Here you go [Archive] - Zilvia.net Forums | Nissan 240SX (Silvia) and Z (Fairlady) Car Forum

Origin

07-05-2012, 09:58 PM

Don't bother, it's not like it matters.

"Do you even read the articles you post", what a stupid comment. I'm now a militia extremist because I like what the country is supposed to be instead of what the bastard wants it to be.

Say what you want, it won't be long now. Violent protests don't happen if the oppressors don't infringe on rights given by founders who explicitly state that it is ok and will always be ok (not anymore) to own guns. There is no violence here. They are instigating into violence so they can capitalize on it and idiots like what seems to be every one anymore are too stupid to realize it's the people and not guns that kill (obviously), and unless they cut our hands off (don't bet on that they won't) they can't stop it. But they will try to find a way around it. I'm sure you all will like what we will be forced to do. Keep debating it like it's not or will never come to fruition, I'm sure it won't for you. I never understood how Liberals are always oppressed.

If anyone was intelligent (non-existent) this:
Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime.

HAHAHA, why would the Department of Homeland Security write this if it wasn't happening? If the government was doing what it's supposed to be doing, then this wouldn't be necessary. Ever. Did you not think that? Or did you think at all?

These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups.

That's funny, I didn't know they were supposed to be actively creating laws on firearms ownership.

Do you not understand how it is you do something someone else doesn't want you to do? You walk on thin ice very carefully, not with sharp skates. You create fail-safes incase they get wise and then say, "Oh see? Here! Here! This law says you can't do this, or you're taxed" haha, I almost laughed at the last bit.

STL240SXDRIFT

07-05-2012, 10:03 PM

OK...how much bath salts have you had today?

Origin

07-05-2012, 10:09 PM

All of you laughing mark my words and remember them. They will be true..

Look for the second amendment being erased in his second term.

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.

MrSanchez925

07-05-2012, 10:11 PM

bath salts....

fucking bath salts...

STL240SXDRIFT

07-05-2012, 10:20 PM

Just chill out man...take a bath or something

http://hellobeautiful.com/files/2010/06/bath-salts1.jpg

mantas

07-05-2012, 10:44 PM

Founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms for one reason - to protect ourselves against the tyranny of government. Just a thought for the libs...

BarrigaS14

07-06-2012, 01:38 AM

If you are violent you will be put down, that is how I read that. Why would anyone care about people preaching about their rights being taken away in a peaceful manner?

Phlip

07-06-2012, 03:57 AM

Oh, Origin...
You're not only bigoted, but apparently have a hard time justifying your opinion when questioned. You should probably do yourself the favor of shutting up.

But hey, the aim is apparently not to BE a bigot for the things you say, so long as no one makes an obvious connection to call you on it, huh?

KiLLeR2001

07-06-2012, 03:58 AM

Someone is having a meltdown.

Phlip

07-06-2012, 03:59 AM

Someone is having a meltdown.

No he isn't, and the only people who thinks he is are liberals

ineedone

07-06-2012, 06:19 AM

Maybe this is enough for you idiots. For you morons. You Liberals. Maybe this is enough to get you to change your mind and stop being so open-minded to the point that it's just an act to look like you aren't a bigot (phlip). You are all going to hate your future and now you are acting like it won't happen just because you don't look stupid. I hope you all go crazy.

Hey Buddy! Are you back? I mean you have a lot of catching up to do. There are like 4 other threads you need to go in and spill some crazy. Anyway, no this is not enough. Why did you have to call us Idiots AND Morons? That is a bit excessive RWNJ. I do not think bigot means what you think it means either. Further, I think you are going to hate your own future. If these post as of late are a representation of the pinnacle of your intellect, you are in for a very, and I mean VERY, sad life.

Further, I agree with everyone else above, lay off the bath salts... they will turn you into this--> :zombie:

PJ Media » Homeland Security: You’re All ‘Militia Extremists’ Now (http://pjmedia.com/blog/homeland-security-lexicon-youre-all-militia-extremists-now/)

This time next year it will be a crime to speak against Obama. The Nazi's didn't build ovens until 1943. Baby steps, people. Baby steps. They are laying the framework.

I love America. What does that make me?

I do not know what a PJ media is. It must be something really awesome. Why is Obama waiting till this time next year? That assumes he wins the next election, and then what would be the point of enacting the law then? What is the nefarious plan? If you know, you have a duty to tell all your fellow Americans. Do not be the one guy who knew the whole time and did not tell anyone. Dick.

ineedone

07-06-2012, 06:37 AM

Don't bother, it's not like it matters.

"Do you even read the articles you post", what a stupid comment. I'm now a militia extremist because I like what the country is supposed to be instead of what the bastard wants it to be.

Well, you did not read the article. And that is not what the DHS memo says. I do not expect you to be able to understand or comprehend that, but this is just so you sleep better at night.

Say what you want, it won't be long now. Violent protests don't happen if the oppressors don't infringe on rights given by founders who explicitly state that it is ok and will always be ok (not anymore) to own guns. There is no violence here. They are instigating into violence so they can capitalize on it and idiots like what seems to be every one anymore are too stupid to realize it's the people and not guns that kill (obviously), and unless they cut our hands off (don't bet on that they won't) they can't stop it. But they will try to find a way around it. I'm sure you all will like what we will be forced to do. Keep debating it like it's not or will never come to fruition, I'm sure it won't for you. I never understood how Liberals are always oppressed.

I do not think you understand what the 2nd amendment says or what it means. No one is infringing on any 2nd amendment right. Obama actually expanded 2nd amendment rights so I do not know you are talking about (funny, neither do you!). They are going to cut our hands off? I thought Chris Rock had a better idea, just make bullets really expensive :loco:.

And who said liberals were oppressed? Dude, how many people are talking inside that tiny head of yours? This is getting, well, alarming. TAKE THE MEDS.

If anyone was intelligent (non-existent) this:
Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime.

You do realize that homegrown terrorism is real right? Timothy McVeigh was a real dude, with real hatred for the government, that shit actually happened. Not to mention it was last year when a guy flew his airplane into an IRS building down in Texas. Yes, militia groups are extremely dangerous when they become radicalized. I would make some snarky comment about you being a idiot right wing nut job, but you are way past that. Honestly... I am surprised you can keep your hatred down enough to own a Japanese made vehicle. When you work on your car do you just yell out racial slurs at it all day? <--serious question.

HAHAHA, why would the Department of Homeland Security write this if it wasn't happening? If the government was doing what it's supposed to be doing, then this wouldn't be necessary. Ever. Did you not think that? Or did you think at all?

These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups.

That's funny, I didn't know they were supposed to be actively creating laws on firearms ownership.

I am not sure how the government is not doing what it is suppose to be doing? I am pretty sure DHS is suppose to do this, but I dunno, maybe you know more about DHS then EVEEEERRRYYYONE else. What law was created? Seriously, explain where you are getting this. You make Alex Jones look, not crazy. Very impressive.

Do you not understand how it is you do something someone else doesn't want you to do? You walk on thin ice very carefully, not with sharp skates. You create fail-safes incase they get wise and then say, "Oh see? Here! Here! This law says you can't do this, or you're taxed" haha, I almost laughed at the last bit.

So Barack is ice skating with dull skates? He is the prez, can he not get them sharpened? They created fail safes? where? The government is allowed to tax... right? So taxes are going to create the new Nazi regime (headed by a black guy?) which will then take away your power to call the prez a big fat jerk, which will then take away your 2nd amendment guns? Is that this post was about? I am sorry the crazy got me really lost.

BustedS13

07-06-2012, 08:03 AM

i don't like the DHS either. but the way you state your case, it's much easier to just attack you for being a biased douche, rather than bother with whatever you're trying to debate. i think if i ever met you, i'd probably pull my dick out and chase you around, out of spite.

ineedone

07-06-2012, 08:28 AM

Origin, how close am I?

Step 1. Wake up, start dial up connection

Step 2. Go to DRUDGE REPORT 2012® (http://www.drudgereport.com)

Step 3. Read headline "Obama presidency challenged"

Step 4. Jerk off to Orly Taitz

Step 5. Eat bowl of cereal

Step 6. Click on drudge link, realizes sending you to world net daily, jerk off again to the ghost of Brietbart just because - - Obama’s Social Security Number challenged (http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-social-security-number-challenged/)

Step 7. Read that Obama has fake social security number!!!!!

Step 8. http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1480088&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/1480088/alex-jones-ssj.html) GIFSoup (http://gifsoup.com/)

Step 9. Comment and say words like "Libruls" "America" "Rights" "God" "Communist" "Guns" "Blacks"

Step 10. Make post on Ziliva then smart people on internet explain that social security numbers have nothing to do with becoming president... http://images.lolfly.com/images/80/source/glenn_beck_crying-628-1.gif

PS. I put A LOT of effort into this post... I expect something in return.

Origin

07-06-2012, 10:55 AM

Origin

07-06-2012, 11:12 AM

theicecreamdan

07-06-2012, 11:14 AM

I do not think you understand what the 2nd amendment says or what it means. No one is infringing on any 2nd amendment right. Obama actually expanded 2nd amendment rights so I do not know you are talking about (funny, neither do you!). They are going to cut our hands off? I thought Chris Rock had a better idea, just make bullets really expensive :loco:.

2nd amendment rights aren't infringed?
Obama expanded our 2nd amendment rights?

Phlip

07-06-2012, 11:20 AM

ineedone

07-06-2012, 11:25 AM

Like I said, it doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you all feel the need to to try and put me down, over the internet. You must be insulted. Your freedoms are being taken away ever so slowly, just give it time. He's had a lot of time already.

What doesn't matter? If it does not matter then why post? Honestly, I would put you down on the internet, in a classroom, at a bar, really I could care less where it was. I am not sure what I am suppose to be insulted by? Is it that you posted some crazy shit and because crazy people exist that insults me? Not quite sure where you are going with that one either.

Name a freedom that has slowly been taken away. Name one. And give more then some one word answer like GUNS! Seriously, try hard and find some facts to back it up. Facts... not a random blog post.

Here, how about this... If you make a valid point, I will jump to your side and give you some great material (I mean I already gave you Posner... but who knows if you can even read). But it has to be valid, and supported. No one liners here buddy.

PS... so that last post got it right huh? Do not worry bro, Beck will stay on radio for a long time, maybe. As for Orly, I guess I can see why you RWNJ's think shes the bees knees... but... ehhh really?

theicecreamdan

07-06-2012, 11:28 AM

Origin, you are not helping the 2nd amendment. Please stop.

ineedone, my grandpa didn't need a bullet button on his semi-automatic rifles. My dad could buy and use magazines with more than 10 rounds. They could both buy pretty much whatever handguns that were available on the market, without worrying about a list of "safe" handguns.

We should all be concerned about these things, because they will keep pushing.

ineedone

07-06-2012, 11:35 AM

2nd amendment rights aren't infringed?
Obama expanded our 2nd amendment rights?

Gun control group gives Obama an (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f)

I know the article is 2 years old, but little if anything has changed. By "expansion" I am specifically referring to the repeal of a Regan era law that outlawed firearms in national parks.

I am not sure what you are asking by saying rights are infringed. Technically, any law or regulation can be considered an "infringement." So I guess you can say that the government infringes on an absolute right of owning whatever type of firearm, but then again, that is not what the 2nd amendment is.

Phlip

07-06-2012, 11:39 AM

Origin, you are not helping the 2nd amendment. Please stop.

He IS, however, making a very good case as to why the First Amendment should have an aptitude test appended.

ineedone

07-06-2012, 11:42 AM

You put forth effort the way Michelle tries to resist fries.

I never understood this attack on Michelle being fat? I mean I get it she is all about healthy foods and that is somehow communism, but she is in shape. You mad bro that she has better arms then you?

And again, your analogy sucks. It does not even work. What you are referring to his someones lack of restraint, where as I am coming at it in a sarcastic manner.

What you should have said is "It looks like you put as much effort into that post, as Michelle puts into working out"

See how that works? Because you would be saying Hey you are being sarcastic in saying you try when you do not, Like Michele who talks about how much she works out when she does not. Seriously, grade school man.

ineedone

07-06-2012, 11:45 AM

He IS, however, making a very good case as to why the First Amendment should have an aptitude test appended.

:bowrofl:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6655799633_406cb0a2d0.jpg

theicecreamdan

07-06-2012, 11:48 AM

He IS, however, making a very good case as to why the First Amendment should have an aptitude test appended.

Freedom isn't free. One of the costs of being able to speak my mind, is that I'm going to hear things I don't agree with, and I'll have to filter out BS and idiocy every day.

Origin

07-06-2012, 12:28 PM

There are posts in this thread that responses to would sooner help whatever message the OP is attempting to promote, but as usual he is ignoring those and trying to play the insults game. I am far from surprised at this approach. It seems that the very instant someone questions him, he calls them a “liberal,” apparently hoping that will be enough to get them off of him, and when that doesn’t work he simply stops responding and starts a new thread a couple days later.

All this and he expects us to believe that he is NOT only 23 years old. This is laughable on one hand, but quite sad on the other.
What is funny about this approach is that not even the more conservative members of Zilvia are attempting to save him in this. It is almost as if they are as entertained by the shellacking he takes as those who give it out.

Still with the age game. Quit acting like a child, at 33 (birthday recently?) you should be working on a Friday. Inb4 I have no job in which yes, I am off.
I obviously have picked a nerve with you and I'm glad for it. I hope it irritates you to no end. I'm not sure why I would respond to intentional insults, you would think at 33 you would be smarter in the ways of making an ass of someone. But then again, the insulting of another shouldn't be practiced per se, so if you actually do at some other point try to restrain yourself, congratulations.

Anyway, I label someone a liberal because they have the intrinsic qualities of one. No sense to call a goose a moose.

Again I ask, why would I not spread what is happening before our eyes? If you still think that Obama isn't a radical extremist who hates the freedom of liberty and the American people, then you sir, are a bigot.

BarrigaS14

07-06-2012, 12:47 PM

Still with the age game. Quit acting like a child, at 33 (birthday recently?) you should be working on a Friday. Inb4 I have no job in which yes, I am off.
I obviously have picked a nerve with you and I'm glad for it. I hope it irritates you to no end. I'm not sure why I would respond to intentional insults, you would think at 33 you would be smarter in the ways of making an ass of someone. But then again, the insulting of another shouldn't be practiced per se, so if you actually do at some other point try to restrain yourself, congratulations.

Anyway, I label someone a liberal because they have the intrinsic qualities of one. No sense to call a goose a moose.

Again I ask, why would I not spread what is happening before our eyes? If you still think that Obama isn't a radical extremist who hates the freedom of liberty and the American people, then you sir, are a bigot.

Just because someone doesn't work on a certain date means nothing. I work 4 10's. So me not working on Monday and Tuesday means something?

LOL, you have yet to show the liberties that are being taken away.

Bigot = : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

so that would place you into that definition if you disregard the ethnic group part out.

