Nyarlathotep wrote:I am not the one advocagting censorship nor am I the one saying people's right's should be stripped because they belong to a political party I hate.
Neither have I dipshit.
Now continue to act as if you're a complete fucking moron who doesn't unbderstand sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek comments. That works so well for you!
Nyarlathotep wrote:You way "sarcasm", now, when you are looking for a fight.
But I will remember this thread next time you pretend to care for the rights of anyone except those who you agree with.
I don't see how that will help you, because I have never advocated anyone's rights be taken away from them, due process of law excepted of course.
The gun banners, however, continuously advocate for rights to be taken away from other people. And it's cute how you accuse me of "looking for a fight" because I take offense at the constant attempts to infringe upon rights protected by the Constitution.
Nyarlathotep wrote:You way "sarcasm", now, when you are looking for a fight.
But I will remember this thread next time you pretend to care for the rights of anyone except those who you agree with.
I don't see how that will help you, because I have never advocated anyone's rights be taken away from them, due process of law excepted of course.
You just said that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns. Just on the previous page. Roughly 2 1/2 hours ago
Maybe we should just ban Democrats from having guns?
But then, you knew that. A liar as well as a hypocrite. Either that or you are the guy from Momento and have no memory beyond the last few minutes. Going with the first option, seems more likely
Nyarlathotep wrote:You way "sarcasm", now, when you are looking for a fight.
But I will remember this thread next time you pretend to care for the rights of anyone except those who you agree with.
I don't see how that will help you, because I have never advocated anyone's rights be taken away from them, due process of law excepted of course.
You just said that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns. Just on the previous page. Roughly 2 1/2 hours ago
Maybe we should just ban Democrats from having guns?
But then, you knew that. A liar as well as a hypocrite. Either that or you are the guy from Momento and have no memory beyond the last few minutes. Going with the first option, seems more likely
I guess "pretend to be stupid" is the card you wish to play from here on out. See how that works out for you.
Doctor X wrote:People declare things as if declaration makes them so.
Abortion, however, is murder. The question is whether or not it is justifiable homicide.
In the rain.
--J.D.
No it isn't. Murder requires life to be present and there are rules that define life and a fetus does not meet those rules.
Sorry to make you cry.
Unmitigated nonsense. You are like the Nazis justifying the murder of untermensch by redefining what it is t be human. Amazing. And appalling.
<n.b. for the those with english as a second language: the word "like" signifies a simile, a comparison in other words. It is not an appellation. No one is being called a "Nazi" all that is being done is making a statement that certain rhetorical devices were used by the Nazis to justify enormities. We eagerly await an enumeration of those definitions of "life">
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!
Nyarlathotep wrote:You way "sarcasm", now, when you are looking for a fight.
But I will remember this thread next time you pretend to care for the rights of anyone except those who you agree with.
I don't see how that will help you, because I have never advocated anyone's rights be taken away from them, due process of law excepted of course.
You just said that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns. Just on the previous page. Roughly 2 1/2 hours ago
Maybe we should just ban Democrats from having guns?
But then, you knew that. A liar as well as a hypocrite. Either that or you are the guy from Momento and have no memory beyond the last few minutes. Going with the first option, seems more likely
Jesus, you are really off the deep end. Did you actually read his post? This is like pathology of some sort.
He DID NOT say that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns.
Tell me you are trolling.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!
Back to the subject at hand, here's a video of a father confronting an elementary school principal as to why she let 6th graders walk out of school. She weasels out of answering the question, of course.
There are several issues here that are part of the "narrative".
1) Gun prohibition itself.
2) Whatever the problem is with the schools.
3) Manipulating the grieving for political gain.
4) Using schoolchildren as ideological human shields.
5) Blood libel against one's political opponents.
6) Not letting a crisis go to waste.
Abdul Alhazred wrote:There are several issues here that are part of the "narrative".
1) Gun prohibition itself.
2) Whatever the problem is with the schools.
3) Manipulating the grieving for political gain.
4) Using schoolchildren as ideological human shields.
5) Blood libel against one's political opponents.
6) Not letting a crisis go to waste.
Not an exhaustive list. Feel free to add more.
7) the disintegration of old values, the nuclear family and so on. Trump --- just because
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!
ed wrote:
He DID NOT say that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns.
He said EXACTLY that and in so many words
Which part of "Maybe we should ban democrats from having guns" is the part that doesn't say democrats shouldn't be allowed to have guns? Was there some invisible part of the post that changed the context somehow? Because those were the entirety of his words on that post
ed wrote:
He DID NOT say that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns.
He said EXACTLY that and in so many words
Which part of "Maybe we should ban democrats from having guns" is the part that doesn't say democrats shouldn't be allowed to have guns? Was there some invisible part of the post that changed the context somehow? Because those were the entirety of his words on that post
Click the smiley, for the moment I'll just assume you're a very stupid man instead of an insufferable asshat.
Last edited by WildCat on Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nyarlathotep wrote:You way "sarcasm", now, when you are looking for a fight.
But I will remember this thread next time you pretend to care for the rights of anyone except those who you agree with.
I don't see how that will help you, because I have never advocated anyone's rights be taken away from them, due process of law excepted of course.
You just said that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns. Just on the previous page. Roughly 2 1/2 hours ago
Maybe we should just ban Democrats from having guns?
But then, you knew that. A liar as well as a hypocrite. Either that or you are the guy from Momento and have no memory beyond the last few minutes. Going with the first option, seems more likely
I guess "pretend to be stupid" is the card you wish to play from here on out. See how that works out for you.
If I said something like that, would you take "I was being sarcastic" as an excuse?
That's a rhetorical question by the way, I already know exactly how you are going to answer and will save us both time by calling you a liar in advance.
ed wrote:
He DID NOT say that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns.
He said EXACTLY that and in so many words
Which part of "Maybe we should ban democrats from having guns" is the part that doesn't say democrats shouldn't be allowed to have guns? Was there some invisible part of the post that changed the context somehow? Because those were the entirety of his words on that post
Click the smiley, for the moment I'll just assume you're a very stupid man instead of an insufferable asshat.
ed wrote:
He DID NOT say that Democrats should not be allowed to have guns.
He said EXACTLY that and in so many words
Which part of "Maybe we should ban democrats from having guns" is the part that doesn't say democrats shouldn't be allowed to have guns? Was there some invisible part of the post that changed the context somehow? Because those were the entirety of his words on that post
Click the smiley, for the moment I'll just assume you're a very stupid man instead of an insufferable asshat.
Would you accept the same excuse from me?
No you would not, you liar
"Excuse"?
How much more fucking obvious could it be that that was a statement made with toungue firmly in cheek?
And go ahead, provide a single example of me deliberately misinterpreting your words here. You won't be able to, will you? Because I don't do that to you, even as you have made that your modus operandi here ever since Trump. I show you respect you haven't ever shown me, and all you do is continue to shit all over that.
Nyarlathotep wrote:You said what you said. It was very illuminating. Don't know what else to say.
I know what else to say. It was obvious to me that Wildcat did not mean it literally. It was clearly sarcasm and hyperbole, similar in style to what you often post. No one here takes everything you post literally. Let it go, Ny.
Trump --- just because
"If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"