Interviews with captured ISIS...

[revelarts]

no commentary or agenda on my part Just FYI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6olznBn_Tg





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6llpCGQlM

[Gunny]

Bring 'em here. My "interview room" is called back yard. We can be best friends n shit.

[Christie Brinkley]

When is the execution planned for them?

[jimnyc]

When is the execution planned for them?

I was just going to ask that. Do radicalized muslims magically become unradicalized muslims? And while they apparently tell stories, I wonder if, and what crimes these guys themselves may have been involved in?

[Black Diamond]

I was just going to ask that. Do radicalized muslims magically become unradicalized muslims? And while they apparently tell stories, I wonder if, and what crimes these guys themselves may have been involved in?

Yeah an American history X type story for Muslims.

[Christie Brinkley]

I was just going to ask that. Do radicalized muslims magically become unradicalized muslims? And while they apparently tell stories, I wonder if, and what crimes these guys themselves may have been involved in?
Pop one off in their head. Get a female Kurd to do it as if they get killed by a woman they don't get virgins...:laugh:

[jimnyc]

Yeah an American history X type story for Muslims.

Eat the curb!! LOL

Relax other ninnies, just remembering a scene is all. :)

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HF36QPKgiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYZ-Xd0-cjY

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Pop one off in their head. Get a female Kurd to do it as if they get killed by a woman they don't get virgins...:laugh:

HAVE A FEMALE EXECUTIONER HANG THEM WITH A ROPE MADE FROM PIG TAILS..:laugh:
Video it well and show that video on National TV.
Be generous-- give them back a little of what they so happily spread themselves!
And their supporters can not complain because its doing what they themselves do, which their supporters agree with and justify!-Tyr

[Drummond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HF36QPKgiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYZ-Xd0-cjY

What was your reason for posting this ? Are you trying to do an 'FJ', and portray this scum as human beings ?

That 17 year old 'boy', who's suddenly and very conveniently 'so sorry' for what he planned to do. Was he only sorry because he'd been caught ? And, I heard no explanation for how it was that he had no sense of right or wrong, or any sense of sheer humanity, that told him to STOP, to never go that far.

I don't care how 'baby faced' these scum are. They're wannabe BUTCHERS, not of animals, but of innocent human beings. All they deserve is their own 'medicine', meted out right back at them.

Perhaps, then and only then, they'd suddenly and very conveniently consider it 'wrong' to butcher, maim and kill to satisfy the whims of a Muslim death cult ?

[Gunny]

I was just going to ask that. Do radicalized muslims magically become unradicalized muslims? And while they apparently tell stories, I wonder if, and what crimes these guys themselves may have been involved in?

About as much radicalized Dumbo-crats become unradicalized Dumbo-crats.

[revelarts]

What was your reason for posting this ? ....

Just getting an idea of what ISIS is made of.
They are all human beings. that's self evident. no need for videos to prove that to most people.

I was going to post another longer interview with a guy that killed over 50 people but after about 60 secs i had to turn him off he turned my stomach with his casual laughter and the like.

[Gunny]

HAVE A FEMALE EXECUTIONER HANG THEM WITH A ROPE MADE FROM PIG TAILS..:laugh:
Video it well and show that video on National TV.
Be generous-- give them back a little of what they so happily spread themselves!
And their supporters can not complain because its doing what they themselves do, which their supporters agree with and justify!-Tyr

That actually doesn't work but it's funny as Hell. :laugh2:

You make them read cartoons blaspheming Muhammed for days and days. You know, calling him the child molesting warlord he was?

[Drummond]

Just getting an idea of what ISIS is made of.
They are all human beings. that's self evident. no need for videos to prove that to most people.

I was going to post another longer interview with a guy that killed over 50 people but after about 60 secs i had to turn him off he turned my stomach with his casual laughter and the like.

In your first paragraph, sure enough, you HAVE done an FJ and asserted they're human beings.

In your second paragraph, you have provided strong evidence of the exact opposite.

I suggest you abandon what your comrades have taught you is true, and instead be fully guided by what you see, and learn, from the evidence of your own eyes !

[Gunny]

In your first paragraph, sure enough, you HAVE done an FJ and asserted they're human beings.

In your second paragraph, you have provided strong evidence of the exact opposite.

I suggest you abandon what your comrades have taught you is true, and instead be fully guided by what you see, and learn, from the evidence of your own eyes !

Have to define "human being" though. They ARE homo sapien. The idea that Judeo-Christian Western idealism is "human" is junk. We're a society, not a race.

The fact that people committing war against noncombatants are animals is a given. But THAT too comes from chivalry. "Meet me on the field of honor." Sign ME up for THAT one. What these asshats are doing is playing to media attention. Been a week since Paris, right? Media's STILL at it.

So WHO wins? Look at who is getting all the attention.

[revelarts]

In your first paragraph, sure enough, you HAVE done an FJ and asserted they're human beings.
In your second paragraph, you have provided strong evidence of the exact opposite.
I suggest you abandon what your comrades have taught you is true, and instead be fully guided by what you see, and learn, from the evidence of your own eyes !

