I can only read so much of them, I felt my face getting flushed and the last time that happened I ended up in cuffs.
I was acquitted though LOL

Dave_A

a citizens guide to revolution of a corrupt government.

i dont see it as promoting violence to our government. i see it as POSSIBLY promoting a way to fix a CORRUPT covernment, and if civil ways fail, then the sword should be used, which is pretty much what all the founders of this country agree with, and fully promoted, hence the 2nd amendment etc. if the government is NOT CORRUPT, then they apparently have little to fear from this sign, if they are fearful of it, then maybe they are admitting corruption??


when the framers of the constitution, and their remarks, are completly overlooked, then its hopeless to convince these people of the truth, who better knows the MEANING and INTENT of our constitution, than the people who wrote it..... 99% of the .....people..... on that web site are complete idiots..... did you notice the guy who was posting quotes from jefferson, that his posts were voted off the board????WTF???then all they can talk about is how illerate we are, and how we need to get some education in us...luckily the idiots in congress do not have to write a new constitution, could you IMAGINE what the fuck a new constitution would look like!?!?!?!

to them its all about liberals/vs/consertives.... repubs/vs/democrats..... etc..... i have my own set of problems, but at least i choose the people i dislike ,on what they believe in, and on their actions. i would never hate someone because they are a democrat, liberal, pro /anti abortion, pro/anti gun, etc.... i make my own decisions based on what it looks like, not on who they represent. people voted for obama, BECAUSE he was a democrat, or BECAUSE he was black....etc......... people who hold to those types of decisions, do not use their own minds and facts when deciding who to hate, or like, and its extremly sad..........

.i hate obama and pretty much ALL of congress, because of their beliefs, policys, and ideas. plus the way they are running the country into the ground. i dont care hes black, i could care less what color he is. it was VERY important to the people who voted for him, before its over, people will be missing bush badly.......... i know i do..

Those billboards are a thing of beauty .

The government clearly fears little from the signs, as Dave_A's post clearly pointed out.  This is no different than the G8 protesters and other protesters, always claiming the government is totalitarian, while at the same time expressing shock and dismay at every law enforcement reaction against them (sometimes, they embrace this duality so much, they go overseas and fail to anticipate getting run over by bulldozers).

The only people making an issue are the far left idiots in the linked discussion, and the far right idiots who are hoping for "fo" time and championing the signs.

Tolerating the signs, and championing the insinuation of the signs, are entirely different things.  This distinction seems lost on some.

i fully support this sign. i might have a different opinion if it was clearly dangerous speech...... ie..... kill democrats...... kill illegal aliens,,.. etc........ this sign says to me to start thinking about what the government is up to....... the biggest danger to us all is apathy. apathy has caused most of the worst things in history to happen, such aspassage of idiot laws,  the murder of millions of jews, government collapse, economic collapses.  the way americans are getting involved, tea partys, marches on washington, people questioning what the government does. with people waking up like this, it lowers peoples tolerance for gov stupidy........ people getting involved is the only thing that will keep a revolution from eventually happening..

If you're referring to my post...



Are you telling me you're NOT grateful for the right of free speech?



Because (in case it flew over your head) that is EXACTLY what I was talking about...



'Be grateful' that you live in a country where you can openly call for such things and NOT get arrested, assassinated, or 'disappeared'....



I may not agree with what the board says, but I do agree with the right to say it.





 

I would disagree DK...  what I would say is that Bohr has overlooked, ignored, or undervalued certain things.


Looking at the first part:


This is more or less a blatant red-herring argument, most closely a straw-man.  A straw-man easily knocked aside when one realises that this overlooks the fundamental idea that any disagreement with how any organization operates can be summarized as such, with step 3 appearing in disagreements where one or more sides feel extremely strongly about the subject.    

Next:



Ad hominem, and poisoning the well.   Given that the previous statement was nothing more than a straw-man, what does this section have to do with anything, other than a thinly veiled attempt to troll an audience to elicit a reaction?  Trying to get people banned? Trying to prod someone to do something to confirm your own biases?    I'd also like to note that the number of people I've seen post here who sympathized with McVeigh was rediculously tiny (ie. I can recall maybe two people) ... given such a small amount of people who weren't necessarily anti-McVeigh (as not everyone can be said to be pro-McVeigh simply because they aren't anti-McVeigh... one has to take into account what they actually think, and not just lump them into one of two camps and then ascribe the worst qualities you can imagine to the camp you disagree with)  ...   but given such a small sample size, how can you legitimately generalize it to the whole of ARFCOM?   You can't, and maintain any level of intellectual honesty.


Another Ad hominem, bounced off the back of a completely invalid statement.   You're not talking to the audience you seem to be talking.  No one here will argue that they supported McVeigh to the extent you're painting them... which was pretty much the point of saying this, wasn't it?



Preemptively labeling yourself in an attempt to get sympathy while trying to label the group opposing you in a negative light?

 Bohr, it's pretty simple, and for the sake of argument, I'll ignore all the inconsistencies and fallacies contained in your post.

It appears you cannot see the difference between someone mass murdering people on a religious premise based entirely on an argument one cannot resolve in this lifetime versus people becoming increasingly disgruntled with a government slewing farther and farther away from the documents that were set up to limit it from doing such things.   The very people you poked, prodded, and trolled see a government acting beyond it's mandate.  Correct or not, they see a future where the government is allowed unfettered power due to political expediency and personal corruption, and they do not want such things as, should such a reality come to being, it will do so by destroying everything many of us solemnly swore to "Uphold and Defend."   How can you be surprised that a group of people, who swore their lives and their sacred honor to defend the walls, would consider taking up arms against those who seek to tear down the walls from the inside?

You really can't, not without missing a signicant amount of the puzzle in front of you.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he was referring to me.  

He would have "ignored" you long ago, otherwise.

Unfortunately Dave, if those posting responses  to the billboard on the links get their way, you won't be able to do such things for much longer.  That is the future many of us fight against... and what would you do if ARF links to a story 6 months from now talking about the people who put up that billboard being arrested/sued/whatever over the content of the sign?  

Based on your previous responses,  I'd venture that, like Bohr_Adam, you'll gloss over it and pretend it didn't happen or, more true to your previous actions, try to find some way to justify it happening based solely on the fact that the victimized group is one you oppose.

Did you recently buy a "Logical Fallacies" book and completely misunderstand it, despite embracing the words in it?

You use many words, and don't seem to know what they mean.

Ad Hominem, for one, requires attacking the messenger, not the message.  My entire post was about the message, and my only attempt was to break down the rhetoric to its essence.  You are the one resorting to Ad Hominems, by trying to make this about me, instead of refuting my point.  You are the one creating strawmen, by suggesting my arguments is only supported if many people here supported Tim McVeigh.  This is practically the opposite of what I said - since I was pointing out the cognitive dissonance.

While we're at it, nobody in the local mosque at Ft. Hood supported Hasan's attacks, and no rational person in the Obama administration supports communism, either.  It is difficult to root out the extremist left wingers in the administration, when the few rational arguments are hidden in a din of nonsense.

I wouldn't bother. Four out of five Bohr posts are just him trolling to start shit. He likes to poke and prod until he finds a live one that blows up at him, then he gets all smug about it.

If he's willing to seriously discuss things with you and keep an open mind, then sure, go for it. He's actually interesting in the instances where he isn't trolling for easily aggravated people. I'd say he's one of those whose chasm isn't quite as deep as others, meaning it CAN be bridged... if he wants a bridge.

Well said Storm6436 on both counts!

This is another example of an ad hominem attack.

See, we can make these posts educational.

Now DK, you're clearly exaggerating.

Even muslims are smart enough to declare fatwa on infidels who put beans in chili.

Some of the fundamental differences between us and them:

While we'd be perfectly happy to let them live in whatever fucked up lifestyle they prefer, so long as they didn't interfere with us living in the lifestyle we prefer, they can't stand the thought of us doing things our way and not theirs. They have to FORCE us to live by their rules, not ours, and when we make it clear that we don't like it, they get all pissy. How DARE we not conform to their (often hypocritical) standards!

We'd be perfectly content to let them disagree with us... so long as they left us alone. If they forced us to take up arms to defend our lives, livelihood, and way of life, we'd fuck over whoever stood against us just like we do in war. But the ones who didn't legislate bullshit against us, the ones who didn't take up arms against us... we'd leave alone. Sure, we'd probably tell them to get the fuck out of our home states and segregate the country according to political beliefs, but we wouldn't do much more. And we'd motivated by rage and the instinct for self-preservation; as soon as the need for self-preservation was gone and just rage remained, our actions would get less extreme, and once the rage was gone we'd call it a day and go home.

Meanwhile, if they thought they could get away with it, they'd be putting us into reeducation camps to force us to conform to their rules, and if that didn't work, start up the genocide machine! The self-righteous fuckers would be smugly grinning as they watched us forced into cattle cars to our extermination. Conservatives always talk about fighting a war for self-preservation and freedom; leftists always talk about rounding people up and imprisoning or exterminating them en masse. Not because they're angry, not because they're fighting to stay alive and preserve their way of life, but simply because, "hey, those assholes don't agree with us! Kill 'em!"

