Hey Quicksilver you are the one who had better lay off the weed. The numbers that she quoted you are backed up by the Oklahoma Secretary of Agriculture and if you care to look them up you can. As far as the silly judge goes, go to websters dictionary and look up chicken if it doesn't say fowl ill eat one feathers and all. Also while you are at it look up marriage, its not between two people of the same sex as a mayor in California says. But what the hay lets all be tolerent and if you can't then go to Colorado on my scholorship money that I donated and learn some. Am I right or what Fellows. Thanks Buck
41 replies [Last post]
Wed, 2004-02-25 21:11#32
Also while you are at it look up marriage, its not between two people of the same sex as a mayor in California says. But what the hay lets all be tolerent...
No your dead wrong Buck. In one fell swoop you killed any respect you might have had or hope to build with me. You really don't understand the true nature of the freedom, liberty, and tolerance that you have said should protect cockfighting from those that would ban it.
You have said it is your freedom to allow chickens to fight together (for your fun and profit) if you are doing no person any harm.
You have said it is an effacement of state/personal liberty to have the fed stick its nose into state/personal matters.
Finally you have argued, if nothing else we (the non-cockfighting majority) should be tolerant of something we do not understand or participate in if the act does not infringe upon the rights of others.
Great, fine and dandy, but now your just itching to have the fed tell religions and the states exactly how marriage must be defined to the exclusion of same sex partners. In the constitution no less! A document that by default grants rights to the masses and repeals them from the government. So the first time we limit liberty in the constitution it will be over something as banal as the definition of marriage (a fundamentally spiritual construct).
You are not a defender of freedom or liberty or tolerance, Buck. You are just using these coveted words for your own self serving interests and ready to throw them out the window the instance somebody else is doing something you don't agree with.
For one that has supposedly suffered through having liberty curtailed, I really thought you would be more understanding before so readily snatching liberty from others.
[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2004-02-25 21:12 ]
Thu, 2004-02-26 04:42#33
Well said, Bit. It's tough to argue against federalism on one issue and for it on another.
Without getting heated on the matter, I have to disagree with you, though, on the marriage issue. People are pulling a bait and switch here. It isn't about granting legal rights to gay couples -- it's about granting moral rights to them. The President has left the door open for civil unions and legal arrangements to provide marriage-like status. But people are still freaking. Why? It's because they want to use the term "marriage" in order to achieve moral (not legal) equivalence for homosexuality.
Beware of those who argue states rights on this issue, because they're relying on the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to implement it nationwide. Thus, if one state legalizes it, then all states must recognize the union. So even though marriage might not be legal in your state, people could still take a road trip and come home to demand recognition.
We will probably agree to disagree on this one, but as tolerant as I am, I won't agree to debasing one of the longest-held, most universal social contracts underpinning human society.
[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2004-02-26 09:11 ]
Thu, 2004-02-26 15:44#34
I'm glad I finally struck a chord with you Bitsmasher. I'm for freedom of all people but what if we get a public referendum on the ballot in Okla and say that all Homosexuals were against the law. Also if you were caught bringing one across state lines to engage into what ever do you were committing a felony. I really don't care what people do as long as they respect my right to do the same.I won't come and fight roosters at their house and they don't come to mine for their entertaiment. Thats what I have a problem with. But lets be tolerent of them (because they are all ready violating the law in calif) and lets hound the cockfighters while we all set down to a fried chicken dinner. "Boy Hidy" thanks Buck
Fri, 2004-02-27 20:41#35
This thread is great!
Sat, 2004-02-28 10:26#36
Would you change your position if a bird was an animal? What if the people of OK (or the US) voted that a bird has the same rights as an animal (or is one for that matter). What if the next judge or the OK Supreme Court decides it is an animal? Thanks, MN
Fri, 2004-03-05 23:45#37
I think Powderburn slipped with that $600 billion OK debt and meant $600 million. Not a big deal, in my book, with national debt quoted in trillions it is easy to flip a "tr, m, or b".
On the gay marriage issue, I'll debate in a new thread if anybody is interested. It really wasn't my attention to bring it up here, in a thread titled "the second amendment" that has nothing to do with the second amendment. :smile:
Sat, 2004-03-06 05:40#38
Agreed. We normally have a lot of thread discipline and rarely digress. The Colorado update thread is particularly focused. But we can always bring it back in this thread by saying that we'd be unable to have national-level debate on the rights of gays, chickens, or Davidians without our Second Amendment rights.
Sat, 2004-03-06 22:49#39
Back on track -- here's an interesting story for you; David Crosby arrested in NYC for pot and a .45:
This works on lots of levels. First, its interesting that in fine Rosie O'Donnell style, here's another liberal packing heat whilst the rest of us peasants can't be trusted with guns.
But isn't it scary that mere posession of a handgun in NYC is a Class III felony punishable by up to seven years in jail? And what's this about "illegal possession of ammunition?" Mind you, he wasn't carrying the weapon -- it was in his luggage, which is even legal on an airline.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to bear marijuana. Yet you can be assured that the pot possession will be a simple misdemeanor punishable by a mild fine.
Not that I think he'll get 7 years for the crime. That's for people like us, not famous celebrities. Yet he's being charged with a felony merely for possessing something that's his constitutional right to possess.
[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2004-03-06 22:56 ]
Sun, 2004-03-07 22:51#40
Wow, interesting link, I didn't realize there were places where it was illegal to own a handgun, period. I thought it was only illegal if you had a prior felony conviction (and assuming it was not fully automatic). It says he had a prior drug conviction that was overturned on appeal...
The illegal ammo and illegal "hunting knife" possession is odd too. Perhaps the writer was hitting a little of the devil weed himself....