Show Posts

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.

Messages - ButtNutt

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Legal and Activism / Re: Stop the UN GUN BAN TREATY
« on: October 28, 2013, 04:11:02 PM »
Wayne lapierre writes infinitely better than he speaks when he guest appears various media, but this snippet from the October 'America's 1st freedom' article on the UN ATT - arms trade treaty - is a particularly beautiful thought many of us must have had.......figured I'd share...

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.

That will automatically show up at the bottom of every post they make.
Ahh.....Got it..... 230rn's sig line....had to log in in chrome to see it.....quite relevant!
Off Topic / Hawaii History
« on: October 19, 2013, 09:02:02 PM »
To paraphrase a great American....
I came here to chew bubblegum and KICK some ASS......but CLEARLY......I was fresh out of bubblegum!
Thank you...
Off Topic / Hawaii History
« on: October 19, 2013, 08:44:32 PM »
Better yet moosed......why don't you blow darmok while Q watches and plays with his vagina....
Wait, scratch that......since you and darmok are the same person, you probably won't like the taste of your own jimmy.
......I'm here every Saturday....
.....Don't forget to tip your waitresses....
....My work here is done!
Off Topic / Hawaii History
« on: October 19, 2013, 08:11:56 PM »
If that's the best you got, you might as well create another screen name and start over ...... again!   :D
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...
Off Topic / Re: Hawaii History
« on: October 19, 2013, 07:54:00 PM »
You're like a bad rash that just won't go away.......and now I'll wait for your girlfriend to chime in again...
Off Topic / Re: Hawaii History
« on: October 19, 2013, 07:13:32 PM »
Ponderous....absolutely fucking ponderous.
Off Topic / Re: Hawaii History
« on: October 19, 2013, 03:13:40 AM »

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.

After numerous personal interactions with you and witnessing your interactions with countless others on this forum, here's something you've doubtlessly been told before:
You are insane; ego maniacal; punitive; disrespectful; bullying; hostile; delusional; paranoid; angry; condescending; ugly; intolerant; self aggrandizing; intensely insufferable.  With rare exception you grotesquely misinterpret peoples sentiment and meaning, are most often misinformed, yet speak with the absolute certainty and grandiosity of a jim jones like nut case.
worst of all, all these wretched qualities you spread around 2ahawaii with the ubiquity of air itself, as you seem to be everywhere at once.  I can not seem to ever escape your stifling presence; you - and no one else - have made me change my user name a few times, after having suffered your insanity to the point where I react to you once again.
And by the way..... "big words"? No word I used in the last or any post was beyond middle school vocabulary.
Now go wipe you nose and call the mods, and I'll wait for this post to vanish.

Off Topic / Hawaii History
« on: October 18, 2013, 01:30:47 PM »
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.

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. appears we agree on the complicity of the monarchy and westernized corrupted Hawaiians who continued to destroy Hawaii after the monarchy became figurehead.
Regarding who gets more blame?  Well, this is subjective of course, but I have more contempt for the exploiters than I do for those who allowed themselves to be exploited, because the former were purely deceitful and evil since they disguised themselves in Christianity and benevolence; in contrast, the latter were aware they were not bestly serving the people who trusted them to, but to an un-ignorable extent, they did so because they believed the exploiters had nothing but Godly, benevolent intentions - while of course they did not.
Of course, our entire exchange was viable since it was restricted to the early years where exploitation and complicity are debatable. I don't know your opinion but as far as the events leading up to and after the overthrow, they were played out with no monarchy complicity, and nothing more than token native legislative representation. Im sure Lili'u wished she asked hawaiians to fight back, but that's another discussion.
And for the record, the non-plebiscite statehood incorporation played out without native complicity as well.
Your thoughts on these last two events?
Off Topic / Re: Hawaii History
« on: October 17, 2013, 11:53:25 PM »
I am intimately aware of everything your wrote but it doesn't challenge anything I said or wrote, so I'm not sure what you were referring to as 'false'.

Here's the simple truth:

1) you were alluding to an analysis of the disparate (hawaiian vs western) concept of land purchase/ownership/rights (pre OR Mahele) similar to that which is cited by scholars regarding the 'purchase' of manhattan island from the indigenous population there.

But I don't think that that discrepancy is universally relevant to the monarchy's complicity in the destruction of Hawaii. In other words - when I referred to Pai'ea - he was very explicitly clear on the terms of many of the quid-pro-quos that he oversaw, which ultimately screwed his people - which he tortuously lamented as he neared death.  This of course was - if I can boil it down to its simplest terms - that he was effectively consciously willing to administer the obliteration of vast precious resources in exchange for anything and everything western (arms, supplies, explosives, metal, etc.) that would facilitate his consolidation of hawaii.  That is what I was referring to, and it is indisputable. Haole wanted to exploit - allowed Hawaii to be exploited!

2) as far as the Mahele, I won't illustrate what a duplicitous land grab that was for the haole, because its not debatable. By design, average Hawaiians got worthless shit land; missionaries, judds, bishops, damons, knudsens et alia and their mainland family members got prime rib by simply 'adopting' Hawaiian names when necessary....and you know the rest.

The book I cited simply illustrates the truth. There is no arguing that with rare exception, haole of all types sought to profit from and acquire land from Hawaiians, and the monarchy let it happen - with exceptions of course. Sometimes they let it happen with eyes wise open, sometimes they were deceived.

Hey man...kalakaua would have sold his own balls - one at a time, off with a full knife - so long as the haole kept his liquor flowing! 

After explaining a little further, You should see nothing i wrote evidences a bias, by me or the book's author.  It's an honest assessment and reality is what it is.
Off Topic / ATTN "stop the republican in-fighting" crowd....
« on: October 17, 2013, 06:07:56 PM »
To all you guys I hear saying the reps should stop the in-fighting and focus on the issues.......not withstanding the platitude........chew on this one: Mitch McConnell and his DC bubble republicans gave Obama a "CLEAN" CR which included 174k taxpayer dollars to be paid tax free to former jersey senator lautenberg's wife Bonnie lautenberg - who was recently assessed as having a net worth of well over 100 million dollars!!!!!!!
Is there anyone out there reading this that DOESNT want to bash their own head into a friggin wall!?!?!?!?
You 'stop infighting' guys still wanna ignore the fact that the rep party is NOW AS BAD AS THE DEMS!??!?!?
Off Topic / Re: Hawaii History
« on: October 17, 2013, 05:53:41 PM »
I've read them all over many years and the definitive book is TO STEAL A KINGDOM
To Steal a Kingdom: Probing Hawaiian History
the title implies a bias but the reality - by any objective measure - is that Hawaiians got exploited, plundered and pillaged by haole (hawaiian, not colloquial meaning) of many backgrounds, but with the complicity of the monarchy - the paramount example of course was Pai'ea, because that is where it started.  This book illustrates this in no uncertain terms, is meticulously researched and presented, but will not savage you with biased fairy tale boredom like a Kuykendall or Daws revisionist hawaiian history.  I've gifted this book to kanaka maoli with the most profound understanding of their culture and they were left speechless. 
Legal and Activism / Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« on: October 16, 2013, 01:30:00 PM »

My list:

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 hear you, and I'm not sure if you meant what I think you did but I'll clarify something anyway. 
As far as the us verses them mentality?  You're wrong and right about me, if I understood you correctly......
I don't have a reps vs dems mentality. I only focused on the dems cause Gifford is one, and guncontrol is now part of their platform. But for the record?  The Republican Party (as a party) is not only worthless, it is complicit in the soft tyranny agenda.
So if it helps you, be clear that my attitude is not a reps vs dems one, but a constitutional republican originalist vs everyone who is not. In other words liberty vs tyranny.
I appreciate the rhetorical substance of not letting them divide us, but that its a quaint MO that will not help us any more.  We need to restore federalism and constitutionalism and the beltway ruling class republicans not only won't help us achieve that, but do not be mistaken - they absolutely do not want that because they benefit from the status quo; they want nothing more than to continue being members of the ruling class and maintain the power structure; they want to co-rule with the dems.
Can you just imagine what a glorious America would exist if we had a rep party full of Ted Cruz and mike lee congressmen? 
As interesting supporting evidence of the ruling class mentality of reps - and I've never heard anyone anywhere discuss this - take note of the previously unheard of reference from the mouth of a republican, that we hear all the time now from many reps....the word 'leader' to describe oneself! 
Listen to boehner use this profusely now, eg. "The American people expect their leaders to......"; or "the American people's leaders in DC..."
Don't tell me that's not a conscious, deliberate word selection. 
Screw it....even if it weren't deliberate; if it were SUBconcious......ask Freud what he'd say about!!
Legal and Activism / Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« on: October 16, 2013, 12:08:30 PM »

