MIA: ACLU, Amnesty Intl., UN Human Rights Coucil, etc...

Anything and everything goes here... post away!

Moderators: EatMoreLead, Nad, Suck.

User avatar
Best_predator
Banished to Siberia
Posts: 2786
Joined: Dec 21st, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Postby Best_predator » Jun 27th, 2006 at 12:30 am

Those are such dead beat subjects. I don't even know what I think about either of them anymore lol. I still say live comes first and there should always be other means ahead of death.
Sneaky bastard...
"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." ~ Goethe

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 27th, 2006 at 12:40 am

I think I should be cloned and everyone should have to pay me for a clone of me, but the clone of me would be the owner of the person who bought me so that I would still maintain control. Its a 12 point plan for world domination, but creating confusion is already under way.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Jun 27th, 2006 at 12:43 am

Campsalot wrote:And, pups, I am also curious as to why you think my statement is inaccurate. One's moral and ethical belief system (not restricted to religious only) or the lack thereof is the foundation that aids in governing their decision making; whether concious or not. That should be taken into consideration when you vote for someone. If the bulk of the people do not believe he/she represents their interests/beliefs, they will not vote for him/her and therefore, the will of the people will be shown.


Your point is valid and true, but i think it lacks common sense. I took Jenn's post to mean "faith-based" voters. Those voters (and I include you and a good deal of others on this board as one of them) would choose to legislate your own moral codes over others, even when it could have a detremental effect on society and threaten the individual freedoms i hold so dear. Here's the crux of my point:

One mans morality is an intrusion into another mans personal life and I firmly believe that the government shouldn't be able to tell people what to do in private, so long as it's not harming or intruding on anyone else.

Take homosexuality, for example. You find it morally reprehensible and don't support gay marriage - but how is gay marriage a threat to you? It's not. You're just appalled by the thought of one man sticking his dong-dong into another mans pooper (but two chicks kissing is ok) and think that because it's not right for you (or you're insecure) it should be outlawed for all.

I find the fact that some people would want to tarnish our Constitution with an amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage abhorrent. It would, in essence, create a second class of citizen (which technically already exists) - there is no way it would pass constitutional muster.

I don't think our Fore Fathers had that in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

User avatar
Jahiliyya
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Feb 22nd, 2005 at 9:05 pm

Postby Jahiliyya » Jun 27th, 2006 at 12:56 am

dude..I'm glad you brought this up Pup.

4 tits are better than two. Our fore fathers would have agreed.
There's a blip that hovers that city that can see thry anything, like x-ray, they can see everything you do. ~Keyser

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 27th, 2006 at 1:03 am

Your point is valid and true, but i think it lacks common sense


You ARE southern!11

Not to get into an argument about definitions, but to point out some issues I bring this.

Morals: derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done


So who's conscience do we use?

to "do no harm and not infringe on the rights of others" could mean legalized substances of all kinds, legalized suicide, legalized public pornography, and a slew of other issues.

"I know what pornography looks like when I see it" is about as absurd and true of a statement as one can get when dealing with morals and ethics.

Is it fair to limit the upward mobility of a strong employee due to employment quotas? Is it fair that the strong are not able to use their strengths to better themselves over those who are weaker? Is it fair that somone with downs syndrome can't be in the military?

What is fair? "To do no harm or infringe on the rights of others" can be argued as "not infringeing on the rights of the majority" as many anti-gay marriage people think. It could mean "not teaching homosexuality as a viable sexual orientation in public schools".

So who decides what is fair/not fair moral/ethical and immoral/unethical? The courts do, and the courts are persuaded by the ethics/morals of the society that raised them combined with the minority views of their immediate surroundings i.e. their family/friends/religious institutions.

The only "fair" way to run the world is the let the strong survive and the weak die. But we as a "moral/ethical" people due to generations of ingrained moral/ethical teachings do not feel this to be fair. So we attempt to lever the weak up to the strongs lvl. We do this at the cost of the strong so that a weak person who lacks the same capabilities may hold the same position as a strong person.

What ethical/moral guides are we to use in governing our society? As ethics/morals change the laws governing society change with them.

On a side note, I firmly believe that what passes for morals/ethics in society today are the remnants of a nation burriend in Christian ideolotry and as that faith wanes so does the moral and ethical foundation that many of us cherish. We can claim to have a true seperation of church and state, but what then is the guide? People are selfish by nature and I do not believe that humans are capable of governing themselves without some higher calling that a majority of the masses believe. I could easily be wrong, but thats my half asleep diatribe for the night. I'll prob disagree with myself in the morning :)
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Jun 27th, 2006 at 1:12 am

Catalyst22 wrote:On a side note, I firmly believe that what passes for morals/ethics in society today are the remnants of a nation burriend in Christian ideolotry and as that faith wanes so does the moral and ethical foundation that many of us cherish. We can claim to have a true seperation of church and state, but what then is the guide? People are selfish by nature and I do not believe that humans are capable of governing themselves without some higher calling that a majority of the masses believe. I could easily be wrong, but thats my half asleep diatribe for the night. I'll prob disagree with myself in the morning :)


you need to go read up on the founding of this country, the religious temperment of the era, and the individual beliefs of the majority of our founding fathers (hint: they were deists)

to "do no harm and not infringe on the rights of others" could mean legalized substances of all kinds, legalized suicide, legalized public pornography, and a slew of other issues.


i will comment on this: i think marijuana should be legalized. the use of hard drugs increases violence and crime, so harder drugs should remain illegal.

making suicide illegal is the most fucking retarded feel-good law. has anyone that was contemplating suicde ever stopped because it was against the law?

i don't have a problem with nudity in public, and most every other nation on earth (bar the theocracies in the middle east, africa, and the muslim pacific nations) have a much laxer view on nudity in public than we do. As for hard-core pronography in public, i think you're taking that to the extreme.

What is fair? "To do no harm or infringe on the rights of others" can be argued as "not infringeing on the rights of the majority" as many anti-gay marriage people think. It could mean "not teaching homosexuality as a viable sexual orientation in public schools".


only if you're on acid.

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Jun 27th, 2006 at 5:48 am

i will comment on this: i think marijuana should be legalized. the use of hard drugs increases violence and crime, so harder drugs should remain illegal.

Crime can't increase when there are no laws.
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jun 27th, 2006 at 7:56 am

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:you need to go read up on the founding of this country, the religious temperment of the era, and the individual beliefs of the majority of our founding fathers (hint: they were deists)


Let me save everyone some time on this one. Puppy and I had this debat many moons ago. I researched it on the intraweb over a long weekend and found that while the U.S. was founded on Christian principals it was NOT founded on Christianity. The founders were attempting to escape a government run religion. Many of them were Christians and a lot of them were diests, but none of them were about to tell anyone else how they should worship.

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:i will comment on this: i think marijuana should be legalized. the use of hard drugs increases violence and crime, so harder drugs should remain illegal.

I think the problem is that if you legalize one, then it will be a sign of victory for those in favor of total legalization. Like when alcohol was legalized again, people started looking for a better buzz. Now drugs are really popular.

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:making suicide illegal is the most fucking retarded feel-good law. has anyone that was contemplating suicde ever stopped because it was against the law?

Again I agree with your principal. It's like seat belt laws, or banning smoking. Why should you care what I do? But I can't agree that it shouldn't be illegal. The law is more of a preventative measure against attention seakers. If you climb onto a building saying "look at me I'm going to jump!" you endanger people you might land on. You also slow everything down, bring out the police and the fire department. It costs the community a lot of money. We can't just let attention whores get off free. Maybe we should make suicide a "shoot-on-site" offense and save everyone a lot of trouble. (I'm kidding about that last part.)

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:i don't have a problem with nudity in public, and most every other nation on earth (bar the theocracies in the middle east, africa, and the muslim pacific nations) have a much laxer view on nudity in public than we do. As for hard-core pronography in public, i think you're taking that to the extreme.

We have different values here that effect this. I don't thing nudity should be illegal in all places but I'd like to know before I'm entering an area where I (or my kids) might see a naked man running around. If people were allowed to just parade themselves down the street in the buff that would be forcing it on me. I don't want to see it. If I walk past a sign that read "Nude Beach. Naked people ahead. OMGZ!!" then I'm asking for it. I'd like a choice on when I see nudity and in what form. I do have a double standard though (like you with public porn). I don't mind if a woman want's to breastfeed in public.

Then last, the gay marrage thing. I'll make it short. I'm anti-homo. I think it's yucky. Please don't destroy the sanctity of marrage by saying Adam and Steve can be legally married. It's going to happen some day and I'm to lazy to do a protest march so that's all I have to say about that.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
Kahuna Mas
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Feb 11th, 2004 at 9:57 am

Postby Kahuna Mas » Jun 27th, 2006 at 9:16 am

Burzum wrote:Then last, the gay marrage thing. I'll make it short. I'm anti-homo. I think it's yucky. Please don't destroy the sanctity of marrage by saying Adam and Steve can be legally married. It's going to happen some day and I'm to lazy to do a protest march so that's all I have to say about that.


Gay marraige at this point only stands to "increase" the sanctity of marraige. I think heteros have done enough to destroy the concept of marraige as it stands today. Besides, why should I care if a gay person wants to devout their life to someone? Its not like its me they are trying to marry. Funny thing is the reason most men are homo-phobic is because they think the gay men are looking at them. Gay marraige is in fact a way that gay people are trying to say "I will not look at anyone else". If anything, you stand to benefit.

User avatar
EatMoreLead
Benefactor
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sep 17th, 2002 at 11:59 pm

Postby EatMoreLead » Jun 27th, 2006 at 9:28 am

personally I'm disgusted by two girls kissing, please send all your hott lesbian freinds to Fort Worth for me to straighten them out. Well, that is once my nuts are not dark blue/black and the stitches have fallen out, let's plan on next week ok. thanks.
EatMoreLead aka EML

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Jun 27th, 2006 at 9:37 am

oh man, sucks about those stitches. here, hope this helps the healing process:

Image

also, i find the above imagery morrally reprehensible and socially degrading. so please, send me all your lesbian pornography so that i may ... dispose of it ..

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 27th, 2006 at 10:08 am

you need to go read up on the founding of this country, the religious temperment of the era, and the individual beliefs of the majority of our founding fathers (hint: they were deists)



I understand full well how the nation was founded, by whom, and under what belief structure.

I covered way to many points and was unable to go into a great deal of detail without a full dissertation so it came out all fucked up. That will teach me to jot something down minutes before I crash.

I believe in the seperation of church and state.

I believe that morals/ethics are the children of religoius ideology and are not naturaly occuring.

When a law is written that says "It is illegal to loiter" and the police exert authority and arrest people waiting in line to buy movie tickets so the law is changed to "It is illegal to loiter except when standing in line to buy tickets" so hookers pretend to stand in line so they can ply their wares in public so then they have to change the law to "Its illegal to loiter for more than 5 minutes without taking 3 steps every 2 minutes and being inside an establishment within 30min of the time you got in line".

Morals and ethics would dictate that since you know the intent of the law that you would abide by the law and its intent. If the only way we follow laws is to stay out of trouble then we find ways to manipulate laws to fit our needs.

I once had a job that required me to find ways around laws in order to manipulate the market I worked in. I get my concern from my own jaded first hand experience.

So are morals/ethics naturaly occuring? I do not believe so. I believe that they are a throwback to religous ideology formed thousands of years ago and meshed with varying degrees with the laws of the land.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Jun 27th, 2006 at 10:15 am

Burzum wrote:Let me save everyone some time on this one. Puppy and I had this debat many moons ago. I researched it on the intraweb over a long weekend and found that while the U.S. was founded on Christian principals it was NOT founded on Christianity. The founders were attempting to escape a government run religion. Many of them were Christians and a lot of them were diests, but none of them were about to tell anyone else how they should worship.


omfg you still fail to grasp the simple concept that no, it wasn't founded on Christian principles. The Church, at the time our great nation was founded, went against just about evey right embodied by the first ten Ammendments. Come on, all of these:

freedom of the press
freedom of religion
freedom of speech
and, to a certain extent, the right to own land

went against the very tenets of Christianity at the end of the 18th century. Those principles were foreign to the Christian establishment until the Age of Reason was well underway and it was realized that they were either going to have to adapt or perish.