Phlip

07-06-2012, 12:56 PM

Still with the age game. Quit acting like a child, at 33 (birthday recently?) you should be working on a Friday. Inb4 I have no job in which yes, I am off.
No, I choose to call you on your age because of how YOU respond to people, not because I am particularly bothered. If I were as childish and petty as you seem to think I am then I would have long since made your whole account and IP addresses disappear from this forum, but I do not operate like that.
And not that it is any of your business, but I am at work. My mortgage doesn’t pay itself, so I have never been without a job since age 16 – back when you were seven years old.
I obviously have picked a nerve with you and I'm glad for it. I hope it irritates you to no end. I'm not sure why I would respond to intentional insults, you would think at 33 you would be smarter in the ways of making an ass of someone. But then again, the insulting of another shouldn't be practiced per se, so if you actually do at some other point try to restrain yourself, congratulations.
Wrong again, the nerve you’ve touched is the one that causes me and several other people to ask you to be more specific with these silly-ass claims that you make about what Obama is trying to take from us, and instead of answering ANYONE directly, you call names, call people morons and change the subject.
Anyway, I label someone a liberal because they have the intrinsic qualities of one. No sense to call a goose a moose.
No, you label people because you have no real response to offer otherwise, lord knows you can’t be bothered to respond to people when they make a pointed request for you to substantiate what you claim as if it is truth.
Again I ask, why would I not spread what is happening before our eyes? If you still think that Obama isn't a radical extremist who hates the freedom of liberty and the American people, then you sir, are a bigot.
You’re not spreading ANYTHING. You’re trotting out asinine and unfounded claims as undisputable truth, and when someone disputes it, you take it back to grade school instead of responding. If my enjoyment of watching EVERY LITTLE THING you say picked apart and you not effectively defend yourself makes me a bigot, then I will be that.

so that would place you into that definition if you disregard the ethnic group part out.

Look through his other posts in this section, he fits in that one too

Brian

07-06-2012, 01:23 PM

Hey man, Philip is going to KICK YOUR ASS

Origin

07-06-2012, 01:34 PM

The TSA (privacy, grouping under the guise of terrorism, I'm not sure children under 8 or people over 70 are terrorists. Especially Americans (this tells me we have a paranoid government), Obamacare, As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The DHS statement above is contradictory to this statement, saying it is illegal to stop a government that is turning totalitarianism (before it happens, which is the only way to stop it. See where that goes?), Scout drones being set over friendly skies, the regime wants tracking devices in all new cars starting somewhere around 2015 (there is a thread in loud noises somewhere, haven't found it yet), trying to rid God from schools (liberals in general, under the ridiculous guise it might offend someone without caring it offends those who believe). As for the 2nd amendment, Hillary has been trying to ratify the UN small arms treaty here in the states. There are more but I'm not encyclopedia.

Origin

07-06-2012, 01:38 PM

No, I choose to call you on your age because of how YOU respond to people, not because I am particularly bothered. If I were as childish and petty as you seem to think I am then I would have long since made your whole account and IP addresses disappear from this forum, but I do not operate like that.
And not that it is any of your business, but I am at work. My mortgage doesn’t pay itself, so I have never been without a job since age 16 – back when you were seven years old.

Wrong again, the nerve you’ve touched is the one that causes me and several other people to ask you to be more specific with these silly-ass claims that you make about what Obama is trying to take from us, and instead of answering ANYONE directly, you call names, call people morons and change the subject.

I suppose I beg for someone to think for themselves. I'm no "brainwasher". The only thing most of you are concerned with is putting me down (yes, that is childish). If you are at work, then do your work.

Then go ahead, ask me to defend one of my viewpoints and I will give you a straight answer.

raz0rbladez909

07-06-2012, 01:51 PM

Still with the age game. Quit acting like a child, at 33 (birthday recently?) you should be working on a Friday. Inb4 I have no job in which yes, I am off.

:picardfp: So at 23 shouldn't you be working friday as well? Your posts are very hypocritical most of the time. I mean you had an entire thread talking down upon gay people based on a video/picture and have the nerve to call anyone a bigot.

Origin

07-06-2012, 01:53 PM

:picardfp: So at 23 shouldn't you be working friday as well? You're posts are very hypocritical most of the time.

if which yes, I am off.

raz0rbladez909

07-06-2012, 01:56 PM

if which yes, I am off.

So since you are off work, what leads you to believe that someone else could not have the same day off?

Phlip

07-06-2012, 01:58 PM

I suppose I beg for someone to think for themselves. I'm no "brainwasher". The only thing most of you are concerned with is putting me down (yes, that is childish).
See, you’re not asking people to think for themselves, you’re asking them to think like you, and when they rightfully ask you WHY they should believe what you do, then you jump on the defensive and call them names. In turn, no one is taking you seriously now, so you’re being insulted.
And you deserve it too.
If you are at work, then do your work.
Wow, I was wholly unaware that you were sitting in the corner of this office that I am sitting in and that you had to do the work that I was not doing.
(hint: if you don’t know what I do, it is strongly suggested that you mind your own business as it relates to the efficiency with which I do my job)
Then go ahead, ask me to defend one of my viewpoints and I will give you a straight answer.
Never mind ME asking you to defend your viewpoints, there are FOUR members who have been doing so over the course of four threads other than this one and you have yet to respond yet. In turn, the ridicule continues.

Origin

07-06-2012, 01:59 PM

I am not full time, full time, will 99% of the time, be working on a Friday. The exception of course being someone who works 4 10's.

Origin

07-06-2012, 02:03 PM

See, you’re not asking people to think for themselves, you’re asking them to think like you, and when they rightfully ask you WHY they should believe what you do, then you jump on the defensive and call them names. In turn, no one is taking you seriously now, so you’re being insulted.
And you deserve it too.

Wow, I was wholly unaware that you were sitting in the corner of this office that I am sitting in and that you had to do the work that I was not doing.
(hint: if you don’t know what I do, it is strongly suggested that you mind your own business as it relates to the efficiency with which I do my job)

Never mind ME asking you to defend your viewpoints, there are FOUR members who have been doing so over the course of four threads other than this one and you have yet to respond yet. In turn, the ridicule continues.

Quit acting pretentious.

You now refuse to do what you were doing before in an effort to, yet again, insult and ridicule. So I am still the bad guy? I have viewpoints, but you, you are messed up.

If you are at work, you should be working. Not on zilvia. I don't think this needs to be discussed. If I had internet access at work, I would be doing what I am supposed to be doing, and be damn thankful I have one, not bitching at someone because they refuse to respond to insults. So, if you want to ask me something to defend (pick your choice, there are plenty) I will answer it. Otherwise, I'm not going through 30+ posts to answer them all. I don't have time for that.

Phlip

07-06-2012, 02:10 PM

I don't have time for that.
Of course you do, it's not like you have a full time job, you said it yourself
I am not full time
I guess that is Obama's fault too, huh

raz0rbladez909

07-06-2012, 02:12 PM

Quit acting pretentious.

You now refuse to do what you were doing before in an effort to, yet again, insult and ridicule. So I am still the bad guy? I have viewpoints, but you, you are messed up.

If you are at work, you should be working. Not on zilvia. I don't think this needs to be discussed. If I had internet access at work, I would be doing what I am supposed to be doing, and be damn thankful I have one, not bitching at someone because they refuse to respond to insults. So, if you want to ask me something to defend (pick your choice, there are plenty) I will answer it. Otherwise, I'm not going through 30+ posts to answer them all. I don't have time for that.
What does any of this have to do with you not responding to half of the other reasonable questions that have been asked in here and other threads?

I'm with Phlip on this one, you keep trying to pass over any of the questions that deserve a logical answer, and only respond to the ones that you can try to come up with an insult to return. What does Phlips job have anything to do with you anyways, what if he worked from home? None of that even pertains to your random threads that you come up with. All we want to see is something to back up these bold claims that you keep posting about every few days.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is still intact. You can still go buy a gun, believe me there is nothing I hate more than gun laws living in Kalifornia but as far as I have seen there is no new legislation to ban assault weapons again. The most ridiculous laws are coming out of Kalifornia when it comes to guns anyways.

Origin

07-06-2012, 02:15 PM

Of course you do, it's not like you have a full time job, you said it yourself

I guess that is Obama's fault too, huh

Not having a full time job does not mean I do not fill my time.

If you want to really argue that for 12 million it isn't..

But for me, that is not his fault.

Origin

07-06-2012, 02:17 PM

What does any of this have to do with you not responding to half of the other reasonable questions that have been asked in here and other threads?

I'm with Phlip on this one, you keep trying to pass over any of the questions that deserve a logical answer, and only respond to the ones that you can try to come up with an insult to return. What does Phlips job have anything to do with you anyways, what if he worked from home? None of that even pertains to your random threads that you come up with. All we want to see is something to back up these bold claims that you keep posting about every few days.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is still intact. You can still go buy a gun, believe me there is nothing I hate more than gun laws living in Kalifornia but as far as I have seen there is no new legislation to ban assault weapons again. The most ridiculous laws are coming out of Kalifornia when it comes to guns anyways.

I'd rather people think, that's all I ask. I shouldn't have to spoon feed ideas. I post articles, do you read them? I never said it was infringed now, I am claiming it will be. I said multiple times in this thread, "This time next year.."

raz0rbladez909

07-06-2012, 02:27 PM

I'd rather people think, that's all I ask. I shouldn't have to spoon feed ideas. I post articles, do you read them? I never said it was infringed now, I am claiming it will be. I said multiple times in this thread, "This time next year.."

People DO think, which is why they are asking you questions. Everyone is questioning you on your resources and it just seems like this is what YOU believe, not what you can prove. Usually making claims requires a logical source to pull information from, but half the stuff you've posted up is like trying to get real news from The Onion.

Origin

07-06-2012, 02:30 PM

Are you claiming someone forged a document from the DHS?

raz0rbladez909

07-06-2012, 02:37 PM

Are you claiming someone forged a document from the DHS?

It's one thing to post up a link, and another for you to go all chicken little about everything you post. I read the link, but I didn't get the same thing out of it that you did. You seem to jump to major conclusions with even the slightest hint of something you disagree with.

A direct quote from your article: "(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime. These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups. They often conduct paramilitary training designed to violently resist perceived government oppression or to violently overthrow the US Government. (Page 2 of 3, emphasis added)"

There is nothing wrong with you believing that the Government is stripping you of your rights, and in some ways I might agree. But the article is clearly talking about people who engage in acts of violence towards "federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure". But unless you are using acts of violence to convey your point then you have nothing to worry about.

fckillerbee

07-06-2012, 02:46 PM

jesus fucking idiot. Please off yourself....you are spreading a disease. Stupid people will follow stupid people.

ineedone

07-06-2012, 02:58 PM

Origin, dude, really?? I mean really? I ask for this

Name a freedom that has slowly been taken away. Name one. And give more then some one word answer like GUNS! Seriously, try hard and find some facts to back it up. Facts... not a random blog post.

Here, how about this... If you make a valid point, I will jump to your side and give you some great material (I mean I already gave you Posner... but who knows if you can even read). But it has to be valid, and supported. No one liners here buddy.

And in return... I get this word vomit?? Really dude? This is just pathetic. Either way, I will separate your on liner claims... I will dispose of them (this time without telling you how stupidly childish you are - ps like how you started using that after I said it... imitation is always the best flattery). I hope I can get this all done during my potty break. Here we go!

The TSA (privacy, grouping under the guise of terrorism, I'm not sure children under 8 or people over 70 are terrorists. Especially Americans (this tells me we have a paranoid government),

If you are so short sited to believe that children and old people cannot be terrorist then you are sadly mistaken. Here is an article from Oliver North, who I guess is someone you would love, detailing how Al Qaeda was using disabled children and women as suicide bombers. Women, Children and Mentally Disabled are New 'Martyrs' For Al Qaeda | Episode Guide | War Stories | Fox News Channel (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/war-stories/2008/02/07/women-children-and-mentally-disabled-are-new-martyrs-al-qaeda)

It is a freaking pat down, stop getting all bitchy about it. You do not have a undivided right to fly in planes. Now if you want to bitch about it being a worthless policy or not efficient or effective then sure, I can meet you on that one. But to say that you are losing some sort of liberty? No. No. No.

I cannot believe I had to post a foxnews article... I feel... dirty?

Obamacare, As passed by the Congress:

Um, No. It is constitutional. No matter what you think, that is how the court came out. I do not think corporations should have the same constitutional protections as humans do, but you know what? they do. I do not go around crying about it being unconstitutional. I say "that is bad policy" and "you know if they really cared they could pass an amendment" and "hey, since these corporations are now people, how can we sue them as people instead of corporations, does this mean there are new avenues of liability for corporate actions, etc." See how that all works? Instead of crying about what the SCOTUS does, make it work for you. The freaking supreme court, even the "liberal" justices said, hey, this is a tax. So you know what you do now you say OMG OBAMA RAISED TAXES!!!! RAWR GROVER NORQUIST!!!

Again, you can say the policy sucks all you want, but it is absolutely constitutional and does not take away any of your liberties.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ok, so the world has changed a bit. The "militia" is what we call the national guard. Not you and your 3 best buddies humping around the woods with an ar15 and some fatigues. Is it hella fun? YES, but that is not what a "well regulated militia" is.

As to the language of the 2nd, "to keep and bear arms." That language is so freaking ambiguous that even the SCOTUS cannot agree as to what it means. I would point you to DC v. Heller, but do not worry about it. If you are of the Scalia elk - you flip the words so that the only thing that matters is "arms" and by arms he means any firearm. Now if you are of the Stevens elk, you say hmm, arms during the time of the framers meant weapons, not military weapons, so rifles and revolvers, not automatic rifles and UZIs (aka military grade weaponry). Look that is a very basic ad lib, but for the purposes of this... it is enough.

But again, no one is losing any rights for any reason.

The DHS statement above is contradictory to this statement, saying it is illegal to stop a government that is turning totalitarianism (before it happens, which is the only way to stop it. See where that goes?)

No. Here is the actual 5 slide, powerpoint - that is right... a whole freaking 5 slide "lexicon." DHS Extremism Lexicon FINAL (http://www.scribd.com/doc/74788445/DHS-Extremism-Lexicon-FINAL)

As you can see, it just explains all the different types of radical groups within the united states. This is nothing new, and honestly... really? This got you upset? Really? This is really basic stuff here... but I guess this means tyranny... I dunno, but yeah, I would read some of these things before posting them. I mean the first one is Anarchist... so I guess you RWNJ need to step up your game because those lefty loones are still beating you.

Scout drones being set over friendly skies

Why is this an issue? absent them doing illegal searches, they are allowed to fly over, they are even allowed to watch stuff. I guess street cameras bug you out too? We live in a digital age where everything we do is captured in the public... It kind of comes with the territory. Blame technology and the fact that nothing in the constitution prohibits drones from flying around with a camera on.

PS. If you were worried about the story where they used drones to monitor cattle ranchers, that was a good thing. Unless you like cow shit in your drinking water then, yeah that was bad. I prefer water with no shit.

the regime wants tracking devices in all new cars starting somewhere around 2015 (there is a thread in loud noises somewhere, haven't found it yet)

Well, that is not true at all. But sure, I will play. Look I know this will be tough, but take this link to Media Matter. Right-Wing Media Freak Out Over Nonexistent Obama Proposal To Impose Mileage Tax | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/05/06/right-wing-media-freak-out-over-nonexistent-oba/179422)

In fairness I did post a foxnews link. Just give it a whirl.

trying to rid God from schools (liberals in general, under the ridiculous guise it might offend someone without caring it offends those who believe).

Well, liberals are not the only ones who do not think god should be in school. That first amendment does not like it either. Remember those pesky founders... well blame them. The way you determine whether the government can play with religion is called the "lemon" test. I know it is a pretty sucky test. But hey, it is what we got. Basics - secular purpose, primary effect can not advance or inhibit, and no excessive government entanglement.

Further, though it is true the the words "separation of church in state" are not printed in the constitution... it has been a solid constitutional principle since the founders. But hey, do not take my word for it, go to law school and learn about it.

As for the 2nd amendment, Hillary has been trying to ratify the UN small arms treaty here in the states. There are more but I'm not encyclopedia.

Well, again, no. Here is a link to the facts http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/may/17/craig-james/craig-james-says-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-/

And because I know that is way to long to read here is the spoiler - "We found no evidence of Obama or Clinton indicating they want the UN conference on an arms trade treaty to ban the use of firearms; the recent speech by an administration underling states the government will not back a treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.

This claim runs so substantially counter to reality, it’s ridiculous. Pants on Fire!"

Ok, so that went a little longer then potty break.

ineedone

07-06-2012, 03:00 PM

I'd rather people think, that's all I ask. I shouldn't have to spoon feed ideas. I post articles, do you read them? I never said it was infringed now, I am claiming it will be. I said multiple times in this thread, "This time next year.."

Well this time next year I will own a transformer!

See guys, fact, because it is this time NEXT year. Argument won.

raz0rbladez909

07-06-2012, 03:37 PM

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/19/128715755051000841.jpg
http://tacticalip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/you-just-got-served.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YkU2wlV4EzM/TZS32L4oU8I/AAAAAAAAABM/oJ4nMMTNdT0/s1600/YouGotServed.jpg
http://deansomerset.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/you-got-served1.jpg
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/6/128730818135803226.jpg
In for response on how I need to grow up!

Origin

07-06-2012, 03:47 PM

And in return... I get this word vomit?? Really dude? This is just pathetic. Either way, I will separate your on liner claims... I will dispose of them (this time without telling you how stupidly childish you are - ps like how you started using that after I said it... imitation is always the best flattery). I hope I can get this all done during my potty break. Here we go!

This is the same thing I am proposedly doing, isn't it Phlip? Or is it not because he is on your "side".

If you are so short sited to believe that children and old people cannot be terrorist then you are sadly mistaken. Here is an article from Oliver North, who I guess is someone you would love, detailing how Al Qaeda was using disabled children and women as suicide bombers.

Again this is why I call people like this idiots. I clearly stated Americans. Americans. People going on vacations, with a fucking suburban family. I said AMERICANS. You stupid moron. Americans. Do you know what they are? I said Americans, do you get that yet?

It is a freaking pat down, stop getting all bitchy about it. You do not have a undivided right to fly in planes. Now if you want to bitch about it being a worthless policy or not efficient or effective then sure, I can meet you on that one. But to say that you are losing some sort of liberty? No. No. No.

No it's perfectly fine to watch your 6 year old daughter get her regions touched because she wants to fucking blow herself up you idiot. You have no children, that's a fact. And if it isn't, you were a horrible father. If you are a guy.

Um, No. It is constitutional. No matter what you think, that is how the court came out. I do not think corporations should have the same constitutional protections as humans do, but you know what? they do. I do not go around crying about it being unconstitutional. I say "that is bad policy" and "you know if they really cared they could pass an amendment" and "hey, since these corporations are now people, how can we sue them as people instead of corporations, does this mean there are new avenues of liability for corporate actions, etc." See how that all works? Instead of crying about what the SCOTUS does, make it work for you. The freaking supreme court, even the "liberal" justices said, hey, this is a tax. So you know what you do now you say OMG OBAMA RAISED TAXES!!!! RAWR GROVER NORQUIST!!!

Again, you can say the policy sucks all you want, but it is absolutely constitutional and does not take away any of your liberties.

It is NOT. Again, you know NOTHING. No where in the initial arguments did the Obama side say it was a tax. That bastard Kennedy LOOKED for a way to make it work. Do you watch Top Gear? Do you know how much they complain about the Liberals over there making taxes on taxes on taxes on taxes involving automotive ALONE. Through TAXES, they can funnel you into anything. Just like their right to own guns. It has been taken away by liberals, and it will be taken away here if morons like you don't wise up to what is coming. I never said anything was happening now. I am looking to the future. I can see the groundwork being laid down. It is reminded that it is a crime for people to revolt, so when they come to take your guns, no one will revolt. Even though by the constitution they can never be granted the power to do that. I don't know why you can't agree with this.

Ok, so the world has changed a bit. The "militia" is what we call the national guard. Not you and your 3 best buddies humping around the woods with an ar15 and some fatigues. Is it hella fun? YES, but that is not what a "well regulated militia" is.

Who says? Do you say? You know all? A militia is citizens being rounded up for fighting purposes. It doesn't matter what Liberals try to turn it into, that's what the definition is. The national guard is national guard.

As to the language of the 2nd, "to keep and bear arms." That language is so freaking ambiguous that even the SCOTUS cannot agree as to what it means. I would point you to DC v. Heller, but do not worry about it. If you are of the Scalia elk - you flip the words so that the only thing that matters is "arms" and by arms he means any firearm. Now if you are of the Stevens elk, you say hmm, arms during the time of the framers meant weapons, not military weapons, so rifles and revolvers, not automatic rifles and UZIs (aka military grade weaponry). Look that is a very basic ad lib, but for the purposes of this... it is enough.

But again, no one is losing any rights for any reason. (I never said right now)

I believe you can still get a full auto if it was before the ban. I will have you know, that there have been ZERO deaths reported by the ATF (the ATF for God's sake), of guns that have been owned in this way. So why is there a need to rid the people of them? The answer is there isn't. There just isn't. There are no deaths, so no harm. The only reason they would want them taken away is because they either A. can't stand that freedom we have, or B. (and the more logical one here) they don't want opposition when they start heating things up with their agenda. I wouldn't, mind you, take that last sentence as radical..

No. Here is the actual 5 slide, powerpoint - that is right... a whole freaking 5 slide "lexicon." DHS Extremism Lexicon FINAL (http://www.scribd.com/doc/74788445/DHS-Extremism-Lexicon-FINAL)

As you can see, it just explains all the different types of radical groups within the united states. This is nothing new, and honestly... really? This got you upset? Really? This is really basic stuff here... but I guess this means tyranny... I dunno, but yeah, I would read some of these things before posting them. I mean the first one is Anarchist... so I guess you RWNJ need to step up your game because those lefty loones are still beating you.

Why is this an issue? absent them doing illegal searches, they are allowed to fly over, they are even allowed to watch stuff. I guess street cameras bug you out too? We live in a digital age where everything we do is captured in the public... It kind of comes with the territory. Blame technology and the fact that nothing in the constitution prohibits drones from flying around with a camera on.

PS. If you were worried about the story where they used drones to monitor cattle ranchers, that was a good thing. Unless you like cow shit in your drinking water then, yeah that was bad. I prefer water with no shit.

It is not constitutional to spy on the American people. Period. Regardless how. It doesn't matter your opinion, but then again the constitution doesn't matter anymore. My God you are so brainwashed into this, I feel bad. They sound like a bad set of ranchers if they didn't know that was going on..

Well, that is not true at all. But sure, I will play. Look I know this will be tough, but take this link to Media Matter. Right-Wing Media Freak Out Over Nonexistent Obama Proposal To Impose Mileage Tax | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/05/06/right-wing-media-freak-out-over-nonexistent-oba/179422)

In fairness I did post a foxnews link. Just give it a whirl.

Well, liberals are not the only ones who do not think god should be in school. That first amendment does not like it either. Remember those pesky founders... well blame them. The way you determine whether the government can play with religion is called the "lemon" test. I know it is a pretty sucky test. But hey, it is what we got. Basics - secular purpose, primary effect can not advance or inhibit, and no excessive government entanglement.

Further, though it is true the the words "separation of church in state" are not printed in the constitution... it has been a solid constitutional principle since the founders. But hey, do not take my word for it, go to law school and learn about it.

Yeah this generation is doing great without discipline (which is what religion is). A religious woman is not a whore. A non-religious woman could be (Could, not is). A religious woman can not. This is set in stone, in the sense that the religious woman is not a fake religious standby, and the non-religious (read, atheist, more times than not), has no bother either way beyond what she was brought up to believe. No discipline, no subtlety. Religion breeds discipline. Unless you can find Sumerian text describing morals and ethics without religion, it is safe to say that all ethics and morals that most older people hold dear can are ancestors to the first religions (I suppose you can say the grouping of guidelines to good life at the commandment of a god).

Well, again, no. Here is a link to the facts PolitiFact Texas | Craig James says Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seek treaty to ban the use of U.S. firearms (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/may/17/craig-james/craig-james-says-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-/)

And because I know that is way to long to read here is the spoiler - "We found no evidence of Obama or Clinton indicating they want the UN conference on an arms trade treaty to ban the use of firearms; the recent speech by an administration underling states the government will not back a treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Here's a counter (but I'm sure this is biased):
Small Arms Treaty of 2012 – Elimination of the Second Amendment | Independent Sentinel (http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/05/small-arms-treaty-of-2012-elimination-of-the-second-amendment/)

Ok, so that went a little longer then potty break.

I encourage you to make the difference between the two dialogues. Hope this is good enough for Phlip wanting me to answer. The tables have changed. I make good points, but I have driven you right to the other side. You won't listen if it smacks you in the face. Don't humor yourself.

ineedone

07-06-2012, 04:00 PM

I encourage you to make the difference between the two dialogues. Hope this is good enough for Phlip wanting me to answer. The tables have changed. I make good points, but I have driven you right to the other side. You won't listen if it smacks you in the face. Don't humor yourself.

Wait... you made a point? Bold that for me please.

Oh, Americans... because no Americans can be terrorist? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-shooting-jury-selection_n_1653578.html

Oops... that was not the point was it?

ineedone

07-06-2012, 04:10 PM

It is NOT. Again, you know NOTHING. No where in the initial arguments did the Obama side say it was a tax. That bastard Kennedy LOOKED for a way to make it work. Do you watch Top Gear? Do you know how much they complain about the Liberals over there making taxes on taxes on taxes on taxes involving automotive ALONE. Through TAXES, they can funnel you into anything. Just like their right to own guns. It has been taken away by liberals, and it will be taken away here if morons like you don't wise up to what is coming. I never said anything was happening now. I am looking to the future. I can see the groundwork being laid down. It is reminded that it is a crime for people to revolt, so when they come to take your guns, no one will revolt. Even though by the constitution they can never be granted the power to do that. I don't know why you can't agree with this.

They argued that in the lower federal courts many times. Just not at the SCOTUS. However, that does not matter. Oral arguments and briefs to a court are to help persuade. If the SCOTUS wants they could decide the case on completely different issues that no side argued. It was Roberts, not Kennedy - and I am the one who knows nothing - and he did not look for a way to make it work. I doubt you read the opinion or ever will so just stop with being a constitutional scholar now. So UK Top Gear knows about US policy and taxes? That is funny, never took the UK Top Gear law class... damnit I knew I was missing something. I cannot agree with a wackadoo loon prophesying about the impending doom that is surely (not happening) happening. How is it so hard for you to understand that if the stuff is not happening, just because you think it will, does not mean other people think it is or will happen. You still have not cited ONE example backed by ONE fact.

raz0rbladez909

07-06-2012, 04:12 PM

Yeah this generation is doing great without discipline (which is what religion is). A religious woman is not a whore. A non-religious woman could be (Could, not is). A religious woman can not. This is set in stone, in the sense that the religious woman is not a fake religious standby, and the non-religious (read, atheist, more times than not), has no bother either way beyond what she was brought up to believe. No discipline, no subtlety. Religion breeds discipline. Unless you can find Sumerian text describing morals and ethics without religion, it is safe to say that all ethics and morals that most older people hold dear can are ancestors to the first religions (I suppose you can say the grouping of guidelines to good life at the commandment of a god).

One does not need religion to be a good person. Morals make you a good person. There are plenty of fucked up people in the world that act upon what their interpretation of whatever religious text tells them to do. Look how many wars have been fought over who's religion is right. Weren't the words of Christianity/Catholicism spread quite violently? Isn't there still a war going on between Palestine and Israel? What about the Thirty Years War?

ineedone

07-06-2012, 04:22 PM

B. (and the more logical one here) they don't want opposition when they start heating things up with their agenda.

This is your logical reason for the government restricting access to high powered automatic, military weaponry? Not safety? Not shit like Waco? They have .50 cal sniper rifles at waco. That shit is real dangerous. I do not want some idiot cowboy picking up a highpowered assault because that shit looks cool, then going and killing himself or someone else by accident. Some toys only trained pros should get to play with. Big, awesome guns... are one of them. But I guess that makes me a liberal? Yeah, go figure.

It is not constitutional to spy on the American people. Period. Regardless how. It doesn't matter your opinion, but then again the constitution doesn't matter anymore. My God you are so brainwashed into this, I feel bad. They sound like a bad set of ranchers if they didn't know that was going on..

Uh, says who? Find me where the constitution does not allow spying. Please, find it for me. See, to me the constitution does matter, that is why I am asking you where. What is unconstitutional is if they use those drones to do illegal searches. Just spying though, that is the same as a cop posted outside your front damn door just sitting there waiting for you to do something. Unethical? maybe, Unconstitutional? NO.

Yeah this generation is doing great without discipline (which is what religion is). A religious woman is not a whore. A non-religious woman could be (Could, not is). A religious woman can not. This is set in stone, in the sense that the religious woman is not a fake religious standby, and the non-religious (read, atheist, more times than not), has no bother either way beyond what she was brought up to believe. No discipline, no subtlety. Religion breeds discipline. Unless you can find Sumerian text describing morals and ethics without religion, it is safe to say that all ethics and morals that most older people hold dear can are ancestors to the first religions (I suppose you can say the grouping of guidelines to good life at the commandment of a god).

I do not even know where to begin with this. I guess women are whores who do not go to church? Well, I went to a Catholic and Christian high-school, huge whores. Lots of them. It was fun. Not sure how your love life is, but I am guessing even Handgelina and Palmela do not appreciate the way you talk about their sinful ways.

And your small arms treaty link is stupid. It is a partisan blog. I posted a fact check on those exact claims. But I guess politifact is what? Biased? Sure. Next time use the quote button right.

ANNND one more thing. The words of the constitution should mean something, so when it says "WELL REGULATED militia" that to means something more then you and your 3 buddies. I am pretty sure most would agree.

theicecreamdan

07-06-2012, 05:15 PM

Ok, so the world has changed a bit. The "militia" is what we call the national guard. Not you and your 3 best buddies humping around the woods with an ar15 and some fatigues. Is it hella fun? YES, but that is not what a "well regulated militia" is.

As to the language of the 2nd, "to keep and bear arms." That language is so freaking ambiguous that even the SCOTUS cannot agree as to what it means. I would point you to DC v. Heller, but do not worry about it. If you are of the Scalia elk - you flip the words so that the only thing that matters is "arms" and by arms he means any firearm. Now if you are of the Stevens elk, you say hmm, arms during the time of the framers meant weapons, not military weapons, so rifles and revolvers, not automatic rifles and UZIs (aka military grade weaponry). Look that is a very basic ad lib, but for the purposes of this... it is enough.

