Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Constitutional Scholar" O'Donnell On 2d Amendment  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

When Hollywood celebrities open their mouths apparently without thinking about what they're actually saying, it makes the rest of America look foolish.

No, I take that back. I'm being generous. It makes them look foolish.

For example, did you know that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is really "not a right"?

Rosie O'Donnell says so.

See:

target=_blank>http://newsbusters.org/node/8064

 

[Edited 2006-10-04 12:11:10]

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Someone ought to have reminded Rosie of the school shooting in the UK a few years ago. There is a country with extremely tight gun control and yet children where gunned down by a madman.

My point like Ed Rendell's yesterday is that if someone is determined to pull something like this off, even if they die in the process, they can and will do it.

Make guns illegal and only criminals will have guns.

I am someone who doesn't own a gun, doesn't want a gun, doesn't really need a gun.

Funny how Rosie interprets the Constituion though. Stuff NOT in the Constitution is a RIGHT, Right to Privacy, Right to an Abortion, Right for Gays and Lesbians to Marry, BUT something ACTUALLY IN the Constitution can and should be ignored.

Seriously, Rosie should crack open a history book and learn something before mouthing off, but that's just wishful thinking. She is without a doubt the MOST pretenious, self important, holier-than-thou, liberal in the country, and THAT is saying something.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1678 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 1):
Someone ought to have reminded Rosie of the school shooting in the UK a few years ago. There is a country with extremely tight gun control and yet children where gunned down by a madman.

Gun control in the UK got a LOT tighter after Dunblane though - a complete ban on private ownership of handguns, IIRC. And not a bad thing, in my opinion. The fewer guns out there the better.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1631 times:

What they say -- "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" -- is appropos in this regard. I see no reason that anyone should fear the fact that decent, upstanding citizens have guns.

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8740 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 3):
What they say -- "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" -- is appropos in this regard. I see no reason that anyone should fear the fact that decent, upstanding citizen

fine with me, but over here, where every decent and upstanding citizen does not immediately have the right to own a gun unless licenced (like hunters) who must stow them all the times when unused into heavy duty lockers, life is a bit more relaxed.

I would hate to get hand cuffed for minor offenses like speeding or other mis- demeanours. Here, a cop must not assume that you have a gun ready to point at him, so he is pointing one at you. I did at least 200 000 miles of driving inj the US over the years and take much care not to get stopped by police. Here, I do at least 20 kmh all the time when roads permit, in the US I never exceed speed limits for that simple reason.

I prefer a life without guns. And BTW, we have far less incidents like that in Dunblane in Europe.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

Ohhh, good . . . another gawddamn Anti-Gun debate on A-Net . . . .

 sarcastic  sarcastic  sarcastic  sarcastic 

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 3):
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" -- is appropos in this regard.

Appropros! Understatement of the Decade Award Nominee here. Spot on accurate is what it is . . .

Rosie O'Donnel knows as much about Gun Control as she does about hetero sex . . .


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):
I would hate to get hand cuffed for minor offenses like speeding or other mis- demeanours. Here, a cop must not assume that you have a gun ready to point at him, so he is pointing one at you. I

That's generally during a felony stop. That doesn't happen during a typical stop for speeding or any similar traffic infraction.

Of course, the police officers here can correct me on that if that's in error.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 3):
What they say -- "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" -- is appropos in this regard. I see no reason that anyone should fear the fact that decent, upstanding citizens have guns.

I think the view on this side of the ocean (amongst many of us anyway), is that we would prefer a society where nobody, not even upstanding citizens, NEEDS to own a gun. After all, very few of us nowadays hunt our own food, or live in areas where dangerous animal predators are present in abundance, and so we hope that we have outgrown the need to go around armed.

Look at it a bit like drunk driving - societal pressure is slowly but surely reducing the incidence of drunk driving. In a similar sense, gun ownership has become outside of the social norm here (certainly for city dwellers - people in the country own shotguns etc for hunting, which is fine), but one basically just doesn't even think about it any more. The thought process being: The only people who could possibly need a handgun, are criminals. I am not a criminal, ergo I don't need a handgun. The police have guns, because the criminals might, but I'm not a policeman either.

I (fortunately) in all my ahemfortyahem years have never been in a situation where I needed to defend myself from attack (and I lived in SA for 13 years, which had one of the highest incidence of gun crime in the world, around that time). I have never owned a gun, and I will never allow one into my house, because there is NO NEED.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 7):
I think the view on this side of the ocean (amongst many of us anyway), is that we would prefer a society where nobody, not even upstanding citizens, NEEDS to own a gun. After all, very few of us nowadays hunt our own food, or live in areas where dangerous animal predators are present in abundance, and so we hope that we have outgrown the need to go around armed.

