T1B

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:May I suggest you read a book called "The Red Tent" and yes, the title leaves little to the imagination.

Good thing it wasn’t written by Rumple’s wife then. It would have been called “The Circus Tent”, written by the Fat Lady, and housing one of the world’s greatest clowns.

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:May I suggest you read a book called "The Red Tent" and yes, the title leaves little to the imagination.

I would venture to say that many of the posters on this board could stand 3,4, maybe even 7 days in a Red Tent.

Bitches.

Damn, don't any fathers own tire irons anymore?


The police would definitely be called, but pedo man would be calling about the mysterious stranger who went Tonya Harding on his knee caps and shoved his keyboard up his ass.

trev wrote:I don't have girls, but would this girls life just fall apart if she just got rid of myspace??

Legs, come on, are you serious? Sure she could rid of it is she wanted to. Would her life fall apart if she did? Prolly not. But thats not the point. Damn. She did nothing wrong here. Why should she be punished? Hell with that logic, I guess cuz should simply get rid of the daughter and avoid having these problems!

kcdave wrote:

trev wrote:I don't have girls, but would this girls life just fall apart if she just got rid of myspace??

Legs, come on, are you serious? Sure she could rid of it is she wanted to. Would her life fall apart if she did? Prolly not. But thats not the point. Damn. She did nothing wrong here. Why should she be punished? Hell with that logic, I guess cuz should simply get rid of the daughter and avoid having these problems!

Dave, I am serious. myspace looks like a breeding ground for weirdos. It's not a punishment. It's a matter of not letting your daughter interact with pedos. Any man that wants to talk to a girl is a freak. And it appears to be rampant on the net. In any event, I hope he gets reported!

Myspace is like the minor leagues for palces like this. Show us yer tits, trev

trev wrote:

kcdave wrote:

trev wrote:I don't have girls, but would this girls life just fall apart if she just got rid of myspace??

Legs, come on, are you serious? Sure she could rid of it is she wanted to. Would her life fall apart if she did? Prolly not. But thats not the point. Damn. She did nothing wrong here. Why should she be punished? Hell with that logic, I guess cuz should simply get rid of the daughter and avoid having these problems!

Dave, I am serious. myspace looks like a breeding ground for weirdos. It's not a punishment. It's a matter of not letting your daughter interact with pedos. Any man that wants to talk to a girl is a freak. And it appears to be rampant on the net. In any event, I hope he gets reported!

All depends on the purpose. The chick that I mentioned earlier was the only young one that I used to talk to online, but we used to have young interns come by the emu house to learn the video editing business and we'd "mentor" them about sex and guys all the time. We kind of considered it part of the internship. You come to the house, you learn about life, not just video editing. We only had one time where one of the guys got involved with one of the girls and he waited until she graduated before messing around with her.

^^ rack the heck out of that.

When I grew up (in the 80s) there wasn't a lot of blatant messages being sent out by the schools or our parents about the weirdos that surrounded us. Sure, there was the occasional "Don't take candy from strangers" commerical on and probably an episode of Mr. Belvedere where Wesley gets touched inappropriately by his scout leader at camp. Other than that, there just wasn't a whole lot out there to get the message through to kids.

Now, the internet is a whole new ball game and the information alone makes it so damn easy to find people you chat with unless they are intelligent enough to keep that shit on the DL. R-jack is right, you have to make your kids aware of the issues and you have to be direct about it.

It seems television has pushed the envelope every year as to what they can get away with on the local channels. What are you gonna do, shelter your kids from that too? The more they know can't hurt them. I remember a co-worker of mine from my old job let her 10 year old son and 6 year old daughter watch South Park and Family Guy. I'm not saying I condone it but the way the mother looked at it was that she was just exposing them to things they are going to find out anyways when they get a little older.

Taking away the source is retarded. You have to teach your children how to use these things, but be aware and be responsible with these type of outlets. Its pretty fucking clear cut.

