examples of confirmation bias that are disseminated to foment anger and paranoia. Looks like it's working:)
I would think you would be happy that students at my school (and really all over my state) can express themselves spiritually. Just have to have an enemy, don't you? And there's no way you could possibly be wrong...even if it serves your interests...wow..
That goes for ALL religions, btw.
Standard Response #7
You gave me four examples, NMN. Four (and a list which I'll get to in a minute). And that's assuming that they check out. Since I've wasted my time in the past chasing down similar Colonel Flagg-like red herrings, I'll just assume that the four are true. (Side note: if I list four examples of how people who own guns got shot with their own guns by criminals, does that make Nikto right?)
So, four examples. There are 98,817 public schools in this country (as of 2009-2010). Aren't you a scientist? What percentage is 4 out of 98,817? That's .004 percent of schools, right? (please do, check my math:))
But let's add in the list. Let's see...take off the Geneva College (private-they can do whatever they want), Cisco, Cargill, Hallmark (again, private), and all the city/state/federal issues because we are talking about schools. Not sure about CLS but let's include it with the other school cases to be safe...which brings our total from 4 to 10 (again, please do check my math). So that's 10 out of 98, 817. That makes .01 percent.
Ah, what the heck? I'm in a generous mood tonight. Let's pretend that all of the items on that list are viable...even the private companies whom we can now tell what to do. So that's 29 out of 98, 817. That makes .29 percent. Let's round up! .3 percent.
Holy Crap!! It's happening everywhere!!! Hide the kids!!
Now, as a scientist, what would you say if something happens .3 percent of the time...it's common, somewhat common, or not at all common? I'd say it's the last one and, if you are truly going to use the scientific method to prove your thesis, I'd say you need about a few more examples (at least five figures, no?) to show just how persecuted Christians are today in schools.
While you get started on your research, perhaps you might want to also explain why someone such as yourself (a conservative) is playing the victim card here. Tsk Tsk...:)
You gave me four examples
A) There were five links.
B) One link had 25 incidents.
C) I was not doing an exhaustive survey because I am not your slave. I stopped looking when I felt I had enough evidence to make a reasonable case. (Of course, "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying camera" is the imposition of an unreasonable standard for evidence.)
D) You claimed it was crazy ("in the bubble") to think such incidents happen. My links show that they happen. My claim has been backed up with evidence.
E) Which is greater? 29 or 1? (29 = incidents I linked to. 1 = your own experience [which cannot be verified].)
Finally, given that you frequently use atheist arguments to attack the Bible, it's unreasonable to characterize your approach to "faith" as "Christian".
BTW, since your "god" is unable to do what any mere human can do (ghostwriting), what makes you think he is able to overcome death? Or simply walk or talk?
I stopped looking when I felt I had enough evidence to make a reasonable case.
.3 percent is a reasonable case? And some of those were private companies not to mention the other non school related issues. But if 29 is a reasonable case, then hear you go!
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
852 accidental deaths from firearms. 19,766 deaths from firearms that were intentional, 11, 101 homicides related to firearms. That's 31, 719 total deaths related to guns which makes 1.2 percent of all deaths are related to guns.
Gun deaths are rampant! That's four times your number. They must be taken away!!
At least, that's according to the parameters you laid out, right?
Meanwhile...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/religiousexpression.html
Students may express their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, art-work, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.
Students have a right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is unrelated to school curriculum or activities.
Students may display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages.
Should I go on? When was the last time you were actually in a school?
Which is bigger? 29 or 1?
That's it? That's all you have? I just showed you the federal policy on religious expression in schools and one line is all you can come with?
What's the world coming to? I expected a lot more for someone (s) whose only conviction is their own vanity.
I just showed you the federal policy on religious expression in schools
Yes you did. But just because there is a standard does not mean that it is not being violated, actively undermined, or flat out ignored. For example:
— D.O.M.A.
— Immigration Law
— Tim Geithner
— The Second Amendment
— The Constitutional requirement that a budget be passed every year.
— The Ninth and Tenth Amendments (enumerated powers design of the Constitution)*
Etc., etc., etc.
Why should the First Amendment's guarantee of the "free exercise" of religion be any different? Oh wait, it's not.
