Victory for NRA
Credit where credit is due.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7662-nra-sells-out-second-amendment-on-patriot-act
defeat for freedom & gun owners.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7662-nra-sells-out-second-amendment-on-patriot-act
defeat for freedom & gun owners.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by carbine100
quote:Is a "compromise" automatically bad? Don't almost all people, countries, organizations sometimes make compromises?
If it is a compromise of my rights, the answer is always yes.
How about a specific example of compromise and see what your answer is. In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law. That should be no surprise to anyone since Clinton was president and the House and Senate were controlled by his fellow democrats. So, hoping to gain at least a little something out of what appeared to be a total loss, the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban. Ten years later, 2004, that sunset clause was the ONLY reason we do not still have that worthless "assault weapons" ban.
So, rewind the tape of history to 1994. Are you and everyone else here still "always" against compromise?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by carbine100
quote:Is a "compromise" automatically bad? Don't almost all people, countries, organizations sometimes make compromises?
If it is a compromise of my rights, the answer is always yes.
How about a specific example of compromise and see what your answer is. In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law. That should be no surprise to anyone since Clinton was president and the House and Senate were controlled by his fellow democrats. So, hoping to gain at least a little something out of what appeared to be a total loss, the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban. Ten years later, 2004, that sunset clause was the ONLY reason we do not still have that worthless "assault weapons" ban.
So, rewind the tape of history to 1994. Are you and everyone else here still "always" against compromise?
If the sons a bitches in DC listen to those that elect them
"the people" we wouldn't need to compromise. I seriously doubt the NRA offered that particular compromise.
The NRA would sees to exist if the elected officials actually did their jobs and did what the people tell them to do. The nra for years has always trumpeted that they got us a better deal. Well guess what, they authored the deal to begin with. If for not other reason than to justify their existence and then they swoop in and offer a "compromise."
How bout they stand up and say $%^& no for a chance #$%^ compromise.
Oh wait, but there isn't any money just being an organization of like minded people that organizes shooting events and fosters the meaning of the second Amendment. Instead they compromise0 -
How about the elimination to compromise all together? Perhaps some groups might not like it but...
IF the politicians, judges ect would uphold the constitution that they SWORE to uphold when they took office there would be no need to compromise? Nothing short of treason IMO.
But then I woke up and was late for work. [:(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by carbine100
quote:Is a "compromise" automatically bad? Don't almost all people, countries, organizations sometimes make compromises?
If it is a compromise of my rights, the answer is always yes.
How about a specific example of compromise and see what your answer is. In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law. That should be no surprise to anyone since Clinton was president and the House and Senate were controlled by his fellow democrats. So, hoping to gain at least a little something out of what appeared to be a total loss, the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban. Ten years later, 2004, that sunset clause was the ONLY reason we do not still have that worthless "assault weapons" ban.
So, rewind the tape of history to 1994. Are you and everyone else here still "always" against compromise?
Are you suggesting that it might not have been better to stand opposed to an outright ban altogether? Imagine if the NRA, as powerful as it is, had said "enough is enough. No ban, no how. We have millions of members who will be on your door guns in hand if this passes." And organized same. Of course that is fairy tale land. But could you imagine? Instead, they chose to compromise... so sad. Because we got saddled with a ban for 10 years.
"shall not be infringed... in 10 years... maybe..."
[xx(][xx(][xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law.
the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban.
Still spewing that crap?
Feinstein DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT to get the ban passed.
SHE had to compromise by inserting the sunset clause HERSELF in order to get enough votes.
Her QUOTE...
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
SHE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT!!!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Instead, they chose to compromise... so sad. Because we got saddled with a ban for 10 years.
Yep, and NICS checks forever.[xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(]0 -
Doctors would still be able to ask patients questions about whether they have guns in many cases under a measure approved by a Senate committee on Monday, a result of a compromise between gun rights groups and the medical establishment, reports David Royse of the News Service of Florida
The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups had pushed for a much stronger bill that would have precluded doctors in many cases from asking patients about whether they own guns. Backers of the measure, sponsored, by Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker, had said patients were being harassed over gun ownership.
But citing the confidentiality of what is said between doctors and patients, and a broader desire to protect other members of patients' families, doctors had pushed back hard against the bill (SB 432). The issue had promised a fight between two of the most powerful lobbies at the Florida Capitol.
But an amendment adopted before the committee's vote on Monday would now generally allow doctors to ask questions about gun ownership, as long as the physician doesn't "harass" the patient, and doesn't enter the information into the patient's record without a good reason. That leaves enough room that doctors now support the measure, as does the NRA.
"We have an agreed-to, good bill here," said Evers.
While the committee advanced the bill, four members, two Republicans and two Democrats, said they still were uncomfortable with anything that would give doctors pause about asking questions about safety issues, and voted against it.
"I am concerned this degrades and diminishes the doctor-patient relationship," said Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood. "A doctor should ask about safety in the home whether it's pool safety, helmet safety or gun safety."
Sen. Mike Bennett said his opposition was personal - because of his own experience as a child with a father who "chased his wife around" the House with a gun.
"I've been there, done that," said Bennett, R-Bradenton.
"What about the patients' children? What about the patient's wife getting a beating every Saturday night?" Bennett asked.
Evers said the new version of the legislation would take care of that concern - allowing doctors to ask questions now, if they feel there's a valid reason.
"There has to be a justification (however)," said the sponsor of the compromise amendment, Sen. Thad Altman, R-Viera. "The doctor can't do it arbitrarily."
The bill also no longer carries any civil or criminal penalties, leaving it up to professional medical boards to police the requirement.
The compromise appeared necessary to get the proposal moving - the bill had been stalled in the Health Regulation Committee for more than two weeks, and even some who voted for it on Monday expressed some skepticism.
The bill still has two more committee stops in the Senate, but Evers gave the panel his commitment that only minor changes would be made in those committees, and that the bill wouldn't revert to its former form. A similar House bill (HB 155) still has two committee stops there.
0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law.
the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban.
Still spewing that crap?
Feinstein DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT to get the ban passed.
SHE had to compromise by inserting the sunset clause HERSELF in order to get enough votes.
Her QUOTE...
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
SHE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT!!!!!
Here is some more "crap" for you Mr. Ponytail. Feinstein had the votes to pass an assault weapons ban without the very important "sunset clause." The pro-gun side knew they could not stop the ban. Although as with most controversial bills, nobody can be absolutely positive how the final vote will go. But it strongly appeared that Feinstein's assault weapons ban would pass in spite of opposition of the pro-gun congressmen and would positively be sign by President Bill Clinton. So as a last resort, as a "hail mary" the pro-gun side compromised with the sunset clause. Without that clause we would still have the ban.
If you doubt, then please closely examine your ignorance. Why in the hell would a powerful, extremely anti-gun senator like Feinstein VOLUNTARILY WEAKEN her own gun control bill UNLESS it was because of pressure by the pro-gun side?
Also, since the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Bill Clinton, why would you be dumb enough to think Feinstein's gun control bill would not pass in spite of pro-gun opposition?
How about a direct answer for that?
Oh, and "Happy 4th of July" to you.0 -
quote:Here is some more "crap" for you Mr. Ponytail.
What a keyboard commando...Pounding away from the safety of your keyboard, tossing out insults. You are afraid to post your real name and afraid to post such insults where someone would be able to identify you.
You really should step back and take a look at your recent postings.
They read like a textbook on someone who is attempting to bolster their own weak ethic and substandard character relating to liberty and freedom by going on a manic attack and by demanding others pick-up your lame falsely set-up 'gauntlet'.
Please, do continue though, I am actually enjoying your self-dismantling and melt-down.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law.
the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban.
Still spewing that crap?
Feinstein DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT to get the ban passed.
SHE had to compromise by inserting the sunset clause HERSELF in order to get enough votes.
Her QUOTE...
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
SHE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT!!!!!
Here is some more "crap" for you Mr. Ponytail. Feinstein had the votes to pass an assault weapons ban without the very important "sunset clause." The pro-gun side knew they could not stop the ban. Although as with most controversial bills, nobody can be absolutely positive how the final vote will go. But it strongly appeared that Feinstein's assault weapons ban would pass in spite of opposition of the pro-gun congressmen and would positively be sign by President Bill Clinton. So as a last resort, as a "hail mary" the pro-gun side compromised with the sunset clause. Without that clause we would still have the ban.
