With friends like this: Clayton Cramer attacks open carry

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by Mocha Java

Not only is he an ankle-biting whiner -- he couldn't carry Cramer's proverbial jockstrap!
You are not gonna get a dissertation out of me on this bizarre thread; if it is not self-evident to you then I'll just throw my hands up in the air and move on.

So your response to being asked why the name calling is yet more name calling.

How trite.

Originally Posted by Mocha Java

Enjoy: http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...full/index.php

Then you post some anti-gay link. I didn't click past the splash screen, as I can tell from the disclaimer that it has nothing to do with the topic. Gay people being obscene in public is not really any different than straight people being obscene in public. I'm not a proponent of either. But you are using the example of a few to apparently voice your disagreement with those of us who do not believe as cramer does in his obvious bigoted view of gays. What does the actions of a few sickos have to do with gays in general or Cramers comments about them?

Nice try though.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by synergy

Well, perhaps battle conveys the wrong message. However, OC debate threads typically get heated, people get equated to fascists and dictators, and no one changes their mind. Not real sure I'd always call them level headed, civil debates.

There are certainly some folks who learn from them, and construct thoughtful responses and consider the position advocated by the poster offering a differing opinion. IMO though, that can be the exception to the rule, at times.

And with that I agree 100%

[synergy]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

That is a lot clearer than your first response. The response that included a comparison to an oppressive, superior force motivated by wrong ideals.

Nothing at all wrong with "not wanting to get into it again". But I felt the comparison you made in your earlier post a bit more accusatory. So thanks for the clarification

Gotcha...no, I'm not that smart. I was only referencing numbers and the general outcome...not who was justified or in the wrong, with my analogy.

Sorry it was taken that way in the first place.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by synergy

Sorry it was taken that way in the first place.

I read into things too far on occasion. We all have our faults

[Mocha Java]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

So your response to being asked why the name calling is yet more name calling.

How trite.



Then you post some anti-gay link. I didn't click past the splash screen, as I can tell from the disclaimer that it has nothing to do with the topic. Gay people being obscene in public is not really any different than straight people being obscene in public. I'm not a proponent of either. But you are using the example of a few to apparently voice your disagreement with those of us who do not believe as cramer does in his obvious bigoted view of gays. What does the actions of a few sickos have to do with gays in general or Cramers comments about them?

Nice try though.

It's not an anti-gay link; it's news photos showing a truth that you can't handle. "A few sickos" -- yeah right!

Congratulations for letting yourself be hijacked by someone else's cause. At least I hope it's someone else's cause.

[ungawa]

Don't get too nasty, guys. There are a lot of sacred cows flying around in this thread. That is good, since sacred cows are for dinner, and men discuss philosophy over the corpses of dinner. Respect each other in the morning. I haven't seen one person in this thread I don't respect.

[unloved]

Originally Posted by Mocha Java

It's not an anti-gay link; it's news photos showing a truth that you can't handle. "A few sickos" -- yeah right!

Congratulations for letting yourself be hijacked by someone else's cause. At least I hope it's someone else's cause.

So, are you pro- or anti- OC? Cramer equated "open carry in an urban setting" to the distasteful scenes you've so thoughtfully provided us. Who's letting their self be hijacked by someone else's cause(i.e. Cramer's anti-OC cause)?

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by Mocha Java

It's not an anti-gay link; it's news photos showing a truth that you can't handle. "A few sickos" -- yeah right!

Congratulations for letting yourself be hijacked by someone else's cause.

What is the "truth" that I "can't handle"?
Being gay is a "cause"? If not, what is this cause I am supporting?

Are you ever going to support your accusations? (my guess is no).

Originally Posted by Mocha Java

... At least I hope it's someone else's cause.

That's cute. So if I support peoples right to be gay, now I'm gay.
And what if I was? Does it matter to anyone other than homophobes? Would I care? I bet you know the answer to that question.

First you call John names, then you insinuate I might be gay because I asked you for some supporting evidence to your claims. So anyway, despite you not answering my initial Q, about what your beef with John was, and why you would call names and not qualify your issue with him, I'm pretty sure I figured out the answer from your replies.
Honestly, you might as well just come out and say it at this point.

[eXceLon]

I think this entire ordeal is a good example of why a political message needs to be narrow and to the point.

Far too often people feel the need to take political pot-shots about unrelated issues when advocating for another. Just because the stereotypical gun-rights proponent might be a conservative white male, doesn't mean that you should assume they all are. Not to mention all of the people who aren't yet gun rights proponents whom, presumably, you are attempting to win over to your point of view.

As soon as you start rambling off a list of talking points associated with one party or the other, your core message ends up being ignored, as everyone simply assumes you're a babbling partisan.

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by ungawa

In my opinion, that would make you the worst sort of intolerant. Intolerant of the thoughts and belief of others.

People who don't approve of gay lifestyle - Intolerant?

People who don't think people should carry guns - Intolerant?

People who don't believe in what the presidential administration and congress are doing - Intolerant?

Who decides?

You. You decide who is bad or good based on their thoughts and beliefs. "intolerance" is code word for the new Puritany.

"Tolerant" people are the least tolerant of ideas, customs, and ways of life of humans at large.

I do not suffer from tolerance or intolerance.

in·tol·er·ant
adj.
Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own

It must take a special type of intellect to take a word and use the exact opposite meaning to take offense. However I'll tolerate you for being offended by a word you don't seem to understand.