Campaign For Liberty under attack

[rattsass]

Rattsass could you answer some questions for me?

 

1.) Do you support using limited profiling to attempt to identify terrorists such as people that appear to be from the middle east?

2.) Do you support the Arizona immigration law?

3.) do you support agencies that try to eliminate terrorist attacks before they happen?

 

TIA

It is amazing. I asked a simple f'ing yes or no question, and you answer the question with a question. you simply can't answer my question because youknow you are going to hang yourself and your whole leftist crowd.

 

I guess I might as well call this one a TKO, cause nobody has the balls to go the distance.

[bpwallace49]

It is amazing. I asked a simple f'ing yes or no question, and you answer the question with a question. you simply can't answer my question because youknow you are going to hang yourself and your whole leftist crowd.

 

I guess I might as well call this one a TKO, cause nobody has the balls to go the distance.

 

I will be happy to answer your question in full! It is directly tied to my question of you . . . or are you "too scared" and "chicken" to answer?

[rattsass]

I will be happy to answer your question in full! It is directly tied to my question of you . . . or are you "too scared" and "chicken" to answer?

This is not going well for you BP. Not well at all.

 

I mean I answered your first question which was quite personal. You can't even type a yes or a no for me?

Edited June 22, 2010 by rattsass

[bpwallace49]

This is not going well for you BP. Not well at all.

 

1.) Do you support using limited profiling to attempt to identify terrorists such as people that appear to be from the middle east?

2.) Do you support the Arizona immigration law?

3.) do you support agencies that try to eliminate terrorist attacks before they happen?

 

anytime . . . .

[SEC=UGA]

Few Questions:

1) What are "liberty issues" and when has the current admin/congress attempted to repeal/abridge our 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights?

2) Why is the FEC supposedly after this Friends of Liberty group? Are they breaking FEC rules in regard to campaign finance issues?

3) In regard to the link, I hate to say it, but Ron Paul is a freaking fruit loop, so any thing linked to him I am wary of. So here's my question, what has Ron Paul espoused to lead you to believe that he is a friend of liberty?

4) In regard to the other link. I know Bob Barr relatively well from meeting him at Cobb County Republican meetings, working on campaigns where there have been joint fundraisers with him, and regularly run into him at the Marietta Square, whether it be at a Restaurant or Theater on the Square. I don't think he is a dangerous person, but do not find him to be a "friend of liberty" in many of his political stances. What positions of his do you find that make him a "friend of liberty". (although a few years back he did accidentally discharge a .45 at a fundraising event and about killed a couple people.)

 

5) Actually, I guess you could combine both 3 and 4 and just give me a brief run down of what the 'Friends of Liberty" stand for, because it is not entirely apparent to me.

[bpwallace49]

Few Questions:

1) What are "liberty issues" and when has the current admin/congress attempted to repeal/abridge our 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights?

2) Why is the FEC supposedly after this Friends of Liberty group? Are they breaking FEC rules in regard to campaign finance issues?

3) In regard to the link, I hate to say it, but Ron Paul is a freaking fruit loop, so any thing linked to him I am wary of. So here's my question, what has Ron Paul espoused to lead you to believe that he is a friend of liberty?

4) In regard to the other link. I know Bob Barr relatively well from meeting him at Cobb County Republican meetings, working on campaigns where there have been joint fundraisers with him, and regularly run into him at the Marietta Square, whether it be at a Restaurant or Theater on the Square. I don't think he is a dangerous person, but do not find him to be a "friend of liberty" in many of his political stances. What positions of his do you find that make him a "friend of liberty". (although a few years back he did accidentally discharge a .45 at a fundraising event and about killed a couple people.)

 

5) Actually, I guess you could combine both 3 and 4 and just give me a brief run down of what the 'Friends of Liberty" stand for, because it is not entirely apparent to me.

 

I too am looking forward to these answers.

[Pope Flick]

Few Questions:

1) What are "liberty issues" and when has the current admin/congress attempted to repeal/abridge our 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights?

2) Why is the FEC supposedly after this Friends of Liberty group? Are they breaking FEC rules in regard to campaign finance issues?

3) In regard to the link, I hate to say it, but Ron Paul is a freaking fruit loop, so any thing linked to him I am wary of. So here's my question, what has Ron Paul espoused to lead you to believe that he is a friend of liberty?