Ok, he's just trolling again. I wouldn't expend the effort explaining anything to him as he's busy touching himself while thinking of how he's driving those mean ol' conservatives into a tizzy.

You give yourself far too much credit.

So... you're saying that most people in the Obama administration aren't rational?

There seems to be a disturbingly large number, but this is best addressed in specifics related to issues and backgrounds.

Maybe if I were attempting character assassination instead of pointing out observable facts about your behavior, you'd have a point. Again, you're just trolling for negative responses. Please, grow up and knock it off.

Since I've made no mention of myself, my accomplishments, or anything else to do with me, and instead merely pointed out exactly what you're doing in this thread, I've given myself nothing. I'm done with you for today. Run along and play with your blocks, the grownups want to have a talk now.

Oh, really, and what movie was this line from?  Just where do you think the CIA headquarters is located?  You is too easy.




 

Put in your own work and read the rules , laws and charter governing the CIA.

And that means something?  Where are they located, again?







 

We got one up here in Mason City about a week ago.










Patriots out number liberals by 5 to 10 times in this area?  I thought it was unpossible, Iowa.  Way to go!






http://www.radioiowa.com/2009/11/18/obama-billboard-raising-controversy-in-mason-city/

New question:

For all those defending the Democrats/Liberals/Obama....  What is the breaking point?  At point do you recognize something is seriously wrong?

Put away the politics/bias and think.

30% unemployment?

Fairness Doctrine?

75% not paying taxes?

End of the dollar?

People being jailed for not having a piece a paper (health insurance)?


Or are you okay with all of these things because you believe they are "progress?"

OK loosen your tin foil hat and read this.

I will not dignify your continued ad hominems with a response (as they only serve to show the opposite of what they say), but I will address your confusion as to my meaning.  When you imply that you alone posses all of the answers, and that the only problem with others in the world is they have not accepted this fact, you give yourself too much credit.

I will also point out that nobody has take the deconstruction I presented here and demonstrated where I was wrong.  This would, at least, be the foundations of an adult discussion on the issue.

Okay, that one is below the belt.  


 

How is that relevant?

The CIA does not collect on US persons, period.  Not in the US, not overseas.  This is applied consistently, whether those US persons are neoconfederate anti-federalist revolution advocates or Islamic preachers who advocate Shariah law.  The US government - as a whole - takes human rights seriously, and does not pick and choose like so many others within the US might prefer.

Hardly.   Do you remember English class?  In the sentence "Take this upstairs," what is the subject?  In case you don't remember, the subject is the understood 'You'.   Given the way you wrote in your post, with a complete lack of direction as to whom specifically you referred to, then your subject is an understood you.  You were clearly attacking the messengers of the 'revolutionary' group and their message.  How you've managed to miss that and somehow try to pass my post off as misinformed on the basis that I had somehow managed to think of YOU as the messenger ... well, that's convoluted.   If I'd started off calling you a bunch of names or engaged in some series of non sequitur aimed at yourself instead of pointing out the logical inconsistencies of your argument, then it would have been ad hominem against you... but that's not the case at all; however, given the content of your post in response to mine...  given that my post was dedicated to attacking the message by undermining the logical basis for the message, you can't say my post was in an ad hominem.

All that said, it's pretty simple:


And in doing so, you failed to see the forest for the trees; as I pointed out, any disagreement can be boiled down to the three steps you posted.  Any. Disagreement.  How does it make your point any more relevant then?  



So undermining your message by pointing out all the weak points is ... a strawman?  Sorry, not the last time I checked.

I would also point out that making an argument the way you did to the people you did... well, are you familiar with preaching to the choir? Echo chamber?  Feedback loops?  It's trivial to make an arguement where no one will be able to mount an effective defense so that you appear more correct than you actually are.  Quite trivial.

 I suppose you could attempt to argue that you were referring to some group of unnamed individuals, but in doing so, you'd sacrifice intellectual honesty and the internal integrity of your argument.  Why else would you post on ARF complaining that the rest of us are a bunch of McVeighs and not be referring to all of us.  




And you know there weren't any supporters in the local mosque for certain?  That there wasn't anyone who, in their heart of hearts, weren't gladdened?  I'm not saying that all the muslims in the mosque agreed with such actions, but you cannot, at the same time, say that absolutely no muslims supported it.

