timesjoke

Sounds like healthy non-violent expression to me.

I don't think that is fair Ali, me and you have had our issues but I am really working hard to try and be better at getting along without having to give up on my beliefs that things like personal responsibility are whar make America great while the lack is what tears us apart. What I said was not a flame, it was a description and it was on topic with RO dodging a question. I asked you one time to help me be better so help me Ali, if you asked someone a direct question and they dodged it, what would be a nicer way of being firm and getting them to answer the question? You know Anna, the strongest, most powerful force for freedom in the world is a Country based on capitalism. This same Country is getting weaker and weaker as we move closer to socialism. How many truly socialist Countries are helping other Countries the way we help for example?

And yet one of the greatest temperature increases that we can prove to have happened was during the middle ages, and no industry to blame it on. One of the greatest drops in temperature was during the industrial revolution with Co2 levels on the rise. Fact, temperatures have gone up and down for as long as the Earth has existed and most of those massive temperature changed happened when there was no industry or fossil fuel uses at all. Fact, every person pushing this 'man caused global warming' agenda has political or financial gain as their reason. Fact, recent information has come out that proves the main scientists involved in things like the UN reports have been manipulating data, discouraging studies that do not agree with them, and even throwing away data so their work could not be independently checked so they can force people to "take their word" on what the data was. Anna, there is more information proving that solar conditions change our temperatures here on Earth than Co2, but everyone ignores this fact because there is no way to make money or gain political power if this is true.

Most private industry fails when the Government gets involved. The reason is while thay have "good intentions" they lack the qualified people to actually do the job and most cases the day to day functions are performed by people who lack any real motivation or encouragement to excell. Consider that Government regulation and Government involvement to help Unions take over most of the production in America has caused almost all of our American production to move to friendlier markets. It is called killing the Goose that lays the golden eggs. I don't know if you do this in Australia but in America some farms are even paid "not" to grow certain crops. This is done to keep prices up on certain items the Government believes there will be too much of should the farmers grow what they were going to grow. I agree with your first point about many young people not wanting to take over the family farm but also Government regulations favor the big super farms because they are more capable of taking advantage of the comples system of taxes and regulations where a smaller farmer cannot have an on staff lawyer and accountant to juggle all of these things. If you take the profit out of farming for the little guy, why would the little guy want to do it? Governments taking over farms would be a disaster. I would say offer more relaxed regulation for the little guys and stop giving everything to the big monster farms. For example here in America the monster farms should not get the money to not grow certain crops, the reason this was started was to keep the small farmers from starving but it is now being abused by the super farms to make big money from the Government. And this one program with it's abuse is most likely one of the best examples of how "good intentions" by the Government ends up being a very bad result.

No here: http://www.musicliveshere.com/content/index.php

Then you did not read it: Do you think just casual comments by the group would have been considered a security risk? Ann was able to talk at two other locations in Canada without the threats and risk of harm, why was this one place different? You know my dear, if you think the kinds of discussion topics I make are pointless, show me how it is done and stop pointing your finger. I am glad to be your student if your willing to show me through example.

So because I have one formal dinner with political and healthcare discussions, now every event in my home must be the exact same thing? I have a very wide selection of friends from the business world, this is true, it is a side effect of being in construction, most of those at this dinner have been customers of mine, I built the doctors new office for example. But at the same time I just went on a charity bike ride/music event this past Friday night and all day Saturday were it involved a group of bikers riding together to the spirit of the suwannee park and we had several local rock bands playing all night Friday and all day Saturday. I bet you would have liked that Ali.

I would strike up a conversation with the guy about the movie, go on and on about how great or poor the movie is, talk about the actors and other movies they were in, talk about mistakes in the movie and the songs, give some real life examples of how this movie reminds you of your real life and wondering how they seem to be talking about you, turn paranoid about people watching you and how this movie proves that there agents in the Government who are after you and trying to turn you crazy so you don't btring them down with all the information you know your not supposed to know.......... I bet you ten bucks he will close his laptop and get away from you

Oh bull, there was nothing in any of my posts either here or anywhere else to show I only want free speach for conservatives RO, so no reason for your question and assertion that I might possibly not support true free speach. I will say this, I would limit some locations as too much for some kinds of free speach. The idiots who show up at military funerals to scream out nasty and hateful stuff designed to hurt the surviving families should not be allowed to do so in hearing of the funeral proceedings. There is nothing American or reasonable for screaming out something like that at a funeral and hurting the loved ones of a soldier who gave his life in service of his country. But I do not want to stop their words, they have a right to say what they want to say, they just should not be intruding onto the rights of other Americans not to be assaulted. And there is a key difference in this discussion, the Ann thing was purely voluntary, only those who wanted to attend would hear her words and that to me should always be protected speach, nobody should be scared that words will somehow infect other people and cause them to behave in some way other than they normally would. The people assaulting soldier's funerals do not give their victims a choice to avoid the hateful speach, it is not like they can stop everything and bury their loved one someone else at the last minute. But, I even feel bad to say this small limitation is justified because the very notion of freedom is given wings by the freedom of speach and when we limit free speach, we also limit freedoms.

