The politics of hoodie wearing

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

On the other hand, what did get him shot was a substantial reward, wasn't it?.

Quote:

Yes, it was NOT.

Still operating according to OmSigDummy "logic", eh, Dave?

Tell us your great story again about some insignificant judge in New York, someone whose name you can't even remember, determines how the English language works.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

EVERY is multiple, without limit.

'every' is multiple, Dave, but it's not always without limit.

Note;

Every one of us in this room has a pen.

Did you learn that little pearl of wisdom from that New York judge that duped you so badly?

1 Reply

@JTT,

DAVID wrote:

EVERY is multiple, without limit.

JTT wrote:

'every' is multiple, Dave, but it's not always without limit.

Note;

Every one of us in this room has a pen.

In your sentence, "us" contains the limit.

JTT wrote:

Did you learn that little pearl of wisdom
from that New York judge that duped you so badly?

Did I say that a NY judge had duped me, J ?

I don 't remember that.

David

1 Reply

@Tulsa Oklahoma,

Tulsa Oklahoma wrote:

I don't get it.

3 shot dead in Tulsa 4 shot dead in Chicago, black or hispanic every one. Any hoodies plan to march? Or does Fla have an exclusive?

Have the police refused to charge the shooters?

1 Reply

@sozobe,

The 2 shooters in Tulsa are being arraigned today, I believe.

0 Replies

Zimmerman's lawyers quit.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/10/zimmerman-attorneys-to-speak/

1 Reply

Yeah, everything about this Zimmerman guy just screams innocent victim.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Did I say that a NY judge had duped me, J ?

Someone sure has, Dave, 'cause you've got some mighty weird ideas about the English language.

1 Reply

@JTT,

DAVID wrote:

Did I say that a NY judge had duped me, J ?

JTT wrote:

Someone sure has, Dave, 'cause you've got some mighty weird ideas about the English language.

That is the result of the apparently diseased, twisted condition of your mind, J.

I 'd be insulted, if u approved of me.

So far as I remember, I have not been duped by any judge,
nor did I ever complain of that, your indications to the contrary notwithstanding.

I remain of the opinion that, for the most part, but less than 1OO%,
English grammar is well based in competent logic.

David

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Zimmerman's lawyers quit.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/10/zimmerman-attorneys-to-speak/

Quote:

Toobin said he found it troubling that Uhrig and Sonner felt obliged to withdraw from the case so publicly.

"They make their client look like a lunatic, and they could have communicated this information to the prosecutor who, after all, is the most important person here," Toobin said. "I don't think they did George Zimmerman a great service by spelling this out in such extraordinary detail when they could have simply just gone into the prosecutor and said, ‘Hey, look, we don't represent this guy anymore.’ So I think that's a troubling question of legal ethics on their part."

Toobin said attorneys are not obliged to participate with clients who are actively ignoring their advice or refusing to be in contact with them. And he noted that the attorneys had not entered a notice of appearance that officially would have made them Zimmerman's attorneys in the case

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/10/zimmerman-lawyer-press-conference/?hpt=hp_c1

Just what we dont need to see....more unjust behavior from those who have taken an oath to uphold justice.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Fame whore lawyers..what a surprise.

If they were trying to make Zimmerman look odd, it worked. Can't wait to see the speculation on this.

But don't worry, plenty of other lawyers are lining up to represent him.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Considering the high profile this case has, I don't see a problem with them publicly disavowing Zimmerman.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Fame whore lawyers...what a surprise.

Its not a mental aberation; fame = more business = more incoming fees.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If they were trying to make Zimmerman look odd, it worked. Can't wait to see the speculation on this.

But don't worry, plenty of other lawyers are lining up to represent him.

Yes.

David

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Considering the high profile this case has,
I don't see a problem with them publicly disavowing Zimmerman.

Because of his erratic behavior, yes.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

David, as a matter of fact Jesse James WAS shot for the reward. Illustrative of the point that if you make the reward high enough, the bad guys will do each other in.

Sometimes; that did not always work out so well with the Mafia.

MontereyJack wrote:

What part of "take the guns away from the bad guys" is it that you don't understand?

Well, to begin with, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.
U 'd have as much luck trying to make Plutonium out of Pepsi-Cola.
In the 1920s, anyone who wanted beer or booze cud get it.
Now, anyone who wants marijuana can get it, despite whatever
number of Billion$ of dollars have been thrown at that problem,
proving that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Law of Supply & Demand.
Guns were hand-made b4 Christopher Columbus was born,
without engineering plans and without electric tools.
Its faster and easier now to produce better guns than Columbus had.
Prohibitions don't work; its especially unlikely to get co-operation
from predatory criminals.

THAT 's the part that I don't understand.
Did u get the idea yet, Jack ??????

We 'd also have to throw the Constution in the garbage
to give u what u want.

