Time To Watch and Listen

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

If you truly believe the Holy Spirit had no hand in the penning of the bible, all I can do is pray you one day realize your mistake.

Perhaps this is my lack of religious education coming through; however, the bible was written by men, yes? While it may have been influenced or written about the life of Jesus and the story of God, it was still written by men, nonetheless. And, as I'm sure we can all agree, man is not infallible in their memory nor interpretation of events.

In addition, books were selected and ordered by the Council of Nicaea... so any kind of 'spin' could've been created on the bible as they saw fit.

I'm honestly not trying to be blasphemous, nor do I know if what I'm saying would be considered as such, but the good book didn't just suddenly materialize itself in the hands of the Pope one day.
Yes, the HANDS of men wrote what the HOLY SPIRIT moved them to write. While man IS not infallible, the HOLY SPIRIT certainly is.
The pope is merely the leader of the Catholic church and is NOT Jesus' successor.

 

[bms429]

imported post

maybe it would have been better to just leave the south alone when they seceded....

they would have gotten everything right and would be the model country that america should be today.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Now, THAT's funny !!! Obviously, you've not met the Southerners I have. Especially the one's who "serve" the public trust.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

There, you prove my entire point for me. You do NOT believe in rights, but "privileges" with restrictions which meet with YOUR approval. That's basically a police state, of which I want no part, thank you.

Tomotoes, Tomatas.

Once again, your laser-thin narrow definition of "rights" you may do anything you like without thinking of the consequences or impact on those around you which, if you live in a very rural area with nothing between you and a neighbor but 10 miles; however, where you have urban areas with people who don't tend to get along, yes, you must DEFINE what constitutes going outside of proper behavior and how to punish those who break the law.

Maybe I'm nearsighted, but to me, that's how people manage to maintain a civil society.

YOU believe it's reasonable !! That brings the discussion right back to my question: under YOUR form of "government," just who gets to decide the definition of "reasonable?" And the answer is: you.

I already answered this in my previous post -- ELECTED OFFICIALS determine what's "reasonable"... the people whom we elect into office to write legislation and, if we don't like the job they do, we get to change them.

Shouting "fire" in a theatre would be the appropriate thing to do, especially if the theatre WAS on fire. The act of speaking a single word( in this instance, "fire") in and of itself does not induce panic.

No argument there -- if you shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre and there was actually a fire, you should be heralded as a hero. And the word itself, "Fire" does not induce panic... However, in the context of being in a crowded threatre and you shout, indicating that the building is on fire when it is not, that makes you an irresponsible twit with no thought of what your actions may have on others. Parents with small children, young adults and the elderly would most likely become panicked considering their lack of mobility and may trample or be trampled upon.

Threats: I'll always remember an incident when a Cajun from "sout" Loosiana was jumping up and down, upset that his ex-wife was dating someone else. This Cajun carried on for quite some time,even after a cop arrived. In the presence of the cop, the recipient of the tongue lashing finally had enough. He said, and I quote, "YOU come to MY house, I'll kill you." The Cajun grabbed the cops arm and asked, "did you hear that? What do you say about that?" The cop calmly replied, " If I were you, I wouldn't go to his house."

This wasn't meant to provoke an immediate reaction and would not be construed as 'Fighting Words' thus being protected under the First Amendment. Nothing wrong there.

Again, all the laws in the world will NOT create your Utopia, where nobody is ever harmed, wronged or killed. So you and the rest of your kind need to just let it go.

Are you actually *reading* my responses or just taking this as an opportunity to write the first thing that comes to your head? In my last reply I said, "I concede that laws don't encourage responsibility -- folks are either going to commit crimes or not, regardless of them; however, I do think they're prudent to define what constitutes a crime, violation or infringement on someone elses rights and what the punishment is."

And, as much as I realized that laws don't make for a Utopian society, the same can also certainly be said for Anarchy.

If "reasonable" can be determined by the bozos Amerikans select, you have no rights, you have privileges. When you have a majority deciding for the minority, you have a democracy, something the founders went to great lengths to avoid. So much for that. Mob rule? Yes, we have it now. Look around.

Perhaps you should take a look at the different forms of government that exist and understand the nuances between them. A Democracy is mob rule -- rule by the majority. If you, Tom and Susan are in a Democracy and Tom wants to split up your land, between the three of you, guess what, Tom and Susan are going to get what they want by majority vote.