Have to define "human being" though. They ARE homo sapien.
Exactly.
Human



The idea that Judeo-Christian Western idealism is "human" is junk. We're a society, not a race.
but Gunnys idea of "human" as society is junk

All Human beings, homo sapiens, are created in God's image. All have body minds and souls/spirits that will live forever either in bliss or damnation.
Animals have no souls/spirit and will unlikely live beyond death and have no rewards or punishments.
unrepentant radical muslims will receive their rewards. But it won't be virgins.

.

[Gunny]

Exactly.
Human



but Gunnys idea of "human" as society is junk

All Human beings, homo sapiens, are created in God's image. All have body minds and souls/spirits that will live forever either in bliss or damnation.
Animals have no souls/spirit and will unlikely live beyond death and have no rewards or punishments.
unrepentant radical muslims will receive their rewards. But it won't be virgins.

.

And? My idea of human is if you want to shove your idealism down everyone else's throats, get the fuck out. Human beings who violates God's Law have no intrensic right to live. They have a right to salvation. Or to go to Hell..

[Drummond]

Have to define "human being" though. They ARE homo sapien. The idea that Judeo-Christian Western idealism is "human" is junk. We're a society, not a race.

The fact that people committing war against noncombatants are animals is a given. But THAT too comes from chivalry. "Meet me on the field of honor." Sign ME up for THAT one. What these asshats are doing is playing to media attention. Been a week since Paris, right? Media's STILL at it.

So WHO wins? Look at who is getting all the attention.

I find it reasonably easy to define 'human being'.

Human beings possess humanity, and in a strong enough measure to be irrevocably guided by it. Islamic terrorists not only show no trace of that being true for them, but the OPPOSITE is true. They exult in their savagery. They glory in it. How can you be human if you don't possess human feeling ?

A terrorist, obviously, deserves no human rights. If given any, do they appreciate what they're given, or do they just regard it as weakness on behalf of their captors ? Do they even have any understanding of any of it ?

Christians love life. Muslim terrorists love death (and mete it out in generous quantities at every opportunity). What does that tell you ?

[Drummond]

Exactly.
Human

To be devoid of all humanity is to prove non-humanity. Not the fact of it. The ABSENCE of it.

Genetic makeup, of itself, proves nothing. I can take a DNA sample, put it in a petrie dish. The genetic makeup of the sample would be identical to a human being, but it wouldn't BE a human being. Try walking up to that petrie dish, and asking its contents for proof of its humanity. See what answer you get ....

... and the DNA sample would NOT be going out into the world and planting bombs. Yes, the DNA sample would not be THAT subhuman.


All Human beings, homo sapiens, are created in God's image. All have body minds and souls/spirits that will live forever either in bliss or damnation.
Animals have no souls/spirit and will unlikely live beyond death and have no rewards or punishments.
unrepentant radical muslims will receive their rewards. But it won't be virgins.
.

Quantify for me the 'soul', or 'spirit', of a Muslim terrorist savage. You could correctly call one a possessor of a form of intelligence. You could point to their acts of subhumanity. You'd fail to prove any capacity for human empathy, however.

[revelarts]

To be devoid of all humanity is to prove non-humanity. Not the fact of it. The ABSENCE of it.

Genetic makeup, of itself, proves nothing. I can take a DNA sample, put it in a petrie dish. The genetic makeup of the sample would be identical to a human being, but it wouldn't BE a human being. Try walking up to that petrie dish, and asking its contents for proof of its humanity. See what answer you get ....
... and the DNA sample would NOT be going out into the world and planting bombs. Yes, the DNA sample would not be THAT subhuman.
Quantify for me the 'soul', or 'spirit', of a Muslim terrorist savage. You could correctly call one a possessor of a form of intelligence. You could point to their acts of subhumanity. You'd fail to prove any capacity for human empathy, however.
I get your sentiment but for what it's worth it technically inaccurate.
Humanity and empathy make defines Humane. A positive characteristic of SOME humans but not all.

Cambridge dictionary
Human:
=a ​person
=of or ​typical of ​people:
=a man, woman, or ​child:

Humane:
=showing ​kindness, ​care, and ​sympathy toward ​others, esp. those who are ​suffering:

the synonyms and antonyms of humane make the point well

<dl style="color: rgb(34, 54, 69); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><dt>Synonyms</dt><dd>beneficent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beneficent), benevolent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benevolent), benignant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benignant), compassionate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassionate), good-hearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good-hearted), kind (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kind), kindhearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kindhearted), kindly (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kindly), softhearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/softhearted), sympathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sympathetic), tender (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tender), tenderhearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenderhearted), warmhearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warmhearted)</dd></dl><dl style="color: rgb(34, 54, 69); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><dt>Antonyms</dt><dd>atrocious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atrocious), barbaric (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbaric), barbarous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbarous), bestial (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bestial), brutal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brutal), brute (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brute), brutish (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brutish), callous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/callous), cold-blooded (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cold-blooded), cruel (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruel), fiendish (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiendish), hard-hearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hard-hearted), heartless (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heartless), inhuman (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhuman), inhumane (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhumane), insensate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insensate), sadistic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sadistic), savage (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savage), truculent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truculent), uncompassionate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uncompassionate), unfeeling (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfeeling), unkind (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unkind), unkindly (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unkindly), unsympathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unsympathetic), vicious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicious), wanton (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wanton)</dd>



</dl>.......
"Quantify for me the 'soul', or 'spirit',..."
you can stop right there. That's already above my pay grade Drummond.

