We Come In Peace
-
Posts
807 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by We Come In Peace
-
-
6 minutes ago, Kemp said:
I don't believe you are new here, but I have been attacked personally, far more than I have done it.
The King of Personal Attacks here is DR. Curious as to if you have accused him of the same.
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.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:
look, the guy lives off disability
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.
-
5
-
3
-
-
Live coverage of Joe's first press conference in three months:
-
1
-
-
-
He didn't propose a wall in that article, simply said it merits discussion. I don't know if he formally proposed a wall as part of a platform, maybe he did, I haven't seen it. We have a discussion about forming an official Colorado extra terrestrial preparedness committee around ballot time, nobody really supports or votes for it.
You should reconsider your position on this matter.
-
Not so fast......his successor hasn't won a game. Ryan talks a good game, if you like that sort of thing (I don't), but he hasn't delivered anything yet but good theater.
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?
-
Keep the name-calling coming. I promise you, it makes you look intelligent and mature. lol
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?"
-
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.
-
Wow, lot of made up crap in that post. Hope you feel better getting that out.
Quick tip: Save the bull **** for your next failed screenplay.
Please point to made up crap. Love to hear it.
If I had the time right now, I could take this apart, point by point, and demonstrate how each sentence is wrong. (For example, yes the 2nd is the only amendment with "regulated" in it...in reference to militias, not weapons. So what? Go ahead and regulate militias.)
And for the most part, my deconstruction would incorporate the same verbal contortions you just engaged, and be just as mendacious.
Bring it on. You know I can take it.
-
And for the questioning moron, radical Islam is A root cause, not THE root cause. Learn to read, buddy.
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.
-
Yeah, and they laughed when smokers were told that there'd come a day when you'd have to go outside in the freezing temps to burn one. There are even some places in this country where you can't smoke outside!
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
-
What amazes me is that they provide internet access at your facility.
:lol: -
i get the concern for conspiracy. pop culture and especially movies are filled with examples of varying plausibility. but to what end here? to attack russia? saudi arabia? to increase hatred of muslims? to take away liberties? to make money? i don't see how a conspiracy to perform this act enables any western winners... please tell me who benefits from this act?
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.
-
-
He's also convinced that the US, France, UK and a few other countries are all under the same leadership but it hasn't been announced yet.
Yeah I get watching this stuff when you're high is fun but when you start believing this ****
That's always the fine line...
-
I'm asking you to clarify your position. Are you arguing that the root cause of this is the radicalization of Islam itself?
-
Word on the street from a friend of mine who is hooked on those stupid conspiracy documentaries is that the US has an anti-matter bomb.
Particle beam weapons on satellites.
-
Combing through the fine points of an argument isn't your strong suit, is it?
I'm asking you to clarify your position. Are you arguing that the root cause of this is the radicalization of Islam itself?
-
WCIP--I think the point here is that no additional laws will do anything to make the bad guys any more willing to follow them. So, what purpose do any new laws have? Show me how a specific new law will benefit us and I'll consider it.
BTW, JiA is a disabled black dude from Kenya. His fear of AIDS and subsequent loathing of gays is understandable.
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.
-
1
-
-
And your response could be considered a beatdown by someone who doesn't know history or the tying events that bind seemingly unrelated events into a unified act. Yes, it is far too simplistic to attribute the terrorist acts to the "crazed Muslims" But that is part of the core.
You cannot argue that each of your examples is a singular event that did not have its roots in Arab Nationalism, Qutb's radicalization of Islam, and mixing in the volatile Soviet cocktail of mass murder. It's not a coincidence that modern day terrorism took root at the peak of KGB's outreach.
Similarly, Manson's ragtag crew were certainly bent on committing a terrorist act (even though it wasn't called that), and funny why you didn't bring up Weather Underground as an example, because they would certainly be considered terrorists, as would McVeigh & Co. They have a lot more in common with their causes & instruments of destruction than random bank robbers.
So next time, please use those examples on conner and your new fanboys, instead of someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject than your average idiot.
Is this not the point you're trying to defend?
-
-
Just a discussion. Maybe a debate, perhaps heated.
A beat-down would have included calling him an idiot and mocking him mercilessly.
Fair enough.
The Thread For Greg's Stashes
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted