Originally Posted by Caboose

The man-lust that modern liberals have for authority and government control is sickening. Yet they continually deride conservative "fascism". The whole thing is really quite Orwellian.

Originally Posted by DaveSkater

Forget it. When a liberal believes that it is the government that bestows rights on it's people, there is no changing their mind. That premise is the very backbone of liberalism and socialism afterall.

Unfortunately the statist agenda has ingrained and pounded that point in so effectively that the masses are starting to believe it.

Originally Posted by DaveSkater

Let us review:



Key words here: Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

It doesn't read: Endowed by their government with certain rights.

Originally Posted by Stan Silliman

C'mon Fire,

People are showing up at Town Hall meetings with AKs. One rally had two people when the president spoke. What happens at the next rally when ten show with automatics which would be more than security could defend against?

Is this the America you want?

There's no way to know who's a nut and who's not.

Under the assumption that the ATF violated the rights of David Korash's followers in Waco and could potentally violate his, Tim McVeigh had the right
of first strike.

Is that the America you want?

Tell me, who is more Hitler, Morris Dees or Lou Dobbs?
Morris Dees, who watches hate groups and warns against violations of oppressed minorities... or Lou Dobbs who, with his brilliant oratory, tells us over and over all our problems can be blamed on Mexicans.

Which one is likely to incite the crazies to roust out and kill illegals?

Too many Mexicans! All our problems could be solved if we got rid of the Mexicans.

Quien es mas Hitler?

Originally Posted by Bunty

Where in the Bible does it say people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights? Or is this some philosophy that arose after someone read the Bible, who later became noteworthy? To atheists, though, it's not gonna matter much because it doesn't make much sense to start with.

And, yes, the government does give rights. For proof of them look them up as the Bill or Rights in the U. S. Constitution.

Originally Posted by Bunty

OH, please, cut your nonsense and get real. My main point once again, it can very much be a matter of opinion or an all out debate as to what constitutes a right. For instance, is voting really a right? A public policy? Or a privilege?

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Bunty, the notion of inaliable rights is not bibilical, it is philosophical. Way predates Christianity. However, to be honest, I am not sure about the comparative time line on Judaism vs. classic Greece - I need to look that up.

Originally Posted by Bunty

Where in the Bible does it say people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights? Or is this some philosophy that arose after someone read the Bible, who later became noteworthy? To atheists, though, it's not gonna matter much because it doesn't make much sense to start with.

And, yes, the government does give rights. For proof of them look them up as the Bill or Rights in the U. S. Constitution.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Wow. If that is accurate, that is completely amazing. They took a camera shot of a black man with a gun, didn't show his face (or race) and then went on to make a point that the people carrying guns were white and angry about a black president (I have yet to hear anger about a black president voiced by a single solitary person in private conversations or otherwise). Then the other station respectfully interviews the SAME man (who is black) who discusses why he is wearing the rifle. No discussion of hate filled white people or assassinations or anything. Amazing, amazing.

Originally Posted by mugofbeer

It might be fun to have a separate thread on obviously inaccurate and slanted reporting done by the media at all levels and for both sides of the political spectrum.

I saw a couple of other reports showing this guy and his rifle but hadn't seen this report. MSNBC obviously and deliberately showed only his torso with the rifle and then tried to insinuate that only white people are angry enough to do this sort of thing. MSNBC caught red-handed in an unbelievably slanted report!

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Interesting. If you are black and carrying a gun at a protest, you are a "black gentleman" and spoken to with respect. If you are white, you are a frothing at the mouth gun nut out to kill the president.

Originally Posted by narrowexpanded

please dont put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

I think ABC was being sly in the way they put together the report to make their competition look bad.

Originally Posted by mugofbeer

Nonetheless, it was a blatant case of misrepresenting the truth that they uncovered.

I still think a separate thread on this type of thing would be terribly fun! The way everyone checks and double-checks each other, it would be great "outing" the various media outlets on poor, one-sided reporting - no matter which side their bias lies.

Originally Posted by Caboose

Its like trying to explain things to a 9 year old. I give up.

Originally Posted by Bunty

Since I find you at fault for showing so little respect toward me as a human being, why didn't you make it a 5 year old or less?

Originally Posted by Caboose

I have no respect for those who choose to remain ignorant.

Originally Posted by dismayed

I saw the report aired live on MSNBC, and as I recall the clip showed at least three different men with guns at the rally (one looked to be a very nice AR-15), and then showed several leg-shots of people with guns strapped around their calves, and the voice-over said something like a dozen people were spotted with guns.