Another Open Carry Texas success story ruins it for Washingtonians.....

[sudden valley gunner]

I believe that "flesh" is the word you were looking for,

With some it's definitely flush......lol...

but yea that is what I meant good catch.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Ahhhh, the blind support of government by one of its agents, and one of its blind worshipers.

Premise: Government must exist in some form.
Premise: Government is inherently evil, since at its core it relies on coercive power.
Conclusion: Therefore those subjected to its power must be ever vigilant and fight against the inevitable abuses.

That's kind of the stuff America was founded on.

+1 That means being vigilant against people like him and he don't like that. So he will do all he can to paint liberty minded people as bad as possible.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Sometimes I like to take a counter position just for the sake of argument.... Especially if a thread is full of only one opinion.

Sounds "trollish" to me.

Not really.....

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

troll; One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

The difference between "maximum argument" and "argument" is one of degree, not kind.

 

[()pen(arry]

LOL you are dense, you continue to deny actual history while accusing me of denying history? I just posted a newspaper article from the 1960s that supports the point I made, go read a book or two, in fact go talk to Sudden valley gunner if you don't believe me, he'll tell you the exact same thing. At least I think he would judging by another discussion we had several months ago

Don't be willfully obtuse. Your post, as you might recall:

And the whites only drinking fountains existed due to mandates. Most people wouldn't otherwise spend the money to make that many sets of everything.

If the government installs the drinking fountain, it belongs to the public, if a private business installs one they should be able to set whatever rules they want,....

Must Soviets didn't participate in the rounding up of political dissidents and ethnic minorities. Most Chinese don't participate in the disappearance of protestors. Most Germans didn't staff concentration camps. Hell, most Southerners (much less American colonists in general) didn't own slaves. These are excuses for nothing.

The actions of despotic and tyrannical governments are never taken in isolation from the societies that birth them. That the ubiquitous racism in the post-Colonial South was codified into segregationist law only highlights the ubiquity and vehemence of that racism. Only a great ignoramus could conclude from statutory segregation mandates that, but for those mandates, the phenomenon would not have existed, or would have been minimal. Race-restricted drinking fountains predated those mandates. There was no popular outcry by whites in the South against out-of-touch, overbearing government. The society of the time created, coddled, and encouraged the political will that resulted in Jim Crow laws. George Wallace was one of the foremost advocates of segregation in the 60s and 70s, and he was elected governor of Alabama twice.

Especially in democracies, it is absurd to assert that a society is not the origin of the horrific policies of its government. Your claims demonstrate your naivete-turned-ignorance. Whites-only drinking fountains, and segregation more generally, existed because they were a manifestation of the collected mindset and will of the people of the South. Glibly dismissing them as the happenstance of statute, as if society weren't complicit, as if the utter hatred of blacks so prevalent among whites in segregationist states weren't sufficient to drive people against their financial interests, shows how thoroughly you disregard reality. You can't proof-text your way out of being a complete fool.

 

[Primus]

+1 That means being vigilant against people like him and he don't like that. So he will do all he can to paint liberty minded people as bad as possible.

Not remotely true but dramatic as usual.

I support your liberty to be a drama queen


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[()pen(arry]

EMN has a point, a surprising one at that due to his usual government is the answer viewpoints, but of course he seems to hate the south.

As Walter Williams brought out there was a reason there were Jim Crow laws, becuase not all of the people were acting like racist bigots and were selling and exchanging with people who were not thier skin color. So it took the state to enforce a mandatory bigotry (many of the laws were borrowed from an existing practice like Lincoln's home state of Illinois). As we can see from many of the "its the law" types here who will blindly follow and believe its moral to obey something just becuase its law, it appears that it entrenched culturally a horrible wrong doing, that may have ended much further in a free market society.

Nothing Erik stated follows from this. Not one thing.

And Jim Crow laws didn't entrench racism; they manifested and magnified it.

 

[wimwag]

If I respectfully requested you not to my house would keep coming until i escalated the situation?

A request is all that should be needed.

They went so far as to male a national statement they dong want us there. So if people see us there then we look like jack a**es who refuse to abide a request.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

huh huh...he said dong....