[PixieStix]

Who are they, what are they, and where do they come from???

(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016)“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,[ (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016)a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016#fen-NIV-393a)]
for the Lord has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016)toward[ (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016)b (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016#fen-NIV-394b)] all his brothers.” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016)

[Jeff]

Just getting an idea of what ISIS is made of.
They are all human beings. that's self evident. no need for videos to prove that to most people.

I was going to post another longer interview with a guy that killed over 50 people but after about 60 secs i had to turn him off he turned my stomach with his casual laughter and the like.

NO, they are not human beings. Human beings don't set others on fire, they don't run power drills through children as their parents watch, Killem all and let Allah sort em out.

[fj1200]

What was your reason for posting this ? Are you trying to do a 'Margaret Thatcher', and portray this scum as human beings ?

:dunno:


That 17 year old 'boy', who's suddenly and very conveniently 'so sorry' for what he planned to do. Was he only sorry because he'd been caught ? And, I heard no explanation for how it was that he had no sense of right or wrong, or any sense of sheer humanity, that told him to STOP, to never go that far.

You've already suggested that the terrorist Nazis were not subhuman because they expressed regret for their terrorist actions.

[fj1200]

Human beings who violates God's Law have no intrensic right to live. They have a right to salvation. Or to go to Hell..

Not sure what you mean by God's Law but those who violate the Natural Right of life have no right to live.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

not sure what you mean by god's law but those who violate the natural right of life have no right to live.



not sure what you mean by god's law

^^^^ now why does that not shock me in the least????-tyr

[Gunny]

Not sure what you mean by God's Law but those who violate the Natural Right of life have no right to live.

You have no "natural" right to life. You have a right to fight for every breath you take. Every mouthful of food. Every moment of shelter.

[fj1200]

^^^^ now why does that not shock me in the least????-tyr

Because you're confused. Now scamper away again.


You have no "natural" right to life. You have a right to fight for every breath you take. Every mouthful of food. Every moment of shelter.

We are all blessed with Natural Rights; one could argue whether they come from God or not but life, liberty, property, should not be in question; it is the basis for the DoI and Constitution IMO. When those are violated then watch out.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Because you're confused. Now scamper away again.


I do not scamper, you maggot, you wish so dearly that I would!
Projecting yet again as libs always do.
I suspect that soon I will have exposed enough of your duplicity, insane but disguised shit and racing away or else your rewriting opponents quotes and other lib tactics that you'll meet the same fate as JAFAR EVENTUALLY DID.
Which came about primarily due to more exposing of his fraud too!
Enjoy the battle worm.....
Truth may yet melt you too. I see plastic drops falling more each week now. - :laugh::laugh::laugh: --Tyr

[fj1200]

I do not scamper...

You even scamper away from your own cage threads.

[Drummond]

Because you're confused. Now scamper away again.

Tyr isn't confused. He spots you thinking as a Leftie would. He calls you out on it. Talking of which ...


We are all blessed with Natural Rights; one could argue whether they come from God or not but life, liberty, property, should not be in question; it is the basis for the DoI and Constitution IMO. When those are violated then watch out.

All blessed with natural rights, eh ?

Well, that statement would certainly serve, for example, in defending the UK's National Health Service. Lefties over here would argue that 'free' and easy access to the fullest possible medical care was a 'Natural Right', and they'd say that only a State-run system of it could do the job.

Who guarantees that 'Natural Rights' are satisfied, unless the State sees to it ? So, IN FACT, the logic of your argument is one which argues for the flourishing of Big Government, and State control.

State control is the pet project OF THE LEFT. 'Nice' to see that you support the logic which underpins its enforcement, Mr Leftie.

Isn't this exactly as I've promised ? I told you, long ago, that the more you reveal what you believe in, the more obvious it'll be that your thought processes are actually Leftie in nature. No matter how much you protest, the reality is that you think in a particular way, and you can do nothing to stop it.

This is why, when you enter threads, you initially prefer to snipe, instead of just declaring your beliefs from the very start.

[fj1200]

Tyr isn't confused. He spots you thinking as a Leftie would. He calls you out on it. Talking of which ...

He is very much confused. He probably even thinks you are a conservative.


All blessed with natural rights, eh ?

Well, that statement would certainly serve, for example, in defending the UK's National Health Service. Lefties over here would argue that 'free' and easy access to the fullest possible medical care was a 'Natural Right', and they'd say that only a State-run system of it could do the job.

Who guarantees that 'Natural Rights' are satisfied, unless the State sees to it ? So, IN FACT, the logic of your argument is one which argues for the flourishing of Big Government, and State control.

State control is the pet project OF THE LEFT. 'Nice' to see that you support the logic which underpins its enforcement, Mr Leftie.

Isn't this exactly as I've promised ? I told you, long ago, that the more you reveal what you believe in, the more obvious it'll be that your thought processes are actually Leftie in nature. No matter how much you protest, the reality is that you think in a particular way, and you can do nothing to stop it.

