A Tale of Two Murders

Cato wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Cato wrote: .... the fact the actions have consequences and there is sice a thing as responsibility.

And ever since the time your God created man and woman ........ one's responsibility has always came first to one's self. .... one's own survival.

If you say so!!!

If what you are saying is true then you have no room to complain about teacher's unions, or entitlement spending, because all of these people have banded together in the name of responsibility to one's self.

Now Willy, that was absolutely a foolish statement. I only expect such as coming from an irate female as a response to a "fit of spite".

The actions of teacher's unions and/or the taxpayer's obligation to fund their entitlement spending has a DIRECT AFFECT on the "quality of life" of my own survival.

Cato wrote:Additionally, you are saying that you would save yourself before raising a finger to save you wife or children. Afterall you are saying the you have a responsibility to yourself to save yourself.

And Willy, that was also an absolutely foolish statement that I would only expect such as coming from an irate girly-man as a response to a "fit of spite".

It appears you have intentionally dismissed and/or ignored the original subject of this discussion in an attempt to defame and/or criticize me personally so as to gain favortism from those who might be witnessing this discussion. Such devious actions does not make one, or their argument, any more creditable or true, but only appeases their like minded friends.

A group of friends all going in the same direction does not mean they are going in the right direction.

Pregnant females do not consider their fetus a “child” until after it is born and they do not become emotionally attached to it until it is born, …… be it a premature birth, normal birth, stillbirth or an aborted fetus. Thus, those contemplating an abortion are only thinking of their own survival, be it their economic, social, mental or physical survival.

Willy, I do not believe there are very many people who will commit suicide just to save only their spouse or children. They will put their own life in danger to save said, ….. but to commit an act of suicide, I DON’T THINK SO.



.

SamCogar wrote:

Now Willy, that was absolutely a foolish statement. I only expect such as coming from an irate female as a response to a "fit of spite".

The actions of teacher's unions and/or the taxpayer's obligation to fund their entitlement spending has a DIRECT AFFECT on the "quality of life" of my own survival.

As it has on theirs, so, I guess according to you, that neither one of you should complain.

SamCogar wrote:


... Pregnant females do not consider their fetus a “child” until after it is born and they do not become emotionally attached to it until it is born, …… be it a premature birth, normal birth, stillbirth or an aborted fetus. Thus, those contemplating an abortion are only thinking of their own survival, be it their economic, social, mental or physical survival.

And I may consider the moon made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it correct. By the way, taking your logic to the extreme, wouldn't one be justified in killing their spouse if said spouse was overspending. Afterall one would only be assuring their economic survival.

That brings me to another question, how do you know what pregnant females think regarding the child they are carrying?

SamCogar wrote:

Willy, I do not believe there are very many people who will commit suicide just to save only their spouse or children. They will put their own life in danger to save said, ….. but to commit an act of suicide, I DON’T THINK SO.

.

And I may believe the world is flat, but that doesn't make it so.

The more I have thought about your reply Sammie, the more I wanted to say this. You do understand, I hope, that you wouldn't have what freedoms you have if it wasn't for people willing to sacrifice, up to and including their lives. The only reason you and I can argue back and forth without much fear of repression (Which is fast disappearing, I might add) is that many were willing to sacrifice for an ideal. The ideal being that "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness". It is because of people like you and Ziggy and others who think there is nothing worth dying for, nothing worth sacrificing for, and that we are mere dumb animals that our liberties are being taken. Most are more concerned with who won the super bowl or the latest NASCAR race than What is unfolding before them in various statehouses and inside the beltway.

Cato

Bravo, Cato!!!

Pregnant females do not consider their fetus a “child” until after it is born and they do not become emotionally attached to it until it is born, …… be it a premature birth, normal birth, stillbirth or an aborted fetus. Thus, those contemplating an abortion are only thinking of their own survival, be it their economic, social, mental or physical survival.

Sam,

That is, without a doubt, the dumbest statement I've ever seen or heard from you. It may go down in the record books as one of the most ridiculous statements ever posted in this forum.

I realize that I am the only woman that posts here with any kind of regularity and I have no way of knowing when, or even if, the others will ever see and respond to this opinion of yours. I can only speak for myself and wonder if the others will eventually share their thoughts on the matter.

