Nightgaunt

The happy happy elf suit is what first set me on this path of darkness back in '74. Christmas, 1978 and I'm apparently pretty fucking happy about that chocolate. 1980ish. "Duuuurrrrrrrr." Me, perusing the escort service ads in a Toronto train station in 1987.

I think it's in the Book of Armaments somewhere. Brother Maynard?

...finding out that the appraiser that the real estate company sent out fudged the value of the house we're buying. Now, due to incompetence involving the financing end of things, the new appraiser has determined a much lower value for the house, apparently negating our loan approval. Today was the day we were originally supposed to have closed on the house. This is all after a couple of grand spent on our part on earnest money, inspection, appraisal, and repairs to the house. Everything is totally up in the air at this point, but we still have to be out of our rental house by the end of the month. What made my day: My lovely wife returned home from work with a great big hug for me.

I get what you're saying, but do you refer to your "home country" as Mexico? I understand that he changed his name at some point, something having to do with getting dual citizenship in Indonesia or something, but I thought that his birthplace had been confirmed as having been in Hawaii. The words she chose to use, "his home country in Kenya," really indicates that that's where he's from. However, she said, "in Kenya," and not, "of Kenya", so who knows? It's a small difference, but it could change the meaning. She would have been better off saying, "his ancestral home," or something to that effect. The hard-core conspiracy proponents seem to be having a field day with this one.

I never paid a whole lot of attention to the whole Obama birth certificate question. It just sounded to me like bitter Republicans grasping at straws and I thought that the birth certificate had indeed been produced. Anyone know what the hell Michelle Obama is talking about in this clip? Is it taken out of context? I'm genuinely confused here...

I was absolutely floored when I saw this. People like this are representing us in Congress! They decide things that affect our daily lives! The insanity begins at about 1:15...

What do everyone's calendars look like? I can do morning/afternoon on any weekday before 4 and mostly every other weekend...

If you look at the side effects associated with antidepressant/psychotropic drugs, you see that, when you're talking about children and teenagers, they often have the opposite effect of causing suicidal and violent behavior. Just doing a quick Google search, I found this abstract from the Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 78, Issue 1, January 2004. The problem is that doctors rely on published drug research in making decisions to prescribe and the drug manufacturers only publish the results they want to. In 2004, the New York State Attorney General prosecuted GlaxoSmithKline for withholding vital information concerning the side effects of Paxil on children. It turned out that GSK conducted five clinical trials on children and teens, but only one of them produced favorable results. The doctor sees only the trial results that the drug company wants him to see. Similar hijinks have been perpetrated by Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson (the family company!), and Janssen. We also have a situation - and this ventures into the territory of my opinion - of children being diagnosed with AD/HD and similar "disorders", simply because they act like children. If a child doesn't have a "chemical imbalance" and is given psychoactive drugs, what are the risks? According to a 2008 report, 30% of the nation's children and teens, age 19 and under, are on long-term prescription medication. The number of girls on prescription antidepressants rose a staggering 72% from 2001 to 2007. Today, we have well over 17 million children and teens on antidepressants. We now medicate children under the age of three for depression. Fewer than half of the children on these drugs receive any kind of therapy in conjunction with the medication. The biochemistry of children and teens is different from mature adults. This is why we have an escalation of school violence, but not an overall state of Anarchy. I'd never flame anyone for stating a well-thought-out opinion.

And, as with the many school shootings, it will come out later that the attacker was on antidepressant drugs. No one ever seems to want to address that.

You got called a feminist for saying that we're not ready for a female president? That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Did you mean "misogynist"? My wife is a different "race" than I. I am not a racist, but you are certainly behaving like a bombastic asshole. Arguing with you is like arguing with a drunk 6 year old. Go play in traffic and take your accusations of bigotry with you.

Where the hell were you 10 years ago when I needed a place like this????

*BUMP* The weather's getting warmish...anyone interested in shooting or looting?

The MSU salvage yard is awesome. I used to go there all the time. The had a cyclotron for sale there once.

Here's an excellet example of what I'm talking about:

I'll try one last time to help you to understand. Either you're not thinking about what you read here, or you're only quickly scanning what others write. I will do my best to use small words and define any terms that I think could possibly be misunderstood. No, I am not a racist. You really, really don't want to go there with me. I had a feeling at the time I wrote that, that you'd misconstrue my words and label me a racist. That sort of thing just seems to be your style. Here is what I said: (Bold added, because it's an important qualifier.) Here's what you said in response to that statement: A few more statements you made: You substituted a semantically similar proposition in order to more easily refute what I said. That's a straw man argument and it is a logical fallacy. At the time, slaves were not considered fully human. In the minds of the people at the time, they did not fall under the purview of the phrase "all men are created equal". The subhumanity of black people was scientific fact at the time. It was as obvious to the people at the time as the idea of carbon dioxide being detrimental to the earth is to people of our time. 200 years hence, people will wonder and shake their heads at our stupidity. I say that it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion because we now know that there is no speciation of homo sapiens sapiens. We understand that every human being falls under the purview of the phrase "all men are created equal". "All men" refers to the "race of Man", Mankind, Humanity. Male, female, black, brown, red, white, yellow, gay, transgendered, straight, bisexual, tall, short, fat, thin, whatever. It doesn't matter that the Framers believed that black people weren't to be classified as human. We understand now. Are you pickin' up what I'm layin' down? Just because the Founding Fathers had an erroneous idea of what makes us human does not mean the the phrase, "All men are created equal" is erroneous. What is at issue is an idea, a concept, not the people that put forth that idea or they way in which they applied it. The government did not decide to extend rights to African Americans; we, as a people gained insight. I really don't know how to explain it any better. I was able to extrapolate what you seem to believe from your many statements. You have stated time and time again that we have no natural rights - really, no rights at all. You contend that there are merely privileges and that those privileges extend only to American citizens. Following that logic, if the Bill of Rights is a mere list of privileges that the government gives us, then the government can take away those privileges as well. If you can be told what you can and can't do through the granting or rescinding of privileges, then you are a slave. You rant and rave about how horrible slavery was (and it was horrible), yet you promote a point of view that would place every American in bondage. Flying and shitting cookies are physical impossibilities. What we're talking about here is the concept of Liberty. I said that Liberty begins in the mind. I thought that that was fairly self-explanatory. What I meant was that unless you think of yourself as being free, you never will be. As long as you believe that Liberty comes only at the sufferance of others, you will be a slave in your own mind. It is, in effect, saying, "I am not a sovereign human being; other men decide what is best for me." This Republic grew from an idea, a concept, a mindset. In the end, ideas are all that matter, for they shape our perceptions and guide our actions. Why, yes, as a matter of fact I have. I have also been harassed by police who tried to violate my rights. I stood up for my rights and avoided having them violated, as is my Constitutional duty. Because I am free in mind and spirit, I have the balls to stand up to an authority that tries to overstep its bounds. If someday I am thrown in prison for exercising my rights, I will still be free, secure in the knowledge that the powers that be fear me because I will not bend. I understand that my Liberty is worth fighting for, must be fought for, that nothing is more dear than freedom. I fight for the cause of Liberty every day of my life by engaging people in discussions concerning the government's current and past abuses of power, by distributing materials that inform the public, by, as Samuel Adams said, setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. I fight by studying history and learning the lessons such activity provides. I believe that unless we are all free, none of us are. Have things gone horrifically awry in the United States? Hell, yes! Does the government now ignore the Constitution with impunity? Hell, yes! It's gotten so bad that the Great Unwashed has actually started to stir from its perch on the couch of complacency. We are living in the most extraordinary time since the founding of this Republic and it is my belief that in the next few years, we will see it transformed utterly. Whether these changes will be for good or ill remains to be seen. For now, it is enough that my response to "1984" will always be "1776, motherfucker." I have done my best to explain things in as many different ways and in the simplest terms possible. At this point, the discussion has become onerous and I am moving on. I suspect you will take my lack of attention from here on out as a victory on your part. More power to ya. And hey, tell the next cop you allow to do a cavity search on you that I said, "Hi." **Edited for formatting.

You can be a despotic king. If I were in charge, there'd be an oligarchy composed of those DGNers I find totally awesome. I, of course, would have to be first among equals. It's just how I roll. I'd give you New Zealand and Darque Metallion would be Pope.

He may be a despot, but he's a lovable despot.

The Royal Oak Farmer's Market has a flea market on Sundays. I just heard about the Warren flea market, Prick. Let me know if you want to hit it sometime. Er, the flea market, that is.

Oh. My. God. I never knew that wealthy people owned slaves a long time ago. You are diverting the argument about whether or not we have rights into a castigation of those who participated in the barbaric institution of slavery. It doesn't bloody matter that slaves weren't considered human in the 18th Century for the purposes of this discussion. It has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the idea of natural rights. Afro-Americans fought for the recognition of their rights and won, just like those evil men in frock coats you loathe so much. You have stated your beliefs quite well. You believe that any rights you may have derive from the consent of the government. You believe that the government can take away any rights it sees fit, when it sees fit to do so. You refuse to entertain any arguments to the contrary and are capable only of angry outbursts, insults, and bitter sarcasm. All your talk of the injustices of slavery is for naught, for you believe yourself to be little better than a slave yourself. You believe that you live only on the sufferance of government officials. The fruit of your labor is yours only as long as your master says you can have it. I admit that this mindset is completely alien to me and it does sadden me to see someone so beaten and broken down. Liberty sir, begins in the mind, not on a sheet of parchment, and certainly not at the word of a king. I hope that one day, that bright spark catches light in your own soul and you see yourself at last not as a number, but as a free human being.

Facepalm. I said, "in the context of this discussion", meaning the kind of standing army the Founders were against. The kind that is deployed on home soil when not abroad to police the citizenry. You really do not even want to understand what anyone else is saying. Please, just accept that there are Americans who don't want to be told how to live their lives, alien as that concept may be to you, and leave it at that. Jesus god, thank you, Gaf, for the quote. I think I'm done with this "debate".

IoRE, with respect, I must say that I've yet to see a reasoned or cogent argument from you in this thread, and no thoughtful response to the points others have tried to make. I've seen you make references, twice, to television programs you've watched. I've seen straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and converse fallacies of accident, but nothing of any true substance. "All the gun owners I know own a pistol, therefore every gun owner owns a pistol," is not a logical argument. I'm a gun owner, but all I own is a rifle. That's me. I don't turn around however, and say that based on my experience, zero or very few gun owners own pistols. Regarding the Constitution and people needing to understand "that some of it's (sic) wording and goals are simply out of date and need to be revised," my opinion, again, with respect, is that there is something you don't seem to grasp about the Constitution. It wasn't written by well-meaning simpletons in frock coats who never considered anything past their own era. The Constitution is a beautifully-crafted document that details a system of checks and balances meant to keep the Federal government from straying outside a very narrow mandate. It, along with the Bill of Rights, goes to great lengths to say that the People are in charge and that anything not assigned to the Federal government falls to the individual States or to the People. It is a document in balance, each element interacting with other elements. When you start mucking about with changing something like that, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The Framers knew that new issues would come up over the years and allowed for the addition of new Amendments. They purposely made it difficult to alter, and set up a process by which the will of the People had to be accounted for. Our problems have arisen not from flaws or irrelevancies in the Constitution, but by the Federal government's circumvention of Constitutional law, and a lazy, complacent citizenry. A good example of this is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Here's something that you said that actually disturbed me and tells me that you do not have a firm understanding of how we derive our rights: Right off the bat, I noticed that you used quotation marks when referring to rights. Is it that you hold the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights in disdain? Are you implying that we don't really have rights? I'd like to know where you're coming from on that score. Second, you don't seem to be able to get your mind around the idea that our rights, as described in the Bill of Rights, do not derive from government. We are not granted these rights by the Constitution, Congress, Barack Obama, Cookie Monster, or even Oprah. Our rights are natural rights, enjoyed by all by virtue of being human. What the Framers were saying here is basically, "Here's all the stuff you have a right to as sapient beings. You know this already. What we're saying is that government can't grant you these rights and it especially can't take them away." The idea that government can neither grant nor rescind natural rights is central to the Republic! Even if you had a huge grass roots movement and got Congress to draft legislation making everyone in the country worship in a particular way, you couldn't do it. The first ten Amendments are declaratory and restrictive, meaning that they restrict and supersede all previous parts of the Constitution and any Amendments made after them. If the Second Amendment was rewritten to specifically include language forbidding citizens to own guns, why on earth do you think it would stop there? The whole house of cards would come a-tumblin' down. There are plenty of people who feel the way you do concerning the 2nd Amendment, about the 1st Amendment. As a wise muppet once said, "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Finally, you seem to mistake the idea of a "standing army" in the context of this discussion as being the same as our armed forces. What the Founders worried about was an army maintained for oppressive purposes. It's the reason we don't have troops engaging in displays of force in our public squares. It's the reason for the 3rd Amendment. It's the reason we don't have Federal troops with machine guns on every street corner. I find your tirade accusing people of spitting on our servicemen and -women and being unpatriotic patently offensive, boorish, and childish. **Edited for grammar.

