Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Bad news for liberals.
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Bad news for liberals. Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Aug 9th, 2003 01:07 PM
El Blanco
Quote:
babies can be bought from the baby store and if you squeeze them, they spew bullets.
I know the hot new toy this Christmas. I'm gonna be rich.

Quote:
What he Vinth is how can somebody do a thing if some other time another guy or the ffirst guy does a thing that has some stuff in common with the thing either of them did first but then they complain about the other thing? I mean how can you object to something and then not object to everything that has anything in common with it?
What the fucking fuck. who the fuck? What the fuck? How the fuck did you fucking fucking fucks...........fucking...................FUCK!
Aug 8th, 2003 12:46 PM
ranxer i'm dizzy
Aug 8th, 2003 11:43 AM
mburbank Oh, sure, just like another guy to other the other when they would have been the other whining other guy other the first other other other whine about other when other other before the first of which the other guy other other other other of the whining!
Aug 8th, 2003 11:34 AM
kellychaos Vinth has hacked Max's account! Call a cop.
Aug 8th, 2003 11:25 AM
mburbank Yeah, Kelly, way to whine about a thing that gets whined about when someone else who also could be you or someone of your ilk has already been whining about another things when you didn't whine about the first thing, but they did.

Dumbass.
Aug 8th, 2003 11:03 AM
kellychaos Consider this Vinth ... or not ... I don't care. There was a Prohibition Amendment in the Constitution which has subsequently been repealed yet the sale of alcohol is still regulated. You can't go into a bar at eighteen, a legal voter, and demand a drink because it's guaranteed in the Constitution as a right. You'll find that in most rights included in the "Bill Of Rights", that there are subsequent laws and court rulings, or precedents, which serve as a guideline to interpret the "grays" inherent in those rights. It's not YOUR interpretation. It's the legal system's interpretation. They've been doing it a long time and they MIGHT just know a little bit more about the original intent of those bits of legislation, don't ya think?!
Aug 8th, 2003 09:22 AM
mburbank What he Vinth is how can somebody do a thing if some other time another guy or the ffirst guy does a thing that has some stuff in common with the thing either of them did first but then they complain about the other thing? I mean how can you object to something and then not object to everything that has anything in common with it?

How hard is that to understand?

I mean, it's not like Vinth is a retard.
Aug 8th, 2003 08:17 AM
Zero Signal
Aug 8th, 2003 07:40 AM
FS I'm trying to wrap my mind around it but it's so vast and sweaty it keeps slipping out.

So, in Vince world it is amazing that "liberals" don't want waiting periods before they get a gun, while they also don't want waiting periods before they get an abortion, because one is contested by the Constitution while the other is not.

Aside from the complex asininity of it all, I guess that Vince thinks babies can be bought from the baby store and if you squeeze them, they spew bullets. Also, guns are made when two NRA members passionately shake hands and unless it is taken apart within three months, it is indestructable.
Aug 8th, 2003 04:47 AM
pjalne What I don't get, is what he means.

Quote:
Why is it that liberals whine about having "waiting periods" on getting a gun, something that is a plain-as-day right in the Constitution, but whine about ANY waiting period on abortions, which isn't a right in the Constitution at all?
Simplified version:

'Why do people whine about A, but whine about B?'

What the hell kind of sense is that supposed to make? is it:

A: 'Why do people not only whine about A, but whine about B also?'

B: 'Why don't people whine about A, but whine about B?'

C: 'Why do people whine about A, but don't whine about B?'

... or is it upposed to mean something different altogether? I'm not trying to turn this thread into another Vince bash fest, I just want to know what the hell he's talking about.
Aug 7th, 2003 01:30 PM
mburbank I think since the constitution states our right to bear arms, the govt. should provide them. I think there should be huge, unlocked weapons caches on every street corner, weapons loaded and ready. Waiting period, scmaiting period, I have the right to defend myself, why should I be burdened with CARRYING a weapon?

Vibe, seriously, you're asking way more of Vinth in the thinking department then he's capable of. You're asking a man who gets a bone on fantasizing using weapons to 'protect' people to concider consequences.
Aug 7th, 2003 01:05 PM
Vibecrewangel
Yeah

Quote:
Why is it that liberals whine about having "waiting periods" on getting a gun, something that is a plain-as-day right in the Constitution, but whine about ANY waiting period on abortions, which isn't a right in the Constitution at all?
Why is it that men whine about something they have no possible way of understanding? Once they shoot their wad their work is done. That is assuming you call that work.

You are so big on the constitution and the "rights" listed therein you seem to have forgoten that life isn't black and white text.

I think owning a gun should be a privilage not a right. And I would hope that someone who wants to protect the unborn children would want to do the same for the children who would be in jeapordy if say a released child molester could just walk in and by a gun without a background check.