This is why, when you enter threads, you initially prefer to snipe, instead of just declaring your beliefs from the very start.

Are you know arguing that the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), the Constitution (life, liberty, property), and John Locke (Natural Rights) are lefties? I'd like to see that argument of yours further fleshed out.

Your lefties "over there" might make that argument but they would be wrong as lefties and you typically are. Preserving the Natural Rights of its citizens is different than taking the Rights of one (property by taxing for example) to pay for the "rights" of another. Their argument involves theft from one to give to another. Try again, your "fact" is again wrong.

That's not to say of course that the government does have a role to play in preserving the Natural Rights of its citizens but it only takes minimal government to provide police protection, preserve liberty, and preserve the rule of law. But there's nothing leftie in any of that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You even scamper away from your own cage threads.
Once I destroyed you there why should I hang around.
You are still free to post there a thousand times--go for it idiot.
I, the victor went onto other conquests and my daily life.
You are still trying to undo the results of that battle as is quite evident by your comment!
I find that amusing as hell.....:laugh:-Tyr

[Gunny]

Because you're confused. Now scamper away again.



We are all blessed with Natural Rights; one could argue whether they come from God or not but life, liberty, property, should not be in question; it is the basis for the DoI and Constitution IMO. When those are violated then watch out.

There is ZERO "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are words on a piece of paper that is only as good as what backs it up.

I have been watching out. I've watched this President violate that piece of paper at every turn, and not allow those of us that back it up to do a damned thing.

[fj1200]

Once I destroyed you...

:laugh: psst. we've been repped the same number of times. ;)

[fj1200]

There is ZERO "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are words on a piece of paper that is only as good as what backs it up.

I have been watching out. I've watched this President violate that piece of paper at every turn, and not allow those of us that back it up to do a damned thing.

It's the basis of our founding but that aside it does take some form of government to ensure those rights or 2A rights to ensure them individually.

And yes, BO sucks.

[Gunny]

It's the basis of our founding but that aside it does take some form of government to ensure those rights or 2A rights to ensure them individually.

And yes, BO sucks.

And those rights have ALWAYS been backed by those who are willing to fight for them. You can't slap words on paper and say "it's so". Tell that to ISIS. The Crips n Bloods. That piece of paper means a whole bunch to THEM, right? Until they chop off your head or shoot you.

You fight fire with fire. Guess what fire does to a piece of paper?

[Drummond]

Your lefties "over there" might make that argument

They do. They say that the only way to guarantee it is for the State to govern in accordance with ensuring their State-given implementation.


but they would be wrong as lefties

They'd never dream of agreeing with you.


Preserving the Natural Rights of its citizens is different than taking the Rights of one (property by taxing for example) to pay for the "rights" of another. Their argument involves theft from one to give to another. Try again, your "fact" is again wrong.

HOW, operationally speaking, DO you ensure those 'rights' are preserved ? Lefties say they have the answer to that .. and since you seem to want to argue strongly in favour of the 'ensured' advancement of such 'rights', I can only believe that your thinking, and theirs, are fully in agreement.

You are correct in one way .. that of saying that 'their argument involves theft from one to give to another'. It does indeed. But their answer is to say that the sacrosanct nature of those 'rights' justifies the taking of those taxes, and that it's irresponsible to object to that.


That's not to say of course that the government does have a role to play in preserving the Natural Rights of its citizens

HOW VERY 'BIG GOVERNMENT' of you !!


but it only takes minimal government to provide police protection, preserve liberty, and preserve the rule of law.

That's not been the British experience, in fact, there's an ongoing debate about how necessary it is to protect, maybe even increase, a GREATER Government role in such things. For example, arguments about maintaining funding for our police force, not cutting numbers, even increasing them in light of terrorist threats. And there's an argument about whether far greater State surveillance is necessary for much the same purpose (our CONSERVATIVE Government wants powers increased).


But there's nothing leftie in any of that.

Our Labour Government traditionally argues for greater State intrusion and control. The surveillance debate originated with them, for example. CCTV cameras multiplied on our streets on their watch (we have the greatest capacity for surveillance from CCTV cameras, per head of population, anywhere on the planet !!).

Come over to Britain, and argue your core beliefs here. You'll find Brits identify you, very readily, as a Leftie thinker.

[Gunny]

Y'all need to get your own fussing thread or subforum. :slap:

I look at some of the topics and click on them and all I see is y'all fussin'. And I don't care if you fuss. Y'all don't like each other and that's fine with me. Everything doesn't have to devolve into a personal pissing contest. Crap, I don't like half the junk Rev posts, but he doesn't bother me as a person.

What some of y'all fail to get through your grapes is, we the vets, fought and plenty have died, for your right to say what you want. In two threads now someone's said somethings about "natural" rights. You have the rights you're willing to fight for. NOTHING is free.

Attack me personally and I WILL dish it back. Otherwise, why not enjoy the freedom others have died for to give you?

[Drummond]

Y'all need to get your own fussing thread or subforum. :slap:

Not at all. FJ could admit the truth about himself. It would only take a single post. In fact, he could manage it in a single sentence.