The existence of gun ownership is also a deterrent to abuse by the government. There is another saying that occurs to one here -- and if there isn't, then you've certainly read it here first: "Fear the government that fears its own."

There will always be the extremely rare occasion when agents of government may take it upon themselves to violate the trust of the people. When the military is ordered to grossly violate the rights of the citizenry by the civilian leadership, it must, in the greatest of extremities, disobey; but when the civilian government does it, and uses armed agents, on that extremely rare occasion, to implement its will, it should know that a well-armed militia stands ready to protect the will of the people as a safeguard against government abuse.

In modern times, no government has required an armed rebellion or any kind of insurrection in order to defend the Constitution, or the will of the people that stands behind it. But it is reassuring to know that, in addition to the professionalism of the military and police that protect us, the people themselves are equipped with the means of ensuring that our freedoms are guarded by the same means that the civilian government uses with which to protect law and order.

The stakes are very high where the freedom of the American people are concerned, and it would be criminal to prevent us from guarding our stake in it to the maximum extent we can.

[Edited 2006-10-06 12:03:46]

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
The existence of gun ownership is also a deterrent to abuse by the government. There is another saying that occurs to one here: "Fear the government that fears its own citizens."

Come on, we are no longer living in the 18th century, we don't NEED to revolt against our goverments any more. We have democracy now (such as it is, which is more like plutocracy still, but hey ho), and can you honestly foresee in your wildest, cheese-induced nightmares a European government oppressing its people by force of arms ? OK Serbia did, but they don't really count. It just wouldn't happen - politics just isn't that important any more. We have our freedom now (thanks to about 1000 years of wars, bloodshed, tyranny etc), we've had it with wars, thanks very much.

The old chestnut about a well-ordered militia applied when the Constitution was written, but not any more. Back then, the United States was engaged in wars on every side, against native Americans, against the British, against the French here and there, the Spanish and pretty much anything else that moved. It was a colonial society eking out a still fairly precarious existence on a largely alien shore. Society has evolved beyond that, and to believe otherwise is to belittle the socio-political advances that have been made in 200 years. Violent overthrow of the government is pretty much never an acceptible solution any longer. When was the last successful armed insurrection that instituted a truly democratic government and didn't result in civil war and significant loss of life ?

If you are living in a society where you feel you need to own a firearm in order to protect your own life, then you need to think seriously about what has gone wrong with that society. In my view, the vast majority of the citizens of the USA have no NEED to own a firearm - the levels of crime and violence that would justify it are restricted to some very specific and very small urban localities. This myth of rising up and overthrowing an oppressive government by force of arms just doesn't hold water any more, it cannot be taken seriously.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 9):
Come on, we are no longer living in the 18th century, we don't NEED to revolt against our goverments any more.



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 9):
In my view, the vast majority of the citizens of the USA have no NEED to own a firearm - the levels of crime and violence that would justify it are restricted to some very specific and very small urban localities. This myth of rising up and overthrowing an oppressive government by force of arms just doesn't hold water any more, it cannot be taken seriously.

This is really a matter of opinion.

Before the appointment of Adolf Hitler, Germany was considered one of the most civilized nations in the world. Germany led in many fields of learning, and its appealing philosophy of gentility and peace as exemplified by Goethe contrasted with the militarism of its 19th Century governments. Nietzsche was controversial even among those who knew of his existence.

And yet, not too early into the 20th Century, it so happened that a minor troublemaker from Bavaria made himself better known, and his proponents soon intimidated a Germany too dispirited from defeat, too bewildered by the new conditions of life, to know truth from utter, filthy lies. And so Hitler and his minions assumed absolute power over the German people.

As Americans, we have a faith and an obligation toward our own history. We are a people whose existence depended on the success of rebellion against a genteel, yet authoritarian, overlord -- the then-"hyperpower" known as the British Empire. A motley crew of rebels was assembled to defeat the greatest power on Earth, using what we could salvage, with the "gracious", but ultimately secondary, assistance of Britain's greatest enemy.

First and foremost, the American people relied only upon themselves, and not their government.

This, therefore, is in our tradition: To uphold our values with what we have, and to protect the means of doing so.

