Where do you fit in?

[Gary]

That's the thing, all I did was ask a question of him; " You're not a citizen of the USA, are you? If you are, shame on you." THAT'S the total of my response that got me banned.

 

[Bret4207]

It probably won't surprise anyone that I've been banned from multiple sites. I mean like a dozen at least. In some cases (1 maybe) what I said was done in anger and I suppose I deserved it. In several others I simply disagreed, respectfully, with the group. In some just being a LEO was all it took, as in I literally posted solid information so people could haul their horses and farm equipment legally and I got banned. Another place took issue with my taking issue with a guy from Germany running down the USA and I used a common cop term that the moderator said meant something else entirely- he looked it up in the URBAN DICTIONARY!!! I don't care anymore. Ban me. Have at it. I am what I am. I don't intentionally go around trying to irritate people, but I won't be walked on or see others walked on. I think most of us are like that to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[Rick]

So . . . Anyone here wondering why this forum has a no politics rule?

hhmmm . . . Anyone?

 

[Gary]

To me Politics is about Rep/Dem; topical issues NOT about the CONSTITUTION. It's scary to have such an important item as off limits. Probably why we are in our present condition as a nation.

 

[fiver]

I don't think most people are familiar enough with the constitution to have an argument about it.
they pretty much ''know'' we got 5 rights, but couldn't tell you what number-3 was if they had to, and have no clue about any amendments beyond that point.
nor that the constitution was written on more than one piece of paper.
nor that there is a series of papers that delve into why each right and responsibility was written the way it was.
they couldn't even tell you that the original amendment's weren't a change to the constitution, but clarifications to help some of the states get on board with being ''united''.

 

[462]

That the Supreme Court and Constitutional scholars continue to debate and try to define the Constitution, are we to expect that the many millions of ill-educated and unwashed scheiskopfs have even the vaguest idea of what it's about, or even want to know?
Federalist Papers? Huh?

Never mind . . .

 

[Bret4207]

That the Supreme Court and Constitutional scholars continue to debate and try to define the Constitution, are we to expect that the many millions of ill-educated and unwashed scheiskopfs have even the vaguest idea of what it's about, or even want to know?
Federalist Papers? Huh?

Never mind . . .

Ummm, I assume that was sarcasm, I hope. It's too bad more people don't take an interest beyond, "What's in it for me?"

 

[CZ93X62]

I've only been tossed from one site (that I know of), and curtailed severely on another. I try to not antagonize people, but I'm not a doormat either. I am in complete agreement that while civil rights and the discussion of same are critically important, those aren't subjects I want to tear into on a cartridge reloading and bullet crafting site. A&SBC is my respite from that maelstrom, just like pro sports used to be 2-3 hours in which we could set aside the cares of the day and watch athletes compete and excel. The incorporation of politics into sports has begun to destroy those venues, and will have the same effect here.

 

[462]

Ummm, I assume that was sarcasm, I hope. It's too bad more people don't take an interest beyond, "What's in it for me?"

Bret, I was serious. The "Huh?" would be the answer if you asked anyone born after 1960 what the Federalist Paper are.

The "Never mind." was to prevent me from an infraction.

I'm in total agreement with your last sentence.

 

[fiver]

I didn't take it as sarcasm, more a point of order/opinion.

one of the things that will quickly anger me is deliberate misinterpretation of the constitution, it is pretty clearly written with comma's, periods , and even capitalization was used in the proper places.
then it was further explained in the federalist papers.
to top it off it clearly states what the federal government can and cannot do, what it is supposed to do with the money it collects, and how states rights work.

it doesn't need any interpretation, you just read it, and do what it says,,, simple.
it's not complicated, but it sure has been convoluted.

 

[waco]

I'll leave my 2 cents out just because. I think this one has gone just about far enough. I have seen other threads shut down for a lot less.

 

[462]

to top it off it clearly states what the federal government can and cannot do, what it is supposed to do with the money it collects, and how states rights work.

^^^

 

[Charles Graff]

Back in 1964 or so, while in Law School a friend of mine ran for a seat in the Texas Legislature. I never could get him to declare his political ideology. At long last I cornered him literally at a party. I had him in a corner with my arms braced against the wall to pen him in. I told him "Chuck, you are not getting out of this corner until you tell me whether you are a liberal or a conservative. He told me, "Well I am a flexible moderate". Being shorter than I by a good bit, he ducked under my arm and went to the bar.

I have taken his approach as my mantra when folks try and pin me down. I hold the opinion that no political ideology or religious dogma has all their possums up one tree.

It this is encroaching on no-no land, some mod, just delete it please.