[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As true as that is, I have no doubt that there would be people doing extremely stupid things and making problems for me (such as fires) if there was complete freedom.

If they pose an actual threat to you or your property, then you are justified in involving the government. A small fire is not and actual threat, it is a potential one. I don't agree that potential threats are a good standard with which we decide to limit people's behavior. It is way too vague. By that standard, they can limit almost anything you do.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And @ all the above posts.



Bizarre. I want a fire, I just start one.
And to my knowledge, I haven't burnt down a neighbours' house yet.

Do not look for logic here. There is little to be found. Only fear and a desire to be controlled.

[turtle777]

Guys, the excess permits needed in the US is retarded.

Next, you need a permit for knives, lawn mowers, gas-fired grills etc...

Any- and everything can cause harm in the hands of an idiot. A permit doesn't fix shit.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your freedoms don't include the unlimited ability to burn other peoples' houses down. There was no fee for the permit, either.

How does this permit reduce the likelihood of a fire getting out of control?

I assume it doesn't come attached to a bucket of water.

[smacintush]

It may be back on again.

[turtle777]

Unbelievable. This idiot.

-t

[Doofy]

Interesting logic going on here.

- muslims kill 3,000 people... "muslims aren't all bad, it's just the nutcases".

- 50 Amerikkkans burn a few books. "Amerikkkans are all evil and must all die. Aiiieeeeeee!".

[Doofy]

And here's a suggestion for all y'all.

---> Election stunt <---

Barry saves the day and all that.

[subego]

Too early.

[Wiskedjak]

I like how he's created a completely unverifiable story so that he can claim another party is lying.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I like how he's created a completely unverifiable story so that he can claim another party is lying.

That makes no sense at all.

Why would he cancel then reinstate just to create a completely unverifiable story?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That makes no sense at all.

Why would he cancel then reinstate just to create a completely unverifiable story?

My guess: he was too chicken to pull it through at that time, so he needed some "excuse" to buy some time.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

My guess: he was too chicken to pull it through at that time, so he needed some "excuse" to buy some time.

I'm not buying that he was chicken. Not with that moustache.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That makes no sense at all.

Why would he cancel then reinstate just to create a completely unverifiable story?

why would the other party agree to move Park 51 just to claim there was never any such agreement?

that also makes no sense.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If they pose an actual threat to you or your property, then you are justified in involving the government. A small fire is not and actual threat, it is a potential one. I don't agree that potential threats are a good standard with which we decide to limit people's behavior. It is way too vague. By that standard, they can limit almost anything you do.

Technically the crazy forest fires that have occurred in California started as small fires, I'm sure, no?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm not buying that he was chicken. Not with that moustache.

You got an interesting point there...

-t

[Doofy]

Right, hang on. Business opportunity here, I think.

Anyone know of a good manufacturer of very flammable US and A flags? And a lighter manufacturer who'll print little crescent moons on plastic disposable lighters?

[besson3c]

United States and America?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

why would the other party agree to move Park 51 just to claim there was never any such agreement?

that also makes no sense.

Three parties involved.

1) Pastor.
2) FL imam.
3) NY imam.

I'm guessing that FL imam served BS to pastor, which was discovered to be BS only because FL imam forgot to tell NY imam his little ploy and tactical co-ordination was lost.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Three parties involved.

1) Pastor.
2) FL imam.
3) NY imam.

I'm guessing that FL imam served BS to pastor, which was discovered to be BS only because FL imam forgot to tell NY imam his little ploy and tactical co-ordination was lost.

again, that doesn't make any sense. what would be the point?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

again, that doesn't make any sense. what would be the point?

I can't put it any clearer.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I can't put it any clearer.

given that the fl pastor is the one making the claim and that the imams are saying it isn't true, I'd say the burden of proof rests on the pastor. if he can't prove that he had an agreement with the imams, then it looks like he's the one lying.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

given that the fl pastor is the one making the claim and that the imams are saying it isn't true, I'd say the burden of proof rests on the pastor. if he can't prove that he had an agreement with the imams, then it looks like he's the one lying.

To what end would the pastor cancel and reinstate?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Technically the crazy forest fires that have occurred in California started as small fires, I'm sure, no?

Few of these wildfires are caused by people with small fires on their property. I would say that if you are, for instance, doing a controlled burn on a ranch in the dry season, perhaps we have a problem. Starting a large fire in the dry season could be a credible threat to another's property (or life). A campfire in your backyard, or a small book burning at your local house of ignorance…no.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

BadKosh. Ignore list. Bam.

Laughing at him in a public forum is much more satisfying.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Necessity…safety…public interest…etc.

These excuses are always used to limit peoples' freedoms.

You put a lot of thought into that didn't you.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Imagined threats are not a good reason to limit people's freedom. The fee is irrelevant, though I am surprised. It's a rare thing that the government doesn't charge money of its serfs for such things.

Serf's?
You must be a libertarian, they always slip in the serf crap.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And @ all the above posts.



Bizarre. I want a fire, I just start one.
And to my knowledge, I haven't burnt down a neighbours' house yet.

To your knowledge?
Weren't you paying attention?
Passed out isn't an excuse by the way.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by screener 

You must be a libertarian

You're a sharp one, ain't ya?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

You put a lot of thought into that didn't you.

It was my paraphrasing interpretation of a quote by William Penn Pitt. Go read a book.

Edit: mIs-typage

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

given that the fl pastor is the one making the claim and that the imams are saying it isn't true, I'd say the burden of proof rests on the pastor. if he can't prove that he had an agreement with the imams, then it looks like he's the one lying.