I look at some of the topics and click on them and all I see is y'all fussin'. And I don't care if you fuss. Y'all don't like each other and that's fine with me. Everything doesn't have to devolve into a personal pissing contest. Crap, I don't like half the junk Rev posts, but he doesn't bother me as a person.

Same answer ..


What some of y'all fail to get through your grapes is, we the vets, fought and plenty have died, for your right to say what you want. In two threads now someone's said somethings about "natural" rights. You have the rights you're willing to fight for. NOTHING is free.

I fully agree ! Rights, you fight to have and keep. Nothing is free. Currently, we've got terrorists whose fondest wish is to tear down the rights and freedoms we take for granted. Fighting them to defeat their goals is, and will prove to be, the only solution to them.

I do enjoy the freedoms I have. Though ... I do so responsibly - since, with freedom comes responsibility. Sadly, not everyone agrees, though.

[namvet]

just like Vietnam. they all look alike. there's the danger

http://i64.tinypic.com/1puhc4.jpg

A self-described ISIS operative has claimed the organization has smuggled more than 4,000 terrorists posing as Syrian refugees into European nations.

The operative claims that the undercover operation is the beginning of a large-scale plot to carry out attacks against the US and its European allies.

“Just wait,” the operative was reported to have said.

The massive surge of Syrian refugees into Europe over the sparsely secured Turkish border has become a major world concern. Germany’s resources have been exhausted, as they struggle to take in approximately 800,000 refugees from war torn Syria.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/this-is-how-many-terrorists-isis-claims-are-hidden-among-syrian-refugees

[namvet]

And those rights have ALWAYS been backed by those who are willing to fight for them. You can't slap words on paper and say "it's so". Tell that to ISIS. The Crips n Bloods. That piece of paper means a whole bunch to THEM, right? Until they chop off your head or shoot you.

You fight fire with fire. Guess what fire does to a piece of paper?

might have upgrade your hardware

http://i64.tinypic.com/2hwchhd.jpg

[Gunny]

might have upgrade your hardware

http://i64.tinypic.com/2hwchhd.jpg

I got an M40A1. THAT upgrade is complete. How to post a pic of it is NOT.:laugh:

[fj1200]

And those rights have ALWAYS been backed by those who are willing to fight for them. You can't slap words on paper and say "it's so". Tell that to ISIS. The Crips n Bloods. That piece of paper means a whole bunch to THEM, right? Until they chop off your head or shoot you.

You fight fire with fire. Guess what fire does to a piece of paper?

I agree, but that's not the point when talking about the founding of our country.

[fj1200]

I can't edit a post for relevant information but you can cut sentences in half trying to parse out some sort of meaning? :rolleyes:


They do. They say that the only way to guarantee it is for the State to govern in accordance with ensuring their State-given implementation.

I can't control them making a wrong argument.


They'd never dream of agreeing with you.

Lefties are often wrong.


HOW, operationally speaking, DO you ensure those 'rights' are preserved ? Lefties say they have the answer to that .. and since you seem to want to argue strongly in favour of the 'ensured' advancement of such 'rights', I can only believe that your thinking, and theirs, are fully in agreement.

You are correct in one way .. that of saying that 'their argument involves theft from one to give to another'. It does indeed. But their answer is to say that the sacrosanct nature of those 'rights' justifies the taking of those taxes, and that it's irresponsible to object to that.

Your belief is wrong. Try sticking with a valid discussion point rather than your incorrect beliefs. The Founders believed so much in those rights that they were placed in the founding documents; your logic demands that they were also Leftie. I'm waiting for you to flesh out that argument a little further.


HOW VERY 'BIG GOVERNMENT' of you !!

That's not big government. A police force, national defense, and 2A rights are not big intrusive government.


That's not been the British experience, in fact, there's an ongoing debate about how necessary it is to protect, maybe even increase, a GREATER Government role in such things. For example, arguments about maintaining funding for our police force, not cutting numbers, even increasing them in light of terrorist threats. And there's an argument about whether far greater State surveillance is necessary for much the same purpose (our CONSERVATIVE Government wants powers increased).

Big government is not conservative.


Our Labour Government traditionally argues for greater State intrusion and control. The surveillance debate originated with them, for example. CCTV cameras multiplied on our streets on their watch (we have the greatest capacity for surveillance from CCTV cameras, per head of population, anywhere on the planet !!).

Come over to Britain, and argue your core beliefs here. You'll find Brits identify you, very readily, as a Leftie thinker.

It appears your Labour government has much in common with your Conservative government in expanding. Finally, please tell me how limited taxes, limited government, etc. is leftie.


FJ could admit the truth about himself.

I have. Repeatedly; small-government, pro-Constitution conservative.

[Gunny]

I agree, but that's not the point when talking about the founding of our country.

How is it not? IIRC, this country was founded on a rebellion against our King. A war.

Truth is, everyone thinks our "founding fathers" were these high-minded idealists when they were mostly elitist businessmen who didn't want to pay their taxes. The US Civil war was fought for basically the same thing. Just a different government doing the same thing. We can't pay tax on our tea to King George, but by God, you WILL pay your whiskey and stamp tax to the founding fathers.

In both wars, it was the poor that fought them, and it was mostly a bunch of rednecks that wanted to just be left alone BUT ...

THEY were willing to fight for their freedom and their yards.

[Black Diamond]

How is it not? IIRC, this country was founded on a rebellion against our King. A war.

Truth is, everyone thinks our "founding fathers" were these high-minded idealists when they were mostly elitist businessmen who didn't want to pay their taxes. The US Civil war was fought for basically the same thing. Just a different government doing the same thing. We can't pay tax on our tea to King George, but by God, you WILL pay your whiskey and stamp tax to the founding fathers.

In both wars, it was the poor that fought them, and it was mostly a bunch of rednecks that wanted to just be left alone BUT ...

THEY were willing to fight for their freedom and their yards.
How many people today are willing to fight for anything?

[Gunny]

How many people today are willing to fight for anything?

Want to start with our illustrious Commander in Weak and work your way down the list?

[fj1200]

How is it not? IIRC, this country was founded on a rebellion against our King. A war.

Truth is, everyone thinks our "founding fathers" were these high-minded idealists when they were mostly elitist businessmen who didn't want to pay their taxes. The US Civil war was fought for basically the same thing. Just a different government doing the same thing. We can't pay tax on our tea to King George, but by God, you WILL pay your whiskey and stamp tax to the founding fathers.

In both wars, it was the poor that fought them, and it was mostly a bunch of rednecks that wanted to just be left alone BUT ...

THEY were willing to fight for their freedom and their yards.

A bunch of rich folks didn't have to risk what they had, win independence, and THEN build such things into the DoI and Constitution. That they did and recognize what it took to make it happen is testament.

[Drummond]

I get your sentiment but for what it's worth it technically inaccurate.
Humanity and empathy make defines Humane. A positive characteristic of SOME humans but not all.

Cambridge dictionary
Human:
=a ​person
=of or ​typical of ​people:
=a man, woman, or ​child:

Humane:
=showing ​kindness, ​care, and ​sympathy toward ​others, esp. those who are ​suffering:

the synonyms and antonyms of humane make the point well

<dl style="color: rgb(34, 54, 69); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><dt>Synonyms</dt><dd>beneficent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beneficent), benevolent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benevolent), benignant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benignant), compassionate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassionate), good-hearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good-hearted), kind (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kind), kindhearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kindhearted), kindly (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kindly), softhearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/softhearted), sympathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sympathetic), tender (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tender), tenderhearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenderhearted), warmhearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warmhearted)</dd></dl><dl style="color: rgb(34, 54, 69); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><dt>Antonyms</dt><dd>atrocious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atrocious), barbaric (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbaric), barbarous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbarous), bestial (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bestial), brutal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brutal), brute (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brute), brutish (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brutish), callous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/callous), cold-blooded (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cold-blooded), cruel (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruel), fiendish (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiendish), hard-hearted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hard-hearted), heartless (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heartless), inhuman (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhuman), inhumane (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhumane), insensate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insensate), sadistic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sadistic), savage (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savage), truculent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truculent), uncompassionate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uncompassionate), unfeeling (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfeeling), unkind (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unkind), unkindly (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unkindly), unsympathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unsympathetic), vicious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicious), wanton (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wanton)</dd>



</dl>.......
"Quantify for me the 'soul', or 'spirit',..."
you can stop right there. That's already above my pay grade Drummond.

You've done an excellent job of illustrating how a description of a terrorist fits the opposite of human qualities. I consider my case to be made for me !

[Gunny]

A bunch of rich folks didn't have to risk what they had, win independence, and THEN build such things into the DoI and Constitution. That they did and recognize what it took to make it happen is testament.

Really? Which of them actually carried a gun? And their ideals are ripped off from the magna carta a tailored to suit them. Not all that brilliant to take someone else's work and tailor it to suit yourself.

[Drummond]

I can't edit a post for relevant information but you can cut sentences in half trying to parse out some sort of meaning? :rolleyes:'

You do whatever you want to do to denigrate or abuse a post that disagrees with you. Your editing frequently goes to the lengths of a complete rewrite, usually to abuse. For example, how many times have you entered a 'Blah' smilie instead of any actual words ?

This is something I've never done, not with your posts, not with anyone's. What wording I quote, I quote from previous posts as written, without redrafting it.


I can't control them making a wrong argument.

But, your measure of agreement, is .. ?


Lefties are often wrong.

Really ? Only 'OFTEN' ? Then ... this means they're also often RIGHT ?

Let's have an honest answer to this question, then. What, according to you, are they often RIGHT about ?


Your belief is wrong. Try sticking with a valid discussion point rather than your incorrect beliefs. The Founders believed so much in those rights that they were placed in the founding documents; your logic demands that they were also Leftie. I'm waiting for you to flesh out that argument a little further.

Did Lefties even emerge on to the world, at that point in history ?

I'm sure your Founders understood that fighting for rights, and for what WAS right, was just and necessary. Do you deny this ? Therefore, the whole idea of them being 'natural' rights, as if they just grew on trees, makes little sense.

A Leftie, however, would insist that there were certain 'basic' rights that were inalienable. I believe I've cited our NHS as an example of one, as the Left claim it should be ?


That's not big government. A police force, national defense, and 2A rights are not big intrusive government.

A police force enforces the law of the State.

National defence cannot even exist without Big Government decision-making, and backing, existing to support it. And tell me, by your reckoning, is your Homeland Security Department actually NOT any form of evidence of Big Government in action ?


Big government is not conservative.

Margaret Thatcher was NOT a Conservative, then ?

Conservatives do not promote needless Big Government, theirs is a philosophy of individual reliance. That said, Big Government is, on occasions, mandated to solve a problem. In the UK, it was the only solution to marauding Unions. In yours, you have Homeland Security which has been given powers of intrusion, granted to them at State level, in order to effectively operate.

Should the Republicans win your next election, will you require them to disband Homeland Security ?


It appears your Labour government has much in common with your Conservative government in expanding. Finally, please tell me how limited taxes, limited government, etc. is leftie.

You're aware that our Conservative Government is committed to austerity measures, to bring spending under control. You are also aware how committed YOU are to opposing their approach. The only halfway logical abandonment of its being overturned would absolutely require a large-scale raising of taxes, in an effort to recoup the shortfall caused by relaxed controls on spending.

This is in line with LEFT-wing political thinking, and as you must know, it's LEFT WING Parties who consistently oppose austerity regimes ..

.. as YOU YOURSELF do.


I have. Repeatedly; small-government, pro-Constitution conservative.

Yet you support an approach which defies it !

[fj1200]

Really? Which of them actually carried a gun? And their ideals are ripped off from the magna carta a tailored to suit them. Not all that brilliant to take someone else's work and tailor it to suit yourself.

I think George Washington got shot at a lot.

[Gunny]

I think George Washington got shot at a lot.

No he didn't. Maybe in the French and Indian War. He's been glamorized a lot. I want to see someone in sub-zero weather posing on the prow of rowboat. I'll stay in my tuck and watch from the bank, thanks. Generals didn't lead from the front then. And certainly not the commander of the entire army.

[fj1200]

You do whatever you want to do to denigrate or abuse a post that disagrees with you. Your editing frequently goes to the lengths of a complete rewrite, usually to abuse. For example, how many times have you entered a 'Blah' smilie instead of any actual words ?

This is something I've never done, not with your posts, not with anyone's. What wording I quote, I quote from previous posts as written, without redrafting it.

No I don't. Your incessant whining doesn't need to be repeated.


But, your measure of agreement, is .. ?

Virtually zero.


Really ? Only 'OFTEN' ? Then ... this means they're also often RIGHT ?

Let's have an honest answer to this question, then. What, according to you, are they often RIGHT about ?

They get torture right but probably for the wrong reason.


Did Lefties even emerge on to the world, at that point in history ?

I'm sure your Founders understood that fighting for rights, and for what WAS right, was just and necessary. Do you deny this ? Therefore, the whole idea of them being 'natural' rights, as if they just grew on trees, makes little sense.

A Leftie, however, would insist that there were certain 'basic' rights that were inalienable. I believe I've cited our NHS as an example of one, as the Left claim it should be ?

I don't care what a leftie would insist when they're wrong. Your stretching of logic is also wrong.


A police force enforces the law of the State.

National defence cannot even exist without Big Government decision-making, and backing, existing to support it. And tell me, by your reckoning, is your Homeland Security Department actually NOT any form of evidence of Big Government in action ?

Homeland is big government in action and is largely ineffective. Kathianne has posted articles pointing this out but as I recall you failed to address them. National defense can be big government such as WWII but there is more than one way to wage war and supply armaments, etc. FDR to his credit, and in defiance of his advisers, chose one driven by the private markets as opposed to one done by a command and control structure.


Margaret Thatcher was NOT a Conservative, then ?

Conservatives do not promote needless Big Government, theirs is a philosophy of individual reliance. That said, Big Government is, on occasions, mandated to solve a problem. In the UK, it was the only solution to marauding Unions. In yours, you have Homeland Security which has been given powers of intrusion, granted to them at State level, in order to effectively operate.

Should the Republicans win your next election, will you require them to disband Homeland Security ?

Big government is not conservative. Just because a conservative might advocate big government doesn't make their big government solution conservative.

I hope the next Republican president will make Homeland effective and not just big. Your also wrong about the unions, deregulation of labor markets is not big government, it's small government by its very nature.


You're aware that our Conservative Government is committed to austerity measures, to bring spending under control. You are also aware how committed YOU are to opposing their approach. The only halfway logical abandonment of its being overturned would absolutely require a large-scale raising of taxes, in an effort to recoup the shortfall caused by relaxed controls on spending.

This is in line with LEFT-wing political thinking, and as you must know, it's LEFT WING Parties who consistently oppose austerity regimes ..

.. as YOU YOURSELF do.

No it's not. Osborne pushed through some tax cuts. Lefties don't generally advocate cutting taxes and regulations as I do. You continue to lie and continue to fail to point out my desire to increase taxes.


Yet you support an approach which defies it !

Never have.

[jimnyc]

I wish I could interview someone from ISIS. It would be more along the lines of a mafia enforcer trying to get some last minute information out of a snitch that is dead either way. :)

[Drummond]

No I don't. Your incessant whining doesn't need to be repeated.

Abusive remarking is not debate. Neither is editing what you prefer not to read.


They get torture right but probably for the wrong reason.

Curious that you seem unsure.

Have a catch-up with whoever writes your scripts, then come back with some definite information.


I don't care what a leftie would insist when they're wrong. Your stretching of logic is also wrong.

I wouldn't know. It never happens.


Homeland is big government in action and is largely ineffective.

So, you DO want them disbanded ? Yes, or no ? If 'no' -- why not ??


Kathianne has posted articles pointing this out but as I recall you failed to address them.

What Kathianne posts holds zero interest for me.


National defense can be big government such as WWII but there is more than one way to wage war and supply armaments, etc. FDR to his credit, and in defiance of his advisers, chose one driven by the private markets as opposed to one done by a command and control structure.

I'm not following, but then, it doesn't matter ... the fact remains that national defence cannot help but involve Big Government decisions and actions. The War on Terror, for example, involved these .. it couldn't NOT do so.

It's not a question of approval of them. It IS a question of living in the real world, and doing what you must to deal with its many problems.


Big government is not conservative. Just because a conservative might advocate big government doesn't make their big government solution conservative.

But since what I say about the necessity of some Big Government decisions and follow-up actions is true .. if YOUR 'logic' were also true, you'd be saying that there was no such thing as a Conservative Government !

Perhaps Lefties would love to claim it.


I hope the next Republican president will make Homeland effective and not just big.

So ... NOT disbanded, then ? Excellent. So, you CAN approve of a Big Government approach !


Your also wrong about the unions, deregulation of labor markets is not big government, it's small government by its very nature.

Immaterial to anything I've discussed. My references to Unions has to do with Mrs Thatcher having no choice but to deal with them by wielding the power of the State against them.


No it's not. Osborne pushed through some tax cuts.

He does, and will, when he can. Likewise, he'll increase taxes when he must. Being a Conservative, he's a realist.


Lefties don't generally advocate cutting taxes and regulations as I do. You continue to lie and continue to fail to point out my desire to increase taxes.

You express it indirectly. You do so by being so solidly anti-austerity. The only way that can be made to 'work' (and then, only temporarily, since it's no solution to fiscal weakness at all, ultimately) is to go in for tax hikes.

LEFT WING political Parties go in for such hikes. They ALSO fully agree with you about opposing austerity measures.

Funny, isn't it, that I can supply a list of countries' LEFT WING Parties who see things your way ... and equally 'funny' that this doesn't give you the smallest pause for thought ...

[fj1200]

Abusive remarking is not debate. Neither is editing what you prefer not to read.

Neither is whining yet you persist.


Curious that you seem unsure.

Have a catch-up with whoever writes your scripts, then come back with some definite information.

I don't keep track of lefties like you do.

And that's why you're an delusional fool.


I wouldn't know. It never happens.

:dunno:


So, you DO want them disbanded ? Yes, or no ? If 'no' -- why not ??

I want them to be effective and Constitutional.


What Kathianne posts holds zero interest for me.

Because you ignore what proves you wrong.


I'm not following, but then, it doesn't matter ... the fact remains that national defence cannot help but involve Big Government decisions and actions. The War on Terror, for example, involved these .. it couldn't NOT do so.

It's not a question of approval of them. It IS a question of living in the real world, and doing what you must to deal with its many problems.

Incorrect assumption.


But since what I say about the necessity of some Big Government decisions and follow-up actions is true .. if YOUR 'logic' were also true, you'd be saying that there was no such thing as a Conservative Government !

Perhaps Lefties would love to claim it.

Incorrect assumption. You've advocated and defended big government actions even when not necessary.


So ... NOT disbanded, then ? Excellent. So, you CAN approve of a Big Government approach !

Not when it's ineffective.


Immaterial to anything I've discussed. My references to Unions has to do with Mrs Thatcher having no choice but to deal with them by wielding the power of the State against them.

It's central. You do not understand conservatism. You can only defend what Mags did without having a base understanding.


He does, and will, when he can. Likewise, he'll increase taxes when he must. Being a Conservative, he's a realist.

Tax cuts worked. Tax increases do not. I've shown repeatedly in other threads that increasing taxes and cutting spending is a loser of an economic policy. If you want to call whatever the Brits are doing as austerity that's fine with me but it's not what I call austerity.


You express it indirectly. You do so by being so solidly anti-austerity. The only way that can be made to 'work' (and then, only temporarily, since it's no solution to fiscal weakness at all, ultimately) is to go in for tax hikes.

LEFT WING political Parties go in for such hikes. They ALSO fully agree with you about opposing austerity measures.

Funny, isn't it, that I can supply a list of countries' LEFT WING Parties who see things your way ... and equally 'funny' that this doesn't give you the smallest pause for thought ...

Laughable; when I don't say what you imagine to be true then you just make it up. Please supply that list of left wing parties that advocate for a reduction of tax rates and regulatory burdens otherwise you're a lying sack.

And for goodness sake, learn how to post in paragraphs rather than parsing a post sentence by half-sentence. It shows an amazing amount of immaturity on your part in how you discuss things.