Those freedoms were championed by Locke, Voltaire, Paine, Diderot, and the other French and English philosophes at the time who were ATHEISTS (read Candide).

All the misconceptions Americans have of our Founding really disturbs me ...

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jun 27th, 2006 at 10:23 am

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:
Burzum wrote:Let me save everyone some time on this one. Puppy and I had this debat many moons ago. I researched it on the intraweb over a long weekend and found that while the U.S. was founded on Christian principals it was NOT founded on Christianity. The founders were attempting to escape a government run religion. Many of them were Christians and a lot of them were diests, but none of them were about to tell anyone else how they should worship.


omfg you still fail to grasp the simple concept that no, it wasn't founded on Christian principles. The Church, at the time our great nation was founded, went against just about evey right embodied by the first ten Ammendments. Come on, all of these:

freedom of the press
freedom of religion
freedom of speech
and, to a certain extent, the right to own land

went against the very tenets of Christianity at the end of the 18th century. Those principles were foreign to the Christian establishment until the Age of Reason was well underway and it was realized that they were either going to have to adapt or perish.

Those freedoms were championed by Locke, Voltaire, Paine, Diderot, and the other French and English philosophes at the time who were ATHEISTS (read Candide).

All the misconceptions Americans have of our Founding really disturbs me ...


We're just going to have to agree to disagree than pup. I've seen a lot of evidence that some (not all) of the founding fathers were religious. Religion is heavily related to ones sense of morality and it only makes sense that the founders of the country would draw from their moral principals in establishing the guildines for a government that they saw as just.

The problem is that "Christian Principals" is very broad. Is that Orthadox? Catholic? Methodist? etc...there are a lot of points that are disputed by all the different sects of the Christian community. Maybe it would be better to replace "founded on Christian principals" with "founded based on each mans moral convictions influanced by his religion, mainly Christianity".

Happy? :P
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:46 am

Pups its funny that you should mention Locke. He is my primary source for much of my beliefs in church and state.

[quote]Locke's Two Treatises of Government were heavily relied upon by the American Founding Fathers. In fact, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke's Treatise on Government.â€
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

citeing Madison:

Letter of Madison to William Bradford (November 9, 1772)

watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.

Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773),

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.

in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.

in 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.

Madison later in life rejected his earlier views and stated that he had faltered in his seperation of church and state.

Other founding fathers that fail to be mentioned are:

Richard Henry Lee
George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights)
George Washington

Another key point that gets forgoten is the first Bill (Northwest Ordinance) signed by Washington stated:

That act stipulated that for a territory to become a State, the “schools and the means of educationâ€
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
WidowMaker
Benefactor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sep 15th, 2002 at 7:49 pm

Postby WidowMaker » Jun 27th, 2006 at 3:49 pm

Uh oh! PUPPY's favorite theory that the US was founded competely devoid of any religious influence has been challenged!

I think I smell his afro burning already.


-Wid
- The AWP god formerly known as 'WidowMaker' [Retired]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-Game Designer
-Retro Studios - www.retrostudios.com
-If the next Metroid sucks, you will know who to blame.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 27th, 2006 at 4:27 pm

I am not challenging anyone. I'm just stating what I have read. I do not know enough to challenge on this subject.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jun 28th, 2006 at 7:44 am

When PUPPY stops responding you win. He's to proud to say "sorry cata you're right".
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 28th, 2006 at 9:52 am

I don't know that I'm right. Everything I've ever been tought says that the US was founded by Deists. I have recently been reading otherwise. So its all new to me as well.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Jennthrotull
K2's better half
Posts: 135
Joined: Jan 25th, 2006 at 12:43 am

Postby Jennthrotull » Jun 30th, 2006 at 1:06 am

Campsalot wrote:
Jennthrotull wrote:voting for Bush because he is a Christian and because you agree with his religious beliefs as to abortion, sex ed, etc is not common sense.


