Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[keepthefaith]

10 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Unfortunately, this is the flaw in your entire post. 

 

You want to make concessions, but you also admit it really won't do anything. Everyone knows this. Even the left. They don't want to restrict more guns to save lives. They want to restrict more guns because they trust the government over the individual. They must have the government in charge of everything because they are unable to take care of themselves. This is why they piss on ideas of self-accountability and self-responsibility.

 

They NEED the government to run all things.

 

Subsequently, you don't make concessions just to make them stop crying. You fight back with options that WILL make a difference. The problem, as LA Grant repeatedly states, is that they are not interested in your ideas. Only their own. As he stated, and most leftists agree, there is no argument against more gun control, so just shut up and give them the guns.

 

 

 

That's a fair criticism of my post.  My feeling is this:  Guns that can shoot 40+ rounds a minute are not necessary for people to protect themselves or their property.  A very small percentage of those that buy these weapons do so to kill others and these weapons allow them to be very destructive very quickly.  Are we better as a society with weapons such as this available or not?  I say not.  People can enjoy guns, hunting and protection with a little less.  Just maybe a change in the law might slow down one of these terrorists and make it easier to take them out in the act.  I'm with Colonel Peters on this one.   

 

I get that much of the left's end game is the total removal (or nearly so) of guns in the hands of civilians and that events such as Parkland and Vegas help them push public opinion in their direction. 

 

I'm all for new ways to keep weapons out of the hands of those with bad intentions that don't impede the rights of the responsible.  Tough to do but maybe there are things in the areas of training and background review that will make a difference. 

 

We have to realize that we are a free society and that we can't be protected from nuts everywhere.  We should probably deploy more protection in schools, at concerts and other venues where large groups are present that aren't protected.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Cinga]

5 hours ago, Nanker said:

we need to ban these fully automatic bolt action shotgun machine gun magazine clips!

[Paulus]

Seriously, this is the gun topic shitposting thread. Look at the title/OP. 

 

The other thread is for serious talk. 

 

 

 

[Ol Dirty B]

On 2/24/2018 at 11:31 AM, row_33 said:

Bob, do you enter bars where you don’t know anyone and express your raw emotions like you do on here?

 

 

 

What loser goes into a bar that they don't know anyone?

 

Sounds like a problem.

On 3/2/2018 at 4:06 PM, LA Grant said:

 

Actually, I literally copy & pasted the dictionary definition of "disease" for you, and even connected the definition to how gun violence fits said definition. IIRC, you were also the one who brought forth the "what about opioids" argument before the topic of "why can't the CDC research gun violence" so there's a number of contradictions here. Your selective understanding whirrrr'd and cliccccck'd that out, I guess.

 

 

It gets even worse, Tasker — I'm a soooooooocialist! <ghost noises> If nothing else, we would agree that "nothing exists in a vacuum." Better go hide under your bed and turn up Glenn as loud as ya can, 'cuz society's comin' for ya, for yer guns and yer fedoras.

 

 

Go back and read my response to you, darling, and try to actually respond to to the content within it.

 

Btw, this is also why I have no interest in playing the rabbit hole games with Tasker or anyone else — I gave you a full response with supporting evidence, and even graciously pulled relevant quotes so you didn't need to trouble yourself with too much reading — and your responses ever since are just angrily misunderstanding what we were even discussing.

 

We can't have any kind of honest discussion if you won't engage in the same reality. "Define store" was where you started with this, you silly boy.

 

I wouldn't bother. Anyone who doesn't show red white and blue GOP rhetoric is labelled a liberal or some **** and attacked.

 

I wouldn't worry about it, I've said it many times. I love the Bills, but not their fans. I've been to Orchard Park enough on a Sunday to know I wouldn't give a **** about most of their opinions. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[row_33]

25 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

What loser goes into a bar that they don't know anyone?

 

Sounds like a problem.

 

I wouldn't bother. Anyone who doesn't show red white and blue GOP rhetoric is labelled a liberal or some **** and attacked.

 

I wouldn't worry about it, I've said it many times. I love the Bills, but not their fans. I've been to Orchard Park enough on a Sunday to know I wouldn't give a **** about most of their opinions. 

 

I watch a game in a sports bar a few times a year, usually when on the road for travel or business.