The second amendment is pretty clear.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Heller also clearly distinguishes that the right is to "the people," not the National Guard.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

ineedone

07-06-2012, 09:19 PM

The second amendment is pretty clear.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Heller also clearly distinguishes that the right is to "the people," not the National Guard.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)

I would argue that no amendment is really "clear" but that may also be because of how I interpret things. In my view, because the framers did not save the notes of the debates as to how they wrote the constitution, it is really a crap shoot as to what the "true meaning" is. This is why I find this "originalist" crap some justices label themselves as as a complete farce. They are just as much as a "activist" or "liberal" judge as those that believe in the living and breathing constitution. I use the word activist and liberal not in their political sense, but in their approach to stare decisis and judicial construction. With that said... here is what I got out of DC v. Heller... These are my class notes, my Con Law prof was pretty awesome. ME of Law Review at Cornell and worked at a top litigation firm before teaching. Leans liberal, Favorite Justice Souter and is not a fan of Ginsburg. So, she is pretty fair to say the least.

Here were my notes

• Really looking at how does the court decide what a constitutional provision is
• 2nd amendment – question before the court, can DC prevent the keeping of loaded handguns in the home, how do justices answer this question?
• Sources used by various justices
• Scalia uses text, dictionaries 18th century dictionaries - sees that arms talks about offensive/defensive use
• Stevens uses different dictionary - sees that arms means military arms, weapons would have meant it all, but use of arms is term of art that is contracted with the word weapons
• what else do we do when interpreting text?
• Parsing the text - is this two rights to keep arms and to bear arms, or is it one right to keep and bear arms?
• Prof thinks stevens argument better on the construction (to, and to means 2 rights, where here it is one right)
• the right of the people is used in the first and the fourth
• that the first amendment of the right of the people, talks about multiple people not a singular
• 4th talks about more individual
• Stevens says this is inconclusive, that there is no answer, that this is a parsing that does not help (of Scalia opinion)
• look at same or similar language within the text
• look at clauses and figure out how they are related to one another
• rule of judicial construction – every word counts, its best to start at beginning and go from there
• Scalia deals with the main clause, then says the second clause is really not that important
• Scalia majority skips to the second clause, and the ask what the first clause adds for us
• both agree that reason for 2nd amendment was for congress not to be able to destroy militia (differ on what militia means and is)
• textualist - will read provisions that are related to them
• Original-ism - what other people at the time said, and what the framers and people involved said
• intent of the framers – pure textualist do not get involved with this - what people were doing at the time, and legislation and case law within a decade or so of a constitutional amendment (absent here)

On substance, I go with Stevens. He really gives it to Scalia and pretty much calls him out saying, hey buddy you are just making this shit up. He even makes fun of his grammar skills. It is probably one of the more entertaining back and forth opinion/dissent. Scalia is witty, but really he was way more entertaining when he was first on the court... now it is just sad political hackery, and frankly, he can do so much better.

mantas

07-06-2012, 11:04 PM

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pretty fucking clear to me that people have right to keep and bear arms. Im not going to get into any other political bs and the bs going on in this thread but theicecreamdan is right here. Its very straight forward and i dont think there is any other way to interpret that unless you are dumbass or you are a wanna be lawyer like ineedone.

Ineedone - stfu until you pass the BAR, Because studying law does not make you a lawyer.

ineedone

07-07-2012, 07:52 AM

Pretty fucking clear to me that people have right to keep and bear arms. Im not going to get into any other political bs and the bs going on in this thread but theicecreamdan is right here. Its very straight forward and i dont think there is any other way to interpret that unless you are dumbass or you are a wanna be lawyer like ineedone.

Ineedone - stfu until you pass the BAR, Because studying law does not make you a lawyer.

Hey, are you still trying to figure out what makes me dumb about Immigration and ICE? Dude, it is taking a long time.

I got my JD, not sure how that makes me a wanna be? http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5hq7uhel51rofy2n.gif

I do not think anyone has an issue with the right to actually have firearms:wtf:
But what does the amendment allow the government to do? Why did they write it as "to keep and bear" and not "to keep and TO bear?" Why did they say "arms" and not "weapons?" - - How can you answer any of those questions definitively without knowing what the framers had in their heads at the time they wrote it? Does the ghost of Adams speak to you? If you look at state constitutions during the debates, they varied in the way they had their own 2nd amendment type rights. Some said weapons, others had arms, etc. Not only that, but the meanings of the words have changed, you look up the word arms, not only are there numbers different dictionaries, but they all have more then one definition that relates to some sort of weapon. Now do you use a dictionary of today? or of the 18th century? Which one? Do you see how just the word "arms" can be almost impossible to define?

Add those to your research list. Homework is due Monday. (Its the weekend, I mean I only half study so I do not expect you to full study). http://i45.tinypic.com/27wt3es.gif%20

Origin

07-07-2012, 09:26 AM

They argued that in the lower federal courts many times. Just not at the SCOTUS. However, that does not matter. Oral arguments and briefs to a court are to help persuade. If the SCOTUS wants they could decide the case on completely different issues that no side argued. It was Roberts, not Kennedy - and I am the one who knows nothing - and he did not look for a way to make it work. I doubt you read the opinion or ever will so just stop with being a constitutional scholar now. So UK Top Gear knows about US policy and taxes? That is funny, never took the UK Top Gear law class... damnit I knew I was missing something. I cannot agree with a wackadoo loon prophesying about the impending doom that is surely (not happening) happening. How is it so hard for you to understand that if the stuff is not happening, just because you think it will, does not mean other people think it is or will happen. You still have not cited ONE example backed by ONE fact.

Wow, you are stupid. You are the most inept at comprehension (still). Unless you are just taking meanings out of context and instituting your own so you don't look like an ass. I won't bother trying to explain things to you anymore because I feel like I'm talking to a dog. I MISSPOKE saying Kennedy. I MISSPOKE, am I allowed to do that? You know, you are as insane in your beliefs as I am.

I think you should stop being a wannabe lawyer. You're not, nor will you be. But you would make a good one. Lawyer's don't have common sense and as our stuck in what's in writing as mathematicians are in numbers. They don't bother with what is right, or what is wrong, if it's there in writing that's the way it is no matter who gets the shaft. You do yourself a great disservice holding that hot coal of anger.

BarrigaS14

07-07-2012, 09:41 AM

Not exactly going with the thing you are stating but close...

So the abstinence of a clear explanation for this unbelievably stupid gun program that mirrored only a slightly less unbelievably stupid one that began during the Bush years, is evidence of a larger conspiracy to ban assault weapons? Are you sure it’s not evidence that Obama is just arming Mexico and lead them to take back the Alamo? Do you think it is that? Maybe he is using the weapons to weigh Mexico down…sinking it…thus creating acres of new beach front property, to soil with an oil spill. Obama has given no explanation to believe otherwise so I am inclined to go with it.

If that is the case though, what did ya’ll think of the Bush year’s shenanigans? Secrete torture programs, wiring taping citizens without a warrant, putting signing statements onto laws that negated what the law actually said, stone walling congress, holding Americans without trial by calling them enemy combatants, what was your working theory on the tyranny and lawlessness of those secret programs?

It says you didn’t vote for them. (obama)

This was section from John Stewart. It was a pretty good point. Conspiracy people make up all types of crap because of what they want to believe. Rather than actually wait for factual evidence, they use it for their own dumb intentions.

Origin

07-07-2012, 09:43 AM

My text will be in bold. Not sure if you can tell the difference otherwise.

This is your logical reason for the government restricting access to high powered automatic, military weaponry? Not safety? Not shit like Waco? They have .50 cal sniper rifles at waco. That shit is real dangerous. I do not want some idiot cowboy picking up a highpowered assault because that shit looks cool, then going and killing himself or someone else by accident. Some toys only trained pros should get to play with. Big, awesome guns... are one of them. But I guess that makes me a liberal? Yeah, go figure.

I already stated (which you purposefully neglected, and I am getting tired of you doing) that those men that have licenses to have weapons like that have committed NO deaths. EVER. They are responsible, everyone one of them. Your argument is invalid. And QUIT TRYING TO TURN THAT STATEMENT AROUND. You like gun control, YES YOU ARE A LIBERAL. What an idiot for fuck's sake quit being an ass.

Uh, says who? Find me where the constitution does not allow spying. Please, find it for me. See, to me the constitution does matter, that is why I am asking you where. What is unconstitutional is if they use those drones to do illegal searches. Just spying though, that is the same as a cop posted outside your front damn door just sitting there waiting for you to do something. Unethical? maybe, Unconstitutional? NO.

You can't be serious. You CAN'T be serious.
The most frequently quoted statement by a Supreme Court justice on the subject of privacy comes in Justice Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. U. S. (1928):

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect." But no, I'm sure you will find a way around that. A drone looking at your house is not being left alone.

I do not even know where to begin with this. I guess women are whores who do not go to church? Well, I went to a Catholic and Christian high-school, huge whores. Lots of them. It was fun. Not sure how your love life is, but I am guessing even Handgelina and Palmela do not appreciate the way you talk about their sinful ways.

Again, you incomprehensible moron, I clearly stated fall-backs so I could create a non-"always" scenario. Well you aren't incomprehensible, you now realize I'm not making such rash comments as before and are starting to realize that I am becoming correct. Please, don't answer this one, you just make yourself look foolish.

And your small arms treaty link is stupid. It is a partisan blog. I posted a fact check on those exact claims. But I guess politifact is what? Biased? Sure. Next time use the quote button right.

Of course it's stupid, why wouldn't it be? Everything I post is stupid. Everything I post is wrong you bigoted idiot.

ANNND one more thing. The words of the constitution should mean something, so when it says "WELL REGULATED militia" that to means something more then you and your 3 buddies. I am pretty sure most would agree.

A liberal thinks the constitution means something? That's odd. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia, national guard isn't written there. Just reminding you of the obvious.

Origin

07-07-2012, 09:45 AM

Not exactly going with the thing you are stating but close...

This was section from John Stewart. It was a pretty good point. Conspiracy people make up all types of crap because of what they want to believe. Rather than actually wait for factual evidence, they use it for their own dumb intentions.

I am waiting. Patiently, for his second term.

ineedone

07-07-2012, 10:14 AM

Wow, you are stupid. You are the most inept at comprehension (still). Unless you are just taking meanings out of context and instituting your own so you don't look like an ass. I won't bother trying to explain things to you anymore because I feel like I'm talking to a dog. I MISSPOKE saying Kennedy. I MISSPOKE, am I allowed to do that? You know, you are as insane in your beliefs as I am.

I think you should stop being a wannabe lawyer. You're not, nor will you be. But you would make a good one. Lawyer's don't have common sense and as our stuck in what's in writing as mathematicians are in numbers. They don't bother with what is right, or what is wrong, if it's there in writing that's the way it is no matter who gets the shaft. You do yourself a great disservice holding that hot coal of anger.

How does pointing out that you picked the wrong justice to go ape shit on taking your words out of context? You did not speak by the way, you typed. You MISTYPED (emphasis added). You have no idea what I believe, but sure I guess I am as insane as you? What do I believe by the way? Just so I know which planet we are arguing on.

I am not sure whether you were complementing my awesome lawyerly skills or just saying that I have skills that would be really good for a lawyer. I am not sure why adhering to the text is all of a sudden an attack from a (assumed) conservative. Is that not what you are suppose to do? God damn Justice Thomas always going by the text like a looney toon liberal. I do not know where you think I have anger. I think this is really funny, I thought my witty sarcasm and sweet .gif made that point... but le sigh.

Oh, and what is "right" and what is "wrong." Dear Raptor Jesus who knows all? because things that are right can be infinitely wrong, where things that are wrong will most definitely be right.http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6jk99agDC1rzz3r3o1_500.gif

ineedone

07-07-2012, 10:24 AM

I am waiting. Patiently, for his second term.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5xlokEA5l1r4g19j.gif

Fixed, Ill get back to you on the other stuff, do not worry cupcake!

mantas

07-07-2012, 12:04 PM

Hey, are you still trying to figure out what makes me dumb about Immigration and ICE? Dude, it is taking a long time.

I got my JD, not sure how that makes me a wanna be? http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5hq7uhel51rofy2n.gif

I do not think anyone has an issue with the right to actually have firearms:wtf:
But what does the amendment allow the government to do? Why did they write it as "to keep and bear" and not "to keep and TO bear?" Why did they say "arms" and not "weapons?" - - How can you answer any of those questions definitively without knowing what the framers had in their heads at the time they wrote it? Does the ghost of Adams speak to you? If you look at state constitutions during the debates, they varied in the way they had their own 2nd amendment type rights. Some said weapons, others had arms, etc. Not only that, but the meanings of the words have changed, you look up the word arms, not only are there numbers different dictionaries, but they all have more then one definition that relates to some sort of weapon. Now do you use a dictionary of today? or of the 18th century? Which one? Do you see how just the word "arms" can be almost impossible to define?

Add those to your research list. Homework is due Monday. (Its the weekend, I mean I only half study so I do not expect you to full study). http://i45.tinypic.com/27wt3es.gif%20

So what do you call an arms dealer? Why not a weapons dealer or a guns dealer? Same shit, the wording has nothing to do with it. I gave up on dealing with you, you are a typical wanna be lawyer - cant pass the bar. When you pass it come back and speak about law to us.

ineedone

07-07-2012, 12:08 PM

My text will be in bold. Not sure if you can tell the difference otherwise.

You really do not know how to multi-quote? Dude, you can just do a little cut and paste. It makes responding to your jibberish easier.

A liberal thinks the constitution means something? That's odd. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia, national guard isn't written there. Just reminding you of the obvious.

What do liberals just not believe in a constitution? Or is it they believe in interpreting the constitution a different way? Yeah that ACLU hates the constitution (I am assuming you know who the ACLU is...) whatever, I wont be convincing your crazy ass anytime soon. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia? thanks for that insight... you seem like a sharp one. Usually you do not define something by using the same words, but I do not know stupid that well, so maybe you can inform me on what the hell that is suppose to mean.

I already stated (which you purposefully neglected, and I am getting tired of you doing) that those men that have licenses to have weapons like that have committed NO deaths. EVER. They are responsible, everyone one of them. Your argument is invalid. And QUIT TRYING TO TURN THAT STATEMENT AROUND. You like gun control, YES YOU ARE A LIBERAL. What an idiot for fuck's sake quit being an ass.

So no person that has a legal license to use a gun has committed death? How do you commit death? I know people that commit homicide or suicide, but I guess you win on that one?

You know every person that has a high powered military grade weapon? and you know they are reasonable? How many friends do you have because that is A LOT of people. You do realize states have different gun licensing laws right? So, for example, in VA you can be a complete state ward pyscho, but still have a valid license to buy banana clips for a glock that is modified to fire fully automatic rounds (this would be the Cho kid). That is a completely legal sale in that state. I guess you did not know this guy did you? Well, I mean that is only one guy so I guess that is ok.

I do not know how my argument is invalid. My "argument" or my opinion (which is what I said) is that I feel some weapons are exponentially more dangerous then others. Those weapons should not be available to the general public in my view. However, if you are licensed military, police, or something equivalent (I am thinking of the guys who train people to shoot and what not - my best bud is a gun smith and trains spec ops guys how to shoot so I trust him) then sure go ahead. But some idiot cowboy, yeah that dude can go eat a huge smelly wiener before I feel comfortable with him having some of that shit. I think that view is pretty reasonable and I do not think you can find a serious person who, even if they disagree, thinks that is unreasonable. I like reasonable gun control - which means a unified system so that everyone knows the laws, that everyone who is legally allowed access to firearms can obtain them, and so that some of that crazy shit does not get into idiots hands. I bet you would like to know what guns I have. OH NOOOO!

I am glad that you know what I am. Just in case I forget. And you do know Jesus can read forums right? He is not going to be happy when he sees the language you have been using. Better start those hail marys.

You can't be serious. You CAN'T be serious.
The most frequently quoted statement by a Supreme Court justice on the subject of privacy comes in Justice Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. U. S. (1928):

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect." But no, I'm sure you will find a way around that. A drone looking at your house is not being left alone.

What did you do wiki privacy and constitution? Good job.. I guess? But I am glad that you really like Brandeis, a HUGE liberal Justice, super progressive, all up on social justice. I guess there may be some hope for you yet?

Except that it has nothing to do with the issue of drones and privacy. The government is allowed to "spy" on you so long as they do not invade certain spaces. For example, it is completely legal for the police to fly a helicopter over your house. However, it would be illegal/unconstitutional for them to fly over your house and look around with infrared technology without a warrant to do so.

Next step, it is legal for the police to follow you, to park outside your house and wait for you to leave. It would be unconstitutional for them to come on to your property, attach a GPS device to your car, and leave and watch you on GPS.

Now to drones, it would be legal for them to fly a drone and watch you. It would be unconstitutional or illegal for them to use some of the crazy tech that drones can have to look/listen into your house without a warrant etc.

Privacy is not an absolute. There are certain places where one expects to have privacy (e.g., inside ones home) but once you step into the public space (e.g., outside of the home) you no longer have an expectation of privacy.

4th amendment jurisprudence is really cool and is always being litigated so if it interest you awesome..

Again, you incomprehensible moron, I clearly stated fall-backs so I could create a non-"always" scenario. Well you aren't incomprehensible, you now realize I'm not making such rash comments as before and are starting to realize that I am becoming correct. Please, don't answer this one, you just make yourself look foolish.

So your jerking off hands broke up with you? Sorry man.

Of course it's stupid, why wouldn't it be? Everything I post is stupid. Everything I post is wrong you bigoted idiot.

I am glad you can admit that, but how am I a bigot? Because I think you are stupid? Trust me, it has nothing to do with your race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, any of that. Mostly because of what you say... but I do not know how thinking someone is dumb because of the actual words they say makes another a bigot... please enlighten me...

ineedone

07-07-2012, 12:17 PM

So what do you call an arms dealer? Why not a weapons dealer or a guns dealer? Same shit, the wording has nothing to do with it. I gave up on dealing with you, you are a typical wanna be lawyer - cant pass the bar. When you pass it come back and speak about law to us.

You do know that words had different meanings at the time the constitution was written right? You do know that those words matter as to understanding what the constitution means right? That might be the most basic concept... I mean shit, even the righties bust out stuff like the federalist papers to back up their claims... wait... do you know what the federalist papers are? and why people use them when arguing about what the constitution means? oh shit... this is worse then I expected... New homework, read federalist papers.

I have a sweet piece of paper that says JD, I think it is kinda cool. But I will pass, it is a lot of work, but it is not really THAT hard. I mean a lot of idiots are lawyers and I am smarter then a few of them... I hope...

mantas

07-07-2012, 12:38 PM

You do know that words had different meanings at the time the constitution was written right? You do know that those words matter as to understanding what the constitution means right? That might be the most basic concept... I mean shit, even the righties bust out stuff like the federalist papers to back up their claims... wait... do you know what the federalist papers are? and why people use them when arguing about what the constitution means? oh shit... this is worse then I expected... New homework, read federalist papers.

I have a sweet piece of paper that says JD, I think it is kinda cool. But I will pass, it is a lot of work, but it is not really THAT hard. I mean a lot of idiots are lawyers and I am smarter then a few of them... I hope...

Federalist papers? Whats that? Never heard of them.........

And good luck with the bar. I dont recall the passing rate but i think its as low as 20% (correct me if im wrong) so dont act like its a walk in the park.

Origin

07-07-2012, 01:30 PM

You really do not know how to multi-quote? Dude, you can just do a little cut and paste. It makes responding to your jibberish easier.

What do liberals just not believe in a constitution? Or is it they believe in interpreting the constitution a different way? Yeah that ACLU hates the constitution (I am assuming you know who the ACLU is...) whatever, I wont be convincing your crazy ass anytime soon. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia? thanks for that insight... you seem like a sharp one. Usually you do not define something by using the same words, but I do not know stupid that well, so maybe you can inform me on what the hell that is suppose to mean.

So no person that has a legal license to use a gun has committed death? How do you commit death? I know people that commit homicide or suicide, but I guess you win on that one?

Edit: I will respond to this one, because it's so obvious to anyone with a brain or without an ego (no one in this thread really), that you BLATANTLY changed the meaning of what I said. YOU did. I typed it correctly (and no, it doesn't make you smart to point out I just said "said", and then claimed that I "typed"). I said, one more time to see if your unfathomably stupid mind can comprehend this, that those people, that HAVE the LICENSE required to own weapons that are FULL-AUTO, or things like a .50 caliber, have NOT committed any murders, from using those "Big, awesome guns.." The LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, have NOT caused any reason, to further ban those weapons. THUS, the only reason TO do it, is because SOMEONE does not want you to have them for fear of repercussion, or they just can not stand you having that liberty as it is like ants crawling on your skin. Those people who DO kill, do so at their (and the victims) OWN PERIL. A person can choose to walk away, BUT, if they want someone killed they DO NOT need a gun.

You know every person that has a high powered military grade weapon? and you know they are reasonable? How many friends do you have because that is A LOT of people. You do realize states have different gun licensing laws right? So, for example, in VA you can be a complete state ward pyscho, but still have a valid license to buy banana clips for a glock that is modified to fire fully automatic rounds (this would be the Cho kid). That is a completely legal sale in that state. I guess you did not know this guy did you? Well, I mean that is only one guy so I guess that is ok.

I do not know how my argument is invalid. My "argument" or my opinion *Knowledge is true opinion, this doesn't qualify for you, coming up next. (which is what I said) is that I feel some weapons are exponentially more dangerous then others. WRONG, weapons do not act by themselves, it's the person behind it that does. Those weapons should not be available to the general public in my view. However, if you are licensed military, police, or something equivalent Because they always do the right thing. (I am thinking of the guys who train people to shoot and what not - my best bud is a gun smith and trains spec ops guys how to shoot so I trust him) then sure go ahead. But some idiot cowboy, yeah that dude can go eat a huge smelly wiener before I feel comfortable with him having some of that shit. Show me one. More times than not, it is a city person that does moronic things like look down the barrel to see if it's loaded. If you really think a (mind you, real cowboy, you know, from out west?) does not know how to handle a gun, you have just proved how stupid you are. I think that view is pretty reasonable and I do not think you can find a serious person who, even if they disagree, thinks that is unreasonable. I like reasonable gun control - which means a unified system so that everyone knows the laws, that everyone who is legally allowed access to firearms can obtain them, and so that some of that crazy shit does not get into idiots hands. I bet you would like to know what guns I have. OH NOOOO!

I am glad that you know what I am. Just in case I forget. And you do know Jesus can read forums right? He is not going to be happy when he sees the language you have been using. Better start those hail marys.

What did you do wiki privacy and constitution? Good job.. I guess? But I am glad that you really like Brandeis, a HUGE liberal Justice, super progressive, all up on social justice. I guess there may be some hope for you yet?

Except that it has nothing to do with the issue of drones and privacy. The government is allowed to "spy" on you so long as they do not invade certain spaces. For example, it is completely legal for the police to fly a helicopter over your house. However, it would be illegal/unconstitutional for them to fly over your house and look around with infrared technology without a warrant to do so.

Next step, it is legal for the police to follow you, to park outside your house and wait for you to leave. It would be unconstitutional for them to come on to your property, attach a GPS device to your car, and leave and watch you on GPS.

Now to drones, it would be legal for them to fly a drone and watch you. It would be unconstitutional or illegal for them to use some of the crazy tech that drones can have to look/listen into your house without a warrant etc.

Privacy is not an absolute. There are certain places where one expects to have privacy (e.g., inside ones home) but once you step into the public space (e.g., outside of the home) you no longer have an expectation of privacy.

4th amendment jurisprudence is really cool and is always being litigated so if it interest you awesome..

So your jerking off hands broke up with you? Sorry man.

I am glad you can admit that, but how am I a bigot? Because I think you are stupid? Trust me, it has nothing to do with your race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, any of that. Mostly because of what you say... but I do not know how thinking someone is dumb because of the actual words they say makes another a bigot... please enlighten me...

:duh:You are now just taking things way out of the way to try and make me look bad (which is a lawyer move by the way, and in case you didn't know, they aren't well liked people), because you are starting to realize that I make sense. And I never didn't make sense. You're a wannabe, and I'm with Mantas on this one. don't bother responding, I won't be responding to you back. Since I have been answering your questions and you subsequently turned them into lies. I should thank you, now I know how to argue and what to look out for better next time I encounter a liberal.

The first sign of a Liberal, attempted exaggeration or alteration of truth when opposed.

Origin

07-07-2012, 01:48 PM

You do know that words had different meanings at the time the constitution was written right? You do know that those words matter as to understanding what the constitution means right? That might be the most basic concept... I mean shit, even the righties bust out stuff like the federalist papers to back up their claims... wait... do you know what the federalist papers are? and why people use them when arguing about what the constitution means? oh shit... this is worse then I expected... New homework, read federalist papers.

I have a sweet piece of paper that says JD, I think it is kinda cool. But I will pass, it is a lot of work, but it is not really THAT hard. I mean a lot of idiots are lawyers and I am smarter then a few of them... I hope...

WRONG, you aren't smarter. You are just better at turning peoples words into what you want others to hear. You're a jackass.

ineedone

07-07-2012, 02:57 PM

Federalist papers? Whats that? Never heard of them.........

And good luck with the bar. I dont recall the passing rate but i think its as low as 20% (correct me if im wrong) so dont act like its a walk in the park.

Thanks! The harder jurisdictions (CA, NY, DE) are closer to 70%. The rest are around 80-90% pass rates for first time takers. So, not a walk in the park, but definitely not THAT bad.

ineedone

07-07-2012, 03:13 PM

Edit: I will respond to this one, because it's so obvious to anyone with a brain or without an ego (no one in this thread really), that you BLATANTLY changed the meaning of what I said. YOU did. I typed it correctly (and no, it doesn't make you smart to point out I just said "said", and then claimed that I "typed"). I said, one more time to see if your unfathomably stupid mind can comprehend this, that those people, that HAVE the LICENSE required to own weapons that are FULL-AUTO, or things like a .50 caliber, have NOT committed any murders, from using those "Big, awesome guns.." The LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, have NOT caused any reason, to further ban those weapons. THUS, the only reason TO do it, is because SOMEONE does not want you to have them for fear of repercussion, or they just can not stand you having that liberty as it is like ants crawling on your skin. Those people who DO kill, do so at their (and the victims) OWN PERIL. A person can choose to walk away, BUT, if they want someone killed they DO NOT need a gun.

Couldn't resist could you? You are really too easy man. I am making fun of you. This whole thing, it is other people, pointing, and laughing at you. No one else is taking this seriously. If your argument is that people who do not commit crimes, have not committed a crime. Then you win. Yay!http://gifs.gifbin.com/092009/1253885876_suicide.gif

:duh:You are now just taking things way out of the way to try and make me look bad (which is a lawyer move by the way, and in case you didn't know, they aren't well liked people), because you are starting to realize that I make sense. And I never didn't make sense. You're a wannabe, and I'm with Mantas on this one. don't bother responding, I won't be responding to you back. Since I have been answering your questions and you subsequently turned them into lies. I should thank you, now I know how to argue and what to look out for better next time I encounter a liberal.

The first sign of a Liberal, attempted exaggeration or alteration of truth when opposed.

Trust me, nothing I did made you look bad. That is all on you. In NO WAY will I take any responsibility for your stupidity http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/193502_o.gif

ineedone

07-07-2012, 03:14 PM

WRONG, you aren't smarter. You are just better at turning peoples words into what you want others to hear. You're a jackass.

I thought your other post was your last post? Oh well... this is mine, it has been fun. Do not take it too seriously, I do not need you going on a murderous rampage on my conscience.

Well, toodles sweet pea, see you in a few months if you are not locked up in the looney bin!

mantas

07-07-2012, 11:06 PM

:duh:You are now just taking things way out of the way to try and make me look bad (which is a lawyer move by the way, and in case you didn't know, they aren't well liked people), because you are starting to realize that I make sense. And I never didn't make sense. You're a wannabe, and I'm with Mantas on this one. don't bother responding, I won't be responding to you back. Since I have been answering your questions and you subsequently turned them into lies. I should thank you, now I know how to argue and what to look out for better next time I encounter a liberal.

The first sign of a Liberal, attempted exaggeration or alteration of truth when opposed.

See, liberals are not worth the time, they flip the argument around just so they would not get cornered. There is really no point in debating or arguing with them, and no this whole thread is not about bashing you, its just what liberals have done to this thread. Keep up the good work my friend and ignore irrational assholes that cant stand their ground.

Origin

07-08-2012, 06:18 AM

Haha, I see what you mean. He (or she I'm starting to think) just tried to find a way on top and then booked it.

theicecreamdan

07-09-2012, 02:55 PM

What does "he" or "she" have to do with it?

raz0rbladez909

07-09-2012, 04:57 PM

What does "he" or "she" have to do with it?

He's just trying to provoke Ineedone into responding to another one of his dumbass threads/posts.

Phlip

07-09-2012, 06:43 PM

He's just trying to provoke Ineedone into responding to another one of his dumbass threads/posts.

And once the provoked responds, the instigator will refuse to face any specific rebuttal to anything he says appropriately, then call people "liberals" and accuse THEM of changing the subject or massaging the argument to their favor.
Really, the problem is his inability to properly make a point that brings anyone who doesn't already WANT to buy the bullshit he is selling and how it causes him to paint himself into a corner and then lash out in frustration in the only manner he knows how. It is quite entertaining to watch him self-immolate in thread after thread in the EXACT same manner, yet keep trying the same approach.
There is something to be said for someone who repeats the same thing over and over but expects different results.

Origin

07-10-2012, 06:37 AM

59bhp

07-10-2012, 06:46 AM

oop wrong thread

theicecreamdan

07-10-2012, 09:33 AM

But is there a difference between a he-liberal and a she-liberal?

raz0rbladez909

07-10-2012, 09:42 AM

Screw off, the thread was dead and you two resurrected it. Never met such mindless zilvians. Hard to say that. I was just agree with Mantas on what Liberals do every time they get cornered. Not really a big deal.

"There is something to be said for someone who repeats the same thing over and over but expects different results."

Yes, there is. Perhaps you should quit bitching.

Lol I fail to see how a one day difference in posts makes the thread dead, and there was three of us that resurrected it. I don't see how it's mindless to call you out on exactly what you were doing. You played the "I'm going to insult him by calling him a girl" card. It's funny how everyone who doesn't agree with you is considered a Liberal too. Maybe next time you should put more information into your thread titles instead of shit like "Here you go" and "This explains everything". Usually when you make a thread and expect a reasonable debate, you typically don't start it with things like "All you idiots/morons" and you are definitely one to talk about bitching.

Piggy

07-10-2012, 10:20 AM

I don't think any thread has given me more unintentional lol's than this one. I must waste some more time looking up past threads now.

It is quite entertaining to watch him self-immolate in thread after thread in the EXACT same manner, yet keep trying the same approach.

Pretty much.

drift freaq

07-10-2012, 11:03 AM

There is something to be said for someone who repeats the same thing over and over but expects different results.

INSANE! ! For those that don't know its the textbook definition of Insanity.

I like how Phlip said it so nicely, but I could not resist spelling it for the people that may not know.

Oh and ya this thread has been pretty insane. :rofl:

Oh and ya I challenge Origin to call me a bleeding heart liberal. Oh wait he probably has already(in other threads) because I live in California. Ah :( oh well. :rofl:

ineedone

07-22-2012, 09:36 AM

ineedone

07-22-2012, 09:39 AM

See, liberals are not worth the time, they flip the argument around just so they would not get cornered. There is really no point in debating or arguing with them, and no this whole thread is not about bashing you, its just what liberals have done to this thread. Keep up the good work my friend and ignore irrational assholes that cant stand their ground.

SO WAIT... No one was cornered? Hey, you and your totally hetero BF Origin agree as to who was or was not in the corner ok? Lets all start making some sense in here!

Daniel.

07-25-2012, 12:39 PM

Origin, just accept the fact that once Obama becomes dictator, you're going to be the first to get gassed and thrown into the mass grave.

kingkilburn

08-06-2012, 04:23 AM

I am deeply disappointed I missed out on this thread. I could have been called a "liberal" and insulted for not jumping right in line with far fetched bs with no evidence.

Walperstyle

08-06-2012, 04:34 AM

I find it funny how extreme everyone is. So much wasted time regarding politics to solve all of your personal problems.

The moment your country learns it doesn't need government to fix jobs or the economy the better off you will be.

Left or Right wing, you guys need to get off the internet and build your own future.

kingkilburn

08-06-2012, 07:29 PM

T chop

08-07-2012, 01:09 AM

When goofs like the OP post shit like this, I always wonder if they are stupid as fuck or just trolling.

kingkilburn

08-07-2012, 01:37 PM

I'd like to think he's intelligent enough but working from flawed data.

Phlip

08-07-2012, 02:49 PM

I'd like to think he's intelligent enough but working from flawed data.

His refusal to directly answer when specifically questioned has cast my doubts on the "intelligent" part. The "flawed data" part is accurate.

mantas

08-07-2012, 02:53 PM

I'd like to think he's intelligent enough but working from flawed data.

I agree the thread might not have been started with the most compelling data/article but he was trying bring attention to the subject and that is why he started it with such language. Nonetheless i think this thread has gone down hill and im staying out of it unless people stick to the subject rather than pick e fights with each other.

Daniel.

08-07-2012, 06:27 PM

His refusal to directly answer when specifically questioned has cast my doubts on the "intelligent" part. The "flawed data" part is accurate.

+1 to that.

Why bother trying to surface something you think is important, if you don't even bother to reply with a well thought out and concise argument about it in the first place?

He's totally going to be gassed first.

Origin

08-07-2012, 07:41 PM

Most people are decidedly not extreme but extreme people force you to take extreme positions in debates. When a super ultra neocon calls everyone a "liberal" for not agreeing where is the middle ground?

What you really see here is a bunch of people across the political spectrum telling someone about as far right as you can be how ridiculous there unsubstantiated claims are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBM9u1niGAE
I guess as "unsubstantiated" as the Liberal Democrat party claiming Romney is the reason a woman died for God's sake. Just everyday business for the "Left".

Joe Soptic, the man blaming Romney for wife (http://washingtonexaminer.com/joe-soptic-the-man-blaming-romney-for-wifes-death-is-a-familiar-face-on-the-anti-romney-beat/article/2504211)

Can we assume she had lung cancer because she smoked? That's Romney's fault.

But I assume you will still ask for proof when it was given, still ask questions when they can be answered by yourself, and still not accept proof when it's slapping you in the face.

This is about Obama's depravity to win is just pathetic. Look back through his history, every election he's ever won was not because he's a good politician but because he dug and dug and dug until he found something embarrassing that crushed his opponent. If he didn't find it, he made something up. Why can't he release his college records since he's asking Romney to release his taxes?

Here's a good article: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/07/quick_hits_page

Just read it, for God sakes.

And if no one likes conservatives, and conservatism is so stupid and extinct and flawed, why then are the two top radio shows in the world streamed on the internet conservative? (Look it up, I'm not going to spoon feed you.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-obama-idUSBRE87516120120806
3 mass shootings conveniently placed in election year for Obama to jump right on to. Doesn't it seem suspicious? If it does even slightly, it means you're thinking for the first time for yourself.

""All of us recognize that these kinds of terrible, tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence," Obama said at an Oval Office ceremony to sign an unrelated bill."

He says this signing an unrelated bill? Too much regularity? Sounds like a red-flag operation. Additional ways to reduce violence? How about not forcing diversity when people just want to be surrounded by there own kind? How about getting rid of the violence on TV and immorality? How about young parents teaching their kids to have morals and ethics and DISCIPLINE instead of giving into temptation? No, it's the GUNS' fault. It's the GUNS that have to go. What bill was he signing anyway?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/06/white-house-considers-executive-order-leaves-internet-takeover-a-possibility/

This one speaks for itself.

I don't particularly think I'm wrong per se, I think you just don't want me to be right. Could that be right?

Phlip, all I know is that I know nothing.

kingkilburn

08-07-2012, 08:05 PM

So rather than come forward in this debate and prove that you can be more than a lemming for neocon talk radio you've dug in and doubled down on your bs.

No one is blind to them both being career politicians. Digging for dirt on the other guy is what they do. The question is which one benefits me? It sure as fuck isn't the ultra rich habitually lying Mormon.

kingkilburn

08-07-2012, 08:06 PM

I would ask you to judge the field openly and honestly rather than be purposely blind to your side's failings.

And nothing from Rush Limbaugh is a credible source of information.

Origin

08-07-2012, 08:14 PM

I could have written that response. "Nothing from Limbaugh blah blah blah" Did you even read it? Nothing from a LIBERAL is a credible source of information. You remember my first post in loud noises? It was magnificent. You response was "I wish I could take you seriously". Perfect response to someone who has no idea how to respond because they can't come up with a lie. I bring you this, and that is what you have to say. Read and examine everything I've written. You will find I am not so far "out there". Need I remind again, I am not a right winger? Only when I have to be. And this is one of those times. Just read my post with more than a skim and a pierce of anger in your chest. Enough insults already. Just read the fucking information.

Origin

08-07-2012, 08:15 PM

No one is blind to them both being career politicians. Digging for dirt on the other guy is what they do. The question is which one benefits me? It sure as fuck isn't the ultra rich habitually lying Mormon.

You stereo-typical, hypocritical terrible man. Romney, lies? I think you are so busy watching your enemy's, you are forgetting to watch your friends. Or idols.

Does Obama benefit you because you are black?

Origin

08-07-2012, 08:19 PM

This isn't for you kilburn, this is for anyone skimming though the thread.

This was my first post in loud noises, a serious attempt:
"I'm going to throw my two cents in here and see if I can't get anyone to see what I see.

Over the short years that I have been paying attention to what matters (the direction of the nation and my future (amongst anything else that is important, not that those things are the only important things to be thought about)) I have learned that nothing at all can be done to change minds except sliding ideas in between sentences and hoping that the other person thinks about them later on and makes their own decision.

However, what's being done here, can not be ignored. While it is easy to believe what you see in front of you, I was once told to "believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see". This applies especially to the news and politics. In the past there have been many dictators and many people to learn from (if you wanted to try and control a nation are large group of people). The U.S. constitution is set in place so that the U.S. never gets a Hitler of it's own. It has been documented that Obama has indeed ignored this doctrine for the governing of the country. Some examples, trying to force citizens to buy health care (no official can force anything), bypassing Congress about implicating sorties over near Egypt and what not, amongst other things we do not know about. The unemployment numbers spoken of in this thread are biased towards Obama, it is election year after all and we must remember that. Look for the "OK" for the Keystone Pipeline near November. It can be argued that a competent president would not have to strategically make himself look good to get re-elected. Taking control of a nation is not done with force as in the past, the citizens have rights here, you do it covertly. Let me now discuss the healthcare plan. It is a mandate. Not everyone has healthcare, and making yourself look like a savior for the weak makes you look very, very good. Once the government has their foot in the door, the question remains, what else can they mandate? Anything with enough time. They can make you not drive gas driven cars anymore because it hurts the ozone, or not use the phone during certain hours because it uses to much energy and pollutes more. Seemingly innocent ideas but covertly government control. Do you see what is meant by "reading in between the lines"? It seems to me, as the one that speaks alone and ridiculed is the one that is correct. Why? Because they can see the truth through the lies. Returning to Obama. The Democrats love him. There is no one running against him. The Republicans are ridiculed because of their actions. But let us note however, that during Bush's reign (I will use the term "reign" lightly for Bush as well as Obama) when gas hit $2.00 a gallon the country was ready to storm the White House, but under Obama mind you, $4.00 is the "new norm". I'd like to ask foolish axiomatik if that sits well with him.

Of course anyone who says "he's trying to take the country over" will sound like a fool and anyone with him as well. I am uncertain what his plans are, I am uncertain what will happen all over the world in the next year, but what I do know is that Obama isn't on our side. Our government officials (not, leaders) would not cater to the enemy. Radical Islam is not one take lightly or be respected. Obama recently welcomed leaders of the Egyptian Brotherhood into the White House which you didn't hear on ABC. To put it more intelligently, here is a quote from Churchill:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Without bipartisanship, is this really the type of government that is to be in place in the U.S.? The facts are all "there" and here a like. All you have to do is see them for what they are. I am an Independent. If the democrats were where the Republicans are and the Republicans where the Democrats are I would vote Democrat. I am lead by what is right after painstakingly long deliberation. And this is not right."

This is kilburn's first response:
"I wish I could take you seriously enough to post a real reply."

Phlip, it's very very hard to be patient against something like this. Hence why I never always give full answers. I can't seem to engage liberals directly. They ask for a direct answer, and then respond... sarcastically?

Origin

08-07-2012, 08:24 PM

I would ask you to judge the field openly and honestly rather than be purposely blind to your side's failings.

I AM, I am judging by what is right. I don't like my presidents opaque and liars.

kingkilburn

08-07-2012, 08:55 PM

Yeah. Done here. Have fun with all this.

vehicle336

08-07-2012, 09:10 PM

How about not forcing diversity when people just want to be surrounded by there own kind?

Origin, that line right there tells me EVERYTHING there is to know about you.

Honestly, I was actually interested in what you were saying, I really wanted to understand where you were coming from because on some points I agree. I was going to follow you down that rabbit hole, but then your true colors came out in this inconspicuously placed line.

See, people that genuinely speak through logic and reasoning in order to present their argument can be liberal or conservative, right or left. You sir are neither.

Only racist, inherently bigoted assholes speak of 'forced diversity' and 'their own kind'. Especially those that are really white supremacists like you.

Just stop typing, everything you've ever said in this thread is garbage because it all comes from a place of hatred and racism. Nothing you've typed at all has any value and you're an embarrassment to real conservatives.

Daniel.

08-07-2012, 09:26 PM

Origin, why haven't you responded to any of ineedone's posts in an intelligent and direct manner?

mantas

08-07-2012, 10:13 PM

Origin, that line right there tells me EVERYTHING there is to know about you.

Honestly, I was actually interested in what you were saying, I really wanted to understand where you were coming from because on some points I agree. I was going to follow you down that rabbit hole, but then your true colors came out in this inconspicuously placed line.

See, people that genuinely speak through logic and reasoning in order to present their argument can be liberal or conservative, right or left. You sir are neither.

Only racist, inherently bigoted assholes speak of 'forced diversity' and 'their own kind'. Especially those that are really white supremacists like you.

Just stop typing, everything you've ever said in this thread is garbage because it all comes from a place of hatred and racism. Nothing you've typed at all has any value and you're an embarrassment to real conservatives.

Typical liberal - assuming again. Dont even tell me that you are a conservative. If someone of Canadian descent wants to assimilate with his own kind in this country he or he should have every right to do so. If you want to have friends from every color/national origin/religious backround; you should be allowed to do just the same. He was not implying that people should stick to their kind, but if they choose to they have the fucking right - this is America and there is nothing wrong with doing one or the other. Why should someone be judged because of who they want to hangout with? If Mexicans hangout with only Mexicans and Russians hangoit with only Russians do we call them racist? Let them, this is a free country you ignorant prick.

ineedone

08-08-2012, 05:44 AM

Origin, why haven't you responded to any of ineedone's posts in an intelligent and direct manner?

His dog ate his microsoft word with the really smart answers. He PMed me. It is cool.

ineedone

08-08-2012, 06:16 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBM9u1niGAE
I guess as "unsubstantiated" as the Liberal Democrat party claiming Romney is the reason a woman died for God's sake. Just everyday business for the "Left".

Joe Soptic, the man blaming Romney for wife (http://washingtonexaminer.com/joe-soptic-the-man-blaming-romney-for-wifes-death-is-a-familiar-face-on-the-anti-romney-beat/article/2504211)

Can we assume she had lung cancer because she smoked? That's Romney's fault.

Well, that is a SuperPAC ad. Not an Obama ad. Romney put out an ad misquoting a speech from the president with a guy saying he built a company all by himself... he just forgot about that cool million in government assistance and the 10% of his business that directly relies on government contracts. My point... political ads are... well... political ads and have almost zero merit. But you can cry about it if you want.

But I assume you will still ask for proof when it was given, still ask questions when they can be answered by yourself, and still not accept proof when it's slapping you in the face.

What "truth?" Are we suppose to be operating off the assumption that anything you say is true? Because that seems, well, not right.

This is about Obama's depravity to win is just pathetic. Look back through his history, every election he's ever won was not because he's a good politician but because he dug and dug and dug until he found something embarrassing that crushed his opponent. If he didn't find it, he made something up. Why can't he release his college records since he's asking Romney to release his taxes?

Depravity to win? Do you even know what that means? Every election he has won was from opposition research? I was a Hilary supporter and her losing the nomination to Barack had nothing to do with opposition research. Beating McCain had nothing to do with opposition research. Mit Romney does this to himself. Honestly, the guy has been running for president for 10 years at least, he should have been expecting the tax questions. The tax question is not "dirt" it is incompetence on both his and his campaign's part.

What has the Obama campaign made up? Not Reed, not a super pac, the Obama campaign.

I guess I can see why you would want his college records... It is safe to say he got solid grades. Getting on law review (any law review) means you were at least top 10% of your class. That is done by anonymous grading. Becoming ME of a law review is like a class president election so... make something up about that if you want... but it takes a pretty dedicated student to make law review and I would find it almost impossible that someone could all of the sudden make law review after sucking ass through highschool and undergrad.

Here's a good article: Quick Hits Page - The Rush Limbaugh Show (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/07/quick_hits_page)

Just read it, for God sakes.

I learned a lot by "reading" this article like this little gem here "Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

Rush is an Oxy addicted Jabba the Hut.

And if no one likes conservatives, and conservatism is so stupid and extinct and flawed, why then are the two top radio shows in the world streamed on the internet conservative? (Look it up, I'm not going to spoon feed you.)

They say crazy shit and people like hearing crazy shit. The model that "conservative" talk radio follows is not a "news" model. It is a shock jock model. Most of them do not believe half the shit they say, but they like the size of their bank accounts so they keep just vomiting up Obama hate. I bet if you did a study you would find out that most of those shows want... no, NEED, Obama to win reelection so that they can keep up their numbers.

Obama: America needs soul searching on gun violence | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-obama-idUSBRE87516120120806)
3 mass shootings conveniently placed in election year for Obama to jump right on to. Doesn't it seem suspicious? If it does even slightly, it means you're thinking for the first time for yourself.

So... are you saying Obama orchestrated 3 mass shootings? Is this where we are suppose to take you seriously?

""All of us recognize that these kinds of terrible, tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence," Obama said at an Oval Office ceremony to sign an unrelated bill."

He says this signing an unrelated bill? Too much regularity? Sounds like a red-flag operation. Additional ways to reduce violence? How about not forcing diversity when people just want to be surrounded by there own kind? How about getting rid of the violence on TV and immorality? How about young parents teaching their kids to have morals and ethics and DISCIPLINE instead of giving into temptation? No, it's the GUNS' fault. It's the GUNS that have to go. What bill was he signing anyway?

So the president should not comment on recent events? ok... and it is not "red flag" it is "false flag." Forcing diversity? where is that happening and... what? Really? Dude... that right there is actual racist talk. That is what white power guys say. I am not even trying to be funny, that is actually racist. Congrats?

Violence on TV and immorality? How did that lead to anything? That stupid claim has been rebutted by psychologist for years but hey... maybe you know something all of them do not. Like to see your "proof" on that. Giving in to temptation? What the hell are you even talking about? How many times to people have to say that no one is going to take your guns away... seriously every single claim is completely false and has been proven as such. And tell me again why requiring guns to be treated like cars is a bad thing... registering your weapons and passing a test to make sure you can handle them is total communist socialist gun grabbing nonsense. What is it that makes that concept so visceral to you? Seriously, I want a real answer.

White House considers executive order, leaves Internet takeover a possibility | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/06/white-house-considers-executive-order-leaves-internet-takeover-a-possibility/)

This one speaks for itself.

I love when the Daily Caller claims something is "left open to executive privilege." They have used that claim more times then I can count. Keep believing... :newbie:

I don't particularly think I'm wrong per se, I think you just don't want me to be right. Could that be right?

No, you are wrong. That is one thing that is for sure. It has nothing to do with not wanting you to be right... see you have failed at every attempt to prove or show anything. All you do is post partisan bullshit. It would be like if I just posted moveon.org post to rebut your Daily Caller post...

Phlip, all I know is that I know nothing.

Finally, he sees the light!

ineedone

08-08-2012, 06:21 AM

Says this

I agree the thread might not have been started with the most compelling data/article but he was trying bring attention to the subject and that is why he started it with such language. Nonetheless i think this thread has gone down hill and im staying out of it unless people stick to the subject rather than pick e fights with each other.

Does this

Typical liberal - assuming again. Dont even tell me that you are a conservative. If someone of Canadian descent wants to assimilate with his own kind in this country he or he should have every right to do so. If you want to have friends from every color/national origin/religious backround; you should be allowed to do just the same. He was not implying that people should stick to their kind, but if they choose to they have the fucking right - this is America and there is nothing wrong with doing one or the other. Why should someone be judged because of who they want to hangout with? If Mexicans hangout with only Mexicans and Russians hangoit with only Russians do we call them racist? Let them, this is a free country you ignorant prick.

Oh, you two are so cute. So much that I am starting to believe you may be the same person with two screen names.

What he said was "forced diversity" which is HUGELY different than people just wanting to chill with whoever they want. Not that you could figure that out on your own.

Origin

08-08-2012, 08:33 AM

Origin, that line right there tells me EVERYTHING there is to know about you.

Honestly, I was actually interested in what you were saying, I really wanted to understand where you were coming from because on some points I agree. I was going to follow you down that rabbit hole, but then your true colors came out in this inconspicuously placed line.

See, people that genuinely speak through logic and reasoning in order to present their argument can be liberal or conservative, right or left. You sir are neither.

Only racist, inherently bigoted assholes speak of 'forced diversity' and 'their own kind'. Especially those that are really white supremacists like you.

Just stop typing, everything you've ever said in this thread is garbage because it all comes from a place of hatred and racism. Nothing you've typed at all has any value and you're an embarrassment to real conservatives.

I will be honest, I did misspeak on that one. It didn't come out like I meant it to. I was gunning for a "people want things to stay the way they are since they grew up" sort of thing. I'm sure you can think it, but I am not racist. In anyway. If you really think the military wasn't forcibly diversified then you have not thought deeply enough. I'm not sure why Muslims are gaining such a foothold on the entire world. I just can't come up with an answer. Say what you want about what I believe because apparently you have a Ph.D, but I am no white supremacist. Some ones mad.

Origin

08-08-2012, 08:35 AM

Typical liberal - assuming again. Dont even tell me that you are a conservative. If someone of Canadian descent wants to assimilate with his own kind in this country he or he should have every right to do so. If you want to have friends from every color/national origin/religious backround; you should be allowed to do just the same. He was not implying that people should stick to their kind, but if they choose to they have the fucking right - this is America and there is nothing wrong with doing one or the other. Why should someone be judged because of who they want to hangout with? If Mexicans hangout with only Mexicans and Russians hangoit with only Russians do we call them racist? Let them, this is a free country you ignorant prick.

Well only when it is an American saying that is it not ok. Or even doing it for that matter. But Mexicans can hate Russians, and Russians can hate Americans but that's ok, they are foreigners.

Origin

08-08-2012, 08:37 AM

Origin, why haven't you responded to any of ineedone's posts in an intelligent and direct manner?

His dog ate his microsoft word with the really smart answers. He PMed me. It is cool.

This is why. I never PMed him. Just a liar.

It's hard to discuss something with an asshole. I could give good answers, but, being a wannabe lawyer, he will ALWAYS find a way to shoot them down. Always. So I don't even try. I think he likes hearing himself think and think that he is smart.

Origin

08-08-2012, 08:39 AM

Yeah. Done here. Have fun with all this.

Hahaha. Thank you.

Origin

08-08-2012, 08:44 AM

Finally, he sees the light!

I was certain you weren't cultured. Heh.

Origin

08-08-2012, 08:48 AM

Says this

Does this

Oh, you two are so cute. So much that I am starting to believe you may be the same person with two screen names.

What he said was "forced diversity" which is HUGELY different than people just wanting to chill with whoever they want. Not that you could figure that out on your own.

Oh you are so sad. I was right, I think. You don't have friends. You are trying to be a lawyer so you have no job, and you have no friends because you have to "study" so much, or maybe they just can't take how much of a dick you are. Haha.

The difference between you and I is that I'm trying to prove what's really happening here. You are just trying to prove me wrong. Professional parasite. I wouldn't comment on that name either.

EnemyS15

08-08-2012, 09:35 AM

I AM, I am judging by what is right. I don't like my presidents opaque and liars.

You were born many generations too late. You start off with "to see if others see what I see", then u go into a full frontal e trantrum when others "don't see what you see". You start throwing out childish labels and the you are all wrong and I'm right nah nah nah shit.

At the end of the day, what does all of this change?? What are you doing to make a change in the direction YOU want it to go? Are you one of those that tries to educate others of what you believe is wrong? That is not doing shit to make a change. Gtfo this thread and be somebody.

mantas

08-08-2012, 09:49 AM

Says this

Does this

Oh, you two are so cute. So much that I am starting to believe you may be the same person with two screen names.

What he said was "forced diversity" which is HUGELY different than people just wanting to chill with whoever they want. Not that you could figure that out on your own.

He said what about not forcing diversity if people want to hang out with their own kind.

Dont jump in here and throw in "forced diversity" before even reading his original post, what are you dyslexic?

Once again typical liberal, does not read, assumes, throws big words around and points fingers but has no idea that he just made no connection to the original post and accused someone of being dumb because he cant read himself. I dont understand where people like you come from....

ineedone

08-08-2012, 09:49 AM

How many more times do we need to go over this... use multiquote...

I will be honest, I did misspeak on that one. It didn't come out like I meant it to. I was gunning for a "people want things to stay the way they are since they grew up" sort of thing. I'm sure you can think it, but I am not racist. In anyway. If you really think the military wasn't forcibly diversified then you have not thought deeply enough. I'm not sure why Muslims are gaining such a foothold on the entire world. I just can't come up with an answer. Say what you want about what I believe because apparently you have a Ph.D, but I am no white supremacist. Some ones mad.

What the hell are you talking about? Military was forcibly diversified? Do you mean they were no longer allowed to discriminate based on race? Or are you trying to say that by letting women and gays in the military we are forcing these poor heteros to deal with vaginas and style?

And Muslims gaining a foothold? As to what? More than a 1/3 of the world is considered Christian. Whereas, Islam is maybe 15-20% of the worlds population. To say Islam is gaining a foothold is to say something like Hindu is because they are around the same 15% or people who have no religion which is around 15%. But I dunno, tell me where you picked that little factoid up.

You can say all you want, but the words you have said in this thread lean heavily towards racist. Maybe you just did not know you were a racist until other non-white people were like... dude that shit you believe... it's racist.

This is why. I never PMed him. Just a liar.

It's hard to discuss something with an asshole. I could give good answers, but, being a wannabe lawyer, he will ALWAYS find a way to shoot them down. Always. So I don't even try. I think he likes hearing himself think and think that he is smart.

You PMed me that you were really sorry about saying bad words because Jesus would not do that... It is hard to discuss something when you have no understanding of it. But this is not even at the level of a yelling match. This is just you saying stupid things, other people going WTF did that come from, then you being LIBRUL and crying then punching your keyboard.

I was certain you weren't cultured. Heh.

Explain being cultured to me...

Oh you are so sad. I was right, I think. You don't have friends. You are trying to be a lawyer so you have no job, and you have no friends because you have to "study" so much, or maybe they just can't take how much of a dick you are. Haha.

The difference between you and I is that I'm trying to prove what's really happening here. You are just trying to prove me wrong. Professional parasite. I wouldn't comment on that name either.

Well, I am not sad, but a happy person. Facebook says I have lots of friends...(that was a joke because you seem to miss those a lot). I am not sure how I am "trying" to be a lawyer which makes me have no job (I think I have said before I work for a Veteran's law clinic... but I doubt you read so... yeah I do "work"). I am only a dick to you, not my friends... duh.

I thought you were not going to keep commenting in this thread like months ago? I am just telling you you are stupid, it has nothing to do with proving anything. For being such a good Christian... you seem to have missed a lot of the fundamental teachings. Professional parasite? So helping veterans makes me a parasite... hmm what does that make you? (serious question).

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24565671.jpg

ineedone

08-08-2012, 09:55 AM

He said what about not forcing diversity if people want to hang out with their own kind.

Dont jump in here and throw in "forced diversity" before even reading his original post, what are you dyslexic?

Once again typical liberal, does not read, assumes, throws big words around and points fingers but has no idea that he just made no connection to the original post and accused someone of being dumb because he cant read himself. I dont understand where people like you come from....

How about not forcing diversity when people just want to be surrounded by there own kind?

What is the difference between forced diversity and forcing diversity? Ill jump in the pool whenever I want. You still need to figure out how to answer shit from a couple months ago before you are allowed to have an opinion.

PS. Forced is a smaller word than Forcing....big words.

Origin

08-08-2012, 10:32 AM

I tried to reason with you, but you go off a childish tantrum like every post that takes you 20 minutes to compose picking apart every sentence and expecting me to actually answer the same way back. Every childish picture makes it worse, every childish insult. You aren't even making good points, all you do is insult. It's pathetic, and somehow you "helping" veterans (yeah right) makes you some sort of saint. I like how liberals play veterans off as weak men. What exactly do they need help with? Getting work? EVERYONE needs help getting work. Your president isn't doing anything about it, yet you stick up for him. Or wait, are you just arguing to be a dick like I believed you claimed a few pages back? You are admitting to being a professional parasite. I only say professional because, well did you pass that test?

And bravo to the officials for putting women in the military in more than desk jobs. Because I would trust a girl to carry me 1 mile to safety in the heat of a battle, especially when they aren't required to do full push-ups and are allowed to do girl push-ups. But that's OK.

See here ineedone: http://nicfletch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/31947478576360623_21uwqdnd_c.jpg

Yes I know how to embed but I didn't. Fucking deal with it crybaby.

mantas

08-08-2012, 10:41 AM

What is the difference between forced diversity and forcing diversity? Ill jump in the pool whenever I want. You still need to figure out how to answer shit from a couple months ago before you are allowed to have an opinion.

PS. Forced is a smaller word than Forcing....big words.

You know what you are right, everything you say is true.

Fyi i dont even remember what was said two months ago in this forum but not going to waste my time with that because i dont have to answer to anyone just to have an opinion. And i was trying to clear things up and keep my opinion out of it but i saw no other way after the accusations started pouring ib, but you keep taking things out of context along with a few other nembers who are participating in the discussion.

raz0rbladez909

08-08-2012, 10:50 AM

And bravo to the officials for putting women in the military in more than desk jobs. Because I would trust a girl to carry me 1 mile to safety in the heat of a battle, especially when they aren't required to do full push-ups and are allowed to do girl push-ups. But that's OK.

See here ineedone: http://nicfletch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/31947478576360623_21uwqdnd_c.jpg

They do full push-ups in the Navy, just alot less lol You'd actually be surprised at some of the chicks that are in the military though, some are alot more masculine then some of the dudes that are in lol

Phlip

08-08-2012, 10:50 AM

I would LOVE to see Origin answer this.

What "truth?" Are we suppose to be operating off the assumption that anything you say is true? Because that seems, well, not right.
I mean, an answer - perhaps even acknowledgment of this question he glossed over before would remind us again why he should not be taken seriously.

ineedone

08-08-2012, 10:55 AM

I tried to reason with you, but you go off a childish tantrum like every post that takes you 20 minutes to compose picking apart every sentence and expecting me to actually answer the same way back. Every childish picture makes it worse, and somehow you "helping" veterans (yeah right) makes you some sort of saint. I like how liberals play veterans off as weak men. What exactly do they need help with? Getting work? EVERYONE needs help getting work. Your president isn't doing anything about it, yet you stick up for him. Or wait, are you just arguing to be a dick like I believed you claimed a few pages back? You are admitting to being a professional parasite. I only say professional because, well did you pass that test?