Now, even I, having taken issue with the Tea Party's seeming-takeover by the Neo-Cons, take issue with this statement. The Tea Party started as a grass-roots movement by people that opposed the "banker bailout" and advocated the auditing of the Federal Reserve. Demanding accountability and transparency in government makes one a nutcase? Sounds like somebody's been listening to the Southern Poverty Law Center's spin doctors. Have you even looked into what spawned the Tea Party movement? Obviously not. Does that attitude extend to the other 9 Amendments? Words lead to violence and hate crimes, according to the propaganda. Do we need to take a second look at the 1st Amendment? How about the 4th? After all, it makes it so much harder to put violent people behind bars. Dude, seriously? I think the Framers' attitude is quite apparent. Have you ever even looked at the Declaration of Independence? Here's an interesting bit: It is our right and our duty. You don't overthrow a despot by saying, "Please, oh please, stop treating us so badly." You don't do it by voting them out of office. Despotism, by its very definition, makes these things impossible. The Founders had to militarily resist oppression. That military resistance took the form of British subjects in the colonies. People. As in, "We the People". Your intimation that everyone who owns a gun is a "swinging dick" notwithstanding, that is what it says. I've covered this in another post in this thread, but perhaps in your brief skimming of this and other reasoned arguments, you missed it. It doesn't say that being part of the militia is a prerequisite to own a firearm. It says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It also says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here's what I said before; I'm not going to reword and retype all of this: If we didn't have so many citizens owning guns in this country, we wouldn't be here on DGN. We'd be talking to each other on a state-owned internet, parroting government-approved opinions at each other. The Constitution would have been shredded and burned in a public spectacle by the King of America. The government knows (or at least, has known - all bets seem to be off nowadays) that if even 1% of the armed population of the U.S. were to rise up, the Bushes, Obamas, Kissingers, etc. would be running off with their tails between their legs. This is as it should be, and it's what the Framers of the Constitution intended. You seem to have been privy to a secret backroom meeting at the Constitutional Convention where they said, "Yeah, none of this is going to be relevant in two hundred years, so hey, fuck it." Boy, you've really bough into the media-encouraged perception that everyone in a militia is a toothless, barely sapient hick, haven't you? Yes, there are groups who call themselves "militias" in order to imply a link to populist ideals. These are the guys who swill bad domestic beer, hate anyone who doesn't have white skin, and are usually full of FBI plants who encourage them to cross the line. (Do a simple search on "FBI militia provocateur") Then there are the legitimate militias, composed of ordinary citizens of all walks of life, who train peacefully on a regular basis and work with their local sheriff departments. Shocked? Wonder why you never hear about these guys in the mainstream media? The National Guard and Army Reserve are examples of militias, but certainly not the only ones. Again, why would the Founders have intended to concentrate firepower in the hands of the government. It makes absolutely no sense. They recognized that the nation they were founding could one day be just like the one they had just succeeded in defeating, and took steps to prevent tyranny from gaining a foothold. The Second Amendment is a huge part of that. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm starving myself today in anticipation of all-you-can-eat catfish.

*BUMP* Would anyone be interested in getting together to work on costuming, gear, etc.? I think we could benefit from each others' experience, knowledge, etc. I'd be happy to host, now that we actually have a garage and basement.