The purpose of a Republic is to keep the majority in check to protect the rights of the people and the minority because, anytime the party currently in administration gets out of hand, it can be changed by the people.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Lots of words DO have narrow definitions. I don't create the words and their definitions. Get over it. Yes, spoken words and actions DO have consequences. I know that is hard for you Utopians to accept, but try.
Proper behavior: reminds me of present day England where they arrest people for being "anti-social." If you don't fit into THEIR definition of "normal," you're a criminal. So much for individualism/freedom.
Civil society: give it up, it ain't gonna happen, least not till Jesus returns. Accept that fact and move on.
Ahhhhhh, elected "representatives" define "reasonable." Now, THERE's an encouraging thought. And if we don't like them, we can vote them out. Uh huh. I guess that's why now-ex-congressman Richard "Millhouse" Baker used to tell me all the time, "Mark, if you don't like what I'm doing, feel free to either run against me or support someone who will." As much as I have no love for Richard, I'll give him this much: he KNEW how futile it is to try to turn out incumbents, much less MOST of them. That is a sucker bet. If you really, truly believe that is how REAL change is going to come about, you're dreaming.
"Panic" is how SOME people react to certain situations. I have a word for them: sheeple. Are you a sheeple? Even when being fired upon(23 times), I never did panic, but remained calm and used common sense, which helped save my life.
If laws don't create your Utopia and anarchy doesn't create Utopia, why not go with the anarchy? It'd be LOTS cheaper on your wallet !!!! Imagine, no federal income taxes, no state income taxes, no sales taxes, no sewer user fees, etc. The benefits would be endless, not to mention you could actually find a parking place at Dunkin Donuts without having to wait for a cop to leave.
The purpose of a CONSTITUTIONAL republic is to keep EVERYBODY in check, especially the government. We've already lost that one, get ready for what history indicates IS coming.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Lots of words DO have narrow definitions. I don't create the words and their definitions. Get over it. Yes, spoken words and actions DO have consequences. I know that is hard for you Utopians to accept, but try.

Wow, now you're just stepping all over what you're saying -- now words and actions DO have consequences? But what are those consequences? Who decides them for you in your world with no laws?

Civil society: give it up, it ain't gonna happen, least not till Jesus returns. Accept that fact and move on.

You're the bible guy, right? When Jesus returns, won't that be the second coming? Armageddon? Everyone will be gone anyhow.

If you really, truly believe that is how REAL change is going to come about, you're dreaming.

I effected the change of a couple of laws in my time by dealing with my duly elected official. My latest effort to strike down an illegal ordinance in Delaware that restricts the carrying of a firearm in County parks has hit a little bit of a bump; however, I'm pursuing other actions and am confident that, by a bit of tenacity, I will be successful.

As a single person, I can make small changes -- I don't know if you'd consider that a REAL change in your world; however, I feel I've made the world better for Second Amendment advocates by why I do.

"Panic" is how SOME people react to certain situations. I have a word for them: sheeple. Are you a sheeple? Even when being fired upon(23 times), I never did panic, but remained calm and used common sense, which helped save my life.

And I guess the question is... what did you do to be fired upon 23 times? Though, that fact does seem to explain a lot.

If laws don't create your Utopia and anarchy doesn't create Utopia, why not go with the anarchy? It'd be LOTS cheaper on your wallet !!!! Imagine, no federal income taxes, no state income taxes, no sales taxes, no sewer user fees, etc.

Well, Delaware has no sales tax, so I guess we're a bit closer to Anarchy than most states. However, as I've mentioned before, as a Father of two where my family works and schools in probably the most densely populated urab area in the state, I'd much rather raise my children in a government where people will be held accountable for their actions and that's clearly defined and spelled out and I have methods to effect changes if I feel the punisments aren't appropraite.

The benefits would be endless, not to mention you could actually find a parking place at Dunkin Donuts without having to wait for a cop to leave.

I'm actually more of a Krispy Kreme person, myself.

The purpose of a CONSTITUTIONAL republic is to keep EVERYBODY in check, especially the government. We've already lost that one, get ready for what history indicates IS coming.

So, where did it get lost? Is there a defining moment? A certain point and time when everything changed for you?