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 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...
....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.
Truly, she IS now being exploited - she is her husbands sock puppet. But here's how I look at it:
before she was a 'soft' gun controller, by varying her votes to appear moderate; now she is a 'hard' gun controller, by unabashedly going anti 2a. But in the big picture, what is the difference?  the result is the same; byebye 2a!!
You're familiar with 'soft tyranny' verses 'hard tyranny' as Alexis de toqueville presciently warned us of? precisely what has been transforming this country since the dawn of progressivism??  Remember, soft tyranny or soft gun control is NOT an unintentional consequence of misguided good intentions; soft tyranny and soft gun control is a purposeful strategy by which tyranny/gun control can be incrementally imposed by not making it obvious enough to blip on the free citizens radar, so that by the time they realize they are no longer free, theres nothing they can do about it - the innumerable laws, regulations, policies, indoctrinations, mind sets, bureaucracies, engrained in the fabric of society can never be undone! 
This zoomed-out big picture way of assessing politicians disallows much sympathy for them, regardless of circumstance.
Legal and Activism / Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« on: October 16, 2013, 11:43:27 AM »

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.
But here's a few reasons why why I say that voting history means nothing - and I mentioned this above:
1) she has been a lifelong member of a party, one of whose defining platform agendas is gun control. This is so significant to me I can't describe it!  Without humor, I equate it to someone who was a KKK member but asked for recognition from blacks cause he supported desegregation. Small acts of support can only be received as dubious when you are a member of a group who collectively does the opposite.
2) I'm sure you are aware of how it is a well known strategic technique for dems in gun loving states to vote pro 2a to ensure reelection and dem numbers in the congress - right?  I would laugh if it weren't so fake, the 'support' dems show for the 2a for political expediency!  You understand right?
3). Similarly, it is also a well known overall strategy to pick and choose when to be pro or anti 2a. For example, she voted pro as you cited, but also voted anti on numerous other occasions: the grotesque UN arms trade treaty, HiCap ban, assault weapons ban, etc.. So how can one possibly not question the sincerity of pro votes when there were an equal number of anti votes?  I don't know...this is so intensely significant to me.
To restress my sentiment, I'd say a legislator being a victim of gun violence, while a member of a party whose platform is legislating away the 2a, is as poetically judicial as a legislator who was a lifelong supporter of criminal rehab, work furloughs, understanding why, and overall leniency for violent criminals, being the victim of recidivism.
And I tell you, though this is off the guncontrol aspect of this, dems - Gifford - are also members of a party who have been conspiring - since Wilson and Roosevelt - to destroy constitutional republicanism and impose socialism (communism, despotism, tyranny).  The list of hellish experiences Americans have and will experience as a result that party's policies is sickening and I'd go dizzy listing but a few. 
I don't fell sorry for politicians who directly or by default (by association), have lead us to the brink of despotic darkness - and you know that is precisely where we are now.
Legal and Activism / Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« on: October 15, 2013, 09:10:17 PM »

....yep.....there goes that bizarre freakish bird-like face.  Can you just imaging the violent visceral disgust they both must feel when they handle what represents the very object that maimed her, while trying to pretend they are fascinated gun enthusiasts like the rest of the show goers???  You ever think of that?
Legal and Activism / Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« on: October 15, 2013, 09:06:48 PM »

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.  :wtf:
.....sitting down with her to hear her 'common sense' 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. 
In a vacuum, saying I have no sympathy for her sounds uncomfortable, but ask people who have had a loved one, who spent years trying to get a carry permit, get raped and murdered - which of course would not have happened if she got a carry permit - and they'd tell you Giffords and any other politician who belongs to a political party who's main platform includes the anti 2a agenda, cloaked in friendly terms (like common sense...), deserves no sympathy.  at least Giffords is alive, will be cared for royally for the rest of her life by our taxes, and will go to sleep every night with her loving husbands warm body next to her instead of cold dirt. 
Point is of course, anyone who feels sorry for an anti 2a lib who gets shot and then goes on a crusade to FURTHER attack the 2a, needs to think of the real life effects of that agenda - as illustrated above.  If they did, I think the sympathy would quickly evaporate and be rapidly replaced by an epiphanic realization of a macabre irony.
Legal and Activism / Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« on: October 14, 2013, 08:18:53 AM »

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.
Off Topic / Re: Michele Obama pissing away our money
« on: October 14, 2013, 07:53:12 AM »
Yeah, first of all, kids don't buy, use, or look at stamps!  Second, what is unsafe about a cannonball?  And who does a headstand with a helmet?  These are, by the way, the issues raised by the Obama council on fitness sports and if we needed another bureaucracy!  Funny, if I wanted to be a nanny state lib, I'd point out that the council never mentioned the stamp showing a kid batting without a batting helmet.  Even when I was a kid we had to do that, in case we caught a fastball to the head!  I guess even the lib nanny sentinels aren't perfect!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12