If you doubt, then please closely examine your ignorance. Why in the hell would a powerful, extremely anti-gun senator like Feinstein VOLUNTARILY WEAKEN her own gun control bill UNLESS it was because of pressure by the pro-gun side?
Also, since the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Bill Clinton, why would you be dumb enough to think Feinstein's gun control bill would not pass in spite of pro-gun opposition?
How about a direct answer for that?
Oh, and "Happy 4th of July" to you.
Nothing to reply to here, since you are wrong......as usual.
Just copying this so that it can not be edited.....AGAIN.
Lowering yourself to these kinds of insults speaks VOLUMES about your character.
Just a question, mind you. Do you think there would be some interest, by some, in having your real name, address, and phone # Larry?0 -
Careful picken, he might sic his mommy on you. 0 -
Hey BJWolf. You love to shoot off your mouth. How about coming out and telling all of us just how it is you "real men" of America, you "3 percenters," you "true Americans," you "constitutional warriors" (who by the way never seem to go to war) plan on "taking back America.
Do you plan on using ballots or bullets? And since you have been doing nothing in the real world for several years now but post bravado here on GB.com, how about giving me an estimated date of when you and the other stinking canary asses plan on some kind of action in the REAL WORLD.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law.
the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban.
Still spewing that crap?
Feinstein DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT to get the ban passed.
SHE had to compromise by inserting the sunset clause HERSELF in order to get enough votes.
Her QUOTE...
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
SHE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT!!!!!
Here is some more "crap" for you Mr. Ponytail. Feinstein had the votes to pass an assault weapons ban without the very important "sunset clause." The pro-gun side knew they could not stop the ban. Although as with most controversial bills, nobody can be absolutely positive how the final vote will go. But it strongly appeared that Feinstein's assault weapons ban would pass in spite of opposition of the pro-gun congressmen and would positively be sign by President Bill Clinton. So as a last resort, as a "hail mary" the pro-gun side compromised with the sunset clause. Without that clause we would still have the ban.
If you doubt, then please closely examine your ignorance. Why in the hell would a powerful, extremely anti-gun senator like Feinstein VOLUNTARILY WEAKEN her own gun control bill UNLESS it was because of pressure by the pro-gun side?
Also, since the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Bill Clinton, why would you be dumb enough to think Feinstein's gun control bill would not pass in spite of pro-gun opposition?
How about a direct answer for that?
Oh, and "Happy 4th of July" to you.
Nothing to reply to here, since you are wrong......as usual.
Just copying this so that it can not be edited.....AGAIN.
Lowering yourself to these kinds of insults speaks VOLUMES about your character.
Just a question, mind you. Do you think there would be some interest, by some, in having your real name, address, and phone # Larry?
So.....now you are a black mailer. Well go ahead and post whatever you damn well want to be responsible for. BTW, you didn't think I actually threw away that envelope you used years ago to mail me your petition did you? Maybe I should put your address out on the internet also. Besides, what do I have to worry about from you and yours? If this forum was titled "Street Brawlers.Com" I might have some fear of some illegal action against me. But if everyone here is a legal gun owner, then that automatically means they have lead a pretty lawful life. It is highly doubtful that they are going to turn into a violent felon. But even if they do, if they come to my front door, whatever they bring I will introduce them to the same thing. In addition to that we have a pretty good police department here in my town and I would be happy to introduce that department to you and your friends.
I also wonder how GB.com admin would feel about one of the moderators threatening a member with posting their personal information? Want to find out or do you want to STFU? If you have any doubts about my attitude, read the post I just made to BJWolf and see if you think you can blackmail me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Here is some more "crap" for you Mr. Ponytail.
What a keyboard commando...Pounding away from the safety of your keyboard, tossing out insults. You are afraid to post your real name and afraid to post such insults where someone would be able to identify you.
You really should step back and take a look at your recent postings.
They read like a textbook on someone who is attempting to bolster their own weak ethic and substandard character relating to liberty and freedom by going on a manic attack and by demanding others pick-up your lame falsely set-up 'gauntlet'.