As for the 'no rational person' bit; you familiar with the 'no true scotsman' line?   If you made the case that anyone in the Obama admin who supports communism in any form (Leninism, Maxism, or any of the commie-lite socialism flavors) then I would make the case that there are very, very few rational people in our government today... which then leads to me making the case that if your government is filled with irrational people hellbent on fucking with you and yours, and doing so in ways that are explicitly proscribed for them... well, I seem to remember a document written in the late 1700s by some Americans at the time when they dealt with that... which brings us full circle back to the revolutionaries you seem to loathe.  One could make a few inferences based on your opposition to such actions as to your character.



It's difficult to root out extreme leftists in any environment, history has shown this.

awesome!

 And educational they should be.   One of the things that most people need to learn is that the truth hurts... and while that could be classified as an ad hominem... well, most malicious ad hominems are only effective if the audience doesn't have all the facts available to them and you attempt to undermine the opposition with baseless character assassination.  In this case,  the truth hurts, and your posting history backs his claim.  I would say that his post is entirely relevant.

i'm not entering my dog in this race/thread, but this post amused me.  while we have had a fair amount of disagreements, A_B is one of the most astute posters on the entire board. if you want to refer to "not tolerating shoddy arguments" as "trolling to start shit", then that represents your shortcoming, not his.

Ah yes, the first amendment, the liberals hate it almost as much as they hate the second....almost.

No one here but MAYBE a very few are okay with those things.  But not all of those things have happened.  They're trying - yeah.  And we are opposing them.  Will we be successful?  Dunno.

 

Get your head out of Dave_a's ass

I did that about a year ago , I seen the writing on the wall. I don't see fellow Americans that happen to have a different view , I see an enemy to the American way of life and everything I was brought up to believe in , they're no more to me than a rabid dog that has over stayed its welcome. I have no qualms whatsoever about doing my duty when that time comes.
 

My comments were clearly framed in regard to those advocating revolution, and using the far left nuts as the excuse.  Will you claim the "fo time" thing is in my imagination now, and that such themes have bot become popular here?  I was directly addressing this rhetoric, so claiming I was personally attacking people NOT expressing such rhetoric is a bit of a stretch.  I made the comparison to "arfcom revolutionaries."  If you are NOT an "arfcom revolutionary," then, clearly it was not about you ar your rhetorical position.



See above.  The only way my post could have applied to you is if you see yourself as one of the "Arfcom revolutionaries."  They are, and continue to be, the subject.  If what you now post is your actual position, you are NOT advocating revolution and it does NOT apply.  How hard is that to understand?  What makes you so certain that your proclaimed reasonable position is shared by EVERYONE else who reads this and posts here?



I do not, now will I likely veer, come to understand the groupthink this bit implies.  Your POV either fits what I outlined, or it does not.  You either embrace the same rhetoric that inspired McVeigh, or you do not.  




We don't - just as we don't know how many people on arfcom espousing revolutionary rhetoric supported McVeigh's actions.  Funny though how your benefit of the doubt switches 180 degrees when the context shifts.



Many here seem to believe Obama supporters support him because they support Communism.  This is divisive nonsense, and makes no attempt to honestly look at the issues in the country and why people voted for whom.  It also makes no attempt to seriously look at the motives of those in the administration.  As such, it becomes counterproductive, as people close ranks and defend instead of taking a serious look inside.  Just look at how quickly folks here want to kick me out of the circle for suggesting we look inward?  

You don't purge communists from the administration by calling them all communists.  You point out the communists.

This is a well thought response!

And my next question; is there a point of no return?  You say these things won't happen, but what if they are a means to an end?

Take Argentina for example.  Their crises played out in such a way that the people remained unorganized.  More concerned about the monetary situation and putting food on the table than the course of government (the problem).  In eight years they went from a relatively free country with a first world economy into a virtual dictatorship with third world poverty.  The government closed the banks trapping the working class into poverty during the currency deleveraging.  The government controls the media and recently moved to seize private pension funds in a effort to keep the public pension (their Social Security) solvent.

There are people who think these things can't happen here.  They are fools...

Starve the beast.  Keep your money.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  In fact, I think I've said something along those lines a few times.

Step 3 will be here before you know it.

I said they HAVEN'T happened, YET.  I'm sure that a few of them will go through with much kicking and screaming on our part, and once again they will have completely ignored the pulse of the country and passed it to spite us.

 

Wow what can I say, this billboard sends a thrill up my leg.

Whoa hoss.
You could have saved that prodigious brain of yours and just said:
"It's treasonous to both support the government and to oppose it's policies."
"Many of you here support McVeigh and his means."
"Hasan isn't a coward, like many here."
"Don't subscribe to my version of conservative, Reaganesque beliefs?  Then you can only be reactionary, devisive, and nonsensical."  
"Man, I'm a liberal because I disagree with the folks who believe government should have limts."
"It's tough being a man on an island, you don't get invited to many parties."