I loved all of my children before they were born. I purchased clothes, furniture, and toys for the first 4 before their births. (I didn't do that with the last two out of stark terror) I'd be willing to bet that some, if not all, of the other fathers here will admit to loving their children before birth.

Actually, it is a major insult to suggest that my husband and I didn't love our daughter before her birth. We most certainly did and we love her still. While I doubt it was your intention to offend me, that particular statement is extremely offensive and I urge you in the strongest terms to never repeat it to another parent who has suffered a similar tragedy.

Cato wrote:The more I have thought about your reply Sammie, the more I wanted to say this. You do understand, I hope, that you wouldn't have what freedoms you have if it wasn't for people willing to sacrifice, up to and including their lives. The only reason you and I can ...................

YADA, ...... YADA, .... YADA

Willy, you, like many others, have a "one track" mind when it comes to thinking. You should go back and re-read that Pravda article 3 or 4 more times, the one you cited on another post.

Willy, you are blinded by your own prejudices and biases ...... and thus you put your mouth into action before you put your mind into motion.

You really don't give a damn about what someone says or even make the slightest attempt at trying to understand what was said. Instead, you reformulate what was said to what you think it should have said ....... and then make up all sorts of bullshit comments and questions for replying to your own reformulated crap.

Now Willy, you can stand on your "soapbox" or cling on your Cross and preach your Sacrificing One's Life Sermon if that what makes you feel all warm, fuzzy, patriotic and especially Religiously inside, .... then go for it. I told you once that your obsessive religious belief would "mess up your mind" and your above ranting only proves my assertion.

Preach what you want to Willy ....... but it may behoove you to think about what General George Patton said, something akin to wit:




.

Stephanie wrote:

Pregnant females do not consider their fetus a “child” until after it is born and they do not become emotionally attached to it until it is born, …… be it a premature birth, normal birth, stillbirth or an aborted fetus. Thus, those contemplating an abortion are only thinking of their own survival, be it their economic, social, mental or physical survival.

Sam,

That is, without a doubt, the dumbest statement I've ever seen or heard from you. It may go down in the record books as one of the most ridiculous statements ever posted in this forum.

I realize that I am the only woman that posts here with any kind of regularity and I have no way of knowing when, or even if, the others will ever see and respond to this opinion of yours. I can only speak for myself and wonder if the others will eventually share their thoughts on the matter.

I loved all of my children before they were born. I purchased clothes, furniture, and toys for the first 4 before their births. (I didn't do that with the last two out of stark terror) I'd be willing to bet that some, if not all, of the other fathers here will admit to loving their children before birth.

Stephanie, and I dearly love ..... a good Graham Cracker crust banana cream pie and fried oysters that were rolled in egg and cracker crumbs ... before and during my eating of them ......... but I sure as hell don't get emotionally attached to either one.

Stephanie wrote:Actually, it is a major insult to suggest that my husband and I didn't love our daughter before her birth. We most certainly did and we love her still. While I doubt it was your intention to offend me, that particular statement is extremely offensive and I urge you in the strongest terms to never repeat it to another parent who has suffered a similar tragedy.

Steph, go back and read what I told Willy about "not caring about what someone actually said".

Now if you are going to "jump my arse" about something I posted, ......... the jump it about what I posted ...... and not about what you decided was appropiate to jump my ass for.

I made no mention whatsoever about "love" in my post.

And for your information there is one hell of a difference in "loving something" and being "emotionally attached" to it.

Now if all pregnant females were actually "emotionally attached" to their fetus then all you pro-lifers wouldn't have to be worrying about very many of said pregnant females getting an abortion.

And you know that is a fact whether you admit to it or not.

You know that it is a fact because it is one of the pro-lifer's "rallying calls" to persuade pregnant females not to abort and you pro-lifers use it to defend your pro-life stance by "high lighting" the emotional distress suffered by many females that aborted their fetus.

They suffer said "after the fact", ...... not before.

.

SamCogar wrote:

"Don't you be f'ing stupid enough to die for your country,

make that other son of a bitch die for his."

.

If you noticed Sammie, the article in Pravada used words like Without a Whimper. The point is the other SOB doesn't have to risk his life, if we aren't willing to stand for our founding principles. As the writer said most people seem more interested in the drama on thier favor soap than they are on the drama inside the beltway.

