1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon... Update: Announcement to be released on MONDAY!

Packer Forum Poll

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Raider Pride, Jan 24, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,568
    Ratings:
    +650
    i figured you were black, because of that last comment. i poke fun at myself and say stuff like that all the time. Maybe if you would've posted the joke about yourself in the smack area, or if we "knew" you better (you don't have very many posts, so it's hard to get a feel for you in that limited number of posts) it would have been fine. no harm, no foul?
     
  2. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I won't cream you for it, and i bet Gattocheese wouldn't either! Seems to me he has a GREAT sense of humor, and would probably be laughing about your comment! I used to work with a black man who LOVED poking fun at my "lilly white" skin and blonde hair. I would tease him back, as he was like the "photo negative" of me! We had some of the BEST talks about race stuff that could ever happen. If the world was like me and him, there wouldn't BE any race problems. Since i became disabled, i have only seen him a couple times, but he always has a big hug for me when we do see each other. He's a man i would be PROUD to call my brother!
    Too many people are ultra sensitive, and that causes lots of problems.
    Some of course have very VALID reasons for being sensitive. as they have seen the very UGLY side of real racism.
     
  3. Gattocheese

    Gattocheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    91
    Ratings:
    +0
    Nice replies. Thank you. Its extremely hard to offend me. I take any joke extremely well. My best friend is white, he comes over once a week and we are ummmm kinda harsh with each other with racial jokes. Its a blast.
     
  4. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    See what i mean??? If people were more like this, we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.
    My friend Ricky i was talking about.........this was when the whole OJ Simpson thing was going on........I walked into work one day and said to him "Good morning OJ!" and without missing a beat he said "Good morning Kato!" We both about fell on the floor laughing!!!
    I would come into work, and he would make a crack "Hey Kato! When are you gonna move outta my guest house???" I would yell "Hey! I found your other glove!" People around us would be sitting there with their mouths hanging open, not sure WHAT was going on! It was FUNNY!!! :lol:
     
  5. IronBMike

    IronBMike Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    73
    Ratings:
    +0
    Aaron hasn't even had the chance to deserve anything negative, so I went with him.
     
  6. Obi1

    Obi1 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,110
    Ratings:
    +0
    Gatto, I caught it too...

    I knew your post about the "retarded" would catch some flack.

    I have a classmate in my Taekwondo class who has a son who is in her own words, "severely retarded". He competes in the Special Olympics which she helps organize and run.

    The term retarded was a term that the so called NORMAL people came up with to describe those that are underdeveloped in some areas.

    That is a also a term that can be twisted to be used derogatorily. Which I don't feel that you intended to.
     
  7. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    A funny thing about that word retarded - the full term is mentally retarded and it simply means mentally slow. No big deal, right? Well, because of political correctness, they're trying to change the term. First it was special, now, get this - they want to use "exceptional" as the new word for retarded. For those who pre-date political correctness, exceptional intelligence is one under "genius," which is pretty dang high.

    George Orwell was right. Control the language, you control the thoughts.
     
  8. Obi1

    Obi1 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,110
    Ratings:
    +0
    Prophetic words...

    Sad that the political correctness has gone that far. The question is where does the control begin and end? Is it self control or external control?

    I am all for self control. Its the external control of your thoughts through political correctness that bothers me.
     
  9. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
     
  10. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I HATE political correctness. The "thought police" will be coming next.
    OH!!! You had a bad THOUGHT!!! 10 years in prison for you!!!
     
  11. Obi1

    Obi1 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,110
    Ratings:
    +0
    The country I grew up in had it bad... In a military dictatorship with a totalitarian government, they determine your thinking from birth.

    You are taught to believe things that the government WANTS you to believe...

    IT SUCKS.

    The freedom of speech in THIS country is eroding and fast. Political correctness is an example of that.

    Then again, PC is not a law... YET!
     
  12. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's why it's YOUR job (and mine and Cheesey's) to fight political correctness tooth and nail. I'm a HUGE supporter of all 10 Bill of Rights. If someone asks me what makes this country great, I tell them the Bill of Rights. It's time the citizens start enforcing it, because after all, it was written with OUR responsibility to enforce it.

    Political correctness is an assault on the 1st. It must be stopped.
     
  13. IronMan

    IronMan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,087
    Ratings:
    +8
    Gotta love political correctness. (sarcasm) I have heard of schools that no longer give out Ds or Fs, because its makes the kids "feel stupid." And some schools no longer use red ink to grade with, because red ink is too "stressful" so they use a different color. LOL I'm not making this up. There are even some schools that have banned games like "tag", because it makes the fat kids feel bad.

    Last year, Missouri State University took down a Christmas tree someone had in their dorm because someone complained saying it, "offended" them. What about the 1000 other people it DIDN'T offend? God forbid we should ever let someone be "offended"
    I can go on and on about political correctness bs, but I will get off my soapbox now. LOL :soapbox:
     
  14. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow! I have heard the tag one and I had one girl vehemently defend banning dodgeball.
     
  15. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    Yeah, and there was once this administration in Washington that was so drunk with it's own power that they tried to single handedly dismantle the Constitution...and are still at it today!


    Bush’s War on the Bill of Rights

    President Bush swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he has shirked that duty at every turn. We should not hold him to the standard of past American tyrants, but rather to the finest of America’s founding principles. It is useful, though perhaps depressing, to see the many ways in which president Bush has trashed the most noble and inspiring of all attempts to limit government through law, the Bill of Rights. Even as he advocates a new amendment to the Constitution to set national standards on marriage, the most important amendments already in place have each fallen prey to the ravages of his government.

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    George W. Bush has shown an outright hostility to freedom of speech. In the name of combating "indecency," the FCC under Bush has raised its punitive fines to outrageous new levels, wasted money on an "investigation" of Janet Jackson’s breast, and pressured Clear Channel to drop the Howard Stern Show. Bush has applied and maintained draconian restrictions on the press in Iraq, even forbidding the photography of flag-draped caskets returning home.

    Attacking the fundamental right of free political speech, he signed the horrendous Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill, which severely restricts dissent. The law makes it a crime for non-profit advocacy groups simply to mutter the name of a national candidate within the last sixty days before a general election. There is no excuse for Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech when the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech." Some thought that the Supreme Court would gut the law’s worst provisions, which it did not. If Congress relied on another branch of the government to intervene and protect the public from its excesses, it is guilty of a major dereliction of duty.

    As a result of Bush’s policies, the government has even attacked freedom of assembly, creating "free speech zones" and keeping war protesters away when Bush appears on camera. At the outset of the Iraq War, Oakland police injured several war protesters by assaulting them with wooden bullets and concussion grenades, even as they ran away. Some have argued that the protesters, interfering with war commerce, got what they deserved, but the "collateral damage" suffered by the dockworkers probably disrupted the flow of trade that day more than the protests.1

    One could feasibly list examples of how Bush has compromised the right of Americans to "petition the government for a redress of grievances," but the single following statement from Bush to Bob Woodward captures the president’s feelings about his responsibility to answer to the people:

    "I'm the commander, see. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

    It’s a wonder that Bush would want to deny others freedom in their speech when he so frequently demonstrates such inspiring eloquence in his own.

    Amendment II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Many have long argued that Republicans value the Second Amendment more than Democrats. So far, Bush’s policy has fallen in line with the Republican and NRA doctrine on gun control: the right to bear arms is an inalienable right, and instead of passing unconstitutional gun laws, the government should enforce more strictly the 20,000 unconstitutional laws already on the books. In effect, Republicans oppose government undermining the choices of Americans, but so long as government is in the business of doing so, its programs should be fully funded and carried out by Republicans with strict adherence to the letter of the law, resulting in punishments as severe as possible.

    Ashcroft’s Justice Department has indeed turned up the heat on enforcing unconstitutional gun laws, boasting: "Under the President’s Project Safe Neighborhoods program, federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 68 percent over the last three years. Last year, the Department set a new record of charging 23 percent more individuals for violating federal firearms laws." The Bush administration has asked for a $95 million increase in spending on gun control programs for 2005. He has also expressed willingness to renew the Assault Weapons Ban.

    Moreover, although Bush signed the law passed by Congress that allowed airline pilots to carry guns on planes – one of the few security measures after 9/11 that might have actually prevented the terrorist attack – his administration initially refused to implement it. Bush acquiesced only after Congress and the Senate reconvened and voted, by a supermajority, to force Bush to put guns in the hands of pilots.

    In spite of what Republicans in the NRA and Democrats in the Violence Policy Center might say, Bush has hassled gun owners more than any recent president, and has shown only contempt for any moderation in the War on the Second Amendment.

    Amendment III

    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    The Third Amendment is always the toughest to discuss in its relevance to today. Just as we must recognize that the "well regulated militia" line in the Second Amendment referred to a citizen’s militia when it was written in the late 18th century, we must consider the Third Amendment in proper historical context.

    The American colonists had just fought a revolution against Britain, the world’s superpower that had imposed its will on much of the planet’s peoples. The Third Amendment was written in memory of the Quartering Act of 1765, which compelled American colonists not only to give up sovereignty within their own homes, but also to pay taxes to build housing for British soldiers. After winning the Revolution, the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the new American government from coercing its people into providing for its imperial and colonial ambitions the way Britain had done.

    As the U.S. government levies taxes on Americans – and even on Iraqis – to pay its soldiers fighting for the global quasi-Trotskyite democratic revolution that the War on Terrorism has become, Americans should judge for themselves if the Bush administration has disgraced the spirit of the Third Amendment. The manner in which the U.S. military treats the houses of Iraqis has hardly been a manner "prescribed by law." We can only hope that the U.S. government does not take the final steps in defying the letter, as well as the spirit, of the Third Amendment, by giving new meaning to "bringing the soldiers home."

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    This one is a no-brainer. The Patriot Act's "Sneak and Peak" provision allows the feds to come into your home, search your residence, and leave without telling you for up to six months. It has expanded the government’s powers under the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act to get warrants for wiretaps from special courts, not subject to the same oversight as typical courts. Another provision allowed the FBI to obtain library records from librarians, who had to keep their mouths shut about confrontations with officials. Within months of 9/11, law enforcers had visited nearly 10 percent of America’s libraries "seeking September 11-related information about patron reading habits."2 The Justice Department has resurrected COINTELPRO, a surveillance program that subverted groups and incited violence between political dissidents in the Vietnam era. The administration’s ultimate goal of "Total Information Awareness" flies in the face of any decent understanding of the Fourth Amendment.

    Under Clinton, the Fourth Amendment was already in serious trouble due to the War on Drugs and other domestic surveillance programs. It has gotten indescribably worse since the 1990s, when Aschroft complained that Clinton wanted "to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications."3 If today’s Aschroft met his counterpart from the 1990s, he would probably say that his avatar’s warnings against Clinton’s policies were frightening "peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty" and that such anti-government paranoia only gives "ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends."

    The Bush administration has no intention to allow the anachronistic Fourth Amendment to disrupt the War on Terrorism. This is a war for freedom, after all, and we cannot let trivial liberties get in the way.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Shortly after September 11, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Justice Department detained more than a thousand individuals, whom Bush labeled as "terrorists" even after the Justice Department admitted the detainees had no connection to terrorism.4 In addition, at least dozens of Americans were detained without due process of law because of a phony "material witness" status.5

    The Patriot Act has greatly expanded federal asset forfeiture powers, which allow the government to confiscate property without even accusing its owners of a crime. Those who "smuggle" their own money out of the country may now see it seized. The administration has worked to extend the despotic power of eminent domain, which allows the government to seize property for such unconstitutional purposes as federal production of interstate electrical lines.

    When the founders discussed "due process of law" they meant more than the arbitrary power of executive edict. The Fifth Amendment has fallen victim to numerous beatings over the years, but Bush and company rank among its all time worst enemies.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Perhaps James Madison meant to write at the end of this sentence, "unless the president considers the accused an ‘enemy combatant.’"

    Guantanamo Bay is the clearest and most troubling example of accused criminals detained without any of the benefits of an impartial trial with the due process spelled out in the Sixth Amendment. They do not receive the rights of war prisoners, nor of criminal defendants, because they fall under the makeshift category of "enemy combatant." Of course, Bush does not "accuse" these prisoners of being "enemy combatants" – because then they would have the rights of the "accused." He simply asserts they are "enemy combatants," and that settles that.

    The assertion that Guantanamo is constitutional because it is located outside America is ludicrous and unsettling. It is ludicrous because the U.S. has jurisdiction there, and if the government can violate your liberties by moving you outside the country, the Bill of Rights is meaningless. It’s unsettling because it is an admission that the goings on in Guantanamo are even more oppressive than the run-of-the-mill Bill of Rights violations that Americans will tolerate at home.

    Bush has violated the Sixth Amendment in other ways, but Guantanamo typifies his attitude toward its basic principles. The Founding Fathers would probably have an impossible time believing Bush’s flagrant disrespect for the rights of the accused. Of course, the Founding Fathers would have probably been considered terrorists, and would likely find themselves detained as "enemy combatants" for all their un-American beliefs and subversive political activism.

    Amendment VII

    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    The Seventh Amendment is often misunderstood. Written in the aftermath of the American Revolution, its purpose was not only to guarantee the rights of defendants in civil cases, but also the rights of plaintiffs – especially of plaintiffs suing government agents for violations of their rights. After seeing mock courts set up by King George III to protect his minions from any meaningful legal recourse, the colonists wanted to guarantee that Americans suing government officials would be guaranteed a trial by jury.

    The Bush administration has been frightening in the way it has nullified lawsuits against its actions. The Justice Department simply laughed at attempts of the ACLU to get lists of detained suspects through lawsuits in early 2002.6 Ellen Mariani’s lawsuit against the Bush administration, accusing it of foreknowledge of, and failure to act on, September 11, may seem to many like the material of a conspiracy theory, but we can be fairly sure that the question will never go to a jury. Quite recently, an ACLU legal challenge against the Patriot Act became news after being silenced for three weeks by the Patriot Act.

    Perhaps the reason for the inability of Americans to successfully sue administration officials in a trial by jury is that none of these transgressions of which the government is accused is a controversy in which the value at issue exceeds twenty dollars.

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    We have seen Martha Stewart sentenced to prison for claiming innocence of a victimless crime. We have seen Tommy Chong sentenced to jail time for manufacturing glassware into the politically incorrect shape of marijuana paraphernalia. We have seen Clear Channel fined by the FCC for about half a million dollars, all over Howard Stern’s performing the same radio material he’s done for years.

    These are only some high profile cases of Americans suffering excessive punishments for victimless activities. One low-profile example, which should be widely known, is Mohammed Hussein, the first "criminal" ever convicted under the Patriot Act. He was called a terrorist by the government and media, he lost his money transmitting business, and he received an eighteen-month prison sentence. What did he do to deserve this? What was his crime under the Patriot Act? He incorrectly filled out an application for a state business license.7 Of course, conservatives still argue that the Patriot Act has not been abused.

    For decades Americans have endured punishments that had no semblance of proportionality to their "crimes." Under the Bush administration, the Eighth Amendment has been circumvented as increasingly cruel punishments have become decreasingly unusual.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being considered for ratification, some Americans pointed out possible loose ends. The "Antifederalists" – who often preferred the term "Federalists," and resented their opponents for stealing the label – wanted to ensure that the federal government only exercise those powers mentioned in the Constitution and that it did not violate certain fundamental rights. The Antifederalists tended to favor the Bill of Rights, but they feared that the listing of specific rights would be used to rationalize violations of unlisted ones. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to hammer home the notion that the federal government was subservient to the people.

    George W. Bush has no conception of the inalienable, unenumerated rights of the American people. He has flouted the personal, intimate right to self-medication by closing down medical marijuana facilities. He has affronted the right to peaceful trade by establishing protectionist steel tariffs and imposing sanctions on other countries, most recently Syria. His administration has abrogated the right to travel with his no-fly list, which uses the pretext of fighting terrorism to prevent political dissidents and those with names similar to those of suspects from flying. On September 11, 2001, the federal government even impeded the right to emigrate by forbidding anyone from leaving the country. His Patriot Act made it a crime to carry significant amounts of cash on a plane. While the Bush administration assaults the liberties specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it also punishes those who wish to relieve their pain from cancer, improve their lives with commerce, or quietly leave the country with their savings – all unwritten, essential rights that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would be appalled to see so routinely eviscerated in America.

