More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[JoeWeber 2,299]

18 minutes ago, jakee said:

Winsor has a habit of posting staggeringly racist things, and a habit of defending the Confederacy as the unjustly injured party. My assertion is a pretty straightforward 'if x then y' of Winsor's own words. 

By contrast, you have absolutely nothing to say about the topic as per usual and are simply posting an ad hom that serves no purpose than to be an ad hom, as you often do with several different people here. The needling is entirely yours and entirely pointless.

You win.

[jakee 1,255]

11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You win.

That's what happens when reality is on my side and hypocrisy is on yours.

[kallend 1,623]

I've jumped with Winsor and even gave a joint seminar with him at Quincy.    He's OK.

[gowlerk 1,913]

28 minutes ago, kallend said:

I've jumped with Winsor and even gave a joint seminar with him at Quincy.    He's OK.

We aren't questioning his social skills and ability to get along with others skydivers. We are evaluating the words in his posts and the worldview he expresses here. I'm assuming we are all okay and are all successful contributing members of society. Even the ones you and I block. Which does not include Winsor BTW. Even so, apparently you can never know when a billyvance may in in our midst. 

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

I've jumped with Winsor and even gave a joint seminar with him at Quincy.    He's OK.

I haven't, so I can only go by the stuff he chooses to tell us. If he doesn't really believe the racist, pro-confederacy stuff he posts that's his problem, not mine.

[wmw999 2,122]

On 3/2/2024 at 10:07 AM, winsor said:

That was an eviction.  No Yankees were killed in the process, they were sent packing - under arms - after being kicked off of Confederate property.

If you can play with that viewpoint of history, why is it so hard to accept other viewpoints, like, for instance, the 1619 project?

Wendy P. 

[gowlerk 1,913]

On 3/2/2024 at 10:07 AM, winsor said:

after being kicked off of Confederate property.

Yes it's true the Confederacy was merely defending "property rights".

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

27 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes it's true the Confederacy was merely defending "property rights".

That's funny.

Ft Sumter was US Army property. Federal property. As was all the equipment the Confederates stole.

That overall idea is something the 'secessionists' in various places seem to not realize.

If Texas, for example, leaves the US, they lose ALL the military bases both 'regular' and Reserves). And NASA in Houston. And all the defense contractors. And all their Social Security money. And all their federal (military & civilian) pensions. And a lot more.

I've seen some economic estimates, and people smarter than I have said they'd be broke in less than 3 years.

[billvon 2,400]

37 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I've seen some economic estimates, and people smarter than I have said they'd be broke in less than 3 years.

Ironically, the deepest red states - which, in general, are the states that hate the Federal government, welfare spending and socialism the most - are generally also the states that would be bankrupt the fastest if they were cut off from federal money.  West Virginia, Mississippi, Alaska and Kentucky are all in the top 5.

 

 

[winsor 186]

22 hours ago, wmw999 said:

If you can play with that viewpoint of history, why is it so hard to accept other viewpoints, like, for instance, the 1619 project?

Wendy P. 

For the same reason that I never went along with Jesus Freaks when they invited me to join their discussion with their invisible friend.

When one's core premise is immediately and verifiably false, the conclusion may be dismissed out of hand.

[winsor 186]

On 3/2/2024 at 12:24 PM, gowlerk said:

Countries almost never break up peacefully. The problem was the south wasn't strong enough to pull it off. And it still isn't.

Divorce tends to be ugly.

When someone is in denial about the split and reestablishes 'spousal rights' by force of arms, that is generally considered felonious and frowned upon.

It is ironic that many of the people who laud the virtues of reabsorbing the Confederacy at bayonet point are all in favor of backing breakaway republics hither and yon (Kosovo et al.).

Suffice it to say that I find slavery of any type to be repellent, and have a much better track record in working with people of any description than, say, Abraham Lincoln (read his actual writings on the subject).

What is 'good' or 'bad' rather depends upon who you ask, so I make no such claims either way.  I have found, however, that the study of history often provides a vastly different picture than is widely accepted.

As Asimov pointed out, the sound of scientific discovery isn't 'Eureka!,' it's 'that's funny...'  The same is often true with historical records.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[gowlerk 1,913]

43 minutes ago, winsor said:

For the same reason that I never went along with Jesus Freaks when they invited me to join their discussion with their invisible friend.

When one's core premise is immediately and verifiably false, the conclusion may be dismissed out of hand.

Some people would consider that clinging to a false equivalency. Mostly because the comparison is immediately and verifiably false.

[winsor 186]

Just now, gowlerk said:

Some people would consider that clinging to a false equivalency. Mostly because the comparison is immediately and verifiably false.

Some people are clueless.

[gowlerk 1,913]

12 minutes ago, winsor said:

Some people are clueless.