To say that modernity changes the rules of the game is to believe that human nature changes with the flicker of the calendar page. It does not, and neither, do our rights and obligations toward our own freedoms and our own rights, and to the posterity which we bequeath to generations yet to be.

[Edited 2006-10-06 12:22:08]

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 10):
To say that modernity changes the rules of the game is to believe that human nature changes with the flicker of the calendar page. It does not, and neither, do our rights and obligations toward our own freedoms and our own rights, and to the posterity which we bequeath to generations yet to be.

I happen to hope very much that human nature DOES change over time. I for one would hate to have to maintain the traditions of European liberty - it was a bloody and unpleasant business, and we have Ihope learned from it that we don't want it repeated.

I would hope also that America can move beyond worshipping the mythology that has arisen around your own revolution, distil from it the values of the end that was achieved and that you wish to retain, and move on. Do not confuse the means with the end. At the time the means were driven by necessity, and cannot be called regrettable, but they were the means of the era in which they occurred, and we have moved on from there.

Without question the end was laudable and the result a very great achievement, but you must allow that achievement to grow beyond its violent origins - of course it has already, very much so, and not always at the point of a gun either (although it has to be acknowledged that America's physical expansion was mostly down to force of arms, a fact again which underscores the national perception that weapons are necessary to ensure a nation's greatness)


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8740 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 10):
And yet, not too early into the 20th Century, it so happened that a minor troublemaker from Bavaria made himself better known, and his proponents soon intimidated a Germany too dispirited from defeat, too bewildered by the new conditions of life, to know truth from utter, filthy lies. And so Hitler and his minions assumed absolute power over the German peopl

......from Austria, to be precise. If that happens, any society has the right of resistance, although, if such scumbags make it to power it may be too late because that is the first thing they make sure of.

I don't say anything against the right of Americans to own guns, but would your contitutional rights be violated if that is restricted to "normal" hunting weapons, hand gun or such? I mean, no one needs a machine gun or high power rifles to form a "home army".

concerning Rosie O'Donnel, OK, she is a stupid cow but she's in show biz where she can do little harm. Her equivalent in Germany, Claudia Benedikta Roth, is co-chief of the Greens Party and that is much more frightening.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 9):
...can you honestly foresee in your wildest, cheese-induced nightmares a European government oppressing its people by force of arms ? OK Serbia did, but they don't really count.

 sarcastic  rotfl  faint 

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 9):
Violent overthrow of the government is pretty much never an acceptible solution any longer. When was the last successful armed insurrection that instituted a truly democratic government and didn't result in civil war and significant loss of life ?

Isn't there a coup underway right now in Thailand?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
, but would your contitutional rights be violated if that is restricted to "normal" hunting weapons, hand gun or such? I mean, no one needs a machine gun or high power rifles to form a "home army".

Would you mind defining the difference between a "normal" hunting weapon and weapons that shouldn't be owned?


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):
Rosie O'Donnel knows as much about Gun Control as she does about hetero sex . . .

In...Out... Repeat as nessasary.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 7):
After all, very few of us nowadays hunt our own food, or live in areas where dangerous animal predators are present in abundance, and so we hope that we have outgrown the need to go around armed.

Likewise very few in the US go around armed. I don't I don't know anyone who leaves there house with a gun, even the two people I know who own them, one of whom is a cop.

But as was stated before this right was placed int he Bill of Rights to limit the control of the Federal government. Reliquishing that right is wealening the Indiviual rights in the face of increased Government rights. Liberals like Rosie love to argue that American's civil liberties are under threat from the "Patriot Act" arguing we are giving up Civil Liberties for security, oddlly they argue that we should give up our Civil Liberity to bear arms for Security, and don't see the inherent hypocracy.

And before you say the Patriot Act doesn't apply, I need to remind you, the Patriot Act is nothing to fear if you are a law abiding citizen, on the other hand banning all guns would MAKE law abiding citizens criminals over night if they failed to turn in there guns. THAT is the fundemental difference, the difference that Liberal politicians work hard to distract the public from.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 9):
OK Serbia did, but they don't really count.

Interesting...How do you cite an example refuting your claim, yet claim it doesn't count! Of course it counts.