Depending on the state you live in there can be a few laws that can help but unfortunately most States do allow car dealerships to sell pure garbage under the umbrella of an "as is" condition. The first place to start would be to get with the guy who purchased the car and look at the paperwork. If there is anything there that says "as is" or something similar I would not waste my time even trying to fight with them. You could try getting your friend to take the car up there and try to talk reasonable with them. Most of even the cheap lots have basic mechanics and maybe they will work out a deal to do the work if you get the parts as a compromise.

I have no idea what your trying to imply RO? You taking a shot at me again? When have I ever taken a possition that people should be attacked if they say things I do not agree with? I have no idea even where your comment comes from. I am not taking up for anyone RO, you need to go read my posts and try to understand the words I have posted, I even said in my last I was hardly a fan of this woman but when free speach is only tolerated when the speaker is saying what you want to hear, that is not free speach. I have been very clear on this subject so there is no real honerable reason for your comment to me, your obviously just trying to start something.

But my point is not if you or some other students thought she was a waste of time but instead you deprived other Canadians the right to have the debate with her if that was their choice. The point is the threat of violence used to supress ideas and thoughts EM. This time it is used against someone you do not like so your okay with it but when the same threats are used to silence someone you do support, what then EM? Will it still be reasonable or will your opions of free speah change based on your personal likes? Only what you like is free speach and reasonable? Don't get me wrong, I am hardly a fan of this woman, but I believe she has a right to her voice and people who think they have to use violence to censor her to protect themselves from her words are most likely much more a harmful to society than she can ever be. And your right about her getting more attention, that was my point too before so again, why give her what she wants? Instead of her looking bad for her possitions it was an entire college and even a great deal of Canada who looked to be the agressive bullies who were scared to death of words from a single woman.

The easiest way of telling what is flame and what is not is if you look at who is still talking about the topic. My comment to you was you running away from the topic, all of this your doing is to escape the topic you can't stand up to.

Well back at you EM, you seem to have lots of room to not worry about having a fat azz though, so enjoy, of course you could use it as an excuse to work off the chocolate too Does anyone else like to bite off the heads of the peeps?

No, not buddies, but not from me not trying, but we are very much alike

Awsome, you moved the entire conversation and transformed what you could not answer into an excuse to throw it away, your the master at dodging questions your incapable of answering RO. Saying you like to run away is not really doing your skill justice my friend. Only you take enjoyment at trying to hurt other people RO, that is why you edited my signature and even attempted to sneak in a comment I did not make so you could again try to make me look like the bad guy, but I did not start this RO, your the agressor RO, not me, I actually like you most of the time, even when you behave like this I find you to be very funny and awsome to have around for entertainement.

Interesting how alike me and you are RO, I am also speachless. Ali, where do you get this stuff?

OKAY, I know your faking to not understand but for everyone else let me break this down. "your running away like a scared little girl" is a descriptive comment to be sure, but what is it describing? The first thing we have to look at it the context, RO wants everyone to ignore the context and is trying to draw focus down to a couple words taken out of context but let me take a moment and bring the comment back to the context RO is trying to destroy. The first part says "your running away". This is the point, my comment was that RO dodged the point because he knew he could not respond to that point and tried to change the subject or otherwise avoid it. So that was my point, he was running away, now the second part was describing the first, I was giving example of the "type" of running away I thought his running most closely resembled. So "running" was the point, "like a scared little girl" was the type of running. There was no flame. I am the only person trying to leave behind the past, I am not tossing flames, my comments are not intended to demean or belittle while RO is editing my signatures with the intent to belittle and demean me instead and this is all because I called him down a few days ago about his comment about my manhood. RO knew he was wrong to behave that way so does he simply admit he was wrong and move foward? No, now he is scouring my every post trying to "get even" for me pointing out his flames. As you should live up to the same standard of evidence you try to impose on those who do not agree with you. If using polls was reasonable for you to waste your vote and help Obama win, then it is reasonable for me to use the same kinds of polls afor my point but you intentionally exclude polls only from my side of the discussion. But you creating this false claim of flames from me is your way of dodging this point, your running away again.

I simply told the truth RO, there is nothing personal about it, just your direct actions to change a non-flame into a flame for your own purposes. There is no way to say "running away like a scared little girl" can be taken personally, it is a description only, a point made to show the person is avoiding something, nothing more, I was just try8ing to make it sound funny because this round and round of you dodging direct questions get a tad boring sometimes. I never at any time attempted to put you down as a person RO, there is the difference between what you and hugo do, and what I do. I attack the topic, I get serious about it sure, but I do not hate you or hugo for not agreeing with me, and from some of the things you guys say about me, it sure seems like your taking everything personal.

The difference is the threat to do violence, there is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion but turning to violence just to protect yourself from opinions you do not agree with is wrong. Ann spoke at two other places in Canada without issues so why was this college campus so closed to ideas they did not agree with? It is not like this was a forced event, only people who wanted to be there were there so why keep your fellow students from hearing what they want to hear? Maybe some of these students who wanted to hear her wanted to challenge her possitions with good debate and questions but they have been deprived this opportunity to challenge her and maybe even defeat her on some point by their own fellow students who thought violence was the answer. And what did they accomplish? This one event most likely made her more popular and made canadians look less tolerant. Her book sales will skyrocket and more people will listen to her that feel America is slipping into a 'canada' model and want to avoid it.

First of all that was not a flame, it was an example, a description, like blue as a clear shy, warm as the sun, old as dirt, running away like a scared little girl was not calling anyone a scard girl, just offering an example of running away. Interesting you have to try and force what I say into an attack, are you really that desperate to try and bring me down RO? You said you wanted me banned the day before you were promoted, I guess your trying hard to make my removal look reasonable but there simply is no way you can do so, I have not flammed you or anyone else. Now back to your little dance of words dancing. I already admitted there was no possible way to say who voted for what without any shread of doubt, that is why you asked that specific question to hide behind creating impossible xonditions of perfection. So then I returned your own standard back at you, if it is unreasonable to use polls and opinions from experts to decide what happened in the election, then that same standard applies to you and hugo when you claim you only voted to help Obama because it was assumed Obama would win anyway. The standard you set goes both ways RO, either using opinions and polls is reasonable or it is not. If your using polls to waste your vote is reasonable, then my use of polls should also be reasonable. Your playing a double standard RO, why?

You have got to be kidding. You come out of nowhere, lie about my motives to put me down as a human being, degrading my very existence and then you complain that I mentioned your name? Nobody forced you to flame me Ren, next time try to talk about the subject instead of ignoring the subject and going on a tirade about how horrible a person I am. At least I did not return your flames and only responded to your wrong accusations and attacks on my character. I do not hate all women just because I hold women responsible for their actions every bit as much as I hold men responsible. If a man gets a woman pregnant and wants to escape taking responsibility for his "choice" to have unprotected sex, there is absolutely no way he can kill the child without being charged with murder. But if a woman has a desire to get out of her responsibility caused by her "choice" to have unprotected sex, she can kill her baby and in that killing is applauded as a great freedom for all women everywhere. No, I do not think the decision is an easy one, but guess what decision would have been easy? The easy decision would have been to use protection, now how do we get people to use protection, that is the real serious question. How do we get both men and women to take the risk of pregnancy seriously and avoid the need for abortions almost entirely? And while we are at it, how do we get our young people to take prevention seriously when even our Government is telling our kids that abortion is no big deal and they will even help them get a free abortion?

Your so darn funny RO. The thing you did "FIRST" was to say that I could not use any kind of opinion polls or exit polls to support my possition so I am saying if that is "your" possition then you live by that standard "FIRST" and show me how your claim that your vote was not wasted because you knew McCain could not win using your own guidelines. I already admitted about 15 posts back that I could not show that independents voted Obama into office without using polls, you created a question that could not be answered because you know there is nobody in the polling booth with each person. All we have is things like the exit polls and that is all we have ever had and we have to do the best we can using the tools at hand. But my point is valid and that is why your running away from it like a scared little girl. If polls are not good enough to prove my point, then those same polls are not good enough for you to "assume" McCain could not win and waste your vote. You can't have it both ways RO, either polls are goos to use or not, your the guy who said I could not use polls, not me. Again I rip you apart in a debate and all your concerned with is me instead of the topic, what is it about me that your so stuck on RO? Hey RO, let's see if you challenge hugo's lost post there or if you only challenge what does not agree with you, lol. But we do know that both of you voted for Obama by intentionally witholding your vote from the only conservative who had a chance of winning the election and being as you havce said in this thread that opinions and polls are not reasonable to use for election data you could not possibly have thought your vote was not needed to keep a pure socialist like Obama from office so you were actually intentionally helping Obama get elected. We have people like you and hugo to thank for this healthcare law, thanks a lot hugo and RO.

If a rapist steals the uniform of a cop and wears it to help him more easily gain access to his victims, does that make him a real cop? The same is true for groups like this, they wear the guise of Christians only to facilitate their criminal and hate filled activities.

No, your post was mostly about me and a false representation of what I believe, Ren did the same exact thing. I have never in my life said women getting abortions is easy, again this is what all of you ladies do in these discussions, you insert comments into my mouth I have never said. Anyway, back on topic and being as my original comment was deleted by RO let me say again that even if I was supportive of abortions, I would not want the Government involved in sending kids to get the abortions. This is a very important decision and one that should involve the parents being as it is the parents who will be dealing with the results no matter what decision is made. If the girl gets an abortion then sufferes severe depression as a result (very common) how will the parents be able to quickly respond correctly if they do not know about the abortion? If there are complications during the procedure and the girl dies (rare but has been known to happen) then this could be the last time they see their daughter all because the Government encouraged the girl to get the abortion. The Government should not be in the business of abortions on any level.