* "[The question is], whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states. It is notorious, that, in the convention, an attempt was made to introduce into the constitution a power to encourage manufactures; but it was withheld. Instead of granting the power to congress, permission was given to the states to impose duties, with the consent of that body, to encourage their own manufactures; and thus, in the true spirit of justice, imposing the burthen on those, who were to be benefited."
— Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
That's it? That's all you have?
The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
— Mark 8:11–12
What were Jesus' other miracles? Chopped liver? The Pharisees were well aware of Jesus' miracles (in fact, this occurred just after the feeding of the 4,000), but they weren't satisfied. In other places, Jesus called those people demanding even more signs "evil and adulterous". The problem is that no amount of evidence or signs would EVER be enough for them.
“He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
— Luke 16:31
Jesus eventually proved His point by raising Lazarus from the dead. So did the Pharisees finally believe Him? Nope! That miracle is what prompted the Pharisees to start looking for a way to murder Jesus. Demanding even more evidence was just a dodge; a way to pretend that they cared about evidence and truth. But they didn't care about either of those things. All they cared about was rejecting Jesus and His teachings. Their demand for even more evidence was nothing more than cynically manufacturing an excuse to reject him. In the end, no amount of evidence was ever enough for them; not even Jesus himself rising from the dead.
The simple fact is that you are just like those Pharisees. You refuse any evidence you don't like. You do it so frequently that it earned a spot as a Standard Response (#7).
How can I be sure of this?
You just posted a lie that is so blatantly and self-evidently false that no outside evidence is necessary to show that it's false:
Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?
Yet when challenged on it, you simply refused to even acknowledge the challenge, let alone retract the lie. That is NOT the action of someone who cares about the truth. (Or who does not engage in indoctrination.) Rather, that is someone just like those Pharisees, who earned these kinds of statements from Jesus:
Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
— John 8:43–44
In fact, right after Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for demanding even more signs which they would also ignore, Jesus followed up on that incident:
Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” … Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
— Matthew 16:6, 12 (paralleled less clearly in Mark 8:14-21)
So you should understand that I'm not losing one wink of sleep of the demands of a proven and unrepentant liar who can't even count (4? 29?); a liar who thinks dancing goalposts is a central technique of critical thinking.
(Fallacy: unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE.)
I've made my point. I don't need to prove anything more to you. Indeed, it's not possible.
I expected a lot more for someone (s) whose only conviction is their own vanity.
That is just soooooo rich coming from you. I think the irony of that statement could feed me for the next month. No need to spend any more money on groceries!
Well, now that's more like it.
Regarding this...
Yet when challenged on it, you simply refused to even acknowledge the challenge, let alone retract the lie.
it's just too easy, dude. I don't like to speak ill of the dead, for one thing, and that's why I didn't respond to your calls for "proof." I don't do end zone dances.
I don't like to speak ill of the dead
In thinking about your unrepentant lying, it occurred to me that when you made this statement, that's exactly what you did. Oh, no specifics that could be refuted, mind you. Just a vague, shapeless accusation ("speaking ill") about "the dead".
Tell me, Mark. What does it feel like to use a denial to do what you're denying doing? Do you get off on such underhand "beating your wife" slander?
I didn't respond to your calls for "proof."
Oh Gosh. I'm sorry. Is sticking to actual reality too hard for you? I guess just Making S*** Up is just soooo much easier.
Note: I did not ask you for proof in this cased. I provided it to you. All I asked you to do was to acknowledge the truth and retract an obvious lie.
I don't do end zone dances.
When I read this, it was a definite WTF?!? moment. I've figured out why. Once again, you failed (deliberately?) to understand what I wrote. Here's another crack at it:
a liar who thinks dancing goalposts is a central technique of critical thinking.
I'll tell you what, NMN. Let's agree on a definition of "chest thumping" and then I will show a video from the NRA meeting of chest thumping. How does that sound?
First, the definition. Is this acceptable?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chest-thumping
That's a valid definition.
So, conduct or expression marked by pompous and arrogant self assertion...
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/historicdocs/charltonhestonnra1999.html
Now, I love Charlton Heston but this speech was a fine example of chest thumping.
Some excerpts...
the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country.
