Reply With Quote
people like you think disagreement with you means support for the other party. you'd be wrong about that.
um, I wasn't holding back.
people like you think disagreement with you means support for the other party. you'd be wrong about that.
No, that's a wrong read on me. I have expressed my dislike for both parties myself.
you've called me a lib many times for merely having a different opinion.
you do it to a lot of people. often times without much justice. it's your way of saying, i disagree.
LOL...
If I did, it wasn't because your opinion was one I didn't agree with, but because I thought the opinion was re ed.
At least get the finer points correct please. When you do, I won't disagree.
Have an example by chance? I honestly don't recall calling you a lib , but I do use the term rather frequently.
This had me concerned. You are actually one of the few non-conservative voices I have respected in these forums. I searched back to June of last year, for ever time I used "lib ." I would have gone farther back if that search wasn't exhausting in itself. Anyway, if I called you a lib , it was either before June of last year, or I missed it.
If I did, I'm sorry. I consider you one of the more fair minded and intelligent voices here, except when you seem to have imbibed a bit much.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-02-2013 at 07:30 AM.
You do an exhaustive search over that?
Next time save the exhaustive search for when you are asked to back up the you fling throughout this forum.
Yes. For WH, Yes.
I do, any time I come across someone asking who I respect.
With you? Zero respect.
what a wonderful reason not to back your up.
Why should I? You are going to assume and say what ever you want anyway...
Tell me I'm wrong...
If you can back up a claim with a sound source, nobody has any room to say anything, including me.
it's pretty simple.
How am I to prove a negative?
what a coincidence -- I consider you non-conservative as well.
you do it far less frequently as when I joined the board in late 2008, true, but it happened more than a handful of times.
thanks, but the apology is misplaced: the term makes you look silly.
You're saying your claims are negative?
You're not making any sense per par old usual
Can you recall which thread by chance? Are you possible wrong?
Love to see it!
Do we have to go back five years for an example?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-02-2013 at 12:07 PM.
He is saying that it is impossible to prove a negative (his claim that he did NOT call WH a lib )
I told him that this is different than the usual Proving a negative (like proving god DOESNT exist) because there are only a finite number of possibilities to examine (currently 34,166).
yeah, I guess me going off on a sidebar was too much for him to keep up with.
Gun Sales Soar on Photo of Armed Obama
The White House’s attempt to portray President Obama as a gun user may have had unintended consequences today, as a newly released photo of Mr. Obama firing a rifle at Camp David set off a panic of gun buying across the US.
Right-wing opponents of Mr. Obama were behind the frenzied gun sales, saying that they were terrified by the image of an armed and shooting President.
“I don’t want to sound paranoid or anything, but now everything Obama has been doing makes sense,” said Harland Dorrinson, who was waiting on a blocks-long line outside a West Virginia Wal-Mart. “He wants to take away all our guns and then he’s going to come shoot us.”
Learning that Mr. Obama only uses his rifle for skeet-shooting did little to calm Mr. Dorrinson: “Somebody owning a gun just for sporting purposes? Yeah, right.”
In an effort to stem the panic, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters today that skeet-shooting took up relatively little of the President’s time at Camp David, and that his favorite leisure activities were “actually badminton and frisbee.”
The White House later released a photo of Mr. Obama putting away his gun and never using it again.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...itz%20%2876%29
is this supposed to show he is pro 2a?
photo op
Seriously, what was your point of posting the picture?
My fervent hope is that this photo exists solely to lull gun nuts into a false sense of security at which point all guns will be summarily confiscated and the second amendment consigned to the trash bin of history.
I used to support the second amendment, but I'm becoming increasingly less supportive... of at least its current interpretation.
Last edited by DMX7; 02-03-2013 at 03:51 PM.
This photo did quite the opposite as gun buyers went on another insane buying panic after it was released.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