BBC News - Terry Jones statement in full

(as Jones calls off the burning)

Originally Posted by Terry Jones

This has been for us a very, very difficult, trying time. We have been in much thought and prayer over this whole period.

A lot of times we were asked what would it take for us to call this thing off. We have thought it over many times. We felt very convinced that we should do this.

We thought about what would have to happen for us to call our event off. As we prayed about that, in the past we did have one idea.

This idea we put out in prayer to God. That if he would want us to call this off, if we have accomplished our goal, then our thought was the American people do not as a whole want the mosque at the Ground Zero location.

That if they were willing to either cancel the mosque at the Ground Zero location, or if they were willing to move it away from that location, we would consider that sign from God.

We have, or he has [indicating Iman Muhammad Musri, standing beside him], been in contact with the imam in New York City.

I, with the imam here, will be flying up there on Saturday to meet the imam at the Ground Zero mosque.

He has agreed to move the location. That of course cannot happen overnight. But he has agreed to move that.

We felt that that would be a sign that God would want us to do it.

The American people do not want the mosque there. And of course Muslims do not want us to burn the Koran.

The imam has agreed to move the mosque. We have agreed to cancel our event on Saturday. And on Saturday I will be flying up there to meet with him.

Why didn't Musri correct Jones' statement there and then?

All the lies and BS are coming from Musri, not Jones.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Serf's?
You must be a libertarian, they always slip in the serf crap.

Actually I'm not. They are too liberal with their ethics (or lack thereof) for me.

Anyway, I like the word serf. Your point is?

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It was my paraphrasing of a quote by William Penn. Go read a book.

Bite me.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're a sharp one, ain't ya?

If it walks like a duck,....
And I got you pegged.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Actually I'm not. They are too liberal with their ethics (or lack thereof) for me.

Anyway, I like the word serf. Your point is?

Simplistic bull.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Bite me.

You put a lot of thought into that one didn't ya?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Simplistic bull.

It'a a four letter form of hyperbole that got my point across perfectly.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It'a a four letter form of hyperbole that got my point across perfectly.

Used by libertarians all the time.
You need a new script writer.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by screener 

And I got you pegged.

Should I be cowering in a corner at that thought? I mean, you must possess massive intellect to peg old Doof, when he's been so secretive about his political views for all these years.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Used by libertarians all the time.
You need a new script writer.

Judging from your posts, I won't be using yours.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Should I be cowering in a corner at that thought? I mean, you must possess massive intellect to peg old Doof, when he's been so secretive about his political views for all these years.

If you feel the need to cower, go for it.
Not what I meant, but nice to see I hit NERVE.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Judging from your posts, I won't be using yours.

To bad, you could use some new blood.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

BBC News - US pastor Terry Jones cancels Koran burning

Hmmm. FBI getting involved in a constitutionally legal activity.
You muppets still think you live in a free country?

Did you consider the FBI visited not to intimidate or try to stop him but rather to discuss his security and protection should he go forward? If I were the FBI and I knew there was about to be a giant target for extremists, I'd want to make contact.

Bit of a bias in your conclusions?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Did you consider the FBI visited not to intimidate or try to stop him but rather to discuss his security and protection should he go forward? If I were the FBI and I knew there was about to be a giant target for extremists, I'd want to make contact.

Bit of a bias in your conclusions?

Yes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

To what end would the pastor cancel and reinstate?

To the same end that the imam would agree and then claim never to have agreed.

Both actions would be difficult to understand. But, it is the pastor telling the story, so the burden is on him to convince us that it's true.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And to my knowledge, I haven't burnt down a neighbours' house yet.

Good for you. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of uncontrolled fires are started by people. This isn't 50 or 100 years ago when most people knew how to properly build and maintain a fire - we're an urban society now and "fire skills" don't pad the resume. I grew up starting fires in the middle of a coniferous forest - most people haven't, and don't appreciate how fast they can explode.

Not to mention the problem of false-alarm 911 calls because the neighbour 4 houses down thinks your house is burning down. Or the problem of smoke drifting onto your neighbour's property and creating a nuisance because they're only 20 or 30 or 50 feet away nowadays - which again, gets back to the issue of an uncontrolled fire possibly taking out untold numbers of houses that are all squeezed in nearby.

Dude, you're in England. I have a hard time believing fire permits or restrictions don't exist there.

greg

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Dude, you're in England. I have a hard time believing fire permits or restrictions don't exist there.

Nothing like in the US. People burn rubbish and garden waste in containers and bonfires all the time without worry or restriction. At least out in the country where I (and I believe Doofy) live.

Every year on Bonfire Night (remember, remember the 5th of November) people light off real fireworks and have bonfires all over. People tend to be responsible about things and I've not heard a report about out of control fires or widespread damage from them since I've been here (almost 5 years).

Of course it's England, so the ground is perpetually pretty damp.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You do realize that being quiet is what makes the Moderates moderate ... regardless of culture? It's the extremists that are loud. Just look at your own culture. The loudest people are the extremists. The quietest are the undecideds ... America's version of "moderates".

Moderates wouldn't denounce the radicals? Happens with Christians, so why not with Muslims?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

My guess: he was too chicken to pull it through at that time, so he needed some "excuse" to buy some time.

-t

Exactly. Like I said from jump ... this guy is just trying to save face.

OAW

[BadKosh]

How long will it be before "Reverend Snuffy Smith" realizes that he was lied to, and the Mosque is still going to be built near ground zero. I'm thinking near Thanksgiving.