4) In regard to the other link. I know Bob Barr relatively well from meeting him at Cobb County Republican meetings, working on campaigns where there have been joint fundraisers with him, and regularly run into him at the Marietta Square, whether it be at a Restaurant or Theater on the Square. I don't think he is a dangerous person, but do not find him to be a "friend of liberty" in many of his political stances. What positions of his do you find that make him a "friend of liberty". (although a few years back he did accidentally discharge a .45 at a fundraising event and about killed a couple people.)

 

5) Actually, I guess you could combine both 3 and 4 and just give me a brief run down of what the 'Friends of Liberty" stand for, because it is not entirely apparent to me.

 

 

Here's another - why are you linking to an event that occured a year ago, and the officials in question were either fired, resigned or reassigned after the letters of apology were mailed out to those in question?

 

If this event (which I'm still unclear on) is so bad then why attempt to intentionally confuse two separate happenings? If it were so bad, you wouldn't need to go back a year to a dead and buried issue.

[rattsass]

SEC -though I respect your well thought out questions I am not going to get sidetracked in this thread. I think I have made clear my positions here. I am not going to answer anybodys questions until I have mine answered. We can get bogged down in a philisophical discussion about Ron Paul and his politics, and I don't go to the mat for Ron Paul on all issues to be sure. This is about a much bigger idea than Ron Paul. And so far, I haven't gotten one single person, not even you, to offer an opinion.

[bpwallace49]

SEC -though I respect your well thought out questions I am not going to get sidetracked in this thread. I think I have made clear my positions here. I am not going to answer anybodys questions until I have mine answered. We can get bogged down in a philisophical discussion about Ron Paul and his politics, and I don't go to the mat for Ron Paul on all issues to be sure. This is about a much bigger idea than Ron Paul. And so far, I haven't gotten one single person, not even you, to offer an opinion.

 

Sooo you refuse to defend your position or answer any questions clarifying your posting of a solicitation letter that wants money?

 

Thanks for playing ratt . . . .

 

 

Can you clarify what question you want answered again?

Edited June 22, 2010 by bpwallace49

[Pope Flick]

SEC -though I respect your well thought out questions I am not going to get sidetracked in this thread. I think I have made clear my positions here. I am not going to answer anybodys questions until I have mine answered. We can get bogged down in a philisophical discussion about Ron Paul and his politics, and I don't go to the mat for Ron Paul on all issues to be sure. This is about a much bigger idea than Ron Paul. And so far, I haven't gotten one single person, not even you, to offer an opinion.

 

 

Those are solid questions, and only further serve to explain the context of what you are trying to rail about. The fact you choose to ignore them really indicates you are either on a (poor) fishing expedition or you realized you've made much ado about nothing. I suspect the latter.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Pope Flick

[WaterMan]

What is this another Weather Underground?

[rattsass]

You guys crack me up. You want to put me on trial. but not a single one of you will look in the mirror and answer the question every American will have to decide in the near future. I answered a very personal question already. But still nobody has the guts to answer the question I posed. All you want to do is keep asking me questions. I make my opinions known every single day, but some people around here just like to jack up others opinions while never sticking their own neck out. I think I have stuck my neck out more over the last two weeks than anybody here.

 

And I can't get a single one of you to tell me what you believe. Doesn't seem right somehow.

[Pope Flick]

You guys crack me up. You want to put me on trial. but not a single one of you will look in the mirror and answer the question every American will have to decide in the near future. I answered a very personal question already. But still nobody has the guts to answer the question I posed. All you want to do is keep asking me questions. I make my opinions known every single day, but some people around here just like to jack up others opinions while never sticking their own neck out. I think I have stuck my neck out more over the last two weeks than anybody here.

 

And I can't get a single one of you to tell me what you believe. Doesn't seem right somehow.

 

 

Hey I don't like govt surveillance of citizens any more than the next person.

 

It's odd when some of us ask relevant question of you about more details of what you're railing about you won't even bother to explain yourself.

[rattsass]

Here's another - why are you linking to an event that occured a year ago, and the officials in question were either fired, resigned or reassigned after the letters of apology were mailed out to those in question?

 

If this event (which I'm still unclear on) is so bad then why attempt to intentionally confuse two separate happenings? If it were so bad, you wouldn't need to go back a year to a dead and buried issue.

Let me play this never-ending questions game. Yes this event happened over a year ago. But since I live in Missouri, this one has special importance to me. My question is - had a single one of you heard about this? Probably not.

Edited June 22, 2010 by rattsass

[bpwallace49]

Let me play this never-ending questions game. Yes this event happened over a year ago. But since I live in Missouri, this one has special importance to me. My question is - had a single one of you heard about this? Probably not.