Lastly, I want to say that for years I never wanted a gun in my house. I do have one but its an antique 1858 Enfield Rifled musket. However, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina really made me think again about buying one for home protection. I have not run out an got one, but many of the people I talked to began to think the same way. Suddenly, we saw the complete breakdown of law and order in New Orleans. The overwhelmed police system broke down entirely. This is a concern that weighs heavily in my thoughts on if I should purchase a gun.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8740 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 13):

Would you mind defining the difference between a "normal" hunting weapon and weapons that shouldn't be owned?

imagine a NIMBY buying an anti-aircraft gun and teaming up with Rosie O'Donnel who told him it is his constitutional right to shoot down those noisy buggers....
 Wink

OK, that was irony, I would define a "normal" hunting weapon as something that kills deer but leaves the portioning of the meat for the hunter and his knife.

No one needs a AK47 or whatever these high power automatic rifles are called.unless you live in the center of Baghdad.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1537 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 15):
No one needs a AK47 or whatever these high power automatic rifles are called.

Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States unless you have Class 3 FFL and it's been that way since 1934. An AK-47 is only medium-power anyway.

It's so amusing to read what people write when they try to criticize something they don't have any working knowledge of.

Rosie O'Donnell is another of those people. If she's attacking the 2nd amendment by saying that it's "not really a right", I am going to attack the 19th amendment and say that voting is not really a right for women. Bitch!

The injustice in this country is that anybody can go out in open media and spew unsubstantiated lies to millions of people and not be held accountable for it.

Ms. O'Donnell is so full of shit she squishes when she walks.


User currently offlineIlikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Thank God Hassleback was there to be a voice of reason.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 9):
Come on, we are no longer living in the 18th century, we don't NEED to revolt against our goverments any more. We have democracy now (such as it is, which is more like plutocracy still, but hey ho), and can you honestly foresee in your wildest, cheese-induced nightmares a European government oppressing its people by force of arms ? OK Serbia did, but they don't really count. It just wouldn't happen - politics just isn't that important any more. We have our freedom now (thanks to about 1000 years of wars, bloodshed, tyranny etc), we've had it with wars, thanks very much.

So I suppose that because we no longer live in the 18th century, we can also repeal things like the 13th, 15th and the 19th amendments because, in our enlightened society, no one would practice slavery anyway.  Yeah sure Besides, given the weapons of today's US Armed Forces, handguns and rifles alone would not be able to repel the armies if they are tuned against their own people.

I'm sure that in your utopic view of the world things would be perfect if all guns were taken away. But the truth is that there will always be people out there who will take advantage of a person's insecurity for their own gain. Individuals need to be able to protect themselves. Ask a thief whom he fears more: an armed homeowner or the police, and the majority will say they fear an armed homeowner more.

When in Alabama, I was at a gun store were the owner had an obvious limp from a defect in his leg. He can't outrun attackers because of this and at his age and stature (50 I'd guess) He can't overpower anyone. So firepower is his defense.



Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8740 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 16):

Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States unless you have Class 3 FFL and it's been that way since 1934. An AK-47 is only medium-power anyway

I admit that I am not as familiar with weapons as I am with aircraft types and aviation. I am not criticizing the right to own weapons either, and I really don't care if an AK 47 is medium power or whatever.

From an outside view of someone who has spend some time in the US, living there as well as numerous business and vacation trips since 1970, I have my opinion based on experience. The US is over Policed and the question is, is it because everyone can own a gun and too many people make use of it? Don't get me wrong, I am comfortable in both societies, the US and Europe, when I am in the US I feel just as home as over here.

It's your country, it's your constitution and there certainly are some areas where possibly even I would own a rifle if I would live there, and I don't mean the Bronx but Wyoming or Montana or other western states. But in urban areas? I think I don't need to know much about guns in detail, but my life experience and the good knowledge of both worlds tells me that the US could do well with a bit less armour.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1514 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
The US is over Policed and the question is, is it because everyone can own a gun and too many people make use of it?

This statement highlights the fundemental misunderstanding of the situation. Gun violence in urban areas is NOT commited 9 times out of 10 with LEGALLY purchased weapons, nor are they commited with assault rifles.

They are commited with cheap hand guns. They are bought illegally carried illegally, and used illegally. What does this mean? It means there are ALREADY LAWS AGAINST this VERY THING, so what would a new law possibly accomplish?

I listened to a radio report from Philadelphia this morning which addressed this issue. The Young guy interviewed said that the problem was that if someone is dissed then thier ONLY recourse is to go get a gun and defend thier "Honor". This brings up two questions First, WHY is the only reposnse to a verbal problem, death? Second, is where does the gun come from. Its certainly not coming from a leagal gun store!

