This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The "sig line" is the signature line. It's the "signature" at the bottom of people's post where they can "sign" their name or thoughts or something they believe or something witty.Ahh.....Got it..... 230rn's sig line....had to log in in chrome to see it.....quite relevant!
That will automatically show up at the bottom of every post they make.
See sig line.sig line?
If that's the best you got, you might as well create another screen name and start over ...... again!No man....I'm just waiting for q and darmok to take each others ball sack out of the other's mouth long enough to tag team me again...
You are using big words that do not justify your point. In fact, I'm very confused with the point you are trying to make, because basically you stated that you already have a biased towards the 'exploiters', which you deem to be non-Hawaiians, yet out of all the monarchs and chiefs that ruled over the people of Hawaii, I did not see any of them taking the steps to relinquish their power, nor provide the opportunity for their people to pursue the path to individual achievement and prosperity. In a more specific example, Kalakaua depleted much of the kingdom's resources to build 'Iolani palace, which was a testimate to his power, and had no significant benefit to the Hawaiian people at all. Aside from Pauahi (to an extent), our chiefs and monarchs did not thing but exploit the population of Hawaii to consolidate their power, so they are no better, if not worse, than these western exploiters that you speak of.
To expand upon the highlighted points:
1) The original missionaries came here with the sole intent of spreading Christianity, at the bequest of of Henry Opukaha'ia, who had changed his life through Christianity and wanted the same for his people. It was only after the industrialization of Hawaii, which was allowed by King Kamehameha II and all subsequent monarchs, that allowed westerner ambition and greed to take hold in the islands. Most, if not all, of those 'white exploiters' were the descendants of missionaries, not missionaries themselves.
2) You claim that the 'exploitees' had no idea what was going on, and that they wholeheartedly believed that the unfair actions of their western counterparts were acting out of benevolence and in the name of Christianity. When you make statements like this, you basically state that our people were ignorant idiots, who had no idea what was going on, and blindly followed along because they had no intelligence whatsoever. This, again, is false, as is evident throughout history not only during the Hawaiian kingdom, but prior to it as well. When chiefs overstepped their grounds, the people rose up and killed them (in rare instances). When Captain Cooke overstayed his welcome, they grew suspicious that he was not a god, and when he returned after his ship was damaged by a storm shortly after leaving Hawaii, it validated their claim that he was not Lono, which was further validated after they killed him. These, as well as many other instances, prove that our people fully understood what was going on in the world, and in a basic sense could distinguish between what was BS and what was real. To say otherwise and claim they had no basic idea that they were being taken advantage of is ludicrous.
To say that they followed along blindly is to basically associate our ancestors with modern day liberals, a point which I beg to differ on. I believe that the people had no alternative other than to follow the demands of their monarchs, as they did not possess the individual freedoms that we enjoy today. Prior to the Hawaiian kingdom and the introduction of Christianity, the Ali'i and Mo'i were Gods. Though there have been instances when the people rose up against the Ali'i, those in power have, for the moat part, been revered and feared by the people. After the establishment of the Kingdom and Monarchy, they still maintained their political symbolism, regardless of if they were believed to be gods or not. The people, afraid of superstitious and physical retaliation (such as death or imprisonment), essentially had no choice but to go along with the decisions of the monarchy. To verify this claim, how many protests against the decisions of the Hawaiian monarchy can you recall? ZERO, because they would have been imprisoned or put to death, just as it was before the establishment of the kingdom. The only protest that took place was after the election of Kalakaua, as the supporters of Queen Emma were not happy with the results.
Given that the people had no concept other than following their monarchs, who was it that made the decisions and allowed the actions that would, in time, destroy our natural resources and independence? The monarchy. The could have easily resisted the encroachment of foreigners, and rallied people to support their cause. However, like modern day legislators in this country and across the world, they were only concerned with themselves and their own wealth and political power. In another light, the people should have had the courage to fight for their beliefs and ways of life, just as our colonial ancestors did during the American Revolution. Instead, they followed the will of their kings and queens, whose decisions and actions eventually lead to the destruction and overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom.
To equate this theory in modern terms, do we blame the Chinese for the economic decisions of our country? Do we blame the followers of Islam for the destruction of Christianity within America? No; we blame the legislators and those in political office for their decisions. In more lament terms, claiming that the evil westerners are primarily responsible for what happened in Hawaii is like stating that the reason someone is fat is because of the spoon.
In conclusion, while those whom did extort Hawaii did so unjustly and immorally, I believe that most of the responsibility lies with those who failed to act in the best interest of our kingdom and our people, and those people being the monarchy and our ancestors. As Jefferson stated, "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance." I guess the independence of our nation was not something our people and monarchy felt was worth fighting and dying for.
What I was implying was that your reference and explanation of the book implied that it was westerner's/Haole's who 'exploited and ravaged' our people; I am stating that is false....it appears we agree on the complicity of the monarchy and westernized corrupted Hawaiians who continued to destroy Hawaii after the monarchy became figurehead.
While westerners do have a significant role in the issue, the blame should truly rest with the monarchy and our ancestors themselves. Rather than rebel and fight back, they simply went along with and allowed the depletion of our resources and the destruction of our independence and sovereignty. In fact, the last person to wage war to protect the Hawaiian way of life was Kekuaokalani at the Battle of Kuamo'o, but he was ultimately defeated, and with him died the pride and honor of our people to fight for their way of life.