One camp would be the majority - people who believe our Founders guarenteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families and our country. The other camp would be a large minority - people who believe that we will buy security if we will just surrender these freedoms.
When an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because their story needs a villan. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief, to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.
Our mission is to remain a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment, even if it has no other friend on the planet. We cannot let tragedy lay waste to the most rare and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin said that.
But our essential reason for being is this. As long as there is a Second Amendment, evil can never conquor us. Tyranny, in any form, can never find footing within a society of law-abiding, armed, ethical people.
The Second Amendment. There can be no more precious inheritance. That's what the NRA preserves. Now, if you disagree, that's your right and I respect that. But we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it, or be told, "Do not come here. You are unwelcome in your own land."
Here is a video clip in which people cheer at some of the more boisterous lines...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL2W_tMfMlQ&list=FLfNHS_6BXeZaS88Gj5P-o4g&index=1
Obviously, you are going to disagree that this is chest thumping (another reason why I really don't want to waste time talking about this) but it clearly is...that, and it's really tone deaf...just as the response was after Sandy Hook.
We kept a respectful distance then, as NRA has tried to do now. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do.
Huh? His giving a speech (one of many) in which people are TALKING!
Interesting…
That speech doesn't match the speech Michael Moore twisted the hell of out in his movie. I haven't been able to find out why, but both speeches were apparently given the same day.
I find it fascinating how you cut and pasted only parts of that speech— just like Michael Moore did—to make it sound more arrogant than it was. In other words, you're still cutting and pasting so you can lie about what was actually said.
But even before we get to the speech itself, you've already ignored what the NRA did in relation to this meeting. First of all, it was an annual convention scheduled YEARS in advance. Part of that convention includes meetings they are legally REQUIRED to hold (that means required by the government) as part of their non-profit status. Their "chest thumping" move was to CANCEL EVERYTHING THEY COULD LEGALLY CANCEL!!!
Whooooo boy! That's tone, all right! They're such nasties, aren't they?!?
Oh, and in the letter they sent out announcing the cancellations, they wrote this:
"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.
Boy, that "chest thumping" sure comes through loud and clear, don't it?!?
So let's get on the the speech you chopped up.
The very first line you copied is classic lying via selective quoting. You even jumped in right in the middle of a sentence. Here's what you copied:
the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country.
Now here's the full paragraph:
But we're not the rustic, reckless radicals they wish for. No, the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church or grocery store. That's us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinarypeople - war heroes, sports idols, several U.S. presidents and yes, movie stars.
Wait, something feels different here. What is it?
Let's start with that first sentence. What does he mean by "rustic, reckless radicals they wish for?" That would be what he had already discussed:
I see our country teetering on the edge of an abyss. At its bottom brews the simmering bile of deep, dark hatred. Hatred that's dividing our country politically, racially, economically, geographically, in every way.
Whether it's political vendettas, sports brawls, corporate takeovers, or high school gangs and cliques, the American competetive ethic has changed from "let's beat the other guy" to "let's destroy the other guy." Too many are too willing to stigmatize and demonize others for political advantage, money or ratings.
The villification is savage. This week, Rep. John Conyers slandered 3 million Americans when he called the NRA "merchants of death" on national television, as the First Lady nodded in agreement. A hideous editorial cartoon by Mike Peters ran nationally, depicting children's dead bodies sprawled out to spell N-R-A. The countless requests we've received for media appearances are in fact summons to public floggings, where those who hate firearms will predictably don the white hat and hand us the black.
This harvest of hatred is then sold as news, as entertainment, as government policy. Such hateful, divisive forces are leading us to one awful end: America's own form of Balkanization. A weakened country of rabid factions, each less free, and united only by hatred of one another.
Villification? Hatred? Divisiveness?
It MUST have been an overactive imagination! A "paranoid fantasy!" No one would do that, would they? I mean, No one would say stuff like this:
I can almost here [sic] the mouth foam oozing out of the mouth of the gun rights folks…
Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?
Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying
they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants
they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference
the colossal level of impotence
…just how fucked up the Right is these days…
a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!
And I didn't even bother delving into comments or going further than the front page. So when he described the vilification, was he overstating things? No, he wasn't.
(And I gotta say it, Mark. These statements you made are just dripping with condescension, bravado, and yes, chest thumping.)
So back to that paragraph, he goes on to contrast the demonization of leftists like you with the reality of who the NRA membership is:
the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church or grocery store. That's us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinarypeople - war heroes, sports idols, several U.S. presidents and yes, movie stars.
Is there anything in there that is inaccurate or untrue? No, there is not, then it is NOT chest thumping. It's a statement of FACT.
Continuing on…
One camp would be the majority - people who believe our Founders guarenteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families and our country. The other camp would be a large minority - people who believe that we will buy security if we will just surrender these freedoms.
Oops, it seems you "forgot" the first sentence of that paragraph (again):
In the past ten days, we've seen these brutal blows attempting to fracture America into two such camps.
So he's still describing the Us vs. Them type of B.S. you spew almost Every. Single. Day.
From there is when he goes on to describe who the NRA members are. So why did you put your "extracts" out of order, hmmm? Another Michael Moore technique, perhaps?
Then he goes back to the main problem he wants to offer a solution to:
But the screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile and confrontational and disrespectful, that too many on both sides have forgotten that we are, first, Americans.
I am asking all of us, on both sides, to take one step back from the edge of that cliff. Then another step and another, however many it takes to get back to that place where we're all Americans again...different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation...indivisible. This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop. Because so much more connects us than divides us. And because tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are scheming evil things. All of us will do every meaningful thing we can to prevent it. But each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us.
America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction.
A call to stop fighting? Wow, that SO the epitome of "chest thumping"! [/sarc]
Again, who is engaging in "screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners"? Have you read your own writing lately Mark? Are you willing to step back from the verbal warfare and actually have an honest and rational discussion with us? We've been trying. (And getting so pissed off at your dishonesty from time to time that we do call you names.)
And that's where we get to the next part you quoted:
When an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because their story needs a villan. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief, to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.
What's "chest thumping" about that? Again, I refer you to your own writings on this very blog. It's a statement of fact.
Continuing on…
The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all too often bloom upon fresh graves.
I remember a better day, when no one dared politicize or profiteer on trauma. We kept a respectful distance then, as NRA has tried to do now. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do.
But today, carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos and a reactionary package of legislation. reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles, as news anchors race to drench their microphones in the tears of victims.
Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be "brought to you by sponsors." That's pornography. It trivializes the tragedy, it abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commplace.
More "chest thumping"? Not! Or are you claiming that a condemnation of the crassness of the "never let a good crisis go to waste" crowd and a call for human decency and respect for the victims' pain is "pompous or arrogant"?
And we're often cast as the villain. That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it.
Okay, this is a slight bit of aggressiveness. But what do you expect when people like you lie about us? What do you expect us to do? Just roll over and bare our throats for you? Or simply swallow the s*** sandwich you're spreading around, then say "Thank you. Please sir, may I have another?" Get real, Mark.
And that's where your next quoted section picks up:
Our mission is to remain a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment, even if it has no other friend on the planet. We cannot let tragedy lay waste to the most rare and hard-won human right in history.
A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin said that.
Again, "chest thumping"? Have you so quickly forgotten this post you put up? These are the ideas, the principles that we recognize as not only real and worthwhile, but essential for freedom.
Let's go back to more that you skipped:
If you like your freedoms of speech and of religion, freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press and of privacy, to assemble and to redress grievances, then you'd better give them that eternal bodygueard called the Second Amendment. The individual right to bear arms is freedpm's insurance policy, not just for your children but for infinite generations to come
That is its singular, sacred beauty, and why we preserve it so fiercely. No, it is not a right without rational restrictions. And it's not for everyone. Only the law-abiding majority of society deserves the Second Amendment. Abuse it once and lose it forever. That's the law. But remarkably, the NRA is far more eager to prosecute gun abusers than those who oppose gun ownership altogether..as if the tool could be more evil than the evildoer.
Wait! What?!? "We think it's a good to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" is chest thumping/dancing in the blood of children?
Face it, Mark. This is more discussion of big ideas and principles. The kind of discussion you claim to want to have, but run away from at every opportunity or attempt to shut down with one of your hand waving, "because I said so" dismissals. You only think it's "chest thumping" because he has the temerity disagree with YOU.