Actually, those are very good reasons for voting or not voting for someone. Most people typically vote for a person that best represents what their moral/ethical beliefs. Those beliefs or the lack thereof will drive their decisions.


You have proven my point so clearly...thank you. A prime example of equating religion and morality with common sense. How many people still think that killing people to show how bad killing people is makes a damn bit of sense? Or how killing doctors to show how bad it is to perform abortions since abortions *kills a human being* makes sense?

I personally am a bit more concerned with whether the candidate is likely to piss off the entire world, his track record and experience with regards to foreign relations, and whether his "moral high ground" is likely to mean cutting funding for programs that save lives. Oh - and someone with a bit more understanding of military tactics than one can learn from a few games of Battleship or Risk. As someone deeply involved in the political process in perhaps the most corrupt state in the country, I can assure you that governors and the president have very little influence over the moral dealings and decisions in the house/senate. Oh - and whether he is going to run the country completely into the ground, much in the same way an oil prospecting company and a pro football (maybe baseball?) team fared under his leadership. And the ability to speak a complete, gramatically correct sentence without "hooked on phonics" is a bonus.

User avatar
Best_predator
Banished to Siberia
Posts: 2786
Joined: Dec 21st, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Postby Best_predator » Jun 30th, 2006 at 1:19 am

"hooked on phonics"
ROFL
Sneaky bastard...
"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." ~ Goethe

User avatar
EatMoreLead
Benefactor
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sep 17th, 2002 at 11:59 pm

Postby EatMoreLead » Jun 30th, 2006 at 1:11 pm

I think we need to elect a complete nutcase who scares every other contry to point they crap their pants. A hardline, radical, neo-constitutionalist who does away with taxes, aid, welfare and just leaves the military and legal system in place.
EatMoreLead aka EML

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 30th, 2006 at 1:40 pm

EatMoreLead wrote:I think we need to elect a complete nutcase who scares every other contry to point they crap their pants. A hardline, radical, neo-constitutionalist who does away with taxes, aid, welfare and just leaves the military and legal system in place.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Image

Or a professional actor playing Ahmadinejad would prob work if we can't get the real thing...

Image
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Campsalot
Senior Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Jul 20th, 2003 at 7:17 pm

Postby Campsalot » Jun 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm

Jennthrotull wrote:How many people still think that killing people to show how bad killing people is makes a damn bit of sense?


So, we should tell all the murderers "it's okay, if you kill someone the worst you have to worry about is life in an institution with all bills paid and many more amenities than the poorest folks in the country"? Oh, and to the families of those that have been murdered you sure are offering them justice. Come to think of it, show me a case for why killing murderers DOES NOT make sense. And spare me the "it costs more" bit, we've covered that crap.

Jennthrotull wrote: Or how killing doctors to show how bad it is to perform abortions since abortions *kills a human being* makes sense?


What in the world are you talking about? Killing doctors because they perform abortions? Last time I checked, abortions were legal (unfortunately) so they are not breaking any laws. If abortion was ruled to be illegal (as it should be) then I'm sure that 99% of all doctors would cease and desist.

It is this kind of logic that is scary to me. Our country is going downhill and it is because of the secularists that are dumbing-down the moral high ground of this country. There is a reason why this country is the most prosperous country in the world and it has only been around for a tiny fraction of other countries. We were founded on principles that are continually being thrown out for the sake of political correctness and it is sickening. The liberals think that those that propser should give up a disproportionate amount of their wealth "for the sake of the less fortunate". When are we as a country going to wake up and see the socialist and communist roots of some of these arguments and shut them down? Frustrating.. to say the very least.

K2, I feel sorry for you (and those serving with you), bro. You are giving the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that we continue to have the freedoms we have. And the thanks that you are receiving from some in the government (and the media) is that you are being classified as nazi's and murderers. You have my utmost respect!

Camps


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests