Roll the Bones 74 Posted May 16, 2013 Author Share Posted May 16, 2013 Liberals are by their nature stupid and incapable of accomplishing anything meaningful. Therefore it is a bad thing to have the people in charge of protecting the environment come from the shallow end of the gene pool. But killing a few millions blacks to save a pelican egg probably makes sense to you guys. I mean, they were third worlders after all... Conservatives are by their nature beholden to the evolutionary bindings of adhering to the group and incabable, similar to the mentally ill, of seeing outside those bindings. I believe this leads to my original premise on this thread, that indeed Republicans are mostly batshit crazy. Creationist, Climate Deniers, Conspricay theorists, and lovers of all thing Woo anymore. Thankfully, the youth of today simply won't abide by the idiotic theocratic and illogical ramblings of the whacked out blatantly false accusation and characterization of environmentalism you just spewed. Again, you are exhibit one of my case. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted May 16, 2013 Author Share Posted May 16, 2013 I imagine you will be happy having the IRS overseeing your forced purchasing of a product by the government. Some people find this chilling.... It would be hard to explain this to someone who thinks enriching Dow chemicals to stop the ozone hole that wasn't affected much by cfcs, was a good plan, yet is accusing me of being in the pockets of big business. Nex thing you know you will be against them collecting TAXES!! ZOMG!! Conspiracy!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Nex thing you know you will be against them collecting TAXES!! ZOMG!! Conspiracy!!!! This the day after they have been shown to misuse this trust. I mean if you feel the IRS is the cat's meow and the more they can be included in every aspect of your life is a good thing, well more power to ya. I'd kind of like them to be fired, en masse Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Conservatives are by their nature beholden to the evolutionary bindings of adhering to the group and incabable, similar to the mentally ill, of seeing outside those bindings. I believe this leads to my original premise on this thread, that indeed Republicans are mostly batshit crazy. Creationist, Climate Deniers, Conspricay theorists, and lovers of all thing Woo anymore. Thankfully, the youth of today simply won't abide by the idiotic theocratic and illogical ramblings of the whacked out blatantly false accusation and characterization of environmentalism you just spewed. Again, you are exhibit one of my case. I don't think what you wrote is actually english. I'll send it to BabelFish to check. Nope, unable to detect Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Nancy Nancy Nancy....My how dumb you are. PELOSI: Has anybody mentioned that the director who left, and therefore we have now an acting director, was a Bush appointee? And that Miller is a career - he’s a career. So these are not Obama appointees. But it happened on their watch. I mean, the IRS -- those are three scary initials to most people. "It's Bush's Fault" Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Almost as good as Axelrod: "The government's too big for us to know everything that's going on" The government's too big......I've heard that somewhere before. But his party's answer? Make it bigger Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 And yet..Yahoo News never considered pointing out your point that an environmentalist name isn't a liberal name. But do a google search and you'll get educated. Or don't and remain in the dark...which is what the left is hoping you'll do. Yes, almost as if Yahoo is a news organization (barely) and a journalistic article does not refute quotes, because...that isn't journalism. Thanks for the link to the google search. Here is the first page, summarized: - a 5-year old link to Rush Limbaugh's website - a youtube video - an article from a real site, Newsbusters, which is just a discussion as to whether the environmental movement may have parallels to communism. Which is completely different, obviously, and makes no real claims. - a link to a forum with unnecessary capitalization - a link to www.concernedforliberty.com. Seems scientific. - Wordpress blog - Blog link, which begins with "Question: What do Earth Day and Vladimir Lenin’s birthday have in common? Answer: they both reoccur every year on April 22. Coincidence?" - About.com article asking "Is Earth Day a Communist Plot?" - There is a long article about Gorbachev and his environmental work. It seems to assume that anything related to Gorbachev is a communist plot, therefore if he is involved in the environment, the environment is a communist plot. - Lastly, a Wikipedia page on the USA Communist movement, which includes notes that they support the environmental movement and 'other progressive causes' So basically, you have to prefer baseless unacademic opinions and ignore logic, reality and science to even make the connection. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 So you're argument is that the google would put the best examples first. So you then "discredit" some of them and WHAMMY, you are scientific. Well......okay Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 BTW The IRS will be instrumental in the implementation of Obamacare. Who would have guessed? So? And to advance this storyline. Who is the IRS agent in charge of implementing Obamacare's enforcement department at the IRS? The same IRS agent who was in charge of the department targeting political enemies. Yea, Obama is really angry that this happened and will being getting to the bottom of this. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 deleted Good, that tangent was no fun. Of course its an opinion that communism has made its home in the modern environmentalist movement. But its an opinion based on reasonable facts, not a tin foil hat reasoning. Want to know a good tin foil hat reasoning? There are some people now who are arguing that Benghazi was a set up by the Obama administration to get the ambassador captured in order to allow Obama to trade the blind sheik for him days before the election. Its a pretty big stretch with some troubling facts that make you understand why its not completely out of the realm of possible. Here's a link to some of the theory. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Good, that tangent was no fun. Of course its an opinion that communism has made its home in the modern environmentalist movement. But its an opinion based on reasonable facts, not a tin foil hat reasoning. Want to know a good tin foil hat reasoning? There are some people now who are arguing that Benghazi was a set up by the Obama administration to get the ambassador captured in order to allow Obama to trade the blind sheik for him days before the election. Its a pretty big stretch with some troubling facts that make you understand why its not completely out of the realm of possible. Here's a link to some of the theory. My apologies - I really like discussing admittedly tin foil hat conspiracies, just have no time to read about that one, and haven't followed any of the relevant storylines enough to even make sense of it. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 My apologies - I really like discussing admittedly tin foil hat conspiracies, just have no time to read about that one, and haven't followed any of the relevant storylines enough to even make sense of it. Its pretty silly one, where intentions of people are supposed. So you can skip this one, because I got a better one and its much shorter. Link to post Share on other sites
MPaler 72 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I always thought the purpose of having 50 states was so that each can, within limits, handle things there own way? That way, you can look at what works, what does not work, and decide for yourself. Do you not know that if you think they are "nuts", they think the same about you? Who says liberalism or conservatism is THE way? So, they want teachers to have guns. Well, what is going to stop a madman from coming into a school and shooting people? Kind words? Prayer? Asking them to stop or please wait for the policemen with guns to show up so it’s a fair fight? No, sorry, it only ends when someone else shows up with a gun and stops them. Why wait for that? And if you post one guard with a gun at the school, guess who will get the first bullet? If you have no idea who has a gun, and that several do, well! Your job just got a little harder, didn't it Mr. go-and-shoot-some-defensless-kids. Boo-f-ing-hoo for you. SOME people don’t like to admit it, but the fact is that every single mass shooting (mall, school) has occurred where there are clear and present signs posted saying “no guns”. Well, no sheet Sherlock. If you want to go shoot a lot of people, are you going to go where you know they have armed guards or various folks walking around with concealed weapons? No, you are not. Did the “batman” theater shooter pick the theater closest to him? No. Did he pick the biggest one with the most patrons? No. Did he pick the one with all the “No guns allowed” signs? YES, YES HE DID. Matter of fact, THEY ALL PICK THESE SPOTS. If one teacher at any school that a madman’s shooting rampage occurred at had a frigging gun to shoot back with, do you think that would have made a difference? You bet it would have. Chances are if they thought they did, they would have thought again about doing it in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites
Avaron 0 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Shouldn't be the goal of society to develop to a point where stuff like this won't be necessary? You're right. If schools were guarded and personnel be armed, then the next shooter MAYBE thinks twice about it. Then again, most of these shooters don't go there with the intention to stay alive anyway... Now I was about to ask how we could prevent things like this from happening in the first place by improving the system to detect such dangers (like, for example, if the "batman" shooter actually had competent medical/psychological care. The problem could have been detected and stopped way before it happened). But I already know the counter-argument: There are always evil people (basically). So then, what stops the guard or teacher from snapping and turning nuts and starting to shoot? Link to post Share on other sites