Circumstances my boy. You have to consider circumstances.
Aug 7th, 2003 11:17 AM
ranxer Northwoods doc links:

referenced via James Bamfords book 'body of secrets':
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

more via infowars: http://www.infowars.com/northwoods.htm


has anyone seen the vid 'why we dropped the bomb' ( circa 1987 i believe)
peter jennings brings a lot of historians to bear on pearl and hiroshima.. they don't go as far as others but the consensus there is that we did not leaflet the japs that we were going to drop the bomb.. the reasoning being that the impact of the bomb would not be as great.. the movie historians hint that the bombs were not dropped to stop the japs but more to keep russia in its place.

i also found this timeline of WWII events interesting, but there isnt enough references to make it definitive :/
http://www.blankgen.com/arkansucknew...ad.php?tid=403
Aug 7th, 2003 11:16 AM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
The first statement was made in private, either in his journal or to his high command. The seond one was supposedly in a speech to the people.
Oh. In that context, it makes more sense.
Aug 7th, 2003 11:01 AM
El Blanco The first statement was made in private, either in his journal or to his high command. The seond one was supposedly in a speech to the people.
Aug 7th, 2003 10:29 AM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by O71394658
Ranx, I never know if you're joking, so I'm not even going to bother with that post. :/

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938

""This year, will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

(although there is some propaganda circling as to doubt Hitler said this- he [i]did[\i] in fact say the first one)
Assuming they're coming from the same person (Hitler), those statements are nonsensical in their contradiction.

If my choices are to either have arms or be ruled by a tyrannical dictator that I have no means to overthrow, take a guess which one I'd choose.

Which leads me to MY point ... what's YOUR point? :/
Aug 7th, 2003 09:13 AM
The One and Only... Background checks, etc. They don't want the gun to go to a crazy psycho.
Aug 7th, 2003 08:45 AM
VinceZeb Why is it that liberals whine about having "waiting periods" on getting a gun, something that is a plain-as-day right in the Constitution, but whine about ANY waiting period on abortions, which isn't a right in the Constitution at all?
Aug 6th, 2003 11:05 PM
Jeanette X Ranx, can you give me a link to this declassified document?
Aug 6th, 2003 10:50 PM
O71394658 Ranx, I never know if you're joking, so I'm not even going to bother with that post. :/

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938

""This year, will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

(although there is some propaganda circling as to doubt Hitler said this- he [i]did[\i] in fact say the first one)
Aug 6th, 2003 05:59 PM
ranxer i must admit the references to cia and others knowing about the pearl harbor attack 12 days before are very hard to find as is the info regarding japan being ready to surrender before the bomb, it all depends on what you read.. ive come across the info in books by zinn and the war on freedom, so i can't prove much here.. many folks with the personal experience are now dead.

my point is not that there's some shadow government (as blanco says) working as a team to pull the wool over our eyes.. its that there are corrupt people in the government using thier power to sway opinion with only a little concern about collateral damage(concern based on selfpreservation). the wmd issue is 90% manufactured and those using the issue should be held accountable.. i just see this situation as similar to many other situations that were surrounded by lies, demonization, fear, and cloak and dagger tactics.

have you heard of the declasified northwoods document?
we've had plans to bait an enemy into first strike or fabricate a first strike(hard to prove) over and over if you look into it.. if you don't believe it or don't care, i'm saying that you have been duped into waving that flag as if gw really cares about you. If the plans were known about, do you think they would use them? control of information is thier first line of defence. plus everybody knows how slippery politicians are, you think that's for no reason? give me a break.

gw rewards the financial contributors and throws the rest to the wolves.. even our GI's are suffering many cutbacks. gw needed collateral damage to back a move into oil country to stabalize the dollar and provide new contracts for the corp heads that got him into power. at least thats what i and many others see as the main reason we had 9-11, attack on afghanistan, wmd's and iraq occupation.
Aug 6th, 2003 05:27 PM
Vibecrewangel
Okay

Actually, I did read you whole argument. You believe that that a gun and a nuke are different. And they are in many ways.
I believe that a lunatic is a lunatic.

Your qualifier is the weapon. Mine is the lunatic. I find that the lunatic is the more important part of that equation.
Aug 6th, 2003 04:17 PM
The One and Only...
Re: OOOOkay

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel
Quote:
Comparing them to nukes is idiocy.
From a strictly psycholgical standpoint I find it interesting that people completely overlook the actual point and always turn to the "but it's a right" or the "nukes are more dangerous" argument.

A lunatic with a weapon is a lunatic with a weapon.
Next time, you should consider reading my entire argument. A lunatic with a gun IS NOT a lunatic with a nuke, and I stated my reasons why.
Aug 6th, 2003 03:39 PM
Vibecrewangel
Guns

Totally there Seth and Kelly

If you can't wait 15 days for a gun you may be exactly the kind of person that shouldn't have one.
Aug 6th, 2003 03:30 PM
kellychaos Exactly. If they are such sticklers for discipline and responsibility, why would there ever be a rush to own a handgun or a fear of a backgroung check at any given time?

I also have issues with those that feel a need for assault rifles. Why God, why?! ... and don't gimme that "collectibles" crap.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.