JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Apparently, I'm a troll as well. Just because my opinion often differs from other peoples and I exercise my right to express it. I never post just to be obnoxious or to elicit a response.

There are several members of this forum who I have debated with in open threads. Things like open carry vs. concealed carry, LEO issues, and other issues. When actual debating is going on, the only people who seem to take issue are the people sitting on the fringes. The people who don't post, don't post, don't post, then post something stupid and non-helpful like, "I smell a troll." When that's all someone has to add to a debate, then they need to leave well enough alone. One of the wonderful things about this country is the ability to have civil debates.

Yes, I've met you and I know you are a troll. That's right. I see right thru your feigned 2A support. I'll be watching you! I'll be watching you! :s0114::s0114::s0114:
 
Damn, you found out my secret. ;)

Apparently being a gunsmith, gun-owner, shooter, active pro-2nd amendment voter, and someone who contacts my elected officials to voice my opinions isn't enough for you people. Harsh. Very harsh... :s0114:

Oh, and yea me for my 1000th post. Contributing to online firearms forums. Also very anti-2nd amendment... ;)
 
Most interaction between people in public (offline) is fleeting and superficial, that's why we don't see the enthusiasm you will see in slower and longer lasting medium such as a forums. Forums in general tend to make for a more in depth discussion of issues and insight into ones beliefs. My personal observation is that people even of polar opposite politics eventually find some common ground. Another thing that is very difficult to convey is tone and inflection with text, what looks like anger to one person could be sarcasm and snark for entertainment purposes for the author.
 
Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm completely different on the forums than in person. I've spent my whole life being careful with coworkers, neighbors, friends, relatives etc. and I'm guilty of letting my hair down online.

For instance I won't discuss politics with friends if we disagree. Online, I've never seen anyone's opinion changed so that's beginning to get old too. Even the OP started the very first paragraph with:

"...a few people on this forum that are so angry, intolerant, and high strung, that I honestly don't even know why they're here. Words of advice and wisdom are few and far between from these posters, and if anything, it seems like they're just here to argue, bash liberals, atheists, and anyone who doesn't believe everything they believe."

That felt pretty "intolerant" to me.

Imho, OP, it seems as if a few of the "liberals" are "just here to bash" Christians and conservatives, and plenty of that happens too.

I guess it depends on your perspective.

$.02
 
"Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions"
"Extreemism in the pursuit of virtue is no vice"
"Truth is narrow by nature and is absolute"

There, I have stated my driving philosophy and reasons for my attitude and behavior both online and in person. Greydog.
 
Having spent a past decade in the Eugene area, and often getting shouted down by mobs of liberal "PCspeak" folks, I can honestly say that; Yes I am the same way in public/person.
My conservative beliefs can be defended factually and logically, and/or historically. If the person on the other side of the political aisle refuses to read or listen to the facts because they "feel" there is a better way within their PC/liberal constructs, that's their business, but don't ask for my opinion if that's how you "feel."
I also believe their is a time/place/situation where the dotgov needs to step in and fix a problem. However, I believe they should be careful in attempting to legislate within the realm of social ills, and stick to the limited role the Constitution outlines.

For instance, our current president has stated specifically that the Constitution is too negatively oriented where government's role is concerned. Too much of it is about what the dotgov can't do and not enough about what it can/should do.
What he fails to tell you is that "should" is a matter of perception.

I believe the founders that wrote it were a lot more intelligent than most of our recent (last 100 years) crop of politicians, and that the current crop should strive to adhere to both it's intent and to the letter of it. Education is not a substitute for intelligence, despite what universities will tell you.
It was written with governmental limitations in mind, and that is how I believe it should stay.
As for the online debate issue and my responses?
Don't try to obfuscate the issue at hand and I won't take the shortest course to cut through your B-S.
Don't try to ridicule my ideals because you don't like them. That is not productive debate an you will earn my scorn because of it. Or possibly you may even earn a response in kind, just to see how you like it.
And lastly, this is a public forum. even if you aren't a member you can still read what is posted here. As such, both sides should be represented, that is the purpose of discourse/debate.
But make no mistake, if I think the idea(s) you put forth are ridiculous, I'll let you know about it, and why I believe they are so.

That is my public AND online persona.
Don't like it? Put me on your ignore list. Just don't spout the same rhetoric in a public place, because I'll call you on it there too!
 
I'd say i'm independent, but apparently to be independent, you also have to conform to a set guideline of ideals...

In reality, i'm anti-party affiliation and pro-individuality.

Yeah. I am registered republican at this time ONLY so I can vote in the primaries. I do not vote down party lines at all. The only thing in government that I still believe in is the Constitution.

If nothing else the political discussion may bring new info to us. With so many people posting topics of importance to them, it brings things to the front that may get lost in the news. I think that it is a worthwhile thing. We probably aren't going to change the world on here. At least it is a forum to air your thoughts. Who knows, while someone is busy defending their stance on something, they may have the time to figure out it isn't right.
 
"Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions"
I refuse to tolerate having no convictions! :D

+1 Greydog.