R-Jack, there is so much I could say in response, but I take it from your statement you would rather not have my opinion. That's ok with me, because I'm comfortable in the my knowledge of teens and raising healthy, successful kids. As a parent there are always worries and I give any parent credit for dealing with that.

Late.

Hey, trev has posted two days in row now. Somebody’s slacking.

If I ever make a list of 'cool' posters, trev will be on it.

Rack Fu wrote: Terrorism notwithstanding, I would argue that protecting our children is the most important thing that we do.

Only as long as it has to do with postal roads, interstate commerce and the like right ?

trev wrote:R-Jack, I take it from your statement you would rather not have my opinion.

I am sure he, along with just about everyone here, is anxiously awaiting your next shortsighted response on shitty parenting. You're entertainment...

Dinsdale wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:I use myspace more than most.

Just thought this needed quoting, so it stood out.


No comments on it right now, but I have a feeling it's going to come in quite handy at some point down the road...just a hunch.


SunCoastStarOfDateline might regret posting that.

LMAO... I don't think I have anyone under 25 on my page except my two younger sisters. Like I said I use it for poker, keeping up with military friends (since myspace is one of the few forums they are still allowed to use overseas in theater) and friends from high school or college. I also have two ex girl friends (one from college and one from HS) and a couple of T1B posters who it isn't my place to state they use the system here.

My privacy setting are pretty damn strict as well. My account is set to "private", to send me an "add" for being a friend you have to know my primary email addy or my last name, and you have to be 21 to even send me a message. Anyone goes to my account that isn't on my friends list only gets a picture of me and the general applications box bellow my picture and a big black box to the right telling them this is a private account.

There are 185,355,826 accounts on myspace as of 10:57am cst. I'm sure that with nearly 200 million people using the systenm there are a number of deviants and nutcases...

Rack Fu wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Yes, the FBI is funded with federal tax dollars. That's not a reason to avoid "bothering" them. Myself, I think busting internet creeps is a perfectly legitimate use of the FBI's time.

Terrorism notwithstanding, I would argue that protecting our children is the most important thing that we do.

RACK!!!

SCS wrote:10:57am cst

bitches

poptart wrote:If I ever make a list of 'cool' posters

Big if there, poppy.

mvscal wrote:They'll burn your house down and blow your wife's head off.

Sounds like a fair trade.

Sincerely,

Terry in Crapchester

mvscal wrote: Don't try to get all constitutional here now. They'll burn your house down and blow your wife's head off.

They will have to settle for blowing my GirlFriend's head off.

Moving Sale wrote:

Rack Fu wrote: Terrorism notwithstanding, I would argue that protecting our children is the most important thing that we do.

Only as long as it has to do with postal roads, interstate commerce and the like right ?

Yawn.

I believe Zyclone is well versed on the intricacies of myspace. Hit him up with a PM with any questions, Dave. And if you're lucky, he might add you as a friend so you can network with him and his pool of boyz -- mostly Lee Hottie Hall of Famers.

Rack Fu wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Rack Fu wrote: Terrorism notwithstanding, I would argue that protecting our children is the most important thing that we do.

Only as long as it has to do with postal roads, interstate commerce and the like right ?

Yawn.

Yawning @ my Constitutional protections. Nice going tard.

BTW-The 2nd Am. was written because of jackbooted fucks like you.

Moving Sale wrote:

Rack Fu wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: Only as long as it has to do with postal roads, interstate commerce and the like right ?

Yawn.

Yawning @ my Constitutional protections. Nice going tard.

BTW-The 2nd Am. was written because of jackbooted fucks like you.

Yeah, that was my point, numbnut.

Not all federal statutes related to crimes against children have an interstate component attached to it. For argument's sake, let's say that every single one of them did have an interstate component that must be satisfied (which they don't). That's why we have task forces assigned with local and state law enforcement who can take the cases to the district attorney and have these scumbags charged at the state level. In conclusion, they can be charged on the federal or state level depending on the circumstances. Which was my point aimed at your interstate comment, moron. The Bureau can take things to the DA's Office. You're aware of that, right?

Maybe if you move past defending teenagers with traffic violations and move up to the big boy court (no pun intended), you might have a clue what the fuck you were talking about.

Nice Second Amendment rant that had absolutely nothing to do with what was going on here. Fucking blowhard.

Rack Fu wrote: Not all federal statutes related to crimes against children have an interstate component attached to it.

Gee ya think?

For argument's sake, let's say that every single one of them did have an interstate component that must be satisfied (which they don't). That's why we have task forces assigned with local and state law enforcement who can take the cases to the district attorney and have these scumbags charged at the state level.

You want to try that again only in English?

In conclusion, they can be charged on the federal or state level depending on the circumstances. Which was my point aimed at your interstate comment, moron. The Bureau can take things to the DA's Office.

They can also charge shit that has nothing to do with postal roads or IC or any other power the FF gave them as you just related in your "{n}ot all federal statutes related to crimes against children have an interstate component attached" rant.

You're aware of that, right?

Hence my comment.

Maybe if you move past defending teenagers with traffic violations and move up to the big boy court (no pun intended), you might have a clue what the fuck you were talking about.

I've practiced in FC... and won. So what?

Nice Second Amendment rant that had absolutely nothing to do with what was going on here. Fucking blowhard.

It has EVERYTHING to do with your yawn @ my CR you jackbooted fuck.

I'm about as big a "states rights/Constitution" guy as you'll find, but I could have sworn the Constitution makes provisions to "provide for the common defense."

Moving Sale wrote: It has EVERYTHING to do with your yawn @ my CR you jackbooted fuck.

Let me type it in big bold letters so that even you can understand it.

My "Yawn" was directly aimed at your ignorant insinuation that we don't get off of our asses to protect children unless there's an interstate component. Try to spin your way out of it anyway that you want but you know damn well that was your intention with that comment. It's not my fault that you ended up looking like a clueless tard.

I'm not sure how "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" played any part in my yawn. You might be the only jerkoff that would've jumped to that conclusion. Props for that.

As for the rest of your post... point me to the substantive part that made a valid point. I see a lot of words that mean nothing, beyond making you look more like the fool that you are.

Anything else, Atticus Shrimp?

Dinsdale wrote:I'm about as big a "states rights/Constitution" guy as you'll find, but I could have sworn the Constitution makes provisions to "provide for the common defense."

Pipe down slappy. You are in way over your head.

Rack Fu wrote:My "Yawn" was directly aimed at your ignorant insinuation that we don't get off of our asses to protect children unless there's an interstate component.

Hey fuckhead, you are not SUPPOST to get off your ass unless there is a IC issue or some other issue enumerated in the USC and you would have got that if you were not a ingnant jackbooted thug with a 4th grade education and a 98 IQ.

Try to spin your way out of it anyway that you want but you know damn well that was your intention with that comment.

Actually my point was the opposite. Nice try though.

I'm not sure how "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" played any part in my yawn.

That is because you are a tard. No worries. After someone peppers you in the face with some buckshot for being an ignant jackbooted thug you might come around.

I see a lot of words that mean nothing…

Work your way up to being smarter than a fifth grader and get back to me.

Anything else, Atticus Shrimp?

How droll.


BTW- The correct retort to my original post was... "damn straight because I am sworn to uphold the Constitution." Too bad you are too ignant to know anything about said document.

~~~~~
I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that
I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


Do you even know what have sworn to support and defend you fucking tard?

Once again... not one valid point. A lot of words that mean nothing. Unless blindly calling me a tard while not addressing one single point is some sort of moral victory in your mind. Your ignorance of my job and what I am supposed to do is not only laughable, it's pathetic.

You addressed nothing. You got your ass kicked in this thread. End of story.

BTW - is misspelling words the new cool thing to do? Or are us "ignant" people "suppost" to type like this? You must really be the talk of the middle school. Get on with your trendsetting self.

I'm not sure that you could suck worse but I'll bet that your very next post will prove me wrong.

Rack Fu wrote:Once again... not one valid point. A lot of words that mean nothing. Unless blindly calling me a tard while not addressing one single point is some sort of moral victory in your mind. Your ignorance of my job and what I am supposed to do is not only laughable, it's pathetic.

You addressed nothing. You got your ass kicked in this thread. End of story.

BTW - is misspelling words the new cool thing to do? Or are us "ignant" people "suppost" to type like this? You must really be the talk of the middle school. Get on with your trendsetting self.

I'm not sure that you could suck worse but I'll bet that your very next post will prove me wrong.

Good fucking Lord.

You have no point?
I kicked your ass?
Spelling and Grammer Smack
You Suck.........

You should have waited till morning Fu, I could have shit this post out while reading the Sunday Comics and saved you the embarrassment of the stench. Take it another level and go all out! Bust out the fat faggot midget lawyer Bombs on TVO and get over.

Um, he's misspelling words on purpose. Hence, why I asked if that was the new cool thing to do. I want to be sure that I'm aware of the latest messageboard fads. I didn't get my monthly newsletter yet. I'm sure it's in the "What's Hot, What's Not" section.

I can only take what TV0 gives me, Y2K. I already poked holes in his dumb ass comments and his only retort is to call me a tard and a 4th grader and not address my points. Why is that? Surely, if he had a valid point he would've stated as much. Had he produced a counterpoint, I would have addressed it. As you can see, he already managed to contradict himself in back to back posts. I stated that not all federal statutes related to crimes against children have an interstate component attached to it. He replies "Gee ya think?" I'm sure that both you and I took that as TV0 saying that he is well aware of that fact. In his very next post, he tells me that I'm not supposed to get off my ass unless there is an interstate component. Which is it? I'm just so confused that I'm not sure I can go back to work.

Rack Fu wrote: I stated that not all federal statutes related to crimes against children have an interstate component attached to it. He replies "Gee ya think?" I'm sure that both you and I took that as TV0 saying that he is well aware of that fact. In his very next post, he tells me that I'm not supposed to get off my ass unless there is an interstate component. Which is it? I'm just so confused that I'm not sure I can go back to work.

Professing ignorance of the English language so profound that you cannot even understand a simple declarative sentence or two is pathetic beyond the pale, but I guess if you had any brains you would be a federal prosecutor instead of a jackbooted thug.


I will lay it out in 3rd gradespeak for you so maybe you can get it.
First, there ARE fed laws without an IC component (or other Constitutional basis) but there should not be. These laws are not Constitutional but no one seems to care (or know) that they are not Constitutional. The people that make (Congress), interpret (Justices), and enforce (Jackbooted fucks like you) said laws are making the federal government way more powerful than the FF had intended.

Second, you are too dumb to get that as evidenced by your last post to Y2K and all of your posts to me.

Third, because of jackbooted thugs like you many citizens are arming themselves as a means of protection from a government run amok.


Have fun in the shallow end of the gene pool tard and keep looking over your shoulder because with your stupidity level Darwin is sure to be quick on your heels.

Moving Sale wrote: First, there ARE fed laws without an IC component (or other Constitutional basis) but there should not be. These laws are not Constitutional but no one seems to care (or know) that they are not Constitutional.

That's your opinion, asshat. Nothing more and nothing less. It seems that the Supreme Court has upheld these laws as Constitutional. That's good enough for me. I'll take their opinion over some pint sized attorney/conspiracy theorist who moonlights as a punching bag on internet messageboards. That's just me.