The pictures are for my own enjoyment... memes are hilarious.

I never said it made me a saint... you said I do not work and I am a professional parasite.

I am not sure how I am playing veterans off as weak? But I serve both men and women. Veterans benefits are no easy game... As I am sure you know. I help them with filing claims, structuring their claims, making wills, health directives, appeals, etc.

Our president (I know you do not like blacks, but he is still your president too!) has actually done a lot for veterans. One example is making it far easier to make a claim for PTSD - this was in 2010 and the regulation is 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (see that is how you prove something). There is also a lot more money being pumped into the benefits program (something Republicans tried to cut... not that it really matters since both parties suck when it comes to actually helping service members).

Also, many federal agencies have a bunch of pilot programs right now that allow for direct hiring of veterans and priority hiring of veterans. There is also another program that I know of that allows veterans internships with certain NGOs and the VA itself is trying to hire a lot of veterans. A lot of the ones I work with though are mostly Vietnam era vets who cannot work. Usually they are on some form of disability and make less than 12k a year. Most have pretty severe injuries that make it essentially impossible for them to even be hired even if they technically could work.

Its a non-profit and we do not charge anything to the vets for what we do. But hey, parasites man.

Origin

08-08-2012, 10:56 AM

I thought you were not going to keep commenting in this thread like months ago? I am just telling you you are stupid,

Well, these days, it's OK to take time out of your day, to call someone stupid. Or try and prove it at least (I guess he didn't see my first post in loud noises), I can't believe the cultural decline that has taken place the last few decades. Since when is it social just to (in this case) take apart every few sentences of someones post to try and make an ass out of them? I'm talking to brick walls, because no one agrees with someone who speaks of morality and with traditional American ethos. America sucks, and if you don't move into a multi-cultural neighborhood you are racist, if you don't let women do a man's job, you're sexist, and if you don't believe in gay marriage, you should be crucified.

Tell me why you think you are better than me, and how it is that you are superior enough to call me stupid, youneedabrainone?

ineedone

08-08-2012, 10:58 AM

AH Sneaky edit there!

And bravo to the officials for putting women in the military in more than desk jobs. Because I would trust a girl to carry me 1 mile to safety in the heat of a battle, especially when they aren't required to do full push-ups and are allowed to do girl push-ups. But that's OK.

See here ineedone: http://nicfletch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/31947478576360623_21uwqdnd_c.jpg

Whoa... that was hard to fix...

Yes I know how to embed but I didn't. Fucking deal with it crybaby.

Learn to use the internet and go apologize to Jesus for cussing. The Israeli military does not seem to have a problem with women being trained killing badasses. But I guess they must be a pussy military who does not have to deal with crazy shit... right?

ineedone

08-08-2012, 11:00 AM

ineedone

08-08-2012, 11:01 AM

You know what you are right, everything you say is true.

Fyi i dont even remember what was said two months ago in this forum but not going to waste my time with that because i dont have to answer to anyone just to have an opinion. And i was trying to clear things up and keep my opinion out of it but i saw no other way after the accusations started pouring ib, but you keep taking things out of context along with a few other nembers who are participating in the discussion.

What was out of context?

Origin

08-08-2012, 11:03 AM

I would LOVE to see Origin answer this.

I mean, an answer - perhaps even acknowledgment of this question he glossed over before would remind us again why he should not be taken seriously.

Actually the word truth wasn't in that quote he quoted. I said proof. Which could be the same thing, but hey, details. I would like to see you respond to anything, you have 14000 posts and somehow you think you can just sit there and chime in at your convenience and dictate what it is I have to do? Showing proof I'm wrong does not mean that I am. Lawyers are crafty people and can turn lead into gold with enough, bitching.

How are we supposed to take anything he says seriously? He does not provide facts. No articles on his opinions, he is just a liberal pretending he's right and somehow that's believable? I speak the truth and you don't like it and now I'm the bad guy? Screw off, I don't care if you don't like it. That's why the first amendment exists. I'm wondering why you don't take it as truth. I'm a paranoid lunatic? Prove it.

Origin

08-08-2012, 11:07 AM

AH Sneaky edit there!

Learn to use the internet and go apologize to Jesus for cussing. The Israeli military does not seem to have a problem with women being trained killing badasses. But I guess they must be a pussy military who does not have to deal with crazy shit... right?

You are good at hiding anger.

I didn't say women are couldn't do the job, per se, I implied that they can't here because they aren't required the same training as men are. Unless you want to call Leon sexist because he doesn't think that women can do the same thing as men can. Israel has been fine without us for a long time. But I don't think a woman should have to see what war will make you see. Some part of the country has to have a soul left when they come back.

ineedone

08-08-2012, 11:09 AM

Well, these days, it's OK to take time out of your day, to call someone stupid. Or try and prove it at least (I guess he didn't see my first post in loud noises), I can't believe the cultural decline that has taken place the last few decades. Since when is it social just to (in this case) take apart every few sentences of someones post to try and make an ass out of them? I'm talking to brick walls, because no one agrees with someone who speaks of morality and with traditional American ethos. America sucks, and if you don't move into a multi-cultural neighborhood you are racist, if you don't let women do a man's job, you're sexist, and if you don't believe in gay marriage, you should be crucified.

Tell me why you think you are better than me, and how it is that you are superior enough to call me stupid, youneedabrainone?

So wait... the last few decades? what are you like over 30?

It is social because you said actual STUPID shit. Seriously. It was DUMB. Really Really DUMB. If I went around telling people I can talk to the dead and that I own a spaceship I would expect people to respond with - dude that shit sounds pretty dumb, go get checked out.

You talk about morality and decency yet all you do is attempt to berate people with fowl language and name calling - I do it to you because it is fun and you are so hypocritical that it is hilarious.

No one calls you a racist for not living in a multiculural neighborhood, they call you a racist because you do not want "other" people moving next to you.

What is a mans job by the way? I know plenty of women who are just as strong if not stronger than men. I know plenty of women who are not. You are a sexist when you say women can not do something just because they do not have a dick. You moron.

What does gay marriage have to do with anything? Seriously, what happens to you when two guys or two girls love each other and want the same tax benefits and health benefits when a man a woman love each other? Seriously... you heaping pile of moron... explain how that affects you at all. Are you secretly gay and just super jealous because your church is homophobic idiots who cannot understand the shit they supposedly believe? I do not get it...

ineedone

08-08-2012, 11:12 AM

You are good at hiding anger.

I didn't say women are couldn't do the job, per se, I implied that they can't here because they aren't required the same training as men are. Unless you want to call Leon sexist because he doesn't think that women can do the same thing as men can. Israel has been fine without us for a long time. But I don't think a woman should have to see what war will make you see. Some part of the country has to have a soul left when they come back.

...you are an idiot. You want proof... it is in bold. I believe adults can make those decision for themselves and they do not need some derp derp to tell them what they can and can not handle.

Am I hiding my anger or hiding in my anger? Trust me, you wouldn't like me when I get angry

I can turn lead into gold? I did not take that class in lawschool... shit.

Origin

08-08-2012, 11:28 AM

...you are an idiot. You want proof... it is in bold. I believe adults can make those decision for themselves and they do not need some derp derp to tell them what they can and can not handle.

Am I hiding my anger or hiding in my anger? Trust me, you wouldn't like me when I get angry

I can turn lead into gold? I did not take that class in lawschool... shit.

I got back into this thread without hopes that you would not respond again. You are like a tick for God's sakes, you just don't shut up. I am an idiot because I don't want a human being to see heads exploding. In other words I am an idiot because I care for the health of others, mental that is. I can not believe you take yourself seriously. I can not believe it. You are so full of yourself it is INCREDIBLE, the most stubborn loser I have ever met. Yes, you are a loser. You take time OUT OF YOUR DAY, to insult me, and make those rather long posts (which take more than 10 minutes to create. They just do.), to try and prove.. nothing.

Tell me, what is it your problem with me?

Origin

08-08-2012, 11:34 AM

So wait... the last few decades? what are you like over 30?

It is social because you said actual STUPID shit. Seriously. It was DUMB. Really Really DUMB. If I went around telling people I can talk to the dead and that I own a spaceship I would expect people to respond with - dude that shit sounds pretty dumb, go get checked out.

You talk about morality and decency yet all you do is attempt to berate people with fowl language and name calling - I do it to you because it is fun and you are so hypocritical that it is hilarious.

No one calls you a racist for not living in a multiculural neighborhood, they call you a racist because you do not want "other" people moving next to you.

What is a mans job by the way? I know plenty of women who are just as strong if not stronger than men. I know plenty of women who are not. You are a sexist when you say women can not do something just because they do not have a dick. You moron.

What does gay marriage have to do with anything? Seriously, what happens to you when two guys or two girls love each other and want the same tax benefits and health benefits when a man a woman love each other? Seriously... you heaping pile of moron... explain how that affects you at all. Are you secretly gay and just super jealous because your church is homophobic idiots who cannot understand the shit they supposedly believe? I do not get it...

That part makes it OK. You , not me, are the supremacist here. YOU think you are above me. YOU think you are better. YOU think you are some sort of deciding force. YOU are nothing. You just aren't, you have some seriously flaws and the sooner you recognize them, the better. Please, talk to someone about your anger. you can't just find an outlet and let it go. I know I am your outlet. But maybe graduating not at the very front of your class (if you did) makes you think you are a failure, but it doesn't mean anything. You can still be all you can be, ineedone. If you need to fill your time, learn a trade, you can't focus your negative feelings into your work. It makes for great exposure.

Origin

08-08-2012, 11:35 AM

I would LOVE to have a thread with intelligent discussion on a subject that means something. But as long as you ineedone, are here, that can not happen. If I create another thread, you best not post. Let's see what happens.

mantas

08-08-2012, 11:37 AM

What was out of context?

You arguing the difference between forced and forcing. May be taking things out of context is not how i should describe your nonsense response but you focused on the irrelevant. We all understand what is being discussed and instead of trying to define words why dont you explain what is so wrong about origins statement or mine? All im doing is clearing up the fact that he is not a racist just by saying people should be allowed to hangout with their own kind.

ineedone

08-08-2012, 11:44 AM

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/97/229580594_e8e2589da7_z.jpg?zz=1

Daniel.

08-08-2012, 12:16 PM

This is why. I never PMed him. Just a liar.

It's hard to discuss something with an asshole. I could give good answers, but, being a wannabe lawyer, he will ALWAYS find a way to shoot them down. Always. So I don't even try. I think he likes hearing himself think and think that he is smart.

It's always hard to argue with facts. That's ok. You'll go far in life.

raz0rbladez909

08-08-2012, 12:27 PM

If I create another thread, you best not post. Let's see what happens.

Please don't, for everyone elses sake.

kingkilburn

08-08-2012, 02:32 PM

I would LOVE to have a thread with intelligent discussion on a subject that means something.

We have those all the time. Then you log in.

raz0rbladez909

08-08-2012, 02:37 PM

We have those all the time. Then you log in.

ZIINNNNNGGGGGGG:ddog:

S14DB

08-08-2012, 04:53 PM

It's always hard to argue with facts. That's ok. You'll go far in life.

I hear the coal mine is hiring...

drift freaq

08-08-2012, 11:59 PM

We have those all the time. Then you log in.

Wow Origin got zinged by KingKilburn :rofl: Hell King usually rises to the occasion on opinionated discussions. Of course I can see why he would not bother with Origin. I mean really did he get his screen name from Stargate SG1? :rofl:
It actually fits now that I think of it because the Ori spouted as much bullshit as Orign does and their religion was called Origin. I wonder if the writer met Origin before he wrote those episodes. hahahhahaha

cdlong

08-09-2012, 07:23 AM

Obama: America needs soul searching on gun violence | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-obama-idUSBRE87516120120806)
3 mass shootings conveniently placed in election year for Obama to jump right on to. Doesn't it seem suspicious? If it does even slightly, it means you're thinking for the first time for yourself.

""All of us recognize that these kinds of terrible, tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence," Obama said at an Oval Office ceremony to sign an unrelated bill."

He says this signing an unrelated bill? Too much regularity? Sounds like a red-flag operation. Additional ways to reduce violence? How about not forcing diversity when people just want to be surrounded by there own kind? How about getting rid of the violence on TV and immorality? How about young parents teaching their kids to have morals and ethics and DISCIPLINE instead of giving into temptation? No, it's the GUNS' fault. It's the GUNS that have to go. What bill was he signing anyway?

To answer your last question, it was the Honoring Americas Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/06/remarks-president-signing-honoring-americas-veterans-and-caring-camp-lej) Which kinda proves your baseless claim that the president isn't doing anything to help veterans is false.

Not that that matters because he was answering this question from a reporter in an impromptu press conference.

Q "Mr. President, after the Wisconsin shooting, are you going to push for any further gun control measures?"

But why did you go straight to "black helicopters are gonna take away mah raaghts and make me live down the street from brown people!" Maybe the additional ways are things like better access to mental health care, closer monitoring of known hate groups. You know, stuff that the government already does and could probably be better at. He didn't say anything about gun control. In fact, his answer was as close to stepping up gun control as it was to loosening gun regulations so more people would be packing. The fact that that's where you went without hesitation shows you have more bias than everyone else here.

Phlip

08-09-2012, 08:29 AM

To answer your last question, it was the Honoring Americas Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/06/remarks-president-signing-honoring-americas-veterans-and-caring-camp-lej) Which kinda proves your baseless claim that the president isn't doing anything to help veterans is false.

Not that that matters because he was answering this question from a reporter in an impromptu press conference.

Q "Mr. President, after the Wisconsin shooting, are you going to push for any further gun control measures?"

But why did you go straight to "black helicopters are gonna take away mah raaghts and make me live down the street from brown people!" Maybe the additional ways are things like better access to mental health care, closer monitoring of known hate groups. You know, stuff that the government already does and could probably be better at. He didn't say anything about gun control. In fact, his answer was as close to stepping up gun control as it was to loosening gun regulations so more people would be packing. The fact that that's where you went without hesitation shows you have more bias than everyone else here.

Fun fact: he will NOT respond directly to this. If he says anything in response to your post, it will be to call you a “liberal,” or simply to tell you that he is not going to respond because no one is going to buy what he is selling anyway.
Wait… that last sentence, which is a tactic he has actually used, is tantamount to being a quitter.

Oh damn, I used one of those big words, I must be a liberal.

Anyway…
The only thing that I am taking from Origin’s posts is:

If you do not believe that Obama will overtake your bank account and give your money to poor people, while at the same time sending FBI goons to your house with dogs to take your guns so you cannot properly defend yourself when those same poor people do what poor people do in getting BACK to the poorhouse, then you are a LIBERAL.
It is wholly acceptable to begin a heated conversation/debate, when met with opposition to your STILL unfounded opinions to respond with no response at all instead of intelligently and completely explaining why you feel as you do. A simple change of subject will suffice when this doesn’t work.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong... Alas, I have not yet.
With that in mind, you're wasting your time talking to him, as he only likes to talk to people who believe what he does.
And he only wants to live around people who look like him, which is totally understandable since he is in an area that is only like 7% minorities.