doublegunshop.com - home Forums Is this where we're headed ?

Keith,

Yes, semantics is a major problem. The vast majority of the terms used to describe religious statists are subjective, and have been successfully neutralized by the statists to the point that they have no real meaning in the context of philosophical debate, let along Constitutional context. That is the real issue, illustrated by the multiple definitions of the term "Liberal" that have been used in this thread. If you take such a subjective label, then put on a pejorative suffix like "tard" on the end, it is easily dismissed as subjective demonization.

Use of the term "Liberal" is encouraged by the statists for just that reason. It is playing into using their religious lexicon. Another example is using the terms "Right" and "Left". The extreme of both beliefs is Statist Totalitarianism, diametrically opposite to the concept of Individual Freedom and Equality in the context of the Constitution.

There's a reason that I tediously use the terms "Statist", "Religious", and "Sociopath". Alone, none of these terms describe an Unconstitutional belief. Once you put them together it becomes UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the very thing that the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Without directly relating Sociopathic, Religious Statism to the Constitution, the debate becomes subjective, and easily manipulated to the point of being meaningless.

Do you really think that all the folks advocating Communism and Socialism when interviewed on the streets understand that they're admitting that they are religious sociopaths? Hardly, they're just repeating indoctrinated dogma.

Your reference to Tea Party is interesting, Ken. I looked at recent Mike Tanner article at National Review Online titled Why the Tea Party is Waning, not winning. Excerpt:

"As the Tea Party celebrates its five-year anniversary, many commentators are asking whether the grassroots anti�Big Government movement is still relevant.

"In some ways, this seems a silly question. The Tea Party has been enormously successful in changing the terms of the national debate on issues such as debt and spending. And, while its favored candidates have suffered some high-profile defeats, it has also won important victories. The Republican midterm sweep of 2010 would not have been possible without its energy and enthusiasm.

"Yet it�s also true that the Tea Party�s clout is waning. According to the most recent Gallup poll, just 30 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the movement, the lowest level in its history. This seems particularly unsettling when polls also show that the public still overwhelmingly supports the Tea Party objective of limited government. In fact, a recent Gallup poll shows a record 72 percent of Americans feels that big government is the greatest threat to the future of the country. Voters who feel that way should be flocking to the Tea Party in droves.They are not.

"Some of it might be a question of tactics. Americans tend to dislike confrontation from their political leaders. Certainly, things like the government shutdown tended to turn off some voters, especially when misrepresented by a biased media. The overheated rhetoric of some tea-party leaders may also drive away otherwise sympathetic voters. Calling every dissenting Republican a RINO or inferring that President Obama is some sort of crypto-Muslim Communist is not going to win friends or influence people. Some tea-party activists definitely come across as a bit over-caffeinated."

Labelling, Ken, often is a bad fit, counterproductive, as we see on Misfires.

And thus, a great reason not to get hung up on semantics. Maybe, it's better to keep things on simple terms, and draw a line in the sand like a joe average or some low information voter would quickly and easily understand. Not, the bo's corruption of the line in the sand, as we see on Misfires.

Are we looking for a 'good' fit or distraction and confusion. The upset and testy King gets right to the point. Is there case to be made or are we being lobbied by the creative and reasonable King.

Gil, haven't you told us you are a lawyer? Where is YOUR proof? If you weren't such an idiot, you would have noticed that it is your pal King who frequently demands "Proof please!"... which he then totally ignores as he goes on with his lies and bullshit. I only began asking King for proof to his bullshit in response to that. We all see from my post # 386865 of this thread what kind of "Proof" King frequently provides... A 100% verifiable pack of lies.

And that's what you and Rocky Mtn Bill are here to defend... a liar. What does that say about you two?

"On the evidence", as your pal King would say, you are not really a lawyer.

A real lawyer would know that personal liability for a mercury contamination issue does not end when a sleazy seller dumps the property on an unsuspecting buyer. A real lawyer would know that every property the sleazy seller ever owned would show up on the most cursory backround check. A real lawyer would know how troublesome those State DEP officials could be once they started investigating a mercury contamination issue that some retarded sleaze-bag admitted to on the internet. A real lawyer would know when it was smart to STFU. If guys like you and Dave-in-Maine are representative of the profession, getting a Law Degree must be as easy as opening a box of Cracker Jack. As always, just my opinion, except for the parts about the continuing liability in a mercury contamination issue.

You might want to consult with a real attorney for advice.

By the way, I am not some kind of scientist. I never used my Biology degree, but having it opened other doors for me. There is no way in hell a dumbass like you could ever earn a Biology degree. You wouldn't get through the first semester. Just my opinion based upon the lack of intelligence you display here.

Friends are friends because they have qualities we admire, Craig. We know of those qualities because of the way friends act and speak. Semantics doesn't enter into friendship. Plain talk is the heart of friendship.

To lobby is to solicit, to try to influence. Any time members post of how they feel about what they do, or contribute information or try to even things up and strengthen critical judgment, they're lobbying or proselytizing to some extent.

The whole point of writing is to communicate clearly. Members are friends whom I can speak to plainly from knowing them so well as correspondents on a wide range of issues over many years. That's all there is to it for me.

Ken61, yes, I agree completely, but even now, I'm not sure King really understands what it means when you refer to him as Statist/Religious. Do you recall how many times he thought you were trying to say he was religious in the sense of worshipping a Supreme Being?

We all know he is a Sociopath, but some here like GLS and Rocky Mtn Bill Ferguson defend that.

The problem I see with relating Sociopathic Religious Statism directly to the Constitution is that King and his minions don't give a fat rats ass about the Constitution. They see it as a flawed document. They use it as a tool to advance their agenda. King, a Canadian with no skin in the game, has been actively using our First Amendment here to undermine our Second Amendment... along with several others as he pursues Canadian style restrictions on our gun rights, confiscatory wealth redistribution and preferential treatment for certain ethnic groups.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that you are here to inform and educate. But at some point, I think it becomes important to come straight out and call a liar a liar, or to keep it easily understood for the low information voters and add the pejorative "tard" to make it Libtard. I take a little heat for the direct approach, but none of the dishonest idiots who criticize me about it have been able to demonstrate that King was being truthful when I called him a liar.

I think that says a lot about them, and their own dishonesty or stupidity... or the cowardice to admit their true political beliefs. Gil, Bill, can you hear me? Or is it hard to hear when your head is way up King's kilt?

So now he goes to the faux civility ploy, and the Kumbaya song where we are all just friends. Friends don't continually lie to their friends in order to advance their agenda King. If plain talk is the heart of friendship, why do you resort to your "craft of journalism" excuses and Weasel Words? If plain talk is the heart of friendship, why would you resort to using words that illiterates like ed or GLS would never understand... especially "epistymology" which never entered into our discussion. Etymology, yes, but there was no need to toss in another word which does not apply in order to impress.

The Book of keith aka keith�s Book of Sleaze-ball Doublegun Forum Tactics.
Chapter One�respond to posts of people you disagree by using �liar�, �lies�, liberally (poor choice of word for you?) spread throughout the post. �Hypocrite� is useful term, so is �pathological liar�, �anti-gunner� or �trolls�. If you use these terms a lot, no one will remember anything said, just the word �liar� or other term or phrase and hope that the word or phrase becomes associated with the person attacked. It�s like throwing crap on a wall. Some will stick regardless if true or not. Big Lie technique perfected during the Third Reich. Since no one can hear yelling on the internet, rely on constant drumbeat of repetition as substitute for yelling. Stalk �target� throughout the board. Pestilence is the eternal price of vigilance. Or is it the other way around?
Chapter Two�demand proof of negatives and question every assertion. Call this sought after �proof� as facts, even if obvious. When ignored, call this an admission that other person was lying and couldn�t back it up. Ask for photographic proof on events 50 years old.
Chapter 3�mix in with �liar� and �lies� the phrase �resume inflating�
Chapter 4�no insult is too vile. Before moving to the zingers, condition readers with low-grade insults such as �dumbass�, �assh*le� (use asterisk so that no one can say you meant to use a distasteful term), �stupid�. This technique worked in the third grade and was never outgrown. Why give it up now? Always, always act like you are the smartest person in the room. Calling someone a dumbass or stupid automatically makes you a superior intellect. Ask any third grader.
Chapter 5�mix in insults with direct or indirect homosexual innuendo but give yourself enough wiggle room so that you can act indignant if someone calls you on it.
Chapter 6�mine the forum for past statements, quote them out of context, for a phony �aha, gotcha� moment.
Chapter 7. Never underestimate the use of exaggeration.
Chapter 8. Never use one sentence when thirty-five, why, hell, seventy-five, can be used.
Chapter 9. There�s no such thing as being obnoxious when you know you are right and the other side is dead wrong. The �ends� always justify the �means�.
Chapter 10. Work late at night typing missives while everyone else sleeps. Hopefully they can be read early enough in the day by others so that they won�t fall asleep while reading the verbose drivel.
Chapter 11. If someone doesn�t respond in kind or ignores you totally, accuse them of being devious and sneaky, instead of being civil and mature.
Chapter 12. Substitute anonymity for courage. It is far easier to demonize a man if you are anonymous and the things said aren�t face-to-face. Doubly so if the person you demonize isn�t anonymous. Use the fact that you fear gun theft for not disclosing who you are after you mug someone�s character repeatedly.
Chapter 13. Never lose sight of the fact that the insult and demonization are far more important than the message sought to be advanced. Wrap your rudeness and behavior with the cloak of the 2nd Amendment. If this wasn�t a gun forum, you�d think of another cause to justify your conduct. Being a jerk requires no political affiliation or leaning. Remember, your attacks aren�t to convince, they are to demonize. You aren�t trying to change positions of folks with made-up minds and non-gun owner fence sitters wouldn�t be here anyway.

Like I said Ken61, I take a little heat from some of the dishonest idiots who criticize me for exposing King's many lies. But the dishonest dumbasses can't just come out and show that I was wrong in my assessment.

Chapter 6 Gil... why don't you show us where I made a quote out of context?



Was this out of context? Or were you really sleazy enough to sell a house to get out from under a mercury contamination issue, rather than doing the right thing and having a proper and lawful clean-up done?

Chapter 1, 4 and 9... do as I say not as I do, right Gil?



How's the mining of posts made by jOe and I going lately hypocrite? More do as I say, but not as I do?

You and your little buddy nca225 sure get upset by references to queers? What's with that? What kind of "fly-tying" do you do? Never mind, we'd rather not know.

I'd go through all 13 of your chapters, but a long post is too much for your little brain.

I use an asterick when I call people like you an assh*le because it comes up as [censored] otherwise. Dumbass does not come out as [censored]. I want everyone to know that in my opinion, you are an assh*le. You gotta be an assh*le to sell a house with mercury contamination, and then admit to such sleazy behavior on the internet.

keith, there you go again. Same old crap. Could you be more specific about what you mean by "fly-tying"? As for the mercury contamination, the owners of the old house would appreciate your taking in a three-headed dog. I am overridden with guilt about the house. My biggest regret is that you didn't buy the house. I would have made you a good deal. Sorry you didn't like the Xmas Greeting. It was only a suggestion.

Keith it sounds like he'd like to poison you.