We Come In Peace

You were never attacked personally, until you tried to Doxx DR. You always leave that part out... Because you're not a very honest person. And because in your doxxing attempt, you embarrassed yourself fully.

When you have to start your argument with a lie just to make yourself feel better about all the times someone has exposed your own ignorance -- chances are the rest of it are probably not worth reading.

Live coverage of Joe's first press conference in three months:

You should reconsider your position on this matter.

I may be mistaken, but I recall Rex Ryan winning a super bowl ring with Baltimore and guiding the New York Jetairplanes to consecutive AFC title games. Doesn't that count as delivering?

Do you deny that's a valid answer to your (stutarded) question, "Why was it necessary to check random innocent citizens' IDs when the cops knew exactly what the suspects they were looking for looked like?"

Answer: It was an active investigation with no way of knowing whether the two were part of a larger group or had other conspirators. Dumbass.

Please point to made up crap. Love to hear it. Bring it on. You know I can take it.

I don't quite understand where the vitriol is coming from, GG. If it offended you that I asked a question about your post, my bad. All I asked for was a clarification because I was curious to hear your thoughts, not because I was attacking you.

This isn't where I expected this conversation to go but I'm into it... :popcorn: I wanted to get reaction I guess before editorialized about it... not that I have much to add. I just think it's an interesting poll. It's simultaneously depressing and yet I believe a positive sign of our national maturity.

That explains everything! Dude, if you're grumpy because you're jonesin' for some nicotine I know a guy who can hook you up. A couple puffs and you'll be even keel again, promise. #grumpydisenfranchisedsmokers

:lol:

Boston wasn't a conspiracy. But that doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are invalid. For example, there's an ongoing conspiracy centering on whether or not Meazza and Tom are a couple. Go deeper down that rabbit hole and you'll discover there's a sub-movement that's convinced Meazza and Tom are using their relationship as a smokescreen to hide their true agenda to spread disinformation about a wide range of issues including, but not limited to, Canada, idiots, and muppets.

Despite the idiotic assumption that every illegal immigrant is Hispanic, this article is worth checking out if you want to get a good lather going. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html?hp=t1_3

We've grown up since 2001 it seems. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/polls-show-growing-resolve-to-live-with-terror-threat/?smid=tw-fivethirtyeight&seid=auto

That's always the fine line...

Particle beam weapons on satellites.

I'm asking you to clarify your position. Are you arguing that the root cause of this is the radicalization of Islam itself?

Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Expecting to pass laws that criminals will follow is the height of stupidity that's only matched by the counter to that argument that the pro-gun crowd throws out and was highlighted by both of B-Man's ridiculous posts. But because criminals don't follow laws, does that mean we can't legislate at all? That brings us back to the original question which B-Man and others have consistently dodged and refused to answer: why is murder against the law if people are just going to murder regardless? Or any variation of that question that's been posed numerous times. Claiming legislation to curb gun violence is a failure because of incidents like Sandy Hook or Boston as specious as the left saying gun laws alone are the only way to solve the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We lose over 80 people a day to gun violence in this country. Half of those are by suicide. 30,000+ a year are killed by the epidemic of gun violence that is destroying, largely, one segment of the population. You can talk about culture, you can talk about mental illness and bring up many valid points with regards to possible solutions to the problem. But for some reason you can't talk about guns. That's ridiculous. Why can't we put everything on the table? What the NRA and pro-gun groups have done over the years is to systematically destroy ANY gun regulation or legislation's chance for success. They've kneecapped the ATF, resisted universal background checks (after supporting them), and made the debate about anything and everything BUT the weapons themselves. Why? It's not to protect the constitution. And it's not to protect our individual rights. It's to protect the gravy train of the gun manufactures who provide millions of dollars in funding to the NRA every year. If the NRA doesn't listen to their masters then Smith & Weston, Midway, The Beretta Group etc will take their funding to one of the other lobbyist groups out there like the CCRKBA or GOA, either one of which would be happy to pick up the fight and take the millions of dollars being thrown their way. The NRA isn't arguing out of a sense of duty to their members or their country. Instead, they're fighting a cause to fatten their own bottom line and that of their primary benefactors. So what can we do in terms of legislation? Well for starters we could do what 90% of Americans want, and 84% of Republicans want -- namely, expanding background checks to sales over the internet and at gun shows. Will this prevent Sandy Hooks from happening? No. Will it stop other potentially dangerous individuals from legally acquiring firearms? Yes. We can also eliminate the senate's ability to block ATF Directors from being appointed. We can also start enforcing the hundreds of gun laws already on the books both at the federal level and state level. The pro-gun crowd LOVES to argue that the fact there are already hundreds of laws on the books proves that gun laws don't work. Yet they run and hide the moment it's pointed out that these gun laws, however well written or well intentioned they are, are UNENFORCEABLE because of the gun lobby's efforts to stymie the execution of those laws. The Second Amendment is the only amendment with the word "regulated" written into it. The writers of the constitution were brilliant men who excelled in getting the most out of every word they committed to parchment. The Supreme Court has done a grave injustice in terms of how they've interpreted the Second Amendment and this is clearly an issue that should be examined in the future by the Supreme Court. And that in no way should be read as an endorsement for obliterating the Second Amendment, rather it's an endorsement for a new interpretation of it in the light of our present day technological advancements. The Founding Fathers could no more predict the invention of weapons that can fire 900 rounds per minute than they could predict the invention of the automobile. And we regulate the shiiit out of auto manufacturers without a second thought. We still have the ability to buy and own a car despite all this legislation and regulation. But legislation alone will not solve the issue. It's intertwined with a number of other overlapping issues such as education, poverty, the war on drugs, and probably countless others I'm forgetting. There is no reason we cannot preserve the intent of the Second Amendment AND regulate gun sales and manufacturers in such a way that will help stem the tide of gun violence plaguing this country. Well, there is a reason, I guess. It's as old as time itself: GREED.

Is this not the point you're trying to defend?

Fair enough.