 

I am not a domestic terrorist that has openly talked about overthrowing the United States gubmnet . . . so no. I havent heard about it. I can see your obsession though . . .

 

Onward Christian soldier! Member of the NRA, US military and hater of all things gubmnet!

[Pope Flick]

Let me play this never-ending questions game. Yes this event happened over a year ago. But since I live in Missouri, this one has special importance to me. My question is - had a single one of you heard about this? Probably not.

 

 

Nope hadn't heard about it. And since people wer fired and those called out in the report sent official letter of apology it's no surprise I hadn't heard of it: it was handled appropriately when it was found out what was going on and I appluad those that took those steps to rectify that situation.

 

But a year later they can still send fundraising emails based off of it and hide behind some shadowy court order, in their quest for cash.

[rattsass]

Okay then. I think I have a pretty good idea where everybody stands. I won't let the fact that nobody will answer my question get in my way. Your desperate attempts to move the argument, or defame my character are very telling. Your refusal to answer the question is all I need to know.

[bpwallace49]

Okay then. I think I have a pretty good idea where everybody stands. I won't let the fact that nobody will answer my question get in my way. Your desperate attempts to move the argument, or defame my character are very telling. Your refusal to answer the question is all I need to know.

 

Thanks for the good times though rattshawke!

[WaterMan]

Okay then. I think I have a pretty good idea where everybody stands. I won't let the fact that nobody will answer my question get in my way. Your desperate attempts to move the argument, or defame my character are very telling. Your refusal to answer the question is all I need to know.

 

What question?

[Pope Flick]

Okay then. I think I have a pretty good idea where everybody stands. I won't let the fact that nobody will answer my question get in my way. Your desperate attempts to move the argument, or defame my character are very telling. Your refusal to answer the question is all I need to know.

 

 

You didn't aska question until post #22. I answered it. SEC might not have in this thread but his answer is probably identical to mine. Yet you keep avoiding legit questions we have about this while saying some of us haven't answered your question when we have. It's rather telling really.

[rattsass]

Nope hadn't heard about it. And since people wer fired and those called out in the report sent official letter of apology it's no surprise I hadn't heard of it: it was handled appropriately when it was found out what was going on and I appluad those that took those steps to rectify that situation.

Here is something interesting. If that brave patriotic police officer had not brought this to attention, this would have stood, and would still be in effect today. The fact that it was uncovered is a moot point. If this is the modus operandi of the current administration do you seriously think that this is the only example of this type of thing. Really? You guys are all tap dancing, but still no kahunas.

[Pope Flick]

Here is something interesting. If that brave patriotic police officer had not brought this to attention, this would have stood, and would still be in effect today. The fact that it was uncovered is a moot point. If this is the modus operandi of the current administration do you seriously think that this is the only example of this type of thing. Really? You guys are all tap dancing, but still no kahunas.

 

 

Fair point. But why are you avoiding answering our questions that will help us understand the context even better? The fact that you are choosing to ignore SEC's questions says a lot. Tap dancing? Please, look in the mirror if you're going to say that.

[rattsass]

lots of people hung up on the Campaign for liberty part of this, so let me simplfy and ask the question one more time.

 

Is it okay for the federal government to instruct law enforcement officials to target people with political bumper stckers, Christians, Pro-Lifers, and NRA members? It is a quite simple question.

[WaterMan]

Do you think it is okay for your Obama administration to instruct law enforcement officials to target threats such as:

 

followers of political candidates (scary people like Senator Paul), NRA members, christians, people opposed to abortion, Campaign For Liberty members, and other such nefarious activities.

 

I'll make it that simple, because that is what it comes down to. Any takers?

 

I remember Bush saying the world was different after 9/11. So I'm guessing America was different after the Oklahoma city bombing and Columbine.

 

Angry people with guns and explosives who are planning to kill many Americans are more of a threat to me than poor people on the other side of the world who don't have A/C.

[bpwallace49]

lots of people hung up on the Campaign for liberty part of this, so let me simplfy and ask the question one more time.

 

Is it okay for the federal government to instruct law enforcement officials to target people with political bumper stckers, Christians, Pro-Lifers, and NRA members? It is a quite simple question.

 

After Timothy McVeigh . . I would support any research into potential domestic terrorists. Just like I support making sure that outside terrorists dont get into the US. In fact, I guess you can say I am against terrorism in all forms . . . .

 

I hope that answers your question. I am against terrorism.

 

Now will you answer everyonhe else's questions? Or will you take your ball and go home?