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Consequences are the results of actions. This is not a science, so I doubt this field of uncertainty would fit in your "civil" world of "suffer no harm." Get over it.
Despite the fact you're an admitted agnostic, you still (possibly) possess the ability to learn. Grab a King James version and start reading, front to back. Hint: the good guys win in the end.
Small changes: would that be the same thing as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it's sinking? THOSE were "small changes!!"
Unlike most of the Amerikan sheeple, I prefer to handle things for myself, including things that may very possibly have severe consequences. My younger brother and I were looking for a REAL criminal, a bad person who inhabited BAD neighborhoods. One of the criminals your buddies the cops said they couldn't find. Well, WE found him the very first day of our search. Imagine that. On the second and third days, we were attempting to determine just where this criminal slept at night. Seems some local drug dealers who just happened to conduct their trade on a nearby corner were offended by the sight of two homeys in their all black ghetto. On the third morning, one of the two drug dealers unloaded a 30 round clip in our direction. 23 casings were recovered afterwards. Just part of life, which has no guarantees. Funny thing, though, the very next morning, the cops finally "discovered" where our criminal slept at night. What are the odds of that?
Effect changes? LOL, you're dreaming. Worse, you've been drinking the KoolAid, komrade. The state will decide for you, your wishes be damned. There are literally thousands of REAL Americans who can testify how your friend, the government, ran roughshod all over them. Are you really that gullible?
Lots of folks have differing opinions as to the exact date our train of freedom left the tracks. Most agree with me it really started when the Great Violater (no, not George W. Bush) trashed the constitution back in the 1860's. Lots of others point to 1913, the year of the so-called "income" tax/federal reserve. Others yet, point to the regime of FDR. Irregardless, we're well off track and NOT even beginning to head in the right direction.
"Everything" didn't change for me all at once. Despite being the product of government controlled schools, I managed to learn the truth/facts for myself, despite being brainwashed by my upbringing/environment. What's preventing YOU from upgrading yourself?

 

[sprat]

imported post

Gee Rob

I thought giving advise (good advise)about buying sub standard weapons was going to get me trashed!!!!

don't sweat it, some folks have lots of time on there hands and need a place to vent

well thanks for the heads up on the C-span linkup

sprat

 

[Wynder]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Get over it.

I think this is about the sixth time you've said, "Get over it." in your posts -- you're begining to show your lack of vocabulary and ability to participate in civil discourse where your thoughts and ideas are challenged and be able to respond to them intelligently.

Despite the fact you're an admitted agnostic, you still (possibly) possess the ability to learn. Grab a King James version and start reading, front to back. Hint: the good guys win in the end.

So, anyone who does not believe what you believe is stupid. Again, your true colors show.

Effect changes? LOL, you're dreaming. Worse, you've been drinking the KoolAid, komrade. Are you really that gullible?

Let's see. I didn't like a law, I went to my elected official, convinced him to change a law even though he didn't fully agree with it, and it eventually changed. I think you're missing somethign there.

Honestly, you're not making this fun anymore by completely ignoring the items you don't want to respond to and you're showing frustration by telling me to 'Get over it.' Perhaps you should open your eyes to the fact that you are in the minority and that people actually do have different opinions than you. The main difference between you and me is that I'll actually allow you to think and speak your mind, unlike you who are trying to oppress my beliefs and infringe on my right to think how I want.

Hipocrit.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

The reason I keep repeating "get over it" is because you need to.
Unlike some folk, I don't stay up nights reading dictionaries, learning new words, in an attempt to impress people. My vocabulary is sufficient to get the point across. Everyone gets it except you, apparently.
Never said you were stupid, just ignorant. There IS a difference. You COULD learn by reading a bible.
ONE elected official cannot change a law.
I'm well aware I'm in the minority and have been aware of that fact for decades.
Or, as somone once told me years ago, "the masses are asses." If I WEREN'T in the minority, the country wouldn't be in the mess it's in today. People such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush would have never been elected at all, much less twice each.
Yep, people DO have opinions different from mine. Again, see the previous sentence.Unlike you, I'd never try to "oppress" your beliefs. If you want to believe that "stuff," go right ahead. As for violating anyone's rights, you'll never find me doing that. Can you say the same?
One other thing: the last word in your manifesto was misspelled, educator.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

Just to point out more of your inconsistancies:

Everyone gets it except you, apparently.

-and-

I'm well aware I'm in the minority and have been aware of that fact for decades.

If I'm in the majority, then it stands to reason that other people must not 'get it' either.

ONE elected official cannot change a law.

I guess this depends on how you look at it. I went to ONE elected official. That ONE elected official drafted new legislation. That ONE elected official presented it before the council. The council agreed with that ONE elected official and passed the legislation. Technically, it was the work of ONE elected official (and myself) who changed a law.

Unlike some folk, I don't stay up nights reading dictionaries, learning new words, in an attempt to impress people.

You make it sound so bad to be intelligent and have the ability to express yourself which, again, says quite a lot about your character.

I'd never try to "oppress" your beliefs. If you want to believe that "stuff," go right ahead. As for violating anyone's rights, you'll never find me doing that.

I've got three pages worth of posts here that pretty much amount to just that!

One other thing: the last word in your manifesto was misspelled, educator.

I'm taking a cue from you and not learning a whole bunch of new-fangled words to try to impress other people! More inconsistancies from you. Once again, if you actually read the content of my posts, you'll remember that I teach Computer Science, not English. Also, unlike you, I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm infallable and can be wrong -- a lesson from which you might want to take a cue from the Book you're quite fond of.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

You're a sick man, in search of someone to dominate. I'll pray for you and hope you seek counseling.