    As constitutional scholar Randy Barnett says, "The Ninth Amendment mandates that unenumerated rights be treated the same as those that are listed."8 Bush would probably agree wholeheartedly, as he trashes our enumerated and unenumerated rights equally.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    The Tenth Amendment concludes the Bill of Rights with a demand that the federal government be restricted to activities authorized in the Constitution. The constitutional powers of the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court are highlighted in Articles I, II and III of the main body of the Constitution, and anything outside of this delegated authority is not the proper jurisdiction of the national government. For years conservatives rightly complained that Democrats advanced all sorts of federal programs that had no constitutional basis.

    Almost every government abuse I mention in this essay qualifies as a violation of the Tenth Amendment. In addition to these violations, Bush has sharply increased farm subsidies, signing a record $190 billion dollar farm bill, and severely distorting domestic and international markets. He signed into law the largest expansion of Medicare since its inception, looting present and future taxpayers of hundreds of billions and maybe more than a trillion dollars in one of most shameless giveaways to preferred voters and business interests in decades. Aside from giving prescription drugs away free he has unleashed plans to build national surveillance systems to monitor "prescription drug abuse."

    Bush has increased federal funding for education, welfare, foreign aid, local law enforcement, and "faith-based" initiatives, and he has developed programs to encourage marriages and to provide relationship counseling. Since Bush took office, the U.S. budget’s discretionary spending has increased about 28%. Through his "compassion conservatism," George W. Bush has perhaps done more to advance the American welfare state than any other president in American history.

    There is not a single aspect of Americans’ economic and personal lives that the modern federal government considers off limits. When it comes to providing the federal government with new powers and duties for which there exists no constitutional authority, President Bush ranks among the very few most ambitious presidents in American history.

    The Bill of Rights – RIP?

    The Bush administration has been utterly hostile to the entire Bill of Rights. I did not focus on it, but one can quickly realize that Bush has violated all the principles of the Bill of Rights in regard to the Iraq War alone. Iraqis have been censored, disarmed, occupied, searched, hassled, regulated by curfew, severely and arbitrarily beaten and punished, tortured, humiliated, and generally abused by a foreign government that respects no limits on its power and regards Iraqis as if they have no impermeable rights at all. This is not to say that Saddam respected anyone’s rights, but it speaks to the lunacy of the U.S. government brutally instituting a constitution abroad when it has no regard for the constitutional safeguards against any of its own actions.

    During wartime, the Bill of Rights and its corresponding liberties tend to suffer extraordinary abuse. Bush prides himself as a "war president," and so it should come as no surprise when he treats his foreign and domestic subjects accordingly.

    Although, as I’ve said before, some previous presidents may have been as bad or even worse, we must still have a clear understanding and appreciation for how much George Bush and the present government are undermining the principles that made America so special. The first Ten Amendments of the Constitution provide a blueprint for an incredibly free society. Perhaps Bush, who has a phobia against reading anything aside from what his advisors give him, should break with personal custom for at least half an hour and read the Bill of Rights.
     
  16. eap33

    eap33 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Ratings:
    +0
    Actually... the term retarded has a definition. It's not a slang term that was created for "slow people".

    "Retarded - To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. "

    It was used by DOCTORS to describe how the brain functioned in some individuals. The brain function was RETARDED by some form of birth defect or other damage. What's sad is that it's not retarded people who are complaining about the term "retarded." It's "NORMAL" people who THINK retarded people are offended by the use of a term used to describe their brain functionality. Damn hippies... Go hug a tree.
     
  17. PackOne

    PackOne Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    Ratings:
    +4
    Barfs all over most of the posts in this thread.
     
  18. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Fuzz.....sorry to be so blunt......most of your ramblings about President Bush are pure B.S.
    Taken out of context, you can twist almost anything to make whoever you don't like (in your case, the Pres.) look like an anti American.
    Truth is, democrats are the ones pushing to constantly take our freedoms away. Our Governor in Wisconsin (Doyle) stopped us from having the right to carry a concealed gun. Even though the vast MAJORITY of Wisconsinites wanted that right. Thats the goal of liberals, to disarm us. Hitler did the same thing.....disarm his country, so they COULDN'T fight him. I keep hearing these same libs calling for "more strict gun control laws to fight crime" even though even THEY know thats a crock. Who is affected by gun control laws??? ONLY law abiding citizens! Criminals will STILL have their guns, and black market to get more guns. They tried it in Austrailia, and now the criminals there are guarenteed UNARMED VICTIMS.