 

you judge there is something horribly wrong with this?

 

it’s what men who watch sports do, maybe you can be one when you grow up?

 

[TtownBillsFan]

On 2/25/2018 at 1:32 PM, LA Grant said:

 

Or you, my friend.  As Tasker once said, it takes a village.

 

 

How do you not see that you're just looking for any distraction to avoid talking guns? The sheriff/deputy/police incompetence should be clear evidence that adding MORE guards & guns to schools is not the solution. It does not work. You are not hearing from teachers or veterans in support of this madness. Look who you're agreeing with, you are only hearing this idiocy from crazy people like JMC, Trump, Fox, InfoWars, and the NRA. You seem too otherwise rational to be this thick.

I'm giving you my attention for one moment, just one moment, to give me your, I was going to say fix or solution, but I won't even do that, as there isn't one.  I'm giving you my attention for a moment for you to tell me how you would make the situation better.  I'm listening.  Go.

3 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

I'm giving you my attention for one moment, just one moment, to give me your, I was going to say fix or solution, but I won't even do that, as there isn't one.  I'm giving you my attention for a moment for you to tell me how you would make the situation better.  I'm listening.  Go.

I don't think there'll be a suggestion, as we'd have already done it if there was an 'easy' fix.  There's not.  There's the thing lefties jump to always and quickly, which is get rid of x/y/z gun.  It won't change a damn thing, but that's the jump-to spot.  And for people like me, who are defenders of the constitution, that's a proposal I cannot agree with.  It's those very guns that defend his ability to make his "LA Grant" posts on this board.  But I bet LA won't agree with that position.  Just give me your best, non-gun-grabbing proposal on how to fix things.  I bet we can agree on some things that might help, but gun-grabbing isn't going to work.

[LA Grant]

14 hours ago, TtownBillsFan said:

I'm giving you my attention for one moment, just one moment, to give me your, I was going to say fix or solution, but I won't even do that, as there isn't one.  I'm giving you my attention for a moment for you to tell me how you would make the situation better.  I'm listening.  Go.

 

I don't think there'll be a suggestion, as we'd have already done it if there was an 'easy' fix.  There's not.  There's the thing lefties jump to always and quickly, which is get rid of x/y/z gun.  It won't change a damn thing, but that's the jump-to spot.  And for people like me, who are defenders of the constitution, that's a proposal I cannot agree with.  It's those very guns that defend his ability to make his "LA Grant" posts on this board.  But I bet LA won't agree with that position.  Just give me your best, non-gun-grabbing proposal on how to fix things.  I bet we can agree on some things that might help, but gun-grabbing isn't going to work.

 

You're lucky that, unlike other posters, I'm willing to repeat things for your benefit. The suggestions have been laid out in this thread multiple times — sarcastically in the first post, and more earnestly several times thereafter. So, if you want data to back up what I'm about to tell you, they are available in many places on the Internet, including within this very thread. I'm giving you just one moment, for your individual benefit, and putting up with the lazy defensive posturing because of the very slim chance that your mind is open, even just a crack, to hear solutions, as you say. OK?

 

There is an easy fix, and it's Universal Background Checks for all firearms sales in the United States. This would be a process in which a non-military/law enforcement citizen can still easily buy a gun for defense/hunting, while weeding out the mentally ill. This process would work in a similar manner to the DMV — classes, annual registration, and competency tests. For the "good guys" this is the same inconvenience we all face to maintain a driver's license; a mild one. For the Parkland shooter, and other mass shooters before him, this simple fix would have prevented a tragedy where the criminal had tons of warning signs. UBC provides a strong last defense when other preventive measures fail. For the Parkland shooter, he had tons of red flags — but because he didn't have a criminal record & hadn't been institutionalized, in the eyes of the law, he was still fit to own a gun. That. Does. Not. Make. Sense. The laws should make sense. Right?

 

Again — Universal Background Checks is not banning xyz gun. Specific bans are half-measures. Look at Chicago, for instance. The handgun ban has not prevented criminals from simply driving a few hours to Indiana to easily buy whatever they need. This is why the easy fix, the obvious fix, is a national UBC system for all firearm sales — stores, gun shows, craigslist person-to-person, whatever. 

 

Every other comparably developed nation has a similar process in place, and they do not have NEARLY the rate of mass shootings that the US endures. 

 

The argument that we can't pass stronger restrictions because "2A can not be infringed" is illogical for several reasons. For one, it's already infringed. You can't own ANY arm. You can't easily buy a grenade launcher (though it is actually legal to do so in some places, there are just heavy restrictions). For another, we can agree that restrictions on Amendments are necessary even without passing additional Amendments. There are a host of restrictions on 1A that we all agree are necessary — for libel, slander, and child pornography. These clarifications on what is & isn't "free speech" still provide us all with our basic inalienable freedoms, while also guarding against those who would exploit those freedoms for destruction. Therefore, if it is insisted that all Amendments must be followed to the letter of the law, then we are also making the lives of pedophiles easier. None of us want that, and though technically a restriction on free speech, it doesn't affect most of us, because we were never going to use free speech that way. Similarly, restricting firearms with regulations would not affect most legal gun owners (aside from DMV-like inconveniences), because most legal gun owners don't have a bunch of warning signs that they're going to be mass shooters. For those that do have those warning signs, they can't get a gun. If the warning signs are unfounded, the individual can have a process to appeal. 

 

The idea that any regulations = taking away your guns is nonsense. That's not the suggestion. That is a fear-based tactic used by the NRA to keep the discussion emotional rather than rational, as it is in their best interest to keep gun access completely unregulated, because that means more guns are sold. Right? Most legal gun owners agree that UBC would be helpful and necessary. The reason this easy simple fix hasn't been done already is because of, specifically, the NRA, which is part of the broader problem of money in politics and corporate lobbying.

 

Lastly, the idea that citizens owning weapons keeps us free is also nonsense. Lawful Gun Owners defend no freedoms for others, only themselves. They defend the right to hunt and to use a gun for self-defense. That has no bearing on anyone else's free speech, or anything else. If you want to challenge this claim, please provide any example of a time where someone's freedom was in danger and was protected by an ordinary citizen with a gun. It doesn't exist. The best justifications Lawful Gun Owners have is "what if I need to shoot a burglar who wants to rape my family." You'll find plenty of examples of guns used for self-defense, but that is not the same as defending the rights of others. 

 

You could perhaps argue that the military defends freedom using guns. Sure. But again. Nobody's saying take away guns from the military. We're saying, keep them away from suicidal psychos who have decided life is not worth the pain and want to make a nihilistic point in a dramatic fashion. These people almost always have warning signs. 

 

There you go. Thanks for reading.

Edited March 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

There you go. Thanks for reading.

 

Yeah, right. 

[LA Grant]

Just now, DC Tom said:

Yeah, right. 

As always, thank you for ably personifying ignorance, Sir Thomas.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

As always, thank you for ably personifying ignorance, Sir Thomas.

 

You think anyone other than the ignorant reads your drivel?  Why are you even still here, isn't it past time for you to disappear for another year or so?

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

You think anyone other than the ignorant reads your drivel?  Why are you even still here, isn't it past time for you to disappear for another year or so?

 

What I've seen is most of PPP barely reads, period, and what they do read is plainly wrong. I don't intend to stay, so don't worry too much; you'll soon be able to return to your protective bubble, your safe space.

[Joe Miner]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

What I've seen is most of PPP barely reads, period, and what they do read is plainly wrong. I don't intend to stay, so don't worry too much; you'll soon be able to return to your protective bubble, your safe space.

 

 

That's a pretty accurate summation of your posts and the reactions to them.

[LA Grant]

2 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

That's a pretty accurate summation of your posts and the reactions to them.

 

Well, no. Even a cursory glance through my posts show that I'm a reader. Unlike some other posters, I'm able to distinguish fact from fiction, and the differences between the Federalist and the NY Times. 

 

The reactions to them have mostly been the usual conservative approach to information that doesn't fit their entrenched worldview: "lalalaala i can't heeaaaaaar yoooou" or attempts to scream away the facts. The neat thing about message boards is the words are there. In real life, the conservative approach is to literally shout down the opposing argument, or to simply shut it out, as broadcast nightly on Fox News.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Well, no. Even a cursory glance through my posts show that I'm a reader. 

 

 False.

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 False.

 

Still waiting for your defense of The Federalist, y'know, the standard of journalistic ethics that you posted then doubled-down on!

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Still waiting for your defense of The Federalist, y'know, the standard of journalistic ethics that you posted then doubled-down on!

 

Still waiting for you to stop putting words in people's mouths and arguing against positions no one ever took. 

 

But that requires you to have more than a two cylinder brain in your skull. You've proven you lack in that department for weeks now. 

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Well, no. Even a cursory glance through my posts show that I'm a reader.

 

Comprehender, not so much.

[Azalin]

24 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

In real life, the conservative approach is to literally shout down the opposing argument, or to simply shut it out, as broadcast nightly on Fox News.

 

That you actually say this about others while not seeing it in yourself is both amazing and hysterically funny. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

That you actually say this about others while not seeing it in yourself is both amazing and hysterically funny. 

[B-Man]

[boyst]

On 3/2/2018 at 3:05 PM, LA Grant said:

 

HAHAHAHA. You're done, b*tch. Topic is gun control. Has been for 25 pages. 

 

If you have something to offer besides "making it all about you," you lonely ass fool, then put it out there. Unless you're an "intellectual coward," you should have no issue making whatever point you're trying to make. 

 

If you can't contribute to the conversation without me going into another of your rabbit holes, then spare us, Tasker. Said it before, will say it again, I'm not interested in any more of your holes. They're dark, smelly, and unproductive.

 

If you ain't gonna contribute, then go ahead & take a bow, because we've seen all of your "TakeYouToTactics" and now the show is over. Curtains. Done. Learn a new routine before you sign up again.

you sure do talk like you're some big loudmouth tough guy, you don't need to.  even if what you're saying is something reaosnable or intelligent it is unneeded and only makes you look like a sore pathetic looser.

 

try toning that down in your arguments and if it makes you feel better don't stoop to their level, though, no one is being like you are with the bravado.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Why the Left Won’t Win the Gun-Control Debate

It’s too hard to persuade people to willingly surrender the right to protect their own lives.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gun-control-debate-liberals-wont-win-heres-why/

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[boyst]

 

Quote

 

(CNN) 

A University of Pennsylvania researching student group found gun violence has fallen in the last year despite more guns being owned.  Per their blog post on Monday, gun violence has been declining over the last several decades, as well.  Mass shootings were also on the decline. 

...

The research group concluded that more attention on gun crime has fueled interest in gun control by advocacy groups though overall crime is down, per the Federal Bureau of Investigation website statistics.

 

 

more at CNN.com

 

 

What will Gary, Grant and others say to this?  Pretty much sums it up with the above.

[Koko78]

Well, as the man once said:

 

Quote

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[DC Tom]

55 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

 

 

What will Gary, Grant and others say to this?  Pretty much sums it up with the above.

 

"Fake news."

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a Republican NRA shill!"

"Even one gun death is too many."

"Think of the children!"

"We don't want to ban all guns.  Just assault-style guns."

"I'm a rational, independent thinker, and these links describe my feelings on the matter."

"Double dumbass on you!"

[boyst]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

"Fake news."

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a Republican NRA shill!"

"Even one gun death is too many."

"Think of the children!"

"We don't want to ban all guns.  Just assault-style guns."

"I'm a rational, independent thinker, and these links describe my feelings on the matter."

"Double dumbass on you!"

they don't even read ****, Grant doesn't read anything, he just looks for the opportunity to blather off at the vent hole to espouse us in his emotional #feels.

[Paulus]

18 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

I watch a game in a sports bar a few times a year, usually when on the road for travel or business.

 

you judge there is something horribly wrong with this?

 

it’s what men who watch sports do, maybe you can be one when you grow up?

 

Yeah, there is something special about going to a bar to just relax without others. It is cathartic to just forget the world and relax, while watching the ponies or a game, for me at least. 

[Azalin]

52 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Yeah, there is something special about going to a bar to just relax without others. It is cathartic to just forget the world and relax, while watching the ponies or a game, for me at least. 

 

Same here. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Yeah, there is something special about going to a bar to just relax without others. It is cathartic to just forget the world and relax, while watching the ponies or a game, for me at least. 

 

Sorry that the snowflakes on here can’t walk into a sports bar on their own...

 

[LA Grant]

 

9 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

(CNN) 

A University of Pennsylvania researching student group found gun violence has fallen in the last year despite more guns being owned.  Per their blog post on Monday, gun violence has been declining over the last several decades, as well.  Mass shootings were also on the decline. 

...

The research group concluded that more attention on gun crime has fueled interest in gun control by advocacy groups though overall crime is down, per the Federal Bureau of Investigation website statistics.

 

 

more at CNN.com

 

What will Gary, Grant and others say to this?  Pretty much sums it up with the above.

 

LOL, I would say that you need to verify your sources. Neither of those links take you to a CNN article. One takes you to a blog about how to cook asparagus. The other takes you to beehive.bumble.com. Googling the copy does not produce a CNN article. Searching keywords on CNN also does not produce this article.

 

Is there actually a CNN article? Or did you just see this posted somewhere and assume it must be true?

 

8 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

I don't even read ****, I don't read anything, I just look for the opportunity to blather off at the vent hole to espouse us in my emotional #feels.

 

FTFY, dumbass.

 

Quote

 

you sure do talk like you're some big loudmouth tough guy, you don't need to.  even if what you're saying is something reaosnable or intelligent it is unneeded and only makes you look like a sore pathetic looser.

 

try toning that down in your arguments and if it makes you feel better don't stoop to their level, though, no one is being like you are with the bravado.

 

 

That's cute. I'll make a deal. If you'd like to bring the conversation to a less aggressive tone, I'll meet you there. All you need to do is apologize for being wrong, dishonest, dishonorable, and irresponsible. 

 

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

"Fake news."

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a Republican NRA shill!"

"Even one gun death is too many."

"Think of the children!"

"We don't want to ban all guns.  Just assault-style guns."

"I'm a rational, independent thinker, and these links describe my feelings on the matter."

"Double dumbass on you!"

 

You're an idiot. 

 

10 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Still waiting for you to stop putting words in people's mouths and arguing against positions no one ever took. 

 

But that requires you to have more than a two cylinder brain in your skull. You've proven you lack in that department for weeks now. 

 

Seems like I struck a nerve by simply asking you to defend the Federalist article you posted. I pointed out a reason to be skeptical of it, since you had previously mentioned the importance of being skeptical of the NY Times. You said I misinterpreted it. All of the top commenters of the article interpreted it the same way I did. You insist that you are somehow having words put in your mouth.

 

I want to help you, Rhino, but y'know, maybe I don't know enough about you. Do you have support in your life? A wife or girlfriend/partner of at least one year? You asked me two invasive personal questions in our discussions the last two weeks, so please allow me the same fair & balanced opportunity.

 

As with your questions, I need to know before I decide if it's worth continuing this. If you feel uncomfortable answering, as I did with your questions, don't worry — I will use your exact same method of badgering non-stop until you provide us with an answer.

Edited March 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[LA Grant]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Why the Left Won’t Win the Gun-Control Debate

It’s too hard to persuade people to willingly surrender the right to protect their own lives.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gun-control-debate-liberals-wont-win-heres-why/

 

How in the world do posters on this board think you are liberal?? All I have seen from you in the last two weeks are links to op-eds from the ghost of Billy Buckley & links from the blog of the plagiarist that couldn't hack it for 3 days at WaPo. Not to mention you're the main author of the 1000 page Tom Clancy fan-fiction book club bukkake.

 

Good lord, if you're liberal relative to the rest of PPP, is everyone else to the right of Goebbels, or seriously wtf?

Edited March 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

How in the world do posters on this board think you are liberal?? All I have seen from you in the last two weeks are links are to op-eds from the ghost of Billy Buckley & links from the blog of the plagiarist that couldn't hack it for 3 days at WaPo. Not to mention you're the main author of the 1000 page Tom Clancy fan-fiction book club bukkake.

 

Good lord, if you're liberal relative to the rest of PPP, is everyone else to the right of Goebbels, or seriously wtf?

Maybe I can give you a little perspective. Greg, who works in a liberal industry (to say the least) is a socially conscience kind of guy. He would never protest you and your guy getting married or anything else along that line. In fact he might even bake youin's a cake. He is what we call a guy who believes in the Constitution and is very protective of those rights. He's also a guy that has had to do a fair amount of research to actually do his job. He knows how to do this. His ability to do the research and his strong sense of the Constitution and his spidey sense that there was much wrong in the last two/twenty years led to his research and posting here. You should probably back off and wait for the results.

[LA Grant]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Maybe I can give you a little perspective. Greg, who works in a liberal industry (to say the least) is a socially conscience kind of guy. He would never protest you and your guy getting married or anything else along that line. In fact he might even bake youin's a cake. He is what we call a guy who believes in the Constitution and is very protective of those rights. He's also a guy that has had to do a fair amount of research to actually do his job. He knows how to do this. His ability to do the research and his strong sense of the Constitution and his spidey sense that there was much wrong in the last two/twenty years led to his research and posting here. You should probably back off and wait for the results.

 

So anything left of "homophobe" is considered "liberal" on PPP... got it.  I suppose "conservative on all issues but doesn't say the N word in public" is what qualifies as "independent" here, too; that would explain some of the strange self-identities. Similarly, your insinuation of gay as pejorative is sad but whatever. It's just funny that Rhino would be considered "liberal" since his overall views make him the left version of a RINO. Ha, it almost fits the screen name: a deranged RINO.

 

If his posts here are indicative of the research he does for work, that is concerning. I wouldn't trust Greg to research a snowcone without coming back with some conspiracy on fluoride.

 

Still, I do like your manner of sticking up for him. It's kinda sweet in a little brother kind of way. Maybe I should back off. Certainly, I agree I should stop posting here. As fun as it is to dunk on fools, and this page alone shows how easy some of y'all make it, it's still a pretty bad habit to gaze into the abyss this long.

 

Well done, 3rdnIng, your post did provide a little perspective. I see that I'm trying to talk policy with a bunch of versions of this guy:

 

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[boyst]

4 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

 

LOL, I would say that you need to verify your sources. Neither of those links take you to a CNN article. One takes you to a blog about how to cook asparagus. The other takes you to beehive.bumble.com. Googling the copy does not produce a CNN article. Searching keywords on CNN also does not produce this article.

 

Is there actually a CNN article? Or did you just see this posted somewhere and assume it must be true?

 

 

FTFY, dumbass.

 

 

That's cute. I'll make a deal. If you'd like to bring the conversation to a less aggressive tone, I'll meet you there. All you need to do is apologize for being wrong, dishonest, dishonorable, and irresponsible. 

 

 

You're an idiot. 

 

 

Seems like I struck a nerve by simply asking you to defend the Federalist article you posted. I pointed out a reason to be skeptical of it, since you had previously mentioned the importance of being skeptical of the NY Times. You said I misinterpreted it. All of the top commenters of the article interpreted it the same way I did. You insist that you are somehow having words put in your mouth.

 

I want to help you, Rhino, but y'know, maybe I don't know enough about you. Do you have support in your life? A wife or girlfriend/partner of at least one year? You asked me two invasive personal questions in our discussions the last two weeks, so please allow me the same fair & balanced opportunity.

 

As with your questions, I need to know before I decide if it's worth continuing this. If you feel uncomfortable answering, as I did with your questions, don't worry — I will use your exact same method of badgering non-stop until you provide us with an answer.

I was proving a point, and I've done it several times once you fell for it. I've gotten several fall for deer by just typing whatever the hell I want making it look like it's a quote to some article and linking something ridiculous.

 

If you can't tell I don't take this place too seriously because it's either a or b. A mix of bravado that either knows nothing that they talk about or those that are on the other side of the net just spiking it right back down the other person's throat because they're a freaking fool

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

So anything left of "homophobe" is considered "liberal" on PPP... got it.  I suppose "conservative on all issues but doesn't say the N word in public" is what qualifies as "independent" here, too; that would explain some of the strange self-identities. Similarly, your insinuation of gay as pejorative is sad but whatever. It's just funny that Rhino would be considered "liberal" since his overall views make him the left version of a RINO. Ha, it almost fits the screen name: a deranged RINO.

 

If his posts here are indicative of the research he does for work, that is concerning. I wouldn't trust Greg to research a snowcone without coming back with some conspiracy on fluoride.

 

Still, I do like your manner of sticking up for him. It's kinda sweet in a little brother kind of way. Maybe I should back off. Certainly, I agree I should stop posting here. As fun as it is to dunk on fools, and this page alone shows how easy some of y'all make it, it's still a pretty bad habit to gaze into the abyss this long.

 

Well done, 3rdnIng, your post did provide a little perspective. I see that I'm trying to talk policy with a bunch of versions of this guy:

 

 

Wow. So sensitive. I was using the gay marriage and cake baking as an example. I didn't know I would strike such a chord. Regardless, this isn't about your gayness, non gayness or propensity to fantasize. This was about conveying to you that Greg, who is a liberal in many areas, has a true calling when it comes to constitutional matters. He has researched and reported here for over a year regarding what he has found. You, on the other hand sashay in here and attempt to ridicule him based on all of the lengthy research he has done that you haven't read. Congratulations! You have lived up to all of our expectations and not only have a lock on our Blowhard of The Year award but are the frontrunner for Asswhole's United presidency.

[row_33]

So the bakers have collectively stated that any further enforced work by the courts will result in a large ad in the local newspaper advising that the proceeds from the cake of the blessed union will be denoted to the local Crisis Pregnancy Center.  Brilliant!!! 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Cinga]

10 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

How in the world do posters on this board think you are liberal?? All I have seen from you in the last two weeks are links to op-eds from the ghost of Billy Buckley & links from the blog of the plagiarist that couldn't hack it for 3 days at WaPo. Not to mention you're the main author of the 1000 page Tom Clancy fan-fiction book club bukkake.

 

Good lord, if you're liberal relative to the rest of PPP, is everyone else to the right of Goebbels, or seriously wtf?

In your mind, liberals are all willing to give up their Constitutional Rights for more government control huh? Never occurred to you some might like those Rights?

 

And Goebbels was a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party.  The whole fallback on calling people Nazis is old and boring especially when it is your own beliefs and party closest to what they stood for

 

I've stood aside and watched you make an a55 of yourself on here, but you really are some special kind of stupid aren't you?

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Cinga said:

In your mind, liberals are all willing to give up their Constitutional Rights for more government control huh? Never occurred to you some might like those Rights?

 

And Goebbels was a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party.  The whole fallback on calling people Nazis is old and boring especially when it is your own beliefs and party closest to what they stood for

 

I've stood aside and watched you make an a55 of yourself on here, but you really are some special kind of stupid aren't you?

 

nazis ruined political chat by calling themselves both nationalists and socialists and democratic worker

 

term now means you like a different ice cream flavour than a liberal

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, Cinga said:

In your mind, liberals are all willing to give up their Constitutional Rights for more government control huh? Never occurred to you some might like those Rights?

 

And Goebbels was a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party.  The whole fallback on calling people Nazis is old and boring especially when it is your own beliefs and party closest to what they stood for

 

I've stood aside and watched you make an a55 of yourself on here, but you really are some special kind of stupid aren't you?

 

He is. He's a fascist who thinks himself a progressive. The most dangerous kind of useful idiot. The kind who doesn't have any sense of history, or what liberalism actually means in a philosophical and historical context. 

 

True liberals believe in liberty of the individual over the tyranny of the state and the mob. 

 

True liberals believe in and understand the import of freedom of speech, thought, the right to privacy privacy, due process, and self defense. 

 

True liberals understand the import of these inalienable rights because they have a grasp of history which shows, unequivocally, that if left unchecked the natural evolution of the State trends towards oppression and tyranny. Thus being a true liberal requires vigilance to guard against governmental over-reach - not the forfeiture of the very inalienable rights liberal philosophers gave their lives to birth during the enlightenment and which were finally codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. 

 

This republic is one of mankind's greatest achievements. It's an achievement of liberal thought and ideals in the true definition of the philosophy. Defending it does not remove one's liberal credentials. It bolsters it. 

 

That's something Grant fails to understand because he's ignorant of history, ignorant of philosophy, and has the intellectual capacity of a thimble. Grant's a fascist who thinks himself a progressive. Rather than contemplate the truth in that statement, he'll be back here with a blathering diatribe which will only prove my point. 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Deranged Rhino