13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 6/4/13 08:28 AM, Fim wrote:
Do we even bother reading our own sources here?
Another U.S. official said the airstrike was launched by the militaryâEUTMs secretive Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC. It remains unclear whether the missile was fired by a remotely piloted drone or a fighter jet.
Do you read?
I've repeatedly mentioned that I don't care about whether or not an aircraft is manned.
At 6/4/13 07:14 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: crap the link I was looking for was the one where the government excused the killing of the son claiming he was of military age. not that one let me look for it avie.
At 6/3/13 09:09 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Did you even read your own article? They cited that he was active in a bombing plot and assisting in terrorist activities, thus making him a valid target. Or is your assertion that you have better evidence then they do?
Define "active", because if there's anything we know about a Government's ability to define words, "Imminent" means "not immediate."
LOLOLOLOLOL! Only if I forget that Iraq happened, or that he basically promised to start as many wars as possible (and they certainly had designs on Iran at one time). That is one of the dumbest things you've ever said.
To be fair, at least the moron told us what he was going to do, unlike Obama. Who promised all of these other things only to completely go back on every single one of them.
Though I do love your selective outrage.
I also love your predisposition to ban me for doing what you just did. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Sounded that way to me as well. But since Holder is withholding most of the details, it's hard to be sure about much...which is why you shouldn't be jumping to as many conclusions as you've done throughout the thread with information that isn't present in your source.
Governments have a very well established penchant for lying.
He's known about these strikes for years with varying differences in explanations.
Over a year later, his best excuse is "oops."
Yeah, that's credible.
This is a double standard and not in keeping with Constitutionality, or someone who uses the Constitution in an argument. You can't say "well we should always follow the Constitution on this...but it's fine not to here". That's not how the argument works. Also thank you for throwing more evidence onto my point that when it's your party it's fine, when it's Obama, it's always wrong.
I love how you're guilty of doing exactly what you just described.
That would then mean that he was killed in a collateral damage situation. Which is MUCH different then if he were actually the target of the strike.
Think about what you're saying...
His son was conveniently killed just 2 weeks later in a separate drone strike in a green zone with varying levels of explanation with a pitiful "oh, we didn't mean it" reply a year later.
And you're going to call him dumb?
How's gullible nitwit for you?
At 6/3/13 08:17 AM, Fim wrote:
Let's be honest, 4 deaths in 5 years is hardly a epidemic, where was the republican outrage when 8 million Iraqi civilians were killed under Bush?
Yes, let's be honest and pretend to completely miss the point that it's not that they were actively involved in a fight and died during crossfire, but that it's actually about how they weren't and were targeted for assassination without charge or trial sometimes in a green zone.
It'd be like if Germany and France were at war and German soldiers shoved a person out of a house and shot him/her in the streets.
You would probly be there going, "Well, that's not any different than getting killed during a fire fight!"
In my opinion, drones get well too much paranoid scrutiny than they deserve.
Gee, I don't know.
Could it be because the issue has nothing to do with the aircraft being manned or not?
Though I do find a certain irony in a country that uses unmanned aircraft which knowingly drop missiles on populated areas which kill civilians from a safe distance complaining about a suicide bomber running into said populated areas and blowing themselves up.
At 5/17/13 09:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
stuff
Btw, I love how you completely ignored Angry Hatters completely on point. logical, thought out argument about email.
What? Couldn't come up with anything?
At 5/17/13 09:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
It's legal according to the vague language of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution defines what public use is. Rezoning is a public use as it facilitates a designed growth meant to maximize benefits to the community whilst minimizing burdens.
That's like saying because the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, it could then "theoretically" mean that a farmer growing crops on his own property which he never sells to anyone and NEVER passes state lines, can be heavily regulated by Congress only by the irrational reasoning that because growing your own food on your own property to eat MIGHT affect in some SMALL, INSIGNIFICANT way on a SUBJECTIVE scale SOMETHING SOMEWHERE in our ENTIRE economy at SOME POINT.
Even though the word Regulate back in the late 1700's was actually keep states from enacting trade barriers to keep trade "Regular", which to the people who wrote it meant "Freely flowing."
But by your logic, because today's definition of "regulate" has changed, you would argue that could mean Congress can prevent anyone from, oh say, buying insurance over state lines... since, after all, they have the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The problem with idiots like you, is that you don't accept anything in its context. To you, if I killed someone in self defense, you would be the first to disregard the context of the situation and accuse me of murder.
At 5/16/13 08:31 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
If it's legal...that makes it lawful...
I like how you know for a fact that what he's talking about is that some law may be legal (according to the Federal Government), but that doesn't make it legal or lawful according to the nation's supposed "supreme law", that being the Constitution.
...and yet, despite that you continue to carry on pretending like you don't know that.
But let's give a thought experiment!
Say the constitution only allows Eminent Domain for a public use after "just compensation" (to build roads, bridges, hospitals, ect..), but then the supreme court holds (in Kelo) that eminent domain can be used to forcibly remove people from their homes to allow private contractors to build high rise, expensive apartments.
Is this decision legal according to the Constitution? Or just "legal" according to some old, cranky men and women in robes?
At 5/11/13 08:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So the IRS took an extra look at a group who is openly hostile to the idea of taxation. What's the news here? You going to complain a violation of rights when the police are paying extra attention to a group that openly claims to support crime? Give me a break.
Why not do the same of liberal groups?
After all, liberals are more likely to claim it's "ok" to cheat on your taxes than Conservatives.You're still a moron
At 5/10/13 08:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Straw man pure and simple. Mussolini and Obama do not compare.
Both order assassinations of own citizens...
He signed in the nullification of don't ask don't tell, that's one for civil rights.
He attended a homophobic church while claiming he himself didn't believe in gay marriage.
When a group called the "Log Cabin Republicans" (gay republican group - ironically) successfully sued to find Don't Ask, Don't Tell unconstitutional, Obama directed Eric Holder to block it, claiming it was "procedural."
All during a time when the white house was ordering gay rights protesters removed from a public sidewalk in front of the white house.
He only then signed to repeal "Don't Ask..." when the midterm elections were coming up and he needed votes (because it's not like he could've gotten this done during his 1st year when he had filibuster proof supermajorities).
Only after weeks of media scrutiny, he decides to give a speech on his "evolving" position... conveniently just hours before a Hollywood fundraiser.
During said speech, he said the 1 thing liberals NEVER say when it comes to a "civil right." That each state should decide if it wanted gay marriage... so nothing changes in those states.
lol, he played you morons like a fiddle.
He handled Libya as part of a coalition...
Go tell us how many countries joined us in Afghanistan and Iraq, then compare them to Libya.
That's one for each area you mentioned. But again, this is more about your charge that he's a dictator to me.
Assassinated american citizens, including a 16 year old in a green zone.
Claims to be able to indefinitely detain anyone, including citizens.
Claims he won't use the NDAA to detain citizens indefinitely, but then sends lawyers out to fight for its continued inclusion any time a judge threatened to find it illegal.
Yes, because Congress has no part in governance at all...
He doesn't need congress to pull back troops or close Gitmo.
He hasn't started any new wars.
Libya, Yemen, Syria.
Because as long as you're only killing people from far away with bombs... it doesn't count as a military conflict....
So I guess 9/11 wasn't an act of war?
gay marriage is legally in many states.
But not everywhere...
So move!
Hate that one too, wasteful.
Tripled from Bush after promising to end raids.
Examples?
I could've sworn we were borrowing money.
Ad hominem is the last resort of the man who has no real argument.
You're just too much of a dumb fucker to get it, lol.
You did, you still do when you act like he alone is making laws and policy and Congress is no part of it.
So as long as Congress goes with it... it makes it all magically "ok"
Yes it does, dictators have ABSOLUTE POWER. That's what make's them dictators.
Hugo Chavez.
We have an actual checks and balances system.
You didn't watch my video on how our system is rigged.
I'm not trying to absolve his role. I'm pointing out the unfairness of saying he's a dictator for continuing someone else's policies, but then people fail to call the originator a dictator. Make sense now?
Hm... Bush didn't assassinate Americans....
But I would've sent him to prison too!
He is right now bringing many home. He's following the Bush withdrawal model. We can debate whether or not this is the most expedient method, but in fairness he IS bringing them home.
Troops exiting Iraq... only to be replaced by military contractors while building a surge to nation build in Afghanistan while tripling drone bombings in Pakistan and starting new conflicts in Yemen, Libya, Syria, among other Northern African Nations.
He could indeed with some legal maneuvering. But unfortunately he would make quite a few enemies within Congress and in the public if he did.
No balls, no balls... or... he could've just been lying to you gullible idiots.
What was that about getting rid of the Patriot Act? ...Only for him to extend it... 3 times.
He has come out for gay rights. However he can NOT introduce a bill into Congress which would federally allow and protect gay marriage. Congress needs to do that, and then he can sign it.
No he doesn't.
All he needs to do is take it to the Supreme Court.
And also... see above!
You seem to think he has more unilateral power then he does...
All while he makes sure his most wealthier backers continue to get loopholes and tax breaks!
Straw man.
Good to know you support concentration camps.
Then you're not very bright. No other way to put it. If you can't see how a death camp is worse then a detention camp on the scale of outrageously bad things...
So... forcibly removing families from their homes at threat of gun point, without a warrant, and separating them into concentration camps because of their race isn't considered a dictator-like quality to you... all because we didn't actively kill them?
Ah... FDR!
Sieg Heil!
Yes, they are the farthest thing from liberal there is.
You're such the Fascist.
How is "tax breaks for the rich!" a liberal policy?
He cut taxes for everyone, but point taken!
How is endless unjustified war a liberal policy?
Do you have any recollection of before the year 2000?
World War 1 - Progressive
World War 2 - Democrat
Korean War - Democrat
Vietnam - Democrat
Gulf War - Republican... only we left immediately.
Clinton was the one who bombed Iraq in 1997 claiming they had WMDs after placing sanctions on them.
Bush campaigned on no nation building before he was elected.
How is "don't criticize your government" a liberal policy?
Pledge was written by a Socialist by the name of Bellamy which came with a salute that was imitated across Europe and eventually picked up by Hitler, where upon it was forcibly taught in schools by Progressives like Woodrow Wilson where children were giving the "Nazi Salute."
Oh the irony of the Nazi salute originating in the Good Ol'e US of A!
You seem to only zero in on the parts of Bush's administration and policies that support your views, and you 86 the rest.
I wouldn't call 90% of his policies as "Zero'ing in."
You've mentioned what? Tax cuts?
Meanwhile we've mentioned:
-Healthcare
-War
-Indefinite Detention
-Corporate Bailouts
-Assassinations
-Drone Strikes
-Going to war without declaration
-Patriot Act
-Stimulus
-Drug War
I mean really... who's really guilty of "86'ing" the rest?
By who? Where?
Are you sure YOU aren't the hermit?
If only I had been...
Obviously you were.
I didn't say you were a big neo-con. I said that when you make charges that I have heard sources that are identifiable as neo-con or completely in bed with such schools of ultra-right thought, repeatedly, then I can ascribe at least a certain sympathy with them, or at least a familiarity with them. That's it.
You're more neo-con than us, Mr. Statist!
At 5/10/13 08:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 5/9/13 09:14 PM, Memorize wrote: Last I checked, you can't opt out.Except you can. You opt out by leaving the societal structure. Either by leaving the country, or being like the folks who'd rather go out and be hermits and rough it off the grid and what not. If you choose to take the benefits of a society, you take the responsibilities as well.
I don't want Social Security.
I don't want the "benefits" of social security.
Since I'm willing to note take anything from Social Security when I retire....
Can I now opt out?
I like how when things used to be on a state by state basis, jackasses like you were always bitching about how "unfair" it was for people to have to leave a single state.
But now that you short term idiots have nationalized so many things, you're response to people who actually want to be responsible and not leech off the system is to say "Leave the entire fucking country!"
I also love this idea of community you have. Majority rule, right?
Last I checked, if I'm not even engaging you, you can't accuse me of hurting you by refusing to join your petty associations. You don't get to claim victimhood when I haven't done anything towards you.
Meaning, you're nothing more than a slave driver.
At 5/10/13 10:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
And that's the real issue here: how the rules that have gotten so out of control that a simple gesture like pointing to the sky is seen as a celebration penalty. Not whether the act was religious or not.
Welcome to the end result of your regulations!
At 5/10/13 10:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Because the smarter among us
You've always been a stupid fuck, Cam.
realize that without the government leverage in there very few people would actually donate to charities.
Legislating morality.
People are very shitty with thier own money. The average American would watch their future go down in flames if it meant they could do so from the deck of a cruise ship.
A cruise ship provided by Government backed monopolies.
They would watch others starve if it meant they could do so on a 50" TV.
Yes, those mass swaths of the American population who were dropping dead without food, which happened...
Oh wait... it never did.
:They would watch the streets crumble around them if it meant they could take two extra trips to Red Robin annually.
Even though several people where I used to live VOLUNTEERED paving several streets since the Government left them unattended for years, only to be told they weren't allowed to by said government.
You want these people dictating our welfare and economy?
Rather them than a Government that kills people in needless war, drives a near 20 Trillion dollar deficit, bails out Corporations, puts people in prison for non-violent offenses, and writes so many laws that the average person commits two to three felonies a day.
At 5/9/13 09:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Which to me means I don't need to really give a fuck about their opinion. You have the right to vote, you have the right and ability to change things, you chose not to do so. I don't want to hear the excuse of "but my choice was between two assholes", no it wasn't.
Kind of difficult to break through when the system is rigged while the media ignores you.
At 5/9/13 09:12 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
If I didn't like these things, then I should probably go find a nice cave somewhere, start getting my own food and shelter and opt out of the implied social contract of being governed and participating in that government completely.
Tyranny by majority.
Last I checked, you can't opt out.
At 5/5/13 02:07 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
So how's about you use it to find me your exit poll data which allegedly indicates that voters think the government is too big and that they want to cut spending, or did you just invent that along with Romney's double digit lead among independents and the public's desire to repeal Obamacare?
I'll do that when he demands it, not you.
My little, fun debate isn't with you.
At 5/5/13 01:56 AM, Memorize wrote:At 5/5/13 01:46 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:Exit poll data from New York Times, FOX News, and CNN: Share of Independent/Other vote, Romney 50%, Obama 45%.Hey look.
5% = single digit.
Someone who knows how to use Google.
Fucking finally
To add to this:
When I said he won by double digits, I was going from memory of what two analysts said during initial exit polling.
When I searched it up, I found it to be a 5 pt difference.
I initially wrote that in my previous reply, but I wanted to see if he would, just once, actually look someone up to correct me.
But no! You did it for him!
Damn you!
At 5/5/13 01:46 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Exit poll data from New York Times, FOX News, and CNN: Share of Independent/Other vote, Romney 50%, Obama 45%.
5% = single digit.
Hey look.
Someone who knows how to use Google.
Fucking finally
Can't find any exit polling on attitudes toward spending. However, about 47% wanted to increase the income tax on high income earners ($250K+ per year) according to both FOX News and CNN exit polls. Another 13% wanted the income tax increased for everybody. Only 35% wanted no increase.
Never said they didn't.
But hey! Never said I agreed with the voters either.
At 5/4/13 09:21 PM, Warforger wrote:
It's funny, everyone outright hated the bailouts except for Economists in pretty much every reputable school of economics. It's the same thing with But that's okay, they don't know anything about it anyway since they're not Libertarians.
Yes... all those "respected" economists who said everything was fine before the crash.
Gullible sucker. lol.
Alot of Reagan's policies were like Carter's, alot of Harding/Coolidges policies were like Wilson's, alot of Clevelands policies were like Arthur's policies etc. etc.
Exactly.
So why vote for one over the other when there's virtually zero difference between Bush and Obama?
War
Federal Reserve
Deficit spending
Foreign aid
Regulation
ObamaCare and Medicare part D
Patriot Act
Drone Strikes and double tapping
Indefinite detention
Stimulus
Bank bailout
Auto bailout
What difference?
You can't logistically do that. Of course you think you understand military logistics which i doubt you even know the basics of.
I can sure as hell do it in less than 4 years.
but instead asked the Iraqi Government if we could stay until 2020 only for them to reject it....What? You mean the Iraq government asked the US to stay until 2020?
Learn... to... fucking... read.
Um no because he wasn't outright invading a nation just because he didn't like the government.
You mean if we only bomb from the sky it doesn't count as a war?
So... if we were to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran...
I highly doubt that, considering Bush had set up an Iraq War commission which concluded that the US should just pull out. He just ignored that went ahead with it.
In 2008!
"BAGHDAD, Aug. 21 -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here."
Yah, just like any other country does, especially in allies....
So... just like Bush.
LOL! Now you're talking out of your ass.
Yemen
Syria
Lybia
Surge in Afghanistan
Doubled drone strikes in Pakistan.
What do you mean? Very few died in Libya since we weren't even doing most of the engagement. Other than that he's mostly been using drone strikes which on their own don't risk US lives. So I can only think of the Afghanistan war which he didn't even start or begin. Please, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Remember kids....
If you kill people from far away... it doesn't count as a military conflict!
So I don't agree with you? Outstanding.
I think so too.
You're too much fun not to insult.
Which is something Democratic Presidents do better than Republican Presidents.
Obama sure proved that doubling down on Bush's policies.
Romney wasn't pro-choice and he wasn't pro-bailout either. He didn't even want government run healthcare either since he stated the first thing he would do is repeal it. So no.
Pro-choice as Governor.
Said he wouldn't try to repeal Roe v Wade
Supported TARP
Claimed, while Governor, that RomneyCare could be a model for the country.
It's amazing that you care more about their words in a campaign over their actions.
And you apparently didn't read his platform, which stated that he would ban abortions even if the mother's life was at risk.
"The official platform language poised for approval at next week's Republican National Convention doesn't fully represent the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Tuesday."
Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Once again... you're a dumb fuck.
lolz
At 5/4/13 05:09 PM, Warforger wrote:
I don't like either.
Says the bailout supporter.
That doesn't matter, you don't insult your customers if you're trying to get them to buy your product. You'd obviously be a terrible politician. Although according to you stupid is "anyone who does not agree with me".
It's anyone who doesn't accept facts.
Their policies are similar, but not the same. Obviously things like bailouts weren't popular, but were better than the alternative.
Carrying the water, are we? lol
But doing things like the Iraq War kind of don't fit into Obama.
Oh right...
Because when Obama said he would withdraw us on day one, but instead asked the Iraqi Government if we could stay until 2020 only for them to reject it.... that wasn't like Bush at all, right?
So what did Obama do? Ah, that's it! He went with the withdraw plan set up BY BUSH with the Iraqi Government towards the end of '08 to be out by the end of 2011.
But are we out?
Oh wait... no. Because all he did was reclassify the status of various troops so he didn't have count them as "engaged", threw any soldier who actually did withdraw into a surge/nation building in Afghanistan, all while replacing the soldiers who left Iraq with Military Contractors.
All while starting more military conflicts and getting just as many troops needlessly killed in pointless military actions in just 4 years that Bush did in 2 full terms.
Nope. Not even close.
And you're close to be a fucking moron.
The election was not lost by the Republicans because they didn't motivate Conservatives, in fact the reason may be that they're so far to the right that Conservatives were the only people they could mobilize and those are decreasing.
Romney won independents by double digits while millions of self identified conservatives stayed home.
And if you ever bothered to look at exit polling data on the issues that the voters cared about, most thought the Government was too big, wanted to cut spending, and repeal Obamacare.
But hey! When you get two parties who supply you with two Statists to choose from!
Ah no. If anything it helps my argument because centrist Conservatives are so ashamed of the Republican party they don't identify with it anymore. Yet they still vote Republican because they're still Conservative. Although there is a huge movement pushing people who are centre-right into being identified as leftist.
So a pro-choice, Pro-bailout, pro-war, Spending increasing, Government run healthcare Republican (ObamaCare being modeled off of RomneyCare); all of which are positions Obama shares...
...is considered, to you, to be "far right wing?"
Once again... you're one stupid fuck.
At 5/4/13 01:13 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Romney's economic policies were frighteningly similar to the policies that got us into the recession in the first place.
I didn't vote for Obama, though.
The irony being that Obama is a Bush rehash.
At 5/4/13 04:32 PM, Warforger wrote:
1. Same old Conservative rhetoric, call for a huge spending decrease while your actual plan is a spending increase since Conservatives love and hate deficits and a huge escalating debt
So you should love them.
2. Obama is not in the party which insults people who don't vote for it. You attack the party, not the voters. Something that Romney never figured out.
If voters are stupid, they deserve to be called stupid.
Like... hating Bush for his policies only to vote for Barrack (now Bush 4th term) Obama.
4. Most importantly, Obama is not a Republican. Something that hurt Romney after Todd Aiken and Murdock. You know, people who seemed to be trying to aim for the wife beater and rapist demographic over women.
Even though in reality millions of conservatives stayed home because they didn't consider Romney a Conservative.
Meanwhile Romney won independents, therefore nullifying your idiotic argument that Aiken and Murdock were even on people's minds when they voted.
At 5/4/13 03:51 PM, Osyris wrote:
Obama is like a dictator, especially with the Grand Obstructionist party in Congress
Controls Presidency and both senate and house for 2 years with filibuster proof super majorities for 1 year while currently controlling presidency and the Senate today....
Yeah, damn those obstructionists!
At 4/24/13 11:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
I support landlord tenant law in the same way I support other laws. They are there to ensure that people don't get screwed because they have less power than someone else.
I would think that those who don't own the property should have less power than the person who does.
At 4/25/13 04:19 AM, Fim wrote:
Just because I disagree with you don't mean I'm a liberal. I don't identify with either end of the political spectrum.
Would you have preferred "Statist?"
What a convincing argument.
Whatever lets me have my fun.
I think you're getting confused, I don't mind hearing a alternative viewpoint, there's a difference between a rational factual debate of ideas and what you're doing which is just name calling and being offensive when someone gives you a opinion that you don't like.
Correction: I name call while presenting you with facts.
Where upon you then use the name calling as an excuse to not actually debate.
You mean it doesn't fit into your narrative so you're going to dismiss the evidence.
*sgh* I'm going to ask you again.
What the hell is the point of gun control to reduce gun related deaths if the same number of people are killed regardless?
Say you have two countries, A and B.
Country A has 100 Knife deaths and 0 gun deaths.
Country B has 0 Knife deaths and 100 gun deaths.
You would be that jackass from A visiting B and saying "You guys suck! Look at all these gun deaths! We have 0 so we're better!"
Completely ignoring the fact that both countries have the same death toll.
And you wonder why I call people like you, stupid.
I didn't ask a question, I'm quoting a poll. And you're wrong, currently the law doesn't extend to background checks online and at gun shows, which is why it needed to change.
Uh... yes, you do.
Go online and purchase a gun from a dealer.... guess what... you go through a background check.
"The proposal, put forward as an amendment to a broader gun bill, sought to widen current checks to include online and unlicensed gunshow dealers."
Which already exist.
My father has ordered a gun online. He went through... a background check.
Lol I said idiot. Who's being petty now.
So when I say "idiot", you call it name calling and unfair (basically bitching like a typical liberal), but when you do it... it's fine?
Once again... double standards... just like a liberal, lol.
Dumb fuck.
At 4/24/13 07:39 PM, Fim wrote:
What the hell does that mean? What a fucking bafflingly irrelevant anecdote, so what, you had a tough time in college and now somehow this validates your stance on gun policy? You're telling me you'd want a gun to protect criminals from breaking into your home and trying to steal your college books and sandwich filler? You sound crazy.
More like my $2000 laptop with around $12,000 worth of software.
Calm down my little ray of sunshine, no need to whip out your keyboard warrior persona. We're meant to be 'debating', if you haven't got a valid point don't camouflage that behind big naughty words. You don't know anything about me, what my financial situ is like or what job I do, stick to the topic. If you get personal you just come across like a douche and I won't waste anymore time replying.
Then do what you liberals always do.
Plug your ears and walk away, chicken shit.
At least those conservatives aren't so petty as to let words hurt their poor feelings and run off.
But thanks for the fun. I can add to the growing list of self proclaimed free speech loving liberals who run off during a debate because you didn't like what you were hearing.
So I'll be professional now, lol!
Source please.
In my original post I showed evidence that tighter gun regulation eliminated mass shootings in Australia, reduced gun crime by 50/60% and drastically reduced the volume of teen suicides involving guns.
Great!
Except... no one cares about that.
I want an overall reduction in murder and crime. If all you do is reduce gun relating murder/crime, but the overall murder/crime remains the same.... then what was the point?
Small steps over time make a difference. What annoys me so much about the pro gun argument is that they look at a high gun homicide rate, and things like sandy hook, and they basically say lets do nothing.
Wrong.
They look at overall homicide rates, because that's the number that matters.
I'm a big fan of drug legalisation believe it or not, but guess what? I'd legalise them, but I'd regulate the crap out of them.
I... wouldn't!
With the exception of being underage.
Clearly the issue is at a stalemate because stupid people like you argue about something you don't know anything about. The bill put to congress actually EXCLUDED the amendments to the assault weapons ban, and restrictions on magazine capacities.
I was using that as an example of the type of people they are, not what was in the bill.
All that was included in the bill was extended background checks on online firearms purchases and checks for unlicensed gunshow dealers.
Gunshow dealers are already required to be licensed and there already is a background check for online purchases.
The reason why the bill failed was due to the Government wanting to create a national registry.
It was supported by 86% of Americans, and still it was blocked.
Because you asked a vague question. You didn't specify which types of background checks or what exactly was in the bill.
It's sort of like polling for abortion. When you poll people asking if they support Roe V Wade, the support is high. But when you poll people asking if they support specifics of Roe V Wade, that support erodes.
Nice try using bogus polls... even though it doesn't matter if even 99% supported it; that doesn't alter reality.
Probably because the NRA spent about 25$ million on narrow minded propaganda advertising so loudmouth idiots stall the debate and filibuster any opportunity to move things forward.
I'm sorry, weren't you just throwing a Pissy fit before about my language?
Well the problem is you don't do enough research before you argue, I'm guessing it all comes from a knee jerk emotional place, since there isn't anything to do with assault weapons in the bill, and assault weapons have nothing to do with defending yourself in your own home. If you'd like to argue with the facts I'd be happy to chat with you handsome.
... I just showed a giant FUCKING GRAPH
At 4/24/13 08:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm still curious how Memorize thinks people being restricted by something they had a chance to vote on, and not having a chance to vote fairly at all are in any way the same?
Tyranny by the majority?
My point is, unless the property owner is going against a contract that both he and the renter voluntarily agreed to, then it doesn't matter how stupid his/her reasoning for jacking up the price of renting is.
After all, it's still their property, not the renters.
I'm wondering why you would consider this abusive, but not when a renter uses Government to force home OWNERS to agree to their "rent" demands.
Perhaps he thinks restrictions when they help people are bad, but when they hurt people they're good. Explains why he so often sides with Conservatives.
It only appears that I side with conservatives more, simply because the term "conservative" can be applied to a much broader group of people than liberal (You have libertarian Conservatives, fiscal conservatives, paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, constitutional conservatives, ect.)
For example, you'll find conservatives who, despite personally being against gay marriage, do support gay couples being together and adopting; they just don't believe Government should be involved in marriage (gay or straight).
I'm personally in favor of gay marriage, but i'm against Government sanctioned marriages as well, which is why I don't argue with those specific individuals.
Or, I'm against mandatory contraceptive coverage, not because of any BS religious reason (I support using contraception), but because when my friends and I were around 10 years old we, without a job or money, could easily find a way to get a hold of them. So when I see a liberal tell me that as a grown ass adult with a job; that because they were either too lazy or damn stupid to walk into a nearby CVS and drop $10 for a box, that I should have to pay for their entirely voluntary sex life as a result... I can only think "Fuck you, dumbass!"
Besides, haven't you noticed that practically half my posts are comparing Obama to Bush and calling out liberals for having fake anti-war positions?
Since I'm anti-war too!
At 4/24/13 05:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Or people with no kids voting down school support measures. Or people with no kids voting in Hawk Candidates. Or people in rural areas getting extremely high amounts of government support voting down tax bills that pay for the welfare of their expensive way of life.
Part of a voting government is having people impose burdens upon others.
So... why exactly are you complaining about the rent increase again?
lol.
At 4/24/13 03:24 PM, Fim wrote:
I think you've brought some of your own personal baggage to the party here son. If you feel the need to get personal with me you clearly don't have a solid argument against what I've said.
Sure I do.
When in college, both of my parents were unemployed and there was a time that my roommate brought in another guy who never paid rent and left damages in his room that I had to pay for, where upon I had to move to even more expensive place, including paying first, last, and deposit while giving money to my parents to the point where I was literally living pay check to pay check making sure I had just enough in my account to make sandwiches.
And you're advice to me when I went through that period is to let them take my stuff which was required for school work?
Fuck you.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact that people who try and take on intruders are more likely to get injured or killed themselves and I don't think that's a risk worth taking over material possessions, but that's just me.
You suck at doing whatever you do, so you restrict my ability to do it.
Sure thing, you spoiled, little shit.
Can I just clarify my position and say that I don't agree with taking away people's right to defend themselves, neither's Obama. The bill that has been mind-boggling blocked by republican politicians was going to better regulate BACKGROUND CHECKS and HELP FOR THE MENTALLY UNWELL.
Too bad studies have shown zero results in affecting murder and crime rates.
It's like supporting gun registration despite the fact in the 100 years that states have had it, it has lead to a whopping 2 arrests.
Sure, Gun control, the Drug war, and the Patriot all sound logical on paper... but they don't do a damn thing.
The reason there is such a stalemate on this issue is because of pro gun lobbyists hysterically exaggerating their opponent's position, and derailing the public dialogue with irrelevance.
No, it's because people like you are so stupid that you want to enforce more gun laws despite not knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip.
So far nobody has given me a convincing argument for why this specific piece of legislation has been vetoed. Granted, it wasn't going to stop the pandemic of the gun problem in the US but at least it would have made some positive impact. It barely even affects the majority of gun buyers who are doing so honestly and with good intentions.
Really? Prove to me where it would've made some positive impact in the US.
Because last I checked the average number of person's killed by assault weapons during our assault weapons ban in the 90's was 700 per year.
Today, after the ban was lifted and more states loosened gun laws, it's now down to 300.
Oh, but now it's a problem?
At 4/24/13 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/24/13 08:04 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: you get for who you vote for now you have to suffer the consequences of your shitty decision.Welcome to the United States of China, where it is 100% OK to use money and power to intimidate people into voting your way!
As opposed to the people who use Government to tell property owners how much they can and can't charge for rent on their own homes.
Or people without property voting to increase property taxes.
At 4/24/13 11:24 AM, Fim wrote:
I tell you what I'd do in that situation, I'd give them what they want and let the insurance cover it. Fuck am I going to risk my life in a physical confrontation with a criminal.
Translation: "I suck at defending myself and property so I'm going to restrict your right to defend yourself and property."
I also love how you assume that everyone has enough money to afford insurance like you, you elitist prick.
At 4/23/13 02:23 PM, Fim wrote:
Before you make shit up to support your arguement use this great new thing called Wikipedia.
You mean like only pointing to mass shootings rather than overall numbers of deaths?
Or... using wikipedia?
I find it funny that murder and crime rates have dropped 50% in the US in the last 20 years while gun control lessens, yet it's only NOW that gun violence is the biggest issue ever.