    Now.......the FCC cracking down on the declining TV and radio shows. If you stood on a street corner, and just kept yelling out obcenities and exposing yourself, don't you think you would be arrested? Yet little children can watch and listen to garbage on TV that 20 years ago would NEVER have been allowed. It's a dumbing down of our country, and it's moral fiber being torn away. If your an adult, you have a right to watch/listen to what you want. But there needs to be a certain amount of regualtion of what goes over the airwaves. Otherwise, why not just allow hate groups like the KKK to put their garbage on CBS, or NBC or FOX? You have to have some place where you say "This is enough."
    Oh.....and the "dissent" stuff......there are groups that tell outright lies against people running for public office, then run and hide behind "Freedom of speach". They try to destroy with their lies, and then try to hide behind the flag. Yeah......we should still allow those liars free rein, hey?
    And.......we have as a country never been under attack on our own soil. And we are fighting an enemy that doesn't care if they die, as long as they take some of us with them. How can you make deals with these kinds of animals? And i'm supposed to feel sorry for war criminals? Or worry about their "rights" being violated? If torturing some of them saves American lives and families from being destroyed, so be it. Yet the libs cry "foul" if we do whats necessary to catch and get rid of the terrorists. Yeah......it's hard to fight a war with both your hands tied behind your back.
    Many of my loved ones have fought for the freedoms we enjoy. I don't take any of it for granted.
    But you go ahead and blame everything on Bush if that makes you happy. I'm sure Hillary will end the war, end violent crime, bring peace to every country, and end world hunger.(Oh.....and end "global warming" on her day off) Remember, "It takes a village!" (No it doesn't Hillary, it takes TWO parents that care to raise a child, it's not the "village's" job)
     
  19. Raider Pride

    Raider Pride Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,868
    Ratings:
    +2

    I started this thread. Blame Me PackOne. I will take full ownership of this challenge you experienced.

    I am so very sorry.

    Please forgive me.

    If I knew that this thread would lead to political out-bursts (In a forum that does not allow politics be part of the banter.) I would have never started this thread.

    There must be over 4.25 Million Political Blogs on the world wide Internet to Master-De-Bate one's-self-off in a satisfying circle jerk of political banter.

    It is not like one does not have enough avenues that lead to a venue to vent political opine on the Internet.

    However.... 4.25 Million Plus political blogs and forums must not be enough.

    It is apparent that the political opinion of some people must slip into every crack and corner of America.

    There is almost always a Uncle, or In law, who hijacks a wonderful Family Christmas dinner or Birthday Party, or Wedding, or Football Forum. with a political outburst.

    Why do some people have to inject their political opinion at every opportunity that there is if someone listening and or reading?

    Here is a concept that I learned from a great man.

    What Ever You Are Doing... Do It.

    It is pretty Simple.

    What Ever You Are Doing... Do it.

    If you are watching T.V. Watch it. Do not try to talk on the phone while you are watching T.V. There is no point to it.

    If you are talking on the phone. Talk. Do not try to watch T.V. while you are talking on the phone. It makes the T.V. and the conversation less enjoyable.

    For The Ladies here... If you are driving your car. Drive. Do not put your make-up on while you are driving. If you are putting your make up on while you are driving. You may end up in the emergency room with uneven make-up.

    I have no idea how this thread I started got to a political opine. It may have been started by a regular two pages back. It may have been started from a non regular poster I just logged on to the last page of this thread tonight to read where the thread was going. I am not going back to trace the politics origin.

    My guess this thread is going to "Locked Thread Heaven." first thing in the morning.

    In fact it may have been already locked by the time I finish typing this post.

    What ever you are discussing... Discuss it.

    On This Forum It is The Packers. Not Government.

    .
    Just a thought. Take the best and leave the rest.
     
  20. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah RP, I'm going to lock this thread.

    It's gotten WAY too political, and has jokes that can be taken in an offensive manner by other members.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page