True. But I responded when I felt like it and in a manner of my choosing rather than when I was told to do so and with a specified basket of prefabricated talking points and sound bites. No doubt, it's challenging for a Limbaugh toady to identify and acknowledge independence of thought and purpose. Keep at it, though.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It Begins. Holder Announces Plan To Ban Semi-Auto Guns
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Quote from Thunderdog:
True. But I responded when I felt like it, and not when I was told to do so. No doubt, it's challenging for a Limbaugh toady to identify and acknowledge independence of thought and purpose. Keep at it, though.
You don't know if I listen to radio at all. You assume comment has to be from a talking point. My beliefs are mine. And I don't need a talkie to tell me what they are. They were in place long before talk radio became popular.
As far as responding, you attacked my grammar without touching the issue. You lost my respect at that moment, and for that reason I really don't care if you wish to debate me on the issue of gun banning in this country. Typical when you can't win the argument.
Oh, so let me see if I understand correctly. You don't like to be labeled? I'll try to keep that in mind...Quote from wjk:
You don't know if I listen to radio at all. You assume comment has to be from a talking point. My beliefs are mine. And I don't need a talkie to tell me what they are. They were in place long before talk radio became popular.
...You lost my respect...
Yeah, you kinda lost my respect there, too. Good thing it doesn't matter, I suppose.Quote from wjk:
Care to elaborate, lib? Oh wait, you live in Canada. I don't give a shit about your opinion...
Quote from Thunderdog:
Oh, so let me see if I understand correctly. You don't like to be labeled? I'll try to keep that in mind...
Yeah, you kinda lost my respect there, too.
I didn't say anything to indicate I was being labeled, but being labeled a libertarian with a conservative bias or even a conservative doesn't bother me. Why should it. That's what I am, and I'm not ashamed of it. You called me a Rush toady. That doesn't bother me, either. It might just be that Rush sounds like me, not the other way around. You ever think about that? If you must know, I would listen to Jim Quinn before I would listen to Rush. He's funnier.
I never attacked anyone for their spelling skills, as I have no way of knowing if they have fat fingers or lack education. Other than calling someone a lib, which is an ideological definition, I have never called anyone a name.
You attacked my spelling, which is far less important than the issue in this thread. And that is a common liberal trait. I therefore reached the conclusion you were liberal. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, if you can get past my spelling, feel free to get back to the debate.
You may wish to revisit the offending post. You will find that I referred to your grammar more as an aside. As for the principal argument, I have already expressed my views repeatedly and in some detail on the matter in the past and have no interest in rehashing it ad infinitum ad nauseam. It eventually gets tiring. And so, I post to entertain myself. And since you have no regard for my opinion anyway, I don't quite see the harm. Even so, thank you for expressing in considerable detail the full extent and nature of your disregard.Quote from wjk:
...You attacked my spelling, which is far less important than the issue in this thread...
Quote from Mag Light:
forwarded:
Liberals have a multi-layered onion of deceptive rhetoric:
(1) Deny that there's such a thing as race.
(2) When forced (by medical/biological evidence) to admit the existence of different races, deny that there are any behavioral differences
between them.
(3) When forced (e.g., by FBI crime statistics) to admit that there are racial differences in behavior, deny that race is the cause of those differences by asserting that poverty is the cause of them.
(4) When forced (by correlating crime rates with socio-economic status) to admit that poverty is not the cause of the statistical excess of Black violent behavior, assert that class-envy is the cause.
(5) When forced (by controlling for urban-rural factors in addition to socio-economic status) to admit that class-envy is not the cause of the statistical excess in Black violent behavior, assert that the other guy is a bigot, refuse to argue with him further, and begin all over again at step (1) the next time somebody else brings up the subject.
Liberals worship the egalitarian doctrine: it is their one, true religion, and they defend the idea that the races are equal in precisely the same way that Christians defend the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. I'm not a Christian, but I'll say this: it is much more likely that Jesus was divine than that the races are equal, since in the latter case we at least have positive evidence that the races are not equal.
the reaper
-------------------
again, guns are not the problem and removing them is not the cure.
Yet again, by calling me a liberal you show your ignorance.
It is not the color of somebody's skin that makes them pick up a gun and shoot someone. What makes someone more likely to be violent is their life situation and their temper (shaped largely by their life situation)
If you think that whites are built of superior moral fiber you are simply delusional.
If you take as a given the future ACROSS THE BOARD deterioration of the living standards in the US it is logical it will drown in crime. That condition will be exacerbated greatly by the ample gun supply in the US.
You people come from the point of view of Pabst that essentially only blacks commit murder and blacks kill largely other blacks. Giving whites guns is OK. Reality is, Whites for a long time enjoyed a standard of living which was relatively high and in light of recent history unsustainable It is not their inherent law abiding nature that resulted in absence of a rampage across the country but their standard of living.. Your opinions on the gun issue are shaped from the point of view of US citizen. Since US has enjoyed 1st world standard of living it masked the underlying relationship between guns and crime.
Furthermore, black serial killers are EXTREMELY rare. Whoever said there are more per capita black serial killers is extremely delusional. Before the beltway snipers it was even hard to imagine such a thing.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Furthermore, black serial killers are EXTREMELY rare.
Not really.
A black dude that serially kills other gang members/drug dealers isn't typically labeled a serial killer, even though he is clearly targeting a specific group.
Plus, white serial killers sell newspapers, and black serial killers don't, especially if they target other blacks.
This is our liberal news outlets at work.
They rely on white guilt to sell their product.
And it works like a charm.......
Now, to demonstrate another liberal trait. When you (Thunderdog) quoted me, you edited my quote to alter the meaning. It's called "taking it out of context". Let's revisit the exchange. You changed my quote to mean something other than its intent. Very skillful.
You quoted me as follows:
Quote from wjk:
You don't know if I listen to radio at all. You assume comment has to be from a talking point. My beliefs are mine. And I don't need a talkie to tell me what they are. They were in place long before talk radio became popular.
...You lost my respect...
This is what I actually said.
As far as responding, you attacked my grammar without touching the issue. You lost my respect at that moment
Very different meanings. Your attempt to connect the meaning of "you lost my respect" because of something related to talk radio failed. You lost my respect because you attacked me, unprovoked, for my spelling errors. Nice try. Same old trick, different day.
Perhaps you were labeled appropriately.
You quoted me as follows:
Quote from wjk:
You don't know if I listen to radio at all. You assume comment has to be from a talking point. My beliefs are mine. And I don't need a talkie to tell me what they are. They were in place long before talk radio became popular.
...You lost my respect...
This is what I actually said.
As far as responding, you attacked my grammar without touching the issue. You lost my respect at that moment
Very different meanings. Your attempt to connect the meaning of "you lost my respect" because of something related to talk radio failed. You lost my respect because you attacked me, unprovoked, for my spelling errors. Nice try. Same old trick, different day.
Perhaps you were labeled appropriately.
Quote from Haroki:
Not really.
A black dude that serially kills other gang members/drug dealers isn't typically labeled a serial killer, even though he is clearly targeting a specific group.
Plus, white serial killers sell newspapers, and black serial killers don't, especially if they target other blacks.
This is our liberal news outlets at work.
They rely on white guilt to sell their product.
And it works like a charm.......
You people scare me, please don't try to apply to FBI academy.
A serial killer needs to be distinguished from someone who kills people not for psychological reasons but due to their "job" either hit man or mobster/gang member. Those are completely different phenomena.
And so you just thought that you'd redefine the term?Quote from Haroki:
...A black dude that serially kills other gang members/drug dealers isn't typically labeled a serial killer...
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc5.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer