Reply With Quote
My suggestion is you to the bare minimum of research here and read that passage again carefully, and tell me if your stated understanding of the events at Columbine changes.
My suggestion is you to the bare minimum of research here and read that passage again carefully, and tell me if your stated understanding of the events at Columbine changes.
Yeah, this approach probably works better.
Like I said I have not researched the Columbine incident enough to give you my personal break down on the subject.
What I do know is I was called out for saying Columbine had no armed guards so I posted how they were of little help. If names and details got skewed in the process I can't help that.
Either way you all fail if there were guards they didn't have the proper training or made a huge difference you can't have it both ways.
mouse, you claimed that Eric Harris was a resource officer at Columbine.
It is safe to say you don't know the first thing about Columbine and moving the goalposts now isn't going to help you.
And what does that have to do with Sandy hook? why must you muddy the waters to divert the topic into your cesspool of lies?
The bottom line is the whole story has not been told and you NWO chills need to realize your not the only voice in this world.
you don't like the YouTube videos go after the creator not the messenger.
And that has to do with sandy hook how?
Mouse, you're the one who brought up Columbine -- at your peril, it turns out.
What more would you personally like to hear about Sandy Hook? Make a list.The bottom line is the whole story has not been told and you NWO chills need to realize your not the only voice in this world.
You're the one posting about Sandy Hook and Columbine here. I went after what the poster said.you don't like the YouTube videos go after the creator not the messenger.
You probably shouldn't have brought Columbine up in this thread for several reasons, one of which is you get your ass kicked when you do.
You brought Columbine into this thread at post #12.
Since you brought up Columbine, one could assume that you know as much about Sandy Hook as you have clearly demonstrated to know about Columbine.
Wait -- I don't think you get out of this that easily. You were called out for saying Columbine had no armed guards; the suggestion was that if Columbine had armed guards, the massacre might not have happened or at least would have been limited -- presumably, you take that position because you believe the proposal to put armed guards in schools will have some beneficial effect in limiting school shootings. Having been shown that it made no difference at Columbine, now you say that the particular guards at Columbine were of little help and suggest that it's because that guy didn't have proper training. The problem with that claim, however, is that it's absolutely false. Gardner, it turns out, was a Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy, which means he was a trained law enforcement officer -- not just some security guard.
It was an example of poor security. So what if some names got mixed up or the wrong gun got jammed the bottom line is I had a point and it bothers you greatly.
Why did the man smile one minute and then the cameras turn on and he instantly goes into weeping victim mode?What more would you personally like to hear about Sandy Hook? Make a list.
You're the one posting about Sandy Hook and Columbine here. I went after what the poster said.
I merely posted the "other" side of the story something that is not welcomed here in your close minded forum.
I already addressed that.
What's funny about this is that you're not interested in both sides of an issue; you'll never admit that the other side could be right -- you're too busy defending your position against reasonable questions (more often by criticizing the questioner rather than by addressing the questions) to ever actually suggest that you're considering both sides of an issue.
I still haven't seen any valid point from you. Even your moving the goalposts doesn't bother me because it's always an open goal.
This is now your question?Why did the man smile one minute and then the cameras turn on and he instantly goes into weeping victim mode?
If all else fails -- and it has for you -- play the victim card.I merely posted the "other" side of the story something that is not welcomed here in your close minded forum.
maybe in your immature mind you feel the need to high five yourself and add another notch in your "I got em" championship belt but my points are valid no matter how much you try and marginalize them.
lol. I didn't marginalize them. You did.
You call it moving the goalposts I call it further review of the play.
The only victims are the misguided fools in here that follow you around like some sort of messiah of knowledge when in fact your just as guilty of spreading the many lies that corrupt the real truth behind this story.This is now your question?
If all else fails -- and it has for you -- play the victim card.
I don't know if that's the case.
It's more like stepping on a roach that had already sprayed Raid in its own maw.
If you're going to state there's a "real truth" behind this story, you can't hide behind the coward's skirts of innuendo. What's the "real truth", mouse?
When will you realize this isn't Xbox or MMA it's a debate.Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
you get your ass kicked when you do.
That's my point we don't know the whole truth yet and from the narrow minded Igmo's in the forum that is almost an impossibility to achieve.
The initial ruling stands. You don't know what you're talking about.
I don't think I'm leading anyone here. I'll leave the internets leadership to true heroes like SA210.The only victims are the misguided fools in here that follow you around like some sort of messiah of knowledge when in fact your just as guilty of spreading the many lies that corrupt the real truth behind this story.
Debate? Like bouton's, you're not fit to debate my chihuahua.
Debating you is like:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