Moving Sale wrote: Second, you are too dumb to get that as evidenced by your last post to Y2K and all of your posts to me.

Third, because of jackbooted thugs like you many citizens are arming themselves as a means of protection from a government run amok.

Have fun in the shallow end of the gene pool tard and keep looking over your shoulder because with your stupidity level Darwin is sure to be quick on your heels.

Once again, a lot of talking with little substance. A lot more detailed and thought out than your previous efforts where all you did was call me a tard, a jackbooted thug and of elementary school education. Oh wait. It's exactly the same. Are you ever going to have an actual counterpoint?

You must be really great in the courtroom.

TV0: I object!
Judge: On what grounds?
TV0: Becuz' it was ignant and stupid.
Judge: Do you have an actual legal basis for your objection?
TV0: Yes, it's stupid.
Judge: Overruled.
TV0: But your Honor, it's stupid.
Judge: Your objection is noted. Without a valid basis for the objection, it's overruled.
TV0: But it's stupid.

In all seriousness, I hope you're better at being an attorney than you are at arguing on the internet. You kind of suck at this. No offense.

Cueball wrote:Yet another OCMIKE Humpday Challenge

Can't believe this didn't get Racked.

Rack it, along with OCMike's story.

Rack Fu wrote: That's your opinion, asshat. Nothing more and nothing less. It seems that the Supreme Court has upheld these laws as Constitutional. That's good enough for me.

It shouldn't be.

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty.

Or to break that down into terms that you'll understand, You don't have to put up with something just because someone in charge says so. In fact, you should question everything they say, lest you find your rights deteriorating.

Or maybe you'll like this one better...

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


What this all means is that "we the people" don't really trust "you the government", so much so, that many of us feel the need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves not only from direct threats, but from those who purport to protect us from such. I'm pretty sure that's where TVO was coming from with his 2nd amendment comment.

If you don't believe that many federal laws are in their very essence unconstitutional, then you are every bit the tard you have been portrayed as by TVO.

Rack Fu wrote:It seems that the Supreme Court has upheld these laws as Constitutional. That's good enough for me.

That is because you are sheepole.

I'll take their opinion over some pint sized attorney/conspiracy theorist who moonlights as a punching bag on internet messageboards.

So you are down with Roe?
Kelo?
How about Dred Scott? Was that a good decision?

That's just me.

No it is not. There are plenty of people who never question and just go about their stupid simple lives. They are called tards.

Once again, a lot of talking with little substance.

Defending the Constitution is nothing but substance you stupid simple fuck.

In all seriousness, I hope you're better at being an attorney than you are at arguing on the internet. You kind of suck at this. No offense.

I love this one. Yes Fu I act the same in real person. I don’t come here because it is a diversion from real life I come here because it is exactly like real life.

What a tard.

Headhunter wrote:

Rack Fu wrote: That's your opinion, asshat. Nothing more and nothing less. It seems that the Supreme Court has upheld these laws as Constitutional. That's good enough for me.

It shouldn't be.

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty.

Or to break that down into terms that you'll understand, You don't have to put up with something just because someone in charge says so. In fact, you should question everything they say, lest you find your rights deteriorating.

Or maybe you'll like this one better...

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Settle down a bit, sport. You're taking this a little bit out of the context in which it was meant.

Within the confines of my job, if the Supreme Court has decided that some law or action is constitutional, you better believe that I'll use it within the scope of my job. Why wouldn't I? If I have some problems with the law from a personal standpoint, I'll use my right to vote (just like the rest of you) to try and effect change. It's a job were it might be necessary to separate personal feelings and beliefs from professional one's. I guess if it got too much, I'd search for other employment.

Take a soldier for example. The average man does not want to take another's life. That's his personal belief. If he joins the military and is sent out to war, he may very well have to kill someone. He doesn't want to but it comes with the territory. There are some aspects of my job that I don't particularly enjoy or even 100% agree with but if it's legal, ethical and constitutional - I have no problems doing it. That's not to say that I would not take it up with my superiors or the AUSA that I'm working with or whatever. I may eventually jump when they say jump but I'm not a naive rat following the pied piper. I certainly question authority if the situation warrants it.

The comment was also aimed at our vertically challenged friend in as much that I'd rather have the nine people on the Supreme Court making decisions than him.

Fair enough?

What this all means is that "we the people" don't really trust "you the government", so much so, that many of us feel the need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves not only from direct threats, but from those who purport to protect us from such. I'm pretty sure that's where TVO was coming from with his 2nd amendment comment.

I'm pretty sure that his comment came out of left field and had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It was that time of the month for him to go off on an anti-gov rant. I simply replied to someone that protecting our children is arguably the most important thing that we do. I'm not sure how anyone can see a problem with that but TV0 had to crowbar his way into the conversation and make some snide remark insinuating that we woudn't do jackshit unless it had an interstate component to it. My yawn was aimed at that comment because 1) not all federal statutes regarding crimes against children have an interstate component and 2) we work in task forces which allow us to use the laws on the state's books. I'm not sure where the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" was at all relevant to the conversation. As I said, he forced that issue to pick a fight. All he has done since it fail to make a valid point and toss around juvenile insults. If that passes for intelligent debate around here nowadays, feel free to prop the little guy up all that you want.

Moving Sale wrote:

Rack Fu wrote:
In all seriousness, I hope you're better at being an attorney than you are at arguing on the internet. You kind of suck at this. No offense.

I love this one. Yes Fu I act the same in real person. I don’t come here because it is a diversion from real life I come here because it is exactly like real life.

What a tard.

My bad for not phrasing it in the form of a question so that you would've picked up the obvious rhetorical nature of it.

Rack Fu wrote: I'm not sure how anyone can see a problem with that but TV0 had to crowbar his way into the conversation and make some snide remark insinuating that we woudn't do jackshit unless it had an interstate component to it

Can you read? I specifically told you that my intent was the opposite of that. I specifically said you WOULD get off your ass even when there was no IC issue (or other Constitutional basis) and that I feel that that is a huge problem with the feds today.

And for your information a soldier takes a different oath than you took.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See the difference tard? I bolded it for you not that that will help your little pea brain grasp the magnitude of said difference. You are held to a higher standard more like the oath an officer takes.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Officers (and FBI agents) are suppose to pipe up. Non-Coms are not (with a few exceptions). Get it fucko?

BTW- ‘woudn’t has an ‘L’ in it.

Where was I comparing my oath to a soldier's oath, you moronic twit? You're as fucking dense as a black hole. It was a simple comparison that sometimes people need to set their personal feelings and beliefs aside while performing the duties of their job - whatever that job might entail. I guess I shouldn't have used an example of another "job" that involves a Constitutional oath. Of course, who would've believed that someone would have thought that was the actual comparison. My bad. I broke the golden rule of "know your audience." In this case, a fucking idiot who jumps to conclusions that aren't there. The first thing that popped into my head was the job of a soldier and it wasn't because we both swore an oath to the Constitution.

Would another example work for you? Let me see... let's say that you're very anti-alcohol for whatever reason - straight edge, religious reasons, health reasons, family killed by a drunk driver, whatever the case may be. You decide to take a job as a waiter at a local restaurant that happens to serve alcohol. You could work anywhere but this is the place that you decide on. Now, if you refused to take drink orders for the patrons, odds are you wouldn't be employed long. You otherwise love the job and make good money doing it so you set that one personal belief aside in order to keep said job. You put the overall experience of the job ahead of some of your personal beliefs and opinions. It's worth the sacrifice to you. Hopefully, you take this example at face value. I think that I'm safe because I'm pretty confident that a waiter does not take an oath.

I haven't gone through my post with a fine toothed comb. I'm kind of eating and typing at the same time. There's potential that a typo/misspelling exists. I certainly don't want you to have to use any of those big guns that you have tucked away in your smack arsenal again.

This thread has become a bit long, and a little off topic.