In person, I tend to be a little more forward than online. I think this is because so much communication is lost when just typing online. Many times I will write something in response and delete it just because it seems unclear.

Also, many times I will walk away from a debate/discussion because I simply don't have the time to read, consider, and respond to someone who hasn't considered previous points that were made. Gotta know where to draw the line and say, "that's enough of that".
 
If anyone on here knew me in as the person who's sitting at the keyboard, they would be able to read my posts and nothing would surprise them.
 
For instance, our current president has stated specifically that the Constitution is too negatively oriented where government's role is concerned. Too much of it is about what the dotgov can't do and not enough about what it can/should do.
What he fails to tell you is that "should" is a matter of perception.

And the president before that said the Constitution is a god damned piece of paper! And the president before that signed NAFTA and GATT which started sending our jobs away.

As I've said on this forum, on cable tv and other places, all this left-right, red-blue two party illusion keeps us from focusing on the real threats to our nation...central banks and corporate-beholden politicians.

And no, I did not vote for Obama.
 
And the president before that said the Constitution is a god damned piece of paper!
And that was at least as bad if not worse.
And the president before that signed NAFTA and GATT which started sending our jobs away.
That legislation was sold to us to supposedly open more markets for American goods.
That's what I was getting at about intelligence. But honesty plays a part with BillC. They knew they were kowtowing to corporate interests. The congress is complicit in this as well.
As I've said on this forum, on cable tv and other places, all this left-right, red-blue two party illusion keeps us from focusing on the real threats to our nation...central banks and corporate-beholden politicians.
See, that's one of the problems with forums. You jumped to the conclusions that:
I have cable TV.
That I am strictly a "red" voter/advocate.
That I am only interested in slamming this admin, or other "blue" ones.
And that I am not aware of the threats big $$$ constitutes.

At what point in my post did I advocate for Bush or Clinton?
That's the past, and while I don't want those mistakes repeated, I can't change the past.
At what point did I advocate for Wall St. or the Fed?

And no, I did not vote for Obama.
Good for you.

But do you always jump to conclusions like you did here?
Maybe that's what the OP was complaining about!
 
And the president before that said the Constitution is a god damned piece of paper! And the president before that signed NAFTA and GATT which started sending our jobs away.

As I've said on this forum, on cable tv and other places, all this left-right, red-blue two party illusion keeps us from focusing on the real threats to our nation...central banks and corporate-beholden politicians.

And no, I did not vote for Obama.

Yep. That's a fact. Don't forget Clinton also said that the problem with this country is that everyone has a say. LOL. Bush with the patriot act, that Obama renewed. It's a mess and everyone plays the party game. If something is said about Obama, it is Bush's fault. It sucks! Especially when you look and see that there wasn't much difference between McCain and Obama. We got very similar candidates with different skin color.
 
And the president before that said the Constitution is a god damned piece of paper! And the president before that signed NAFTA and GATT which started sending our jobs away.

As I've said on this forum, on cable tv and other places, all this left-right, red-blue two party illusion keeps us from focusing on the real threats to our nation...central banks and corporate-beholden politicians.

And no, I did not vote for Obama.

I agree with you...the illusion of any significant difference between red/blue is just that...an illusion.

And Jamie6.5...when Jim indented a new paragraph...that signified a change of subject direction and not necessarily a continuation of comment to your post.

With due respect...methinks you jump to conclusions.



Will
 
So how many of us are assumed to watch cable? Advocate for red/blue party line voting? Ignore the dangers of big $$$? To have forgotten the misdeeds of past admins?

A lot of assumptions are made in that post. All of which add to the air of superiority Jim exhibits in the context of the post.
I made an observation about one statement that the current president is on record as making. And suddenly that observation was being compared to previous admin's statement and actions. To what end?
What makes those comparisons relevant, regardless of who made the statement about the current admin? Does the distraction they provide diminish the significance of what the current President said?
That's exactly what leads conversations astray, as it has done here.

And why did he feel he had to defend his statement(s) with a qualifier about who he didn't vote for?
 
And Will, he quoted me, so he apparently took issue with what I quoted. He then went on to provide a distraction about what other Presidents did or said, with the implication that they diminish the significance of the quote I used purely as an example.

The topic is about who we are in person vs online. I used one example of something I would object to in either case, and I was singled out for it, with no relevance to the topic of the thread.
Got it now?

And are your assumptions any better than anyone else's?
More importantly, do they prove the OP's point?
 
Yes. I am what you see here, however; I'm not as tall as you might think.:)

I tend to be a contrarian. I will tend to take the underdogs side, if there is any validity to their point. I detest namecalling and the placement of monikers onto political parties, (ie: libtard dem. or redneck republican), pidgeon holing religious organizations and such. I am intolerant of macho posturing...and I will tell you so (on and off the internet) I will back down from a fight, verbal and physical, if possible. I don't need to prove anything anymore.

I do not take myself too seriously. I will make fun of you and then also of myself. I enjoy a good cigar and bantering with fellow smokers. Perhaps someday with you.

Will
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top