Lastly, there is the issue of Assault rifles. People continually say that a you don't need an AK-47 to hunt with, giving the impression that military style assault rifles are more powerful than a hunting rifle. However, as someone who works at the West Point Museum and has seen and worked with alot of Military weapons as well as sporting rifles and ammunition, i can tell you that the AK-47 and M-16 take a smalled less powerful round than your average hunting rifle. Assault rifles have been designed to carry smalled rounds to make them lighter, and the Geneva convention prohibits hollow points. The full metal jacket prevents the round from mushrooming out and causing unnessasary pain, while the high velocity means the round typically goes through the target. My point! Gun control advocates would like people to think that military style rifles are more powerful and deadlier than hunting rifles which they grudingly accept. In reality, military assault rifles available to civilians are less powerful than hunting wepons.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
The US is over Policed and the question is, is it because everyone can own a gun and too many people make use of it?



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
But in urban areas? I think I don't need to know much about guns in detail, but my life experience and the good knowledge of both worlds tells me that the US could do well with a bit less armour.

Actually, the opposite is true.

I've never heard of a school shooting taking place on a military base, a hostage situation at a police station, and I've never heard of someone mowing people down with an assault rifle at a gun show.

Now, I wonder why that is? Is it because someone stupid enough to try something like that would be met with an overwhelming armed response? There were certainly PLENTLY of guns around at the last gun show I went to, yet there was no armed robbery, no rapes, no murders and no mass killings. If it holds true that more guns means more crime, that gun show should have been "murder-central".

I am a concealed handgun license instructor, so I am around armed people all the time and not yet has there ever been an issue with one of those armed people poking a gun in my ribs and telling me to give them my wallet. Could it happen? Yeah, it could. But what keeps them from doing it? What is it about a gun that makes someone instantly become a criminal? Am I a criminal because I carry a gun? Are the people that I train criminals after they start carrying? I'm not going to answer these questions because we all know the answer. Food for thought......


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1501 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 20):
I am a concealed handgun license instructor, so I am around armed people all the time and not yet has there ever been an issue with one of those armed people poking a gun in my ribs and telling me to give them my wallet.

No, but if you instruct enough classes eventually someone will mindlessly turn around and "accidentally" point a "jammed" weapon at you.

Wear a vest.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1481 times:

I thank JGPH1A for his comments and would take note that others have addressed some aspects of his opinion. I would disagree that human nature changes in any significant way throughout the centuries, and perhaps this is one reason that some believe my positions to be conservative.

I believe in progress, but even more, I believe in learning from our past, and in preserving the best aspects of our own history.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1481 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
When Hollywood celebrities open their mouths apparently without thinking about what they're actually saying, it makes the rest of America look foolish.

Unless they lean GOP, right AF? Then what they say is perfectly fine.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 23):
Unless they lean GOP, right AF? Then what they say is perfectly fine.      

Have I quoted Charleton Heston lately? Or at all?

I rarely quote Hollywood celebrities. The last time I did so here was to cite the words from the work of a Hollywood scriptwriter, and even so I pointed out that he put the words that I thought were evocative of some of the ideas I supported in the mouth of a villain.

I would rather consider the words of scholars, such as Elie Wiesel, or even familiar sayings that convey the wisdom of common sense, than to give much credence to what performers in Tinseltown or New York have to say about matters of the greatest import.

[Edited 2006-10-06 18:27:58]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Michael "Kramer" Richards Blows Up On Stage In LA posted Mon Nov 20 2006 18:23:02 by AAFLT1871
News Alert: "Slavish" On Black List... posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:25:16 by AerospaceFan
Bush Tells Congress: "Fight Terror On My Terms." posted Fri Sep 8 2006 07:15:08 by Gunsontheroof
"Nothing Gringo On May 1" posted Fri Apr 14 2006 16:20:50 by Komododx
"Mysterious" Man Pic On 9/11 posted Thu Jan 20 2005 01:21:33 by Planespotterx
Bush: "Bring Em On" posted Tue Jul 8 2003 04:26:05 by Kevi747
"Zero Hour" Message Received On 9/10 posted Thu Jun 20 2002 03:33:24 by Alpha 1
British Rocker Says UK Troops Should Stop "Crying" posted Wed Nov 22 2006 01:49:22 by AerospaceFan
Anyone Here Heard Of Old Computer Game "Lotus"? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 13:08:01 by Thom@s
Pakistan Suggest "kinder" Sex Laws. posted Wed Nov 15 2006 21:21:24 by Thom@s