NickCave 194 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 SOME people don’t like to admit it, but the fact is that every single mass shooting (mall, school) has occurred where there are clear and present signs posted saying “no guns”. Well, no sheet Sherlock. If you want to go shoot a lot of people, are you going to go where you know they have armed guards or various folks walking around with concealed weapons? No, you are not. Did the “batman” theater shooter pick the theater closest to him? No. Did he pick the biggest one with the most patrons? No. Did he pick the one with all the “No guns allowed” signs? YES, YES HE DID. Matter of fact, THEY ALL PICK THESE SPOTS. Let me get this straight, your argument is that signs that say "NO GUNS" lead to gun violence? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,320 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Let me get this straight, your argument is that signs that say "NO GUNS" lead to gun violence? Yup, that's one of the NRA talking points. When you make a school a "gun free zone" you turn it into a free fire zone for the crazies. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Let me get this straight, your argument is that signs that say "NO GUNS" lead to gun violence? And you mock me. Listen idiot, nonoe is arguing it leads to gun violence,Edit 2 Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Listen idiot, nonoe is arguing it leads to gun violence,Edit All-time great post right here. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted June 24, 2013 Author Share Posted June 24, 2013 Shouldn't be the goal of society to develop to a point where stuff like this won't be necessary? You're right. If schools were guarded and personnel be armed, then the next shooter MAYBE thinks twice about it. Then again, most of these shooters don't go there with the intention to stay alive anyway... Now I was about to ask how we could prevent things like this from happening in the first place by improving the system to detect such dangers (like, for example, if the "batman" shooter actually had competent medical/psychological care. The problem could have been detected and stopped way before it happened). But I already know the counter-argument: There are always evil people (basically). So then, what stops the guard or teacher from snapping and turning nuts and starting to shoot? To conservatives they view gun violence with hindsight. Everyone is a God fearing honest responsible citizen that owns a gun, unless they shoot someone. Then they are one of the crazies and all the God fearing honest responsible people need more guns, and more people to have guns, to protoct them from them. It never occurs to them that they are in fact arming people that will in fact use them purposefully, or accidently to kill people. Why they aren't for registration, safety, and protecting the actual responsible people is beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Hmm, 70,000,000+ legal gun owners in America. ~6,000 gun deaths each year Republicans: Seems we have a very tiny minority that should not taint the 69,993,999 gun owners who aren't shooting drug dealers and gang bangers. Democrats: ALL GUNS ARE BAD WE NEED TO BLAME ALL GUN OWNERS FOR THE SENSELESS DEATHS In the mean time, the vast majority of gun crazies are almost always from these three groups: 1. Liberal 2. atheist 3. pot smokers When will democrats face reality? When? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Hmm, 70,000,000+ legal gun owners in America. ~6,000 gun deaths each year Republicans: Seems we have a very tiny minority that should not taint the 69,993,999 gun owners who aren't shooting drug dealers and gang bangers. Democrats: ALL GUNS ARE BAD WE NEED TO BLAME ALL GUN OWNERS FOR THE SENSELESS DEATHS Link to post Share on other sites
MPaler 72 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Let me get this straight, your argument is that signs that say "NO GUNS" lead to gun violence? Come on. I'm saying just what I said. No shooter has ever gone out and shot up a place that did not advertise "no guns". If you were a shooter, would you seek out a place LESS likely to have armed persons, or MORE likely to have armed persons? Less likely, of course. Duh. Which bank would you rob? The one with armed guards, or the one without? WTF you think? And that's not NRA, that's common @@#$ing sense. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
MPaler 72 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Shouldn't be the goal of society to develop to a point where stuff like this won't be necessary? You're right. If schools were guarded and personnel be armed, then the next shooter MAYBE thinks twice about it. Then again, most of these shooters don't go there with the intention to stay alive anyway... Now I was about to ask how we could prevent things like this from happening in the first place by improving the system to detect such dangers (like, for example, if the "batman" shooter actually had competent medical/psychological care. The problem could have been detected and stopped way before it happened). But I already know the counter-argument: There are always evil people (basically). So then, what stops the guard or teacher from snapping and turning nuts and starting to shoot? Well, lets think about that. What's to stop them from snapping and bringing a gun to school right now? NOTHING. Has one, ever? Nope. And there is no MAYBE; I stand by my statement; NOT ONE SCHOOLS SHOOTING HAS OCCURRED AT A SCHOOL WITH UNKNOWN ARMED PERSONS PRESENT. They will not risk it. They are nuts, not stupid. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now