It is truly written, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I am also reminded of a line from the movie "The Wind and the Lion" Where one is asked, "is the not anything worth risking everything for?" I would hope life, liberty, and property were worth risking everything for, I know it is for me.

You don't like the word love?

Please read my previous post again and substitute the phrase "emotionally attached" for the word "love".

Stephanie wrote:You don't like the word love?

I yu Steph.

.

IBack at ya, Sammy.

Cato wrote:The more I have thought about your reply Sammie, the more I wanted to say this. You do understand, I hope, that you wouldn't have what freedoms you have if it wasn't for people willing to sacrifice, up to and including their lives. The only reason you and I can argue back and forth without much fear of repression (Which is fast disappearing, I might add) is that many were willing to sacrifice for an ideal. The ideal being that "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness". It is because of people like you and Ziggy and others who think there is nothing worth dying for, nothing worth sacrificing for, and that we are mere dumb animals that our liberties are being taken. Most are more concerned with who won the super bowl or the latest NASCAR race than What is unfolding before them in various statehouses and inside the beltway.

Cato

Which of our liberties are being taken, and by whom, because Sam or Ziggy or others didn't get their arse shot off in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq?

Ziggy did not say that there is nothing worth dying for. But Ziggy does say that neither Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam nor George W. Bush in Iraq had anything going that was worth even one American dying for. If I am going to be the one doing the dying, then I reserve to myself the right to decide if it is worth dying for.

ziggy wrote:But Ziggy does say that neither Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam nor George W. Bush in Iraq had anything going that was worth even one American dying for. If I am going to be the one doing the dying, then I reserve to myself the right to decide if it is worth dying for.

And you have that right.

For the record, not ONE single American gave up that right to either LBJ or GWB.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:But Ziggy does say that neither Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam nor George W. Bush in Iraq had anything going that was worth even one American dying for. If I am going to be the one doing the dying, then I reserve to myself the right to decide if it is worth dying for.

And you have that right.

For the record, not ONE single American gave up that right to either LBJ or GWB.

Wrong. The guys who submitted to the military draft and went to Vietnam, but who would not have gone otherwise, gave up that right.

Sorry Ziggy but you're the one wrong here.

The could have claimed Conscientious objector,Dodged the draft or just explained to their recruiter as you did that they were not a good fit for the military.

Regardless of their reasons for going to Vietnam, each and every one had options and if they went, it was by their own choosing.

"Go to prison" or "go to Vietnam" is is not much of a choice for some people.

ziggy wrote:"Go to prison" or "go to Vietnam" is is not much of a choice for some people.

OH, ...... you didn't tell us you spent time in prison.

.

ziggy wrote:"Go to prison" or "go to Vietnam" is is not much of a choice for some people.

First, it's not the only two choices they had and second, it was still a choice and they made it.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:The more I have thought about your reply Sammie, the more I wanted to say this. You do understand, I hope, that you wouldn't have what freedoms you have if it wasn't for people willing to sacrifice, up to and including their lives. The only reason you and I can argue back and forth without much fear of repression (Which is fast disappearing, I might add) is that many were willing to sacrifice for an ideal. The ideal being that "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness". It is because of people like you and Ziggy and others who think there is nothing worth dying for, nothing worth sacrificing for, and that we are mere dumb animals that our liberties are being taken. Most are more concerned with who won the super bowl or the latest NASCAR race than What is unfolding before them in various statehouses and inside the beltway.

Cato

Which of our liberties are being taken, and by whom, because Sam or Ziggy or others didn't get their arse shot off in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq?

Ziggy did not say that there is nothing worth dying for. But Ziggy does say that neither Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam nor George W. Bush in Iraq had anything going that was worth even one American dying for. If I am going to be the one doing the dying, then I reserve to myself the right to decide if it is worth dying for.

And I never once mentioned Bush of Johnson and anyone else for that matter and neither is that the point. What I don't think you have, based on many of your writings, is whether you have the courage and commitment to lay your life, your property, and your honor on the line for a principle.

And I never once mentioned Bush of Johnson and anyone else for that matter and neither is that the point.

Oh, but that is exactly the point. It was Bush and Johnson who were the architects of two wars in which most Americans have died in my lifetime.

