We Come In Peace

Me personally? It's not about the words at all. It's about the intent.

:lol:

It's not name calling when it's true. If you grew up a little bit more you'd realize that. You have reveled in the fact that you are spiteful, hateful and have shown absolutely no shame in continuing to hurl unnecessary slurs around because it makes you laugh. So me pointing out your flawed logic and how that reflects on your overall ignorant view of humanity is something that I'm going to continue to do so long as you continue to be an asshat. And yet... You still refuse to answer the question. Shocking. And it's me who's up past my bedtime? You're better than this. Stop being cranky and answer my question: If we cannot make gun laws because criminals won't follow them, as you suggested in the original post above, then why do we have laws against stealing?

No. But clearly my question was too deep for you to understand. But your answer helps remind everyone how much of an ignorant bastard you actually are. So all robbers and killers are the same to you? That makes sense considering all homosexuals are faggots and queers to you too. Nice work. You hit for the idiot trifecta: Ignorant, hateful, and hypocritical.

Wow. That's the biggest bull **** sidestep non answer I've ever seen. So let me ask you again. If your argument is that we cannot legislate because criminals don't follow laws, why do we have laws at all? See, the special kind of stupid, is making an argument like that. Meme or not, this is the lamest of the lame gun-advocate stances. You have so many other valid points to make within this debate, why continue to spread this kind of drivel that only makes your side look like crazy people?

Absolutely not. Since we're on a new page I'll just attach this question to my answer. Saves time of going back to page 16.

I am serious. In the referenced B-Man meme, it says "Do you honestly expect criminals to obey gun control laws?" and calls such thinking a "special kind of stupid". So why do we have laws against stealing? Why bother? Thieves are going to steal anyway, right? Good question. Why is it against the law if killers are just going to kill anyway?

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing it's the one with the adam's apple and huge c*&k on the right.

He does it every show. It's not new from Maher.

You're a sad, sad, little man.

Here's a question... If we can't make laws about guns because criminals won't follow them, then why do we have laws against stealing? Why is rape against the law when everyone knows rapists are just going to rape anyway?

There's a difference between armed policemen being in schools though and armed private security guards. At least in terms of communities being overwhelming in support of it.

I heard on CNN (ha) that he drove over his brother's body to escape. If that's true, and who knows with CNN, then I think we're looking at a very dangerous person. Careful and cautious is the best approach right now, the last thing anyone wants is some sort of hostage situation.

I tend to agree with you on Philip. The man was a clown on both seasons, but this time he was actually playing the game. His man-crush on Boston Rob was too much, but he had control of that game up until Malcom pulled that brilliant move at tribal. He should have been smart enough to get rid of Andrea at that point, but Philip's hubris blinded him. He was so offended by what Malcolm said at tribal it threw him completely off his strategic game. Which is another reason why that move by Malcolm was so brilliant. If Malcolm's smart and Andrea isn't too paranoid, he'd team up with her, Cochran, the brunette who's name I forget and Eddie. Get rid of Reynolds (blindside) and Erik (he's too much of a physical threat and too unstable strategically to use) asap. Sheri would be the next vote and that would be an easy one, leaving them with 6. Then Malcolm has a good shot at winning out immunity wise, or he could flip on his own, taking out Eddie/Andrea, then Dawn. Final three of Cochran, Malcolm, and the Brunette who's a physical threat but has coasted strategically so far and won't get jury votes.

Everything about that photo made me laugh. From the clothes he's wearing, to the gloves, to the look on his face -- the rest of it is just icing on the cake.

First off, thanks for this insightful post and to the many others throughout this thread. Seriously, OTW is bringing it on this and it's much appreciated by folks like me. EDIT: In light of reading some of the newer posts about conspiracies I'd like to emphasize I am in no way trying to lump the following thought nugget into a vast conspiracy of any kind. As for your last paragraph here I think you're 100% correct, this is a huge boon for those in the pro-drone camp. I don't doubt it will be referenced during that oncoming debate many, many times. The other thing I'd add to that is how much the intelligence gathered from social media apparently hastened the efforts of all the agencies involved in the investigation. The impact that blue ribbon is going to have in our ongoing fight for privacy should send off some alarm bells for those of us who feel we're already in dangerous territory on that front. Yup. Pretty much how I took it when I saw the press conference.

Not every thread, I promise. I just bumped this one because it's been almost a year now and he still pretends this thread never happened.

I just got a live feed from OC's twitter. Apparently he's as good at taking photos of himself at the gym as he is at posting on PPP.

There are socks in that photo?

When are you going to answer my questions?

I'm living inside your head to point where now you're imagining me in the shower.