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Don't be willfully obtuse. Your post, as you might recall:



Must Soviets didn't participate in the rounding up of political dissidents and ethnic minorities. Most Chinese don't participate in the disappearance of protestors. Most Germans didn't staff concentration camps. Hell, most Southerners (much less American colonists in general) didn't own slaves. These are excuses for nothing.

The actions of despotic and tyrannical governments are never taken in isolation from the societies that birth them. That the ubiquitous racism in the post-Colonial South was codified into segregationist law only highlights the ubiquity and vehemence of that racism. Only a great ignoramus could conclude from statutory segregation mandates that, but for those mandates, the phenomenon would not have existed, or would have been minimal. Race-restricted drinking fountains predated those mandates. There was no popular outcry by whites in the South against out-of-touch, overbearing government. The society of the time created, coddled, and encouraged the political will that resulted in Jim Crow laws. George Wallace was one of the foremost advocates of segregation in the 60s and 70s, and he was elected governor of Alabama twice.

Especially in democracies, it is absurd to assert that a society is not the origin of the horrific policies of its government. Your claims demonstrate your naivete-turned-ignorance. Whites-only drinking fountains, and segregation more generally, existed because they were a manifestation of the collected mindset and will of the people of the South. Glibly dismissing them as the happenstance of statute, as if society weren't complicit, as if the utter hatred of blacks so prevalent among whites in segregationist states weren't sufficient to drive people against their financial interests, shows how thoroughly you disregard reality. You can't proof-text your way out of being a complete fool.

Calm Down.

First, the comparison between gun rights and segregation did not come from me, I merely stated segregation in the south was due to legal mandate, which is a historically correct statement. Target is not mandated to ban guns in their stores, so the comparison of target to Jim Crow was not only hyperbole, it was not correct. Earlier rape was used as a metaphor for gun bans...... Also by someone else.

You ever play the card game "spades" once spades are broken they can be played. I didn't start segregation and rape a anologies, but you're offended only by my responses. Breaking the argument means I can use the equivelant against it. A correct comparison to Jim Crow would be if seattle passed an ordinance requiring businesses to ban guns in their stores because the majority of seattlites hate guns. This should be easy to follow.

The reasons for segregation occurred because of majority support, but we are not supposed to be a democracy. In a republic laws like that should never have been passed. But that's a separate argument, we can argue this all the way back to reconstruction. Fact is, in the scope of this discussion the two concepts are not equal, solely because in one the power of the state was used.

If you find the comparison offensive, then condemn the person who made it,

George Wallace, btw was elected governor four to imes, read a bit about the road to his final term and the legacy of that term if you want a heartwarming historical story ending.

Also I find interesting, that when the CRA was passed requiring desegregation in places of public accommodation, the same folks who supported the laws restricting parties from doing business as they pleased, then complained that it violated the business rights of business owners to make them de-segregate. Better idea, let's not use the state to compel parties to do or not do business with each other, and if we encounter a problem like the old south, let's evaluate and solve it using free market solutions, and not a state hammer.

Even businesses in seattle allow open carry for people who aren't acting wierd....

I OC in downtown semi frequently, I have never been asked to leave any business.i don't even know who's on the gun free zone seattle list because I don't check it, I come in OC, order something, pay in cash, leave a 1 in the tip jar and leave, all smiles and pleasantries, never asked to leave, never had the cops called me, well I did once in Montana but that's another story, no problems with the police, etc...

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Not remotely true but dramatic as usual.

I support your liberty to be a drama queen


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Really? You post history would show otherwise, although you have calmed your tactics down a bit.

Nothing Erik stated follows from this. Not one thing.

And Jim Crow laws didn't entrench racism; they manifested and magnified it.

They did both. By making it unlawful to not be a bigot it helped entrench a segregated culture. Look at some laws now and how people just assume its a good law and have never looked into the history of it and they follow them blindly.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Calm Down.

Wow, what an a$$hat lead in. You might as well as just added 'boy' to the end.

 

[solus]

Don't be willfully obtuse. Your post, as you might recall:

Must Soviets didn't participate in the rounding up of political dissidents and ethnic minorities. Most Chinese don't participate in the disappearance of protestors. Most Germans didn't staff concentration camps. Hell, most Southerners (much less American colonists in general) didn't own slaves. These are excuses for nothing.

The actions of despotic and tyrannical governments are never taken in isolation from the societies that birth them. That the ubiquitous racism in the post-Colonial South was codified into segregationist law only highlights the ubiquity and vehemence of that racism. Only a great ignoramus could conclude from statutory segregation mandates that, but for those mandates, the phenomenon would not have existed, or would have been minimal. Race-restricted drinking fountains predated those mandates. There was no popular outcry by whites in the South against out-of-touch, overbearing government. The society of the time created, coddled, and encouraged the political will that resulted in Jim Crow laws. George Wallace was one of the foremost advocates of segregation in the 60s and 70s, and he was elected governor of Alabama twice.

Especially in democracies, it is absurd to assert that a society is not the origin of the horrific policies of its government. Your claims demonstrate your naivete-turned-ignorance. Whites-only drinking fountains, and segregation more generally, existed because they were a manifestation of the collected mindset and will of the people of the South. Glibly dismissing them as the happenstance of statute, as if society weren't complicit, as if the utter hatred of blacks so prevalent among whites in segregationist states weren't sufficient to drive people against their financial interests, shows how thoroughly you disregard reality. You can't proof-text your way out of being a complete fool.

so pray tell who did round up the dissidents in the USSR, or participated in the disappearance of china's protesters, or staff Auschwitz? Sorry, it was the Russian, Chinese, German citizens from their individual society who committed those acts.

consider this, who built the facilities at Auschwitz? German industries w/local workers 'proudly' built the facilities to further facilitate their society's goals.there was no governmental statutes saying the industries 'had' to build equipment needed to exterminate a population.

to blame governmental democracies for this type of abuse is a fallacy of monumental proportions.

history over the years has shown society's 'human' nature will take over in and generate the atrocities on their own, without any type of government assistance. do you truly believe the genocide going on in Iraq, Central African Republic, Rwanda, etc., and those are recent events, go back a century ~ the genocide of Armenia's citizens was done by the government ~ nope...?

please take a look at Stanford's prison experiment cancelled after six days because guard brutality and 'prison' conditions. "...of more than fifty people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. " the guards turned into aggressive, abusive brutal individuals to the 'subjects'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

or Elliot's blue eye/brown eye 'exercise' carried out on third grade students in Iowa. this 'exercise' showed the cruelty the children built up towards the 'inferior' students without help from the government.

finally check out Milgram's infamous experiment where quote: Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" The experiments have been repeated many times in the following years with consistent results within differing societies. unquote. bottom line: "...65 percent of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock..." "None of the participants who refused to administer the final shocks insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections..." ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

these experiments show abuse is not government's handiwork...this is society's citizens on their own psychologically instituting abuse due to 'human nature'.

to second guess the southern culture hundreds of years after the fact and applying 'our' 21st century societal norms and then blame the olde culture on the historical governmental actions per se is a travesty and reflects you are engaging in, as civil rights activist Elliot stated: "I could see that they weren't internalizing a thing. They were doing what white people do. When white people sit down to discuss racism what they are experiencing is shared ignorance."

ipse

 

[Dave_pro2a]

finally check out Milgram's infamous experiment where quote: Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" The experiments have been repeated many times in the following years with consistent results within differing societies. unquote. bottom line: "...65 percent of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock..." "None of the participants who refused to administer the final shocks insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections..." ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

And FB can manipulate elections by determining what shows up in FB user feeds.

And FB wants unfettered immigration.

So who is to blame when we get it? The voters, or FB?

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...emotions-and-make-us-vote-what-else-can-it-do

 

[solus]

And FB can manipulate elections by determining what shows up in FB user feeds.

And FB wants unfettered immigration.

So who is to blame when we get it? The voters, or FB?

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...emotions-and-make-us-vote-what-else-can-it-do

that sir is an Orwellian society.

http://studentsfororwell.org/

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

I also do not hate the south, I do not root for them in the historical discussions of the civil war, not the same thing. I also do not think we would've benefited from having a separate slave country right to our immediate south..... Almost ironically, I think we'd be complaining about illegal immigrants from the south in a whole separate way if we allowed them to secede, slave economies have a tendency to not benefit most of everyone except an extreme upper class....

You have absolutely no idea what the "South" is or how the "southern culture" came to be what it is today. You are allowing your schooling interfere with your education.

Google "life on a southern plantation" and read. You are quite free to cheery pick the "sources" displayed to you as a result of your search.....your "world view" may be in peril though.

Calm Down.

<snip>

According to my Grand Daddy Jim Crow laws were pay back for yankees coming down here and "putting all sorts of crazy ideas in the heads of perfectly normal colored folk." My own personal experience, from growing up in the 60s, in the south, black folks were not as oppressed as you would like to think they were. In fact, they are less "empowered" today than they were when I was a kid.

It is entertaining to read yankees discussing how life was, is, and should have been, in the south.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You have absolutely no idea what the "South" is or how the "southern culture" came to be what it is today. You are allowing your schooling interfere with your education.

Google "life on a southern plantation" and read. You are quite free to cheery pick the "sources" displayed to you as a result of your search.....your "world view" may be in peril though.

According to my Grand Daddy Jim Crow laws were pay back for yankees coming down here and "putting all sorts of crazy ideas in the heads of perfectly normal colored folk." My own personal experience, from growing up in the 60s, in the south, black folks were not as oppressed as you would like to think they were. In fact, they are less "empowered" today than they were when I was a kid.

It is entertaining to read yankees discussing how life was, is, and should have been, in the south.

^^^^^^^^^^^

QFR

Can't tell if this is serious or satire......

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

^^^^^^^^^^^

QFR

Can't tell if this is serious or satire......

sorry erik,, you misspelled QFT

it has to be satire!
no one in a right mind would write that with a straight face..

 

[OC for ME]

^^^^^^^^^^^

QFR

Can't tell if this is serious or satire......

The only thing that is serious about my post is the opening statement.

You have absolutely no idea what the "South" is or how the "southern culture" came to be what it is today.

The rest, well, it had ya thinking one way or the other which proves my point, you have no idea about the "south" and "southerners."

 

[WalkingWolf]

You have absolutely no idea what the "South" is or how the "southern culture" came to be what it is today. You are allowing your schooling interfere with your education.

Google "life on a southern plantation" and read. You are quite free to cheery pick the "sources" displayed to you as a result of your search.....your "world view" may be in peril though.

According to my Grand Daddy Jim Crow laws were pay back for yankees coming down here and "putting all sorts of crazy ideas in the heads of perfectly normal colored folk." My own personal experience, from growing up in the 60s, in the south, black folks were not as oppressed as you would like to think they were. In fact, they are less "empowered" today than they were when I was a kid.

It is entertaining to read yankees discussing how life was, is, and should have been, in the south.

A lot of people are confused about southern culture, it is true that AA are in more peril today then they were in the 60's. I also grew up in that time period. BUT something that the south is very different from the Racist Yankees is that we live together in the south. You will not see small towns devoid of African Americans, even the country it is a mix of ethnicity. Black people that grew up here are mostly respectful good people, compare that with the children of transplanted yankees(military brats) and the pure vile hatred for whites shows it's colors.

Jim Crow laws were written by the NRA, Yankees!

 

[OC for ME]

A lot of people are confused about southern culture, it is true that AA are in more peril today then they were in the 60's. I also grew up in that time period. BUT something that the south is very different from the Racist Yankees is that we live together in the south. You will not see small towns devoid of African Americans, even the country it is a mix of ethnicity. Black people that grew up here are mostly respectful good people, compare that with the children of transplanted yankees (military brats) and the pure vile hatred for whites shows it's colors.

Jim Crow laws were written by the NRA, Yankees!

Confused? You are being very accommodating to yankees.

No other culture, yankees, hold such a dim view of southerners. Yet, they move down "here" and work to change us. Being back swamp hicks we are obviously too ignurt to understand that the "War" is over and we lost. Ironically, they are too myopic to see that they continue the War that they won.

Atlanta used to be a city that was the jewel of the "New South," was intended to be anyway, but all ya gotta do is follow the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation to see that yankees ruined that once great southern city.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

^^^^^^^^^^^

QFR

Can't tell if this is serious or satire......

WUT, you read your own posts!