Cato it was you who said,

It is because of people like you and Ziggy and others who think there is nothing worth dying for, nothing worth sacrificing for, and that we are mere dumb animals that our liberties are being taken.

So again, which liberties have been taken because SamCogar or Ziggy or "others" did not die for them?

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:"Go to prison" or "go to Vietnam" is is not much of a choice for some people.

OH, ...... you didn't tell us you spent time in prison.

I didn't, because I am smarter than the average bear- and smarter than the average military conscriptionist was in 1965.

ziggy wrote:

And I never once mentioned Bush of Johnson and anyone else for that matter and neither is that the point.

Oh, but that is exactly the point. It was Bush and Johnson who were the architects of two wars in which most Americans have died in my lifetime.

It is because of people like you and Ziggy and others who think there is nothing worth dying for, nothing worth sacrificing for, and that we are mere dumb animals that our liberties are being taken.

So again, which liberties have been taken because SamCogar or Ziggy or "others" did not die for them?

So as usual I see you are going tod ance around the point. My question was to you, is there anything you would pledge you life, fortune, and sacred honor for?

As far as right being taken goes, the right to free speach has been eroded, the right be secure unwarrented search and seisure is being eroded. The right to life has been deprived over 40 million souls. We no longer own our property, we rent it at the will and pleasure of the government witht he supreme courts ruling on eminent domain. The right to worship freely is under attack. The right to keep and bear arms is being eroded.

Why are these rights and many others being taken? Because people have become complacent apathatic, or they have given in to so called experts and quit thinking for themselves. Sam seems to think that people won't stand up for themselves because of self preservation. You and Terry seem to think yourselves part of the enlightened elite who are beyond standing for old fashioned principles.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

And I never once mentioned Bush of Johnson and anyone else for that matter and neither is that the point.

Oh, but that is exactly the point. It was Bush and Johnson who were the architects of two wars in which most Americans have died in my lifetime.

It is because of people like you and Ziggy and others who think there is nothing worth dying for, nothing worth sacrificing for, and that we are mere dumb animals that our liberties are being taken.

So again, which liberties have been taken because SamCogar or Ziggy or "others" did not die for them?

So as usual I see you are going to dance around the point. My question was to you, is there anything you would pledge you life, fortune, and sacred honor for?.

No, you started out with an accusation that:

(Cato)- It is because of people like you and Ziggy and others who think there is nothing worth dying for, nothing worth sacrificing for, and that we are mere dumb animals that our liberties are being taken.

You made that accusation. Now it is up to you to defend it.

As far as right being taken goes, the right to free speach has been eroded, the right be secure unwarrented search and seisure is being eroded. The right to life has been deprived over 40 million souls. We no longer own our property, we rent it at the will and pleasure of the government witht he supreme courts ruling on eminent domain. The right to worship freely is under attack. The right to keep and bear arms is being eroded.

And that came about because SamCogar and Ziggy did not die? Just when and in what war or other event should we have died to protect those?

Why are these rights and many others being taken? Because people have become complacent apathatic, or they have given in to so called experts and quit thinking for themselves. Sam seems to think that people won't stand up for themselves because of self preservation. You and Terry seem to think yourselves part of the enlightened elite who are beyond standing for old fashioned principles.

Again, what principles have Terry and I not stood up for that has resulted in the decline of the rights you allege above? How is it Terry's and SamCogar's and Ziggy's fault- but not Cato's- that those rights have been in decline? Maybe it is you who did not die for your principles that eroded those rights. It is easy to ask someone else to die defending your principles. But you should be willing to die defending your principles before blaming others for not being willing to die for your "principles".

And my question to you remains,

is there anything you would pledge you life, fortune, and sacred honor for?.

My question to you was first.

Once again, which liberties have been taken away because SamCogar or Ziggy or "others" did not die for them? I am 63 years old. How would any of those liberties have been preserved even if I had died- in Vietnam, in Iraq, or anywhere else? The wars that have been fought by Americans in my adult lifetime were not about preserving the liberties you say have been lost. To the degree that any of those liberties have been lost, they have been taken by politicians right here in the good ole' USA. What would you have us do? Drive an explosives laden truck up to the White House and set it off in a suicide bombing, or to the Capitol Building, or to the Supreme Court building? How do you want me and Sam and others to die to defend YOUR principles? Why aren't you willing to do what you blame us for not doing?