This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Red Sable on 22 October 2009 - 19:10
Okay RPK, that really HURT. I am traumatized for life.
Was this protest before the invention of shavers? I thought I knew the difference between men and women, now I'm not so sure.
The whole intent of the protest was to "freak out" the "normal people."
That it did.
Was this protest before the invention of shavers? I thought I knew the difference between men and women, now I'm not so sure.
The whole intent of the protest was to "freak out" the "normal people."
That it did.
by Two Moons on 22 October 2009 - 19:10
RPK,
You are not Ronnie in disguise are you?
No, I guess not, those are Boobs and Balls, not Butts, and Ronnie has better taste.
It looked peaceful enough, California back in the day.
Now...... What was your point, other than fan a flame?
SSDD.
Moons.
You are not Ronnie in disguise are you?
No, I guess not, those are Boobs and Balls, not Butts, and Ronnie has better taste.
It looked peaceful enough, California back in the day.
Now...... What was your point, other than fan a flame?
SSDD.
Moons.
by SitasMom on 22 October 2009 - 19:10
rpk - I think i want to puke - too late!
by CrysBuck25 on 22 October 2009 - 20:10
MVF,
Interesting way you put that. The "Boston Tea Party Patriots" as you put it, were doing what they were doing because of unfair taxes imposed by the Crown. The protesters at the power plant were protesting over climate change, a hotly contested and unproven theory. Scientists can't even agree on whether there is any such thing as Global Warming and if so, whether it is a natural or artificial condition. So is there a difference? Yes, and no. The Boston Tea Party was back when this country was in the throes of birth, tired of unfair taxation from England. Different set of laws, different time.
<<CrysBuck: Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you have the right to destroy someone else's property, whether you live in a democracy, a republic, or whatever else. Simply put, you can disagree with me or my viewpoints, but if you come to my house and start shattering windows, spraypainting my walls, or otherwise destroying my property, you can bet YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW, and you will face retribution for it, one way or another.
It's called vandalism. And it's a crime. If they got bit by police dogs, maybe they should have stuck to holding up signs and not destroying the property. How many of those loons sleep in tents, eat only veggies and grass, and don't use electricity or cars? I bet they all have cars and live in houses with electricity. >>
<Do you believe the Boston Tea Party Patriots should have been bitten by dogs? They were not doing anything so principled as these folks -- they were destroying property because their economic interests were being compromised.
And they are loons because they sacrifice for their cause or because they believe in something you don't? If the former, are all those who sacrifice for causes "loons" by your definition?
And, be honest, if you discovered that many of them DID live in tents, eat vegan, and avoid electricity and car use, would you really think them justified? Or would you just come up with another excuse for a diatribe? Perhaps you would even dislike them because of such deep seated commitment?>
You ask if I believe the patriots should have been bitten by dogs. Loaded question, that one. And I would have to answer, no. A good part of the reason that we fought for our independence from England was because of the taxation issue, and the Boston Tea Party was one of the main events that ended up leading to the Revolution, though of course you know that.
Simply put, though, put aside the what-ifs. That was then, this is now. I'm glad that those people believe in something enough to protest it, and you are certainly allowed to protest, in a lot of countries, anyway. But destruction of property is going beyond protesting, which is legal, to vandalism, which is not. To compare 1773 to 2009 is comparing apples and roast beef. They aren't even in the same ball park.
If they actually lived off the land, not destroying it, then no, I wouldn't just find another excuse for a diatribe. I believe that if they believe in what they do, then they are justified to protest, but still there is no excuse for the destruction of private property.
I wonder at the reason you make the statements you do above...Are you trying to psychoanalyze me? If so, you are far off the mark, my friend. If they are committed to saving the environment, then perhaps trying to land themselves a free room at the local jail isn't the best way to help it. Perhaps some more of that prized education would be more effective.
Interesting way you put that. The "Boston Tea Party Patriots" as you put it, were doing what they were doing because of unfair taxes imposed by the Crown. The protesters at the power plant were protesting over climate change, a hotly contested and unproven theory. Scientists can't even agree on whether there is any such thing as Global Warming and if so, whether it is a natural or artificial condition. So is there a difference? Yes, and no. The Boston Tea Party was back when this country was in the throes of birth, tired of unfair taxation from England. Different set of laws, different time.
<<CrysBuck: Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you have the right to destroy someone else's property, whether you live in a democracy, a republic, or whatever else. Simply put, you can disagree with me or my viewpoints, but if you come to my house and start shattering windows, spraypainting my walls, or otherwise destroying my property, you can bet YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW, and you will face retribution for it, one way or another.
It's called vandalism. And it's a crime. If they got bit by police dogs, maybe they should have stuck to holding up signs and not destroying the property. How many of those loons sleep in tents, eat only veggies and grass, and don't use electricity or cars? I bet they all have cars and live in houses with electricity. >>
<Do you believe the Boston Tea Party Patriots should have been bitten by dogs? They were not doing anything so principled as these folks -- they were destroying property because their economic interests were being compromised.
And they are loons because they sacrifice for their cause or because they believe in something you don't? If the former, are all those who sacrifice for causes "loons" by your definition?
And, be honest, if you discovered that many of them DID live in tents, eat vegan, and avoid electricity and car use, would you really think them justified? Or would you just come up with another excuse for a diatribe? Perhaps you would even dislike them because of such deep seated commitment?>
You ask if I believe the patriots should have been bitten by dogs. Loaded question, that one. And I would have to answer, no. A good part of the reason that we fought for our independence from England was because of the taxation issue, and the Boston Tea Party was one of the main events that ended up leading to the Revolution, though of course you know that.
Simply put, though, put aside the what-ifs. That was then, this is now. I'm glad that those people believe in something enough to protest it, and you are certainly allowed to protest, in a lot of countries, anyway. But destruction of property is going beyond protesting, which is legal, to vandalism, which is not. To compare 1773 to 2009 is comparing apples and roast beef. They aren't even in the same ball park.
If they actually lived off the land, not destroying it, then no, I wouldn't just find another excuse for a diatribe. I believe that if they believe in what they do, then they are justified to protest, but still there is no excuse for the destruction of private property.
I wonder at the reason you make the statements you do above...Are you trying to psychoanalyze me? If so, you are far off the mark, my friend. If they are committed to saving the environment, then perhaps trying to land themselves a free room at the local jail isn't the best way to help it. Perhaps some more of that prized education would be more effective.
by MaggieMae on 22 October 2009 - 21:10
OMG!!! Horrible looking people w/horrible looking bodies. What a freak show.
by CrysBuck25 on 22 October 2009 - 22:10
??????
by sueincc on 22 October 2009 - 22:10
Please don't bother to address me anymore RPK, and I will do the same for you. I think it's pretty safe to say we don't like each other, we don't respect each other, and we sure as hell don't care for each others politics. As far as I can see, any further communication is pointless, so let's do each other a favor and just steer clear.
by BabyEagle4U on 23 October 2009 - 03:10
LOL Maggie. Those people need to be in "gated" communities.
That has got to be on the West Coast, I don't see that ever happening anywhere near Philly. LMAO
That has got to be on the West Coast, I don't see that ever happening anywhere near Philly. LMAO
by deacon on 23 October 2009 - 16:10
Thanks a lot RPK, the misses finally cooks me a lunch. I take one look at that post and now my dog is enjoying my former meal, probably my dinner and next mornings meal as well!? Uggghhby CrysBuck25 on 23 October 2009 - 16:10
I think I won't watch that video...
I need to be able to eat my meals!!
Crys
I need to be able to eat my meals!!
Crys
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