He then goes into statistics about what the NRA does to promote safe gun ownership. That's a bad thing, how, exactly?
Then he gets to the next section you quoted:
But our essential reason for being is this. As long as there is a Second Amendment, evil can never conquor us. Tyranny, in any form, can never find footing within a society of law-abiding, armed, ethical people.
Thus the question you refuse to answer:
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
But guess what? Mr. Heston goes on to answer that question!
The majesty of the Second Amendment, that our Founders so divinely captured and crafted into your birthright, guarantees that no government despot, no renegade faction of armed forces, no roving gangs of criminals, no breakdown of law and order, no massive anarchy, no force of evil or crime or oppression from within or from without can ever rob you of the liberties that define your Americanism.
And when they ask, "So indeed you would bear arms against government tyranny?...The answer is, "No. That could never happen, precisely because we have the Second Amendment."
Let me be absolutely clear. The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing. ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals.
You constantly claim (using your standard "because I say so" tactic) that the idea that a tyranny could happen in this country is a "paranoid fantasy". But what is a tyranny? How does it succeed? It is the exercise of Power over the population. And the ultimate Power is the ability to project overwhelming physical force. Thus the ONLY GUARANTEE that such force cannot be used is the ability of the general population to react with equal or greater force.
In order for tyranny to succeed, it is absolutely necessary for the population to be weaker than the government; in other words, disarmed. THAT is the lesson of history. King George attempted to engage in tyranny against the colonies. But he was not successful at disarming them. (Though he tried.) The result is that the general population consisting largely of farmers managed to defeat the most powerful military force of the time to win their freedom.
You remember this quote, don't you?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
The man who wrote that succeeded in disarming "the subject races". To do, he made use of gun control laws put into place before he came to power. In fact, they were very much like the one Diane Feinstein is proposing. One of those features of their gun control laws was a "hunting" exception just like you think is so appropriate. Because his victims were disarmed, he succeeded in his tyranny, producing one of the most infamous regimes (but not the deadliest) in history. In Every. Single. Case. where mass murder succeeded, the population was almost entirely disarmed. There is no record of such tyranny succeeding in an well armed society.
That is the final guarantee of freedom. That is the pearl of great price (in this world) for which men have, and will continue to give their lives for. And that is why the only effective guarantee against tyranny must never be given up: effective fighting guns.
Given all that, let's get back to the last part you quoted:
The Second Amendment. There can be no more precious inheritance. That's what the NRA preserves. Now, if you disagree, that's your right and I respect that. But we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it, or be told, "Do not come here. You are unwelcome in your own land."
Now you have been told why the Second Amendment is so precious. (I almost wrote, "now you know", but then I remembered who I'm talking to.) Given the lessons of history and the principles they've taught us, no other position is possible. So how is that "pompous or arrogant"? Or as the Random House Dictionary puts it: "boasting"?
Let's take one final look at his speech: the conclusion where he states his call to action:
Let's go from this place renewed in spirit and dedicated against hatred. We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat and a country to unite. We may have differences, yes. And we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight and evermore, let it always set on we, the people...secure in our land of the free and the home of the brave.
So what part of that is "chest thumping"? The healing? How about the uniting? The opposition to hatred?
Bottom line: As you surmised, there is no way that speech was "chest thumping". But unlike you, I didn't simply assert it and walk away. I examined almost the entire speech. I even looked at the NRA's actions surrounding that speech.
You're still a liar. And now you've added cherry picking quotes (Fallacy! = unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE) to your list of lies.
Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do.
Huh? His giving a speech (one of many) in which people are TALKING!
Giving a speech at a private meeting 10 days after the murders vs., say, running out to find the nearest news media cameras within hours of the shooting to attempt to score political points about guns, guns, guns, gotta get rid of all the guns? Your double-standard dishonesty continues.
I haven't been able to find out why, but both speeches were apparently given the same day.