David

0 Replies

Bad analogies. Prohibition of alcohol and marijuana didn't work because, A) probably the large majority of people didn't buy into them,B) the substances banned were what many ;people considered an integral part of their lives, something they NEEDED to consume, C) they were cheap to produce and expensive even when legal, so the profit margin was large. D)They were easy to make in great quantity and didn't require any great anount of technology--a few seeds and an isolate patch of ground, or a couple jugs and some copper plumbing pipe or a used truck radiator, and most importantly, E) they didn't stick around. They got consumed and people demanded vast new quantities to replace the vast old quantities used up. None of those apply very much to guns. Again, where ex post facto gun control laws have gone into effect, you just don't see huge quantities of illegal guns being produced. Not much profit margin in it compared with the penalties.

No violence needed to the Constitution. Simply a rational undeerstanding that the NRA, SCOTUS's 1-person majority, and you have distorted the Constitution far out of its original intent.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

David says:,

DAVID wrote:

U can plead and beg him for your life,
hoping that he will not kill u for the fun of it; u can hope,
and let HIM control the situation. Live in his DISCRETION.
I 'd prefer to kill him. That is good for America; a valuable public service.

MontereyJack wrote:

the one who has the gun drawn and aimed at the other is usually the one that gets off the first shot.
Since that's not you, the odds are you're the one that gets blown away, David.

That 's not how it worked out,
when he actually DID get off the first shot,
and leave a .38 caliber bullethole in my driver's side window 3 inches in front of my face.
( I was looking in the other direction, until I heard the shot.)

MontereyJack wrote:

I do wholeheartedly suggest that you try shooting someone else
if you are ever in the situation where they are robbing you and have you in their sights.

That 's what I was TRYING to do, Jack,
but thay fled the scene as soon as I got my stainless steel mirror .44 revolver out.
I heard a scream; sounded like "gun" was in that dictum somewhere . . .
not too sure of that; a little unclear, as thay disappeared into the night.
Thay fled b4 I coud line up a shot.
( Some criminals believe that armed victims bring bad luck.)

MontereyJack wrote:

I'll be happy to write your obituary if you ask (before he kills you, of course).
On the other hand, if the country embarked on a sensible policy of getting rid of the guns,
you wouldn't ever find yourself in someone else's sights.

I refuse to believe that u r STUPID enuf to believe what u wrote.
In order for u to actually believe that logic,
u 'd have to believe that everyone runs to the DEA to turn in his marijuana & his heroin
and that no one in America drank alcohol in the 1920s because of the "sensible policy" of Prohibition.
That is irrational. R u irrational, Jack ??

David

0 Replies

I;m perfectly rational. It's you I have questions about. See previous answer.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Bad analogies. Prohibition of alcohol and marijuana didn't work because,
A) probably the large majority of people didn't buy into them,

Yeah, the same as gun freedom.

MontereyJack wrote:

B) the substances banned were what many ;people considered an integral part of their lives, something they NEEDED to consume,

Yeah, the same as gun freedom,
for citizens who want health insurance
and to be able to CONTROL the predatory emergencies of man or beast.

MontereyJack wrote:

C) they were cheap to produce and expensive even when legal,
so the profit margin was large.

AK 47s are cheap & ez to make.
Thay go for $12 in Moslem bazaars.

MontereyJack wrote:

D)They were easy to make in great quantity
and didn't require any great anount of technology

Like AK 47s.
A good thing about AK 47s is that their targets seldom survive.
Thay ofen get clipped more than 1ce.

MontereyJack wrote:

--a few seeds and an isolate patch of ground, or a couple jugs and some copper plumbing pipe or a used truck radiator, and most importantly, E) they didn't stick around. They got consumed and people demanded vast new quantities to replace the vast old quantities used up. None of those apply very much to guns. Again, where ex post facto [????] gun control laws have gone into effect, you just don't see huge quantities of illegal guns being produced. Not much profit margin in it compared with the penalties.

U allege that there was a dearth of guns,
sometime in American history ???

MontereyJack wrote:

No violence needed to the Constitution. Simply a rational undeerstanding that the NRA, SCOTUS's 1-person majority, and you have distorted the Constitution far out of its original intent.

The Founders were to the right of the NRA.
Thay were ALL on my side. None of them ever advocated gun control laws.
In the HELLER decision, the history of the 2nd Amendment was set forth.
The Founders were Freedom-Lovers. Thay loved guns.
As a true liberal, u just wanna lie your way out of it.
The innermost essence of liberalism is cheating, as u suggest.

David

0 Replies

actually the average price of an AK-47 in Afghanistan is around $400. The average price worldwide is $534. And most of those are in places where they are legal or quasi-legal. Everything costs more in the US and if we had sensible gun control laws they'd be very very black, black market, and very high. Not a good example either. You can't drink an AK-47 a week. You can a fifth of whiskey (or in a day), which makes the profit margin and the replacement margin far higher on bootleg whiskey than bootleg guns. Also the punishment for whiskey possession would be just a tiny fraction of the penalty for an AK47. Again, a poor analogy. Read the 2nd amendment. Guns were for use in the militia, which was government controlled and was used in place of a standing army. It doesn't exist in that form anymore. Nowhere in the Consitution does it mention self-defense. You failed to give any example of it. That's cause it simply isn't there. It's you being the judicial activist, David, not the original interpreter.

1 Reply

The politics of hoodie wearing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know