Hawaiians refuse to accept this point of view, because they so wholeheartedly want to put the blame on someone else rather than the mistakes of our own people. I know, because I used to believe that the 'evil white man' was the cause of our hardships, until I learned and understood that we have no one to blame other than ourselves for what was never done, as well as what still needs to be done today.
My list:....I hear you, and I'm not sure if you meant what I think you did but I'll clarify something anyway.
1. We will NEVER be able to fix the problems we face today as long as we, the people, stop letting the parties, the media, the so-called, self-appointed community leaders, the President, and Hollywood divide us against ourselves. We spend more time being angry at "them" than we spend trying to make a difference for "us". This is why we will never be a great nation. Too much "sports team" mentality. As long as your "team" wins, you are happy. The problems, though, are never addressed and solved. They are only planks in a platform, nothing more.
2. There ARE 2A supporters in the Democrat party. But, as you illustrate, they are quite so as to not attract attention or offend their party leaders or constituency. They only speak out in small gatherings and out of the media limelight.
3. How a person votes is not necessarily the way that person believes. MOST votes are along party lines when they are national or agenda type issues. Only local issues for that rep's home district are important enough for them to actually develop an independent opinion. I've talked to on of our reps in the past. That's the basic process. If they go against the party and actually cause them to lose a vote, nothing else that rep wants to accomplish locally will get much support if any at all.
So don't judge a representative by their record. Too many factors besides personal beliefs and values come into play.
I personally have sympathy for her. She was the victim of a random attack by a certified nut job. The shooter SHOULD have been stopped before it ever happened, if you read all the background on the lunatic.....I hear you, but along the lines with what I've said before, she is a lifelong dem, and by default, helps their anti 2a policies expand.
I also feel pity that she is being manipulated into a spokesperson and symbol for a liberal political agenda. That agenda's resulting laws would have had zero effect on the events that culminated in her being shot.
She is being used by the people she trusts to take care of her. Propping her up in an emotional appeal to pass anti second amendment legislation is unforgivable.
These progressive Liberals have no morals. They only have an agenda and the ingrained belief that the ends justify the means...
Let me clarify a bit. I put "her" [ideas, thoughts, beliefs, policies] in quotes because Mark Kelly always says "Gabby and I" and "we", and I have doubts as to her cognitive capacity to actually be involved in formulating any of those ideas. That's why I'd like to see an interview of her where she is alone and must answer detailed questions about their organization's policies without the help or coaching of her husband (sample question: Please cite research or explain your reasoning in determining that 11 rounds constitutes a "high capacity" magazine. Why not 11 or 9 or 3?). It's possible she can think clearly, and could write lucid answers (though her writing arm is paralyzed), but she certainly doesn't have any speaking capacity beyond fairly primitive. As for the "common sense gun safety" term, I put that in quotes because those of us supporting the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms know that phrase to be a euphemism for ending those rights. As a congressperson she voted for the national concealed carry reciprocity act, supported the NRA Eddie Eagle education program, and voted to end restrictions on handgun ownership in Washington, D.C., so she wasn't among the most rabid of gun grabbers in congress (though the rest of her voting on gun rights issue is very poor). No matter how she voted, or what she believed and believes, her injury and the injuries and deaths of the others in the same shooting incident are tragic, and Mr. Kelly's use of her to promote whatever it is he is promoting is very sad to me.....I understood you, and the significance of the quotes. And I hear your list of seeming evidence - based on her voting history - that she indeed supported the 2a.
Again, I'd be guessing, but that guess is that well over 90% of the people (sellers and buyers) at any gun show would disagree with the Giffords' policies. It would be nice to see people there stand up to them in a decisive manner. I believe that a lot of people do "feel sorry" for her, as she has been rendered into a relatively low cognitive-capacity human. I'd like to see her alone in an interview and asked ten questions about the specific details of "her" "common sense gun safety" proposals and see what she can say without help. I definitely get "a weird vibe" from her husband, and am puzzled by exactly what he is up to. I am a subscriber to their email alerts, so I can follow what they are doing, and it is clear that they have raised millions of dollars and fly on a private jet to these events. Not that there is anything wrong with that......sitting down with her to hear her 'common sense' ideas....you were joking I imagine? You know what that term means. In other words, she and her husband are dems. Which means - in this era of dems vs reps - they are progressives/libs/statists, whatever. To be dems means they agreed with the gun control propaganda long before here shooting. she having historically said that she was 'a supporter of 2a rights' was as honest as when schumer, Obama, boxer, Feinstein, et Alia have said the same.
My guess as to why a gun show would allow these people entry to propagandize their false narrative is that when the Attorney General of your state shows up with them and asks to be allowed entry and media time, the people running the show, and probably any vendors that hold FFLs suspect that if they were to say "NO", that they'd likely be facing serious scrutiny from various government licensing and taxation agencies in the near future. I did read a couple of articles that mentioned that there were a few boos and hisses when the Giffords were introduced, but like I say, I'm guessing most people in that situation error on the side of caution when it comes to placing their livelihood in possible jeopardy. Bottom line: government intimidation. And given the documented IRS targeting of a certain spectrum of political advocacy groups, it's not paranoid to think that any "resistance" might result in reprisals.....I hadn't thought of that, but it's an obvious possibility though. But wouldn't it be beautiful to see them treated like shit? I can't stand Kelly's freakish bird like features every time they slap him on tv with his little organ grinder monkey wife. I can't stand these animals and I have no sympathy for her.