The "from my cold dead hands" speech (if that is what you are referring to) was actually given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, not the same day. Moore did, in fact, twist it in his film to make it seem like Heston said it in 1999. Why it's bad when Moore does this stuff but not bad when James O'Keefe does it is another discussion:)
I find it fascinating how you cut and pasted only parts of that speech
Yet I linked it in its entirety. The points that I highlighted were only a few examples of chest thumping, which was what we were discussing. Even take as a whole, it's chest thumping, by the definition that we both agreed upon. I'll happily rescind all of my quotes and put the speech as a whole out there for others to judge. If there is any sort of unbiased forum to which you'd like to submit it, feel free to do so. Perhaps we could have it peer reviewed?
Anyway, your long paragraphs are an example of why I didn't want to have this discussion. Your perception of this issue will never allow you to be impartial.
O'Keefe didn't do the same thing, that might be why it isn't bad when he doesn't do it.
But please, go eat some more of Moore's shit. He needs your money.
The "from my cold dead hands" speech (if that is what you are referring to) was actually given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, not the same day.
Yet again, proof positive that you make up your mind without even bothering to check the evidence.
Yes, the "from my cold dead hands" is from the speech you said it was. But that's not the part Moore used that I was referring to.
Moore also used clips from a speech that was given that day in December. For example:
I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here.
That phrase does not appear in the speech you linked to. But since that phrase does appear in a speech that was genuinely given that same day, it would seem that Mr. Heston gave two speeches. That is what I was referring to.
How do you honestly expect to accurately analyze information when you're so completely and willfully obtuse about that information?
…but not bad when James O'Keefe does it…
You've been told this before, liar. He DIDN'T do that. And released the full recordings to PROVE it. But please, by all means, keep lying to everyone.
Even take as a whole, it's chest thumping, by the definition that we both agreed upon.
Nope, it doesn't fit the definition. YOU only see it as "pompous and arrogant" because any disagreement with YOU is automatically "pompous and arrogant". (And of course, you completely miss the irony of that.)
your long paragraphs are an example of why I didn't want to have this discussion.
In other words, "It's too long. I didn't read it. Besides, my mind is made up anyway and I don't want to be bothered by the facts."
And released the full recordings to PROVE it.
And you know this for certain? How? His word? It's not _______ when we do it! By the way, have you seen how hard up Project Veritas is for money these days? I think the breaking the law and sex toy boat dealio didn't really help him. Hey, how does that sex toy thing jibe with your Christian morality?
But, please, by all means, hitch your wagon to that star! That's good for several dozen more election victories!
Uh... By watching them? You say he didn't make the full videos available -- prove it. Show us the dishonest edits. You know, the ones that are obvious from a single camera recording a conversation, not like those of a "serious" media interview where at least 2 cameras are rolling and viewpoints are constantly switching. Show us the edits.
Well, I guess if it's on the teevee, then it must be real. You don't hold O'Keefe to the same standard as you do Moore. Moore not only uses editing to get his points across but he entraps his interviewees to perhaps say things that aren't true or slanted in a certain way. O'Keefe does the same thing but it's OK when he does it because you like what he does. Where do you think he learned it from?
I'll take your non comments about his law breaking and dildo party as further evidence of your hypocrisy.
Well, I guess if it's on the teevee, then it must be real.
Standard Response #7: "Who are you believe, me or your lyin' camera?"
In this case, literally.
his law breaking
He earned his lumps on the trespass charge. Personally, I think that was a stupid move.
But I guess lawlessness is okay when Obama does it. Hmmmmm?
dildo party
That appears to be a deliberate (and false) smear campaign being carried out by a hard core leftist who pretended to be a conservative. See here, here, and here. (Notice that she is being closely supported by "BreitbartUnmasked", a full blown sociopath and convicted bomber by the name of Brett Kimberlin.)
You don't hold O'Keefe to the same standard as you do Moore.
What exactly did O'Keefe do that was the same as Moore? Or is this just a general condemnation of anyone who emulates the dishonest left?
"Who are you believe, me or your lyin' camera?"
Tsk tsk, nmn. Any critical thinker knows the answer to that is neither:) Of course, it is a "gotcha" question (see: all you have) so I guess that make sense. I find it funny, though, how easily you believe someone like O'Keefe, simply because you like what he says. So much for the scientific method. At least I admit that Moore is manipulative.
What exactly did O'Keefe do that was the same as Moore?
