Why does it seem like so many people are posting their Sig 1911's for sale lately? I even saw one that was looking to trade for a Smith 1911. Whats up with these guns?
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Here's a letter that dares not let Sig off the hook. It's all here: the compromises, the backstabbing, the attempts to leave us in the lurch. For starters, I have never been in favor of being gratuitously infantile. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. I recently checked out one of Sig's recent tracts. Oh, look; it's again saying that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, the real question here is not, "What exactly is Sig's point?". The real question is rather, "Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that Sig is a faithful student of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist who advocated demoralizing one's enemy as the highest art of warfare?" We must undeniably ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Sig gets the opportunity to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse.
Come to think of it, where did Sig learn how to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family? At the intersection of Pauperism Avenue and Voyeurism Lane? My point is that Sig's reaction to our latest crisis diligently fulfils the first law of reactive politics. That is to say, do something, no matter how ill-bred. Issue orders. Look busy. Forget about how several things Sig has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of its that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how no one is smart enough to see through its transparent lies.
If Sig can't cite the basis for its claim that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles then it should just shut up about it. Sig cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, when Sig lies, it's consistent with its character, for it's a liar and a source of lies. Another reason that many people consider it consistent is that some people have indicated that Sig treats serious issues callously and somewhat flippantly. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that Sig's mingy, scabrous pronouncements manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to create a world in which prætorianism, antagonism, and stoicism are all but forgotten. Sig uses a variety of unstable arguments to justify rampant credentialism, brutal repression, and unmitigated racialism. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.
What are you on bro?
Huh?Here's a letter that dares not let Sig off the hook. It's all here: the compromises, the backstabbing, the attempts to leave us in the lurch. For starters, I have never been in favor of being gratuitously infantile. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. I recently checked out one of Sig's recent tracts. Oh, look; it's again saying that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, the real question here is not, "What exactly is Sig's point?". The real question is rather, "Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that Sig is a faithful student of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist who advocated demoralizing one's enemy as the highest art of warfare?" We must undeniably ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Sig gets the opportunity to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse.
Come to think of it, where did Sig learn how to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family? At the intersection of Pauperism Avenue and Voyeurism Lane? My point is that Sig's reaction to our latest crisis diligently fulfils the first law of reactive politics. That is to say, do something, no matter how ill-bred. Issue orders. Look busy. Forget about how several things Sig has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of its that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how no one is smart enough to see through its transparent lies.
If Sig can't cite the basis for its claim that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles then it should just shut up about it. Sig cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, when Sig lies, it's consistent with its character, for it's a liar and a source of lies. Another reason that many people consider it consistent is that some people have indicated that Sig treats serious issues callously and somewhat flippantly. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that Sig's mingy, scabrous pronouncements manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to create a world in which prætorianism, antagonism, and stoicism are all but forgotten. Sig uses a variety of unstable arguments to justify rampant credentialism, brutal repression, and unmitigated racialism. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.
Huh?
Your family?
I have read this three times and I can't follow it.
Huh?
Your family?
I have read this three times and I can't follow it.