Are you also going to continue discussing integrity with me, or are we done?

"I am discussing the narrow scope of whether or not Ted Nugent's boneheaded rhetoric is and ought to be protected speech."

Except you specifically mentioned that you don't want the majority determining speech limits because the *potential for abuse is obvious*. I am on topic. I'm addressing that very point. You speak of potential. That's bringing up the possibility of future abuse, not present abuse. So if you don't want that brought up, don't bring it up.

"The freedom to choose for one's self and exchange ideas, no matter how... repulsive."

You use the word "ideas" very generously. Shouting profanities and crudities is not an idea. That's like calling crushing a beer off one's head "culture".

So I watched this weird movie the other day, "Upside Down"....bizarre sci-fi movie about these two connected worlds with opposite gravity....weird...a little overly drawn out...but had some unique elements. Could have been a good movie...close...but it just dragged on and on and on...

(How's that, Jamie?)

"Putin is so far left he's wrapped around to fascist."

Oh gosh, what isn't fascism to you people?

@ Putin33

"A friend of mine's boyfriend was shot and killed by some clown playing with one of these deadly toys a couple of months ago. Anecdotal, I know, but sorry if I don't kiss the feet of these 200 million firearm owners for their supposed "protection" they are providing me. I don't see protection, I see small arms creating terror among the population of the city I live in. They aren't afraid of the FBI, they're afraid of roving bands of armed civilians."

You can throw whatever anecdote you want at me. The point is that guns save FAR more lives than they take. You can't just wish away 200 million firearms.

"Absolutely nothing. The government doesn't give a fig about untrained hobbyists and their guns. They have enough firepower to haul your derriere to whatever hole they want to put you in."

Me individually, sure. But if they can't even finish off a few goat herders with AKMs in Afghanistan, what makes you think they can take on 200 million firearms and their owners?

"Oh gosh, what isn't fascism to you people? "

Capitalism, Democracy, Communism, for example, are all not fascism.

You are an idiot. You are also a fascist.

Isn't fascism what happens when neo-conservatives go off the deep end with power?

"The point is that guns save FAR more lives than they take."

Really, because they kill about 85 people per day in homicides. So that means more people *by far* would have be threatened with death & saved by the presence of gun. I'd like to see proof of that.

"But if they can't even finish off a few goat herders with AKMs in Afghanistan, what makes you think they can take on 200 million firearms and their owners?"

Better roads. Easier terrain. And despite the difficulties the US still routed the Taliban from power in 2001, and controls very little territory today. Also, the Afghan fighters have some heavy equipment via its links with Pakistan. I don't see the average gun enthusiast owning surface to air missiles.

Putin's a slobbering nob-gobbling troglodyte

Oh come now. Fascists are much less war-like and power-mad than neo-conservatives.

So now Putin is suddenyl an advocate of the failed US war in Afghanistan! Haaaaa ha ha ha ha!! What a fucking douchebag.

If he thought it would help him win an argument, he probably would confess to being the child rapist that he, as an public school educator, already must be.

@ Putin33

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

"Better roads. Easier terrain. And despite the difficulties the US still routed the Taliban from power in 2001, and controls very little territory today. Also, the Afghan fighters have some heavy equipment via its links with Pakistan. I don't see the average gun enthusiast owning surface to air missiles."

Well, I don't see the average goat herder owning or using surface-to-air missiles either. Are you so arrogant of a statist as to believe that the state could easily put down a widespread armed revolt?

@ Krellin: "Putin is suddenly an advocate of the failed US war in Afghanistan!"

Where did he advocate for the war? Display some intellectual integrity, CONTARD.

" the US still routed the Taliban from power in 2001, and controls very little territory today. Also, the Afghan fighters have some heavy equipment via its links with Pakistan. I don't s"

I would suggest that Putin's praise of the US military's success (in his eyes) in Afghanistan, which he uses as a launching point to suggest how well they could do against US citizens, is his tacit support of the US military's actions in AFghanistan.

It is typical Putin....the things he hates one day he praises on another when they support his cause-of-the-moment.

Problem is, he pathetically wrong about Afghanistan. Having US troops huddled in their camps because they are afraid to leave the wire without the protection of a heavily armed convoy is hardly a successful military action. 10 years, and we control various fire bases...and even within our bases we can't tell if the raghead we just gave a shiny new gun to is going to fight beside us or turn the shiny new gun on the kind gentlemen that trained him how to use it.

Afghanistan is a disaster, and the moment we finally get our head's out of our asses and leave that shithole, it will revert to the tribal chaos it has always been.

And yes....in the best Putin fashion...I have twisted his non-support of the action into a glowing cheer-leading activity of the war in Afghanistan. Of course he didn't openly endorse the war....it doesn't matter...I'm playing by Putin the Rapist rules....whereupon any statement can be perverted and used for opposite causes. It matters not what Putin says anymore...I can and will twist his words and use them against him. THAT is how Putin roles...and therefore I will roll in like manner with any and all things Putin says.

Get it? Understand?

"I would suggest that Putin's praise of the US military's success (in his eyes) in Afghanistan, which he uses as a launching point to suggest how well they could do against US citizens, is his tacit support of the US military's actions in AFghanistan."

Which is thoroughly intellectually dishonest of you to suggest, hypocrite.

Practice what you preach, just once in your nasty little life.

Claim that me saying the US successfully routed the Taliban means I approve the action is like me claiming that you reporting the fact that Iraq routed Kuwait in 1990 means you approve of that action. But that's the length you'll go to distort what I say. Breathtaking.

"Get it? Understand?"

I get that you were called out and now you're backpedalling. Shameless.

Yes, I get it. You attack people for having no intellectual integrity, and for using weak logic, and then you use *exactly* the same hackneyed debating tactics you just criticised them for using.

You have none yourself, so please never use the phrase "intellectual integrity" again.

NO...I am using the same hackneyed debating tactics of Putin AGAINST Putin. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

There is *zero* point in trying to have any real discussion about anything with Putin, because he lies constantly, and twists reality constantly. He paints everybody he dislikes with a broad common brush, and then defends the actions of monsterous things like authoritarian communist states with weaseling disengenuous bullshit.

You, Jamie - I have some respect for you, truth be told. You try to keep it real, as you are doing now. As for Putin...he wouldn't know how to keep it real if reality crawled up his ass and died....so no....I will display zero intellectual integrity when it comes to Putin, because that's how he plays the game.

But....unlike Putin...I'l confess that I am doing so, even as I did so above.

You call me out for having no intellectual integrity....you silly jackass, *I AM THE ONE THAT CONFESSED TO PERVERTING THE TRUTH*....THAT *IS* INTEGRITY. And I told you why I an doing so, you fucktard.

I told you I am lying and twisting the truth....I'm not like Putin who says opposite things from one thread to the next because it suits his need at the moment.

Are you honestly too stupid to grasp that?

Putin....I"m not backpedaling, asshole. I'm being YOU.

So Putin, yes or no, Communists are all mass murderers?

@ Krellin: "I will display zero intellectual integrity when it comes to Putin"

The problem is that you do this not only in response to Putin's arguments, but to *any* arguments used against you in any thread in which Putin has argued with you. Your behaviour makes it impossible to debate with you, Krellin, in any thread in which Putin also features.

Jamie - if I am adressing Putin, as I normally am in such thread, then I am not debating with you.

If you wish to direct something to me, direct it to me and I will answer you.

I try to be pretty direct in addressing my intellectually dishonest answer to Putin, either by using @Putin, or by directly quoting his bullshit.

So you are wrong, Jamie. I pretty much confine my dishonesty directly to Putin, in keeping up with his own dishonesty.

If you want to discuss something with me, adress me, as you have here, and I will direct my answer back at you.

So fuck off with your Putin-esque slander, Jamie.

No, Krellin, I won't fuck off.

There's a very recent example of your intellectual dishonesty. It's in this very thread. You claimed I lacked integrity, because "earlier in the thread" I had not stood up against "the let wing nut-jobs" trying to "pin" the Giffords attack on the right. Remeber that?

In fact, no-one on the left, not even Putin, had claimed in this thread that Jared Loughner was motivated by any form of right wing ideology.

I won't fuck off becuase you've attacked me on a specific point of integrity, and your attack is wrong. You slandered me and attacked my integrity, on the basis that I had failed to respond to something that NO-ONE HAD ACTUALLY SAID.

So either you were being intellectually dishonest, or you can't read. Which is it?

bounce

Yes, bounce.

Having just read through this since my last comment, it's worth noting that I'm probably more of a lefty than Putin. Clearly, then, the generalisations of the left fail at the first possible hurdle.

I'm a leftist and a communitarian. This puts me at odds with the more liberal-oriented left, at least on issues such as this.

krellin and Putin33-

Don't take this personally, but you are both full of shit on most occasions.

Ahhhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha! GF....let's see, you have said such wonders recently as 95% of all laws passed since some point in time are unconstituation...and *I'm* full of shit?

Honestly, the difference between you and me, and me and Putin, is of the three of us I'm the only one man enough to say I'm full of shit most of the time.

You two jackasses actually think your geniuses...which makes you scary as fuck.

I'd far rather be full of shit and know it than be some arrogant jackass like you that gets a hard-on every time someone mentions fire arms.