12
   

A Tale of Two Nine-year-olds

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 12:50 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
a simple minded slogan easily leads the weakest minds. Oral fits the species definition. He is easily sucked up by simple minded blabber

Not your best line of attack.

Then again, on an issue where all the facts are on my side, perhaps there are no good lines of attack available to you.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 12:58 pm
Gun nuts ought to be required to let their kids take potshots at them with automatic weapons once a week.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:08 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Then again, on an issue where all the facts are on my side,



OOPS, I also forgot delusional
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:10 pm
Were 9 yer olds even considered eligible for Constitutional protection listed under the severl amendments of the Bill of Rights? After all, kids were "property" not citizens.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:12 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Gun nuts ought to be required to let their kids take potshots at them with automatic weapons once a week.

As I said, hate with a passion rivaling that of ISIL.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:12 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Then again, on an issue where all the facts are on my side,

OOPS, I also forgot delusional

Let me know when you feel up to trying to challenge any of my facts.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:17 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Were 9 yer olds even considered in the Constitutional protection listed under the severl amendments of the Bill of Rights? After all, kids were "property" not citizens.

Kids were property?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:20 pm
@oralloy,
Obviously you have no idea how our democratic Republic is supposed to work. You may think that you are correct all you wish, no one will seek reprisals. What a country!!
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:25 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Obviously you have no idea how our democratic Republic is supposed to work.

I notice your failure to point out any deficiencies in my knowledge.


farmerman wrote:
You may think that you are correct all you wish, no one will seek reprisals.

I actually know that I'm correct.

But feel free to point out any areas where you believe I've made a factual error.


farmerman wrote:
What a country!!

Yes. And thanks to the NRA, we'll retain our freedom until the end of time (and maybe even for a bit longer).
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:48 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

My twin brother's grandson is about to turn 6. This weekend, we're taking him to HamburgerHill Kid's War Park to throw live grenades. He is stoked!


I don't believe it. They let me throw a grenade in basic training. We were in a sandbagged pit with a 12" pipe in the ground in case someone dropped while trying to throw it. The things are awesome.

Humor is just humor, but not everyone recognizes it for what it is. At that point it becomes misinformation.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 01:56 pm
@oralloy,
You bastards hate so much you can't stand it. Let a little of it spray back on you and you're in a fury. You don't give a **** how many nine year olds die from guns, but you don't want any of it directed at your precious carcass.
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 03:47 pm
On this topic, Oralloy isn't important. He sits on that thin marginal end of the bell curve of American opinion categorized as "lithium recommended".
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 03:57 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
On this topic, Oralloy isn't important. He sits on that thin marginal end of the bell curve of American opinion categorized as "lithium recommended".

That is wrong on at least two levels.

First, on the political power level, you don't get to pass any federal gun legislation without people like me first agreeing to let you do it.

Second, on the scholarship level, the fact that I am completely correct in every respect makes my views pretty central to any discussion of what the Constitution actually means.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 04:00 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
You bastards hate so much you can't stand it. Let a little of it spray back on you and you're in a fury.

Nope. The hate is all you. Nothing to do with me.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 04:07 pm
@oralloy,
Just out of idle curiosity, Oralloy, how much does the NRA pay you to continue posting this tripe?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 04:12 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Just out of idle curiosity, Oralloy, how much does the NRA pay you to continue posting

Nothing. I post in defense of freedom because freedom is important to me.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
this tripe?

Let me know if you find any fact that I'm actually wrong about.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 04:56 pm
@izzythepush,
You want to know whats wrong with some of the U S of A thinking? Check some of oralboys posts for a week or two if you can stand the garbage.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 05:06 pm
@oralloy,
Wrong! What we hate is brain dead pricks like you. Very few advocate taking everyones guns away. We want to control gun nuts like you that have orgasm just thinking about blowing someone away.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 06:02 pm
@RABEL222,
If you read any of Oralboy's posts you've read them all. He's very repetitive, I don't need to read his posts to know what he's saying. He's a bit like a dalek.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 06:26 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
First, on the political power level, you don't get to pass any federal gun legislation without people like me first agreeing to let you do it.

Nah. If that were the case, there wouldn't be such variation in gun control legislation state to state. Like California, New York, Penn, etc etc
Quote:
Second, on the scholarship level, the fact that I am completely correct in every respect makes my views pretty central to any discussion of what the Constitution actually means.

Nah. How the federal constitution is read or interpreted via the SC is determined by the makeup of that body, past and present and future. If the document was as complete and unambiguous as you suggest then all SC justices would concur at all times and that's not even true as regards Scalia and Thomas or Roberts and Alito.

Farmerman is right. You have a zest or a need for the simple. Indeed, the simplest. It's not healthy though it might feel nice.

But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are simply trolling.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 09:42:30