Some people think that a marriage is directly comparable to nation building. 

[winsor 186]

Yeah, and the Mike Tyson joke about who's the 'husband' and who's the 'wife' applies.

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

It is ironic that many of the people who laud the virtues of reabsorbing the Confederacy at bayonet point are all in favor of backing breakaway republics hither and yon (Kosovo et al.).

Some people can tell the difference between an oppressed population seeking self determination and an oppressive ruling class seeking to continue oppressing and subjugating.

And some people are clueless.

[gowlerk 1,913]

32 minutes ago, winsor said:

Yeah, and the Mike Tyson joke about who's the 'husband' and who's the 'wife' applies.

I don't know the joke. But I assume that the south is the weak and submissive wife being dominated by the strong decisive north.

[winsor 186]

No.  Look it up.

[gowlerk 1,913]

1 minute ago, winsor said:

No.  Look it up.

I don't much feel a need to do that.

[winsor 186]

18 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I don't much feel a need to do that.

Aw, come on.  You'll enjoy it.

[Ron 7]

On 1/8/2023 at 3:16 PM, JoeWeber said:

Well, since I crashed I think motor sports are stupid, too. Besides, you can sit on your porch and watch cars go by for free and drink good booze instead of racetrack plonk. You must have never flown a variety of cool aircraft if you would analogize aviation to hitting a bongo drum the same way, again and again, which is what target practice is more akin to.

You must have not spent many days at the range if you think that is all it is.... And I've flown some pretty cool aircraft, own a Pitts... And I still go to the range from time to time. I certainly do more than "hit a bongo drum the same way"...

[JoeWeber 2,299]

47 minutes ago, Ron said:

You must have not spent many days at the range if you think that is all it is.... And I've flown some pretty cool aircraft, own a Pitts... And I still go to the range from time to time. I certainly do more than "hit a bongo drum the same way"...

You are absolutely correct that I haven't spent much time at the range, truly it just doesn't make sense or seem fun to me. What do you do at the range that's not same-o same-o? Ricochet accuracy? You do have me on the Pitts, though.

[richravizza 25]

On 3/3/2024 at 6:42 AM, gowlerk said:

We are evaluating the words in his posts and the worldview he expresses here. I'm assuming we are all okay and are all successful contributing members of society. Even the ones you and I block. Which does not include Winsor BTW. Even so, apparently you can never know when a billyvance may in in our midst. 

 We collectively, should know there is only one "World view" allowed on these forums.So I commend you in not blocking him,but disappointed that you actually block others, with what I assume a different worldview.I'm sure you have the heart of a lion, so why be bothered by the barks of dogs.

 When My Right was abridged here, I was amazed.I told everyone I could at the DZ, twenty or so customers, and as many acquaintances.When I was asked where, I replied dropzonedotcom. The consensus was "oh that's a thing?" LOL 

 My daughter told me "Dad they don't give a shit about Your rights".Slowly shaking her head in rejection to each word I spat,The Principal...The First Amendment ... They're Intellect...

On 3/5/2024 at 4:59 AM, winsor said:

Aw, come on.  You'll enjoy it.

I'll agree, Sir.

History can be stranger than fiction.

On 3/4/2024 at 9:56 AM, jakee said:

Some people can tell the difference between an oppressed population seeking self determination and an oppressive ruling class seeking to continue oppressing and subjugating.

And some people are clueless.

I believe at Harvard, inferring that someone is "clueless" constitutes a micro aggregation.Just a Warning: On these forum it will get you warned,a mark placed upon on your permanent record.Sooner or later resulting in being banned,excommunicated from the collective. 

On the lighter side...

 https://babylonbee.com/news/harvard-student-leaves-lecture-on-microaggressions-to-attend-kill-the-jews-rally

 

Edited March 15 by richravizza

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 minutes ago, richravizza said:

When My Right was abridged here, I was amazed.I told everyone I could, the DZ,twenty or so customers and as many acquaintances.When I was asked where, I replied dropzonedotcom. The consensus was "oh that's a thing?" LOL 

My daughter told me "Dad they don't give a shit about Your rights",slowly shaking her head in rejection at each word I spat out,The Principal...The First Amend ... They're Intellect...Honesty sakes..

 

What "Right" are you talking about?

Seriously, do you even know what the 1st Amendment SAYS?

More important, do you know what it means?

And who it applies to?

When LouDiamond (Scott Campos) was moderating on here, he had a pretty good comeback for the concept you're trying to present.

[richravizza 25]

10 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

More important, do you know what it means?

It's quite oblious, you don't.

If you're trying to bait me into saying the forbidden word, it won't work. I won't attack you,with that word. But to correct you, my video references are not "bias",they are based.