What Moore and O'Keefe both do is show up somewhere and ask someone, "So...how long have you been beating your wife?" They frame the information you seeing via camera in such a way that the viewer is immediately convinced of whatever they want you to be convinced of. Nearly all documentary filmmakers do this, although I would call O'Keefe more of a reality TV guy.
So, the questions you guys are asking me are the wrong ones. You should be asking just how real is Reality TV?
In other words, you've never watched O'Keefe's videos. Nor can you point to the edits. Yes, he posed as something he wasn't. The ACORN reps and others on tape freely agreed to assist in fraud and criminal activity. You're only pissed at O'Keefe because he exposed some of your fellow travelers for actually being what their many detractors always claimed they were. And ACORN, the Democrats, and most of the press immediately claimed editing, taking out of context, fraudulent criminal behavior on the part of O'Keefe. And after giving them time to really stick their necks out, the entire video was released. After reluctantly conceding that it really had happened, it was claimed it was just one person at one office, blah, blah, blah. Then another bit of tape released from somewhere else, and the whole sequence was repeated. Then at another place, and ACORN, Dems, and leftists pundits responded exactly the same as if they'd learned nothing in the preceding weeks.
The trespass was stupid, but the reaction and the initial charges were way over the top. Compare the reaction to David Gregory and NBC's violation of Washington, D.C.s strict gun control laws. Laws are for little people, right?
And the other thing is just weird, and so what?
"So...how long have you been beating your wife?"
Once again demonstrating your cargo cult mentality.
A "beating your wife" question makes you guilty no matter how you answer it. (You need to answer the slander upon which the question is based. "I have never beaten my wife.")
A question which can be answered directly in a morally appropriate manner is NOT a "beating your wife" question. For example, "I want to commit this crime. Will you help me?" is not such a question. The morally correct is some variation of "No." (A legitimate variation is "let me get some paperwork" then going and calling the police.) In other words, there is an easy way out.
O'Keefe gave the Acorn people, the poll officials, and everyone else the kind of questions where they had a legitimate opportunity to do the right thing. Only those people didn't, by their own CHOICE, or policy of the place where they worked.
A "beating your wife" is known as a loaded question. The kinds of questions used by O'Keefe were leading questions.
Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" indirectly asserting that the subject has beaten her at some point).
This has been explained to you several before, Mark. Why do you still fail to understand?
Larry, ACORN no longer exists so perhaps it's time to stop using them as a talking point. Unless you are one of these people...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/yes-half-republicans-think-acorn-which-doesnt-exist-stole-election/59632/
Are you?:)
Either way, the real purpose of "stopping" ACORN was a complete failure....people still turned out to vote for Democrats. Seems like a pretty hollow victory to me. Btw, this would be an example of how winning the argument doesn't really matter.
You're only pissed at O'Keefe
I'm not pissed at O'Keefe. I'm saddened by your willful ignorance and complete lack of critical thinking. Let's say that they are all unedited and take O'Keefe at his word. It's still entrapment and it would never fly in a court of law. Yet, to you, it's guilty until proven innocent...odd, coming from someone who wraps themselves in the Constitution. Conservatives like to squawk about rights but if they don't like someone or a group, they're guilty. Period.
Further, what about the all the offices he was kicked out of? Where are those videos? I'd like to see all the videos he shot or attempted to shoot (in their entirety) at ACORN and Planned Parenthood. Place the ones that you've seen over and over again with the ones that he didn't release so they are in context. What would that tell you?
Oh, and how are Planned Parenthood and NPR doing these days?
Why does ACORN no longer exist, asshole?
it is a "gotcha" question
Please, define "gotcha question".
You're asking the wrong question, Larry. It should be, "Do I care that ACORN no longer exists?" The answer is no. And O'Keefe's time is pretty much done. The organizations that he likely is going to target (assuming he ever gets any money) are prepared for him now.
Then why'd you bring him up, asshole?
Please, define "gotcha question".
Since Mark (once again) refuses to define his terms, it's time to describe the term based on Mark's actions.
Gotcha Question:
Any non-loaded question which, when answered accurately, would cause an honest man to reevaluate his position.
Teacher Forced to Remove Reagan Quote, Bible Verses
NJ Teacher Fired For Giving Bible to Student
Post a Comment