Please, do continue though, I am actually enjoying your self-dismantling and melt-down.[:)]
It doesn't require any thinking when you reply to my post that contains verifiable information with nothing but personal insults. Hell, a personal insult come back, which you are strong on, doesn't take any brains at all which suits you.
BTW, I don't see you posting your real name, address or who you work for. But here is an easy way for you to prove your manliness. All you have to do is to rejoin the canary asses!
How about it? Are you manly enough?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
How can that organization be "no compromise" when we over the years continue to get new gun control laws? Looks to me like their claim of "no compromise" isn't worth a damn. But so many people here have a mindless hatred for the NRA that they would rather automatically find fault with the NRA and automatically believe that every other gun rights organization, except for the NRA, is the perfect alternative to the NRA.
It is easy to make bold claims that you cannot fulfill so that your advertisements sound good. Besides, I challenge you to show me one damn thing the Gun Owners of America has ever accomplished or is in the process of accomplishing. All they are is a tiny sham organization, run by just a couple of con artists, that tries to act big and take money from you. Haven't you noticed, if you get them, that EVERY SINGLE TIME they contact you, they have seem to a reason to ask for money.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
How can that organization be "no compromise" when we over the years continue to get new gun control laws? Looks to me like their claim of "no compromise" isn't worth a damn. But so many people here have a mindless hatred for the NRA that they would rather automatically find fault with the NRA and automatically believe that every other gun rights organization, except for the NRA, is the perfect alternative to the NRA.
It is easy to make bold claims that you cannot fulfill so that your advertisements sound good. Besides, I challenge you to show me one damn thing the Gun Owners of America has ever accomplished or is in the process of accomplishing. All they are is a tiny sham organization, run by just a couple of con artists, that tries to act big and take money from you. Haven't you noticed, if you get them, that EVERY SINGLE TIME they contact you, they have seem to a reason to ask for money.
When did GOA compromise? It's really very simple but an IQ in excess of 60 is necessary. GOA is simply ignored when it comes to legislation/lobby. They are ignored because the NRA is as you have stated so many times, "The only game in town", due to their large membership of imbeciles. Imagine if the vaunted NRA took this stance, instead of writing gun control legislation with the left hand, while patting you on the back with their right telliing you "It'll be okay fox, it's just a little bit more control than before... no big deal. Just give us your money dope." GOA is most helpful with litigation, you know, trying to overturn that which the NRA authored. Really fox, you can not be this profoundly stupid... you simply can't! You can type for pete's sake! Your love of arguing is staggeringly irrational.
edit: Should've read the entire post... the last sentence, you can not be for real when making such a ridiculous statement as that. Funny.[:D]
another edit concerning lt's post: YOU calling ANYONE out for lack of manhood? Pounding away on the keyboard, projecting, comedian.[:D]
Is there any doubt that you would love to do anyone of us personal harm, as long as you could remain anonymous? No, none. Have you already tried? Likely.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
How can that organization be "no compromise" when we over the years continue to get new gun control laws? Looks to me like their claim of "no compromise" isn't worth a damn. But so many people here have a mindless hatred for the NRA that they would rather automatically find fault with the NRA and automatically believe that every other gun rights organization, except for the NRA, is the perfect alternative to the NRA.
It is easy to make bold claims that you cannot fulfill so that your advertisements sound good. Besides, I challenge you to show me one damn thing the Gun Owners of America has ever accomplished or is in the process of accomplishing. All they are is a tiny sham organization, run by just a couple of con artists, that tries to act big and take money from you. Haven't you noticed, if you get them, that EVERY SINGLE TIME they contact you, they have seem to a reason to ask for money.
When did GOA compromise? It's really very simple but an IQ in excess of 60 is necessary. GOA is simply ignored when it comes to legislation/lobby. They are ignored because the NRA is as you have stated so many times, "The only game in town", due to their large membership of imbeciles. Imagine if the vaunted NRA took this stance, instead of writing gun control legislation with the left hand, while patting you on the back with their right telliing you "It'll be okay fox, it's just a little bit more control than before... no big deal. Just give us your money dope." GOA is most helpful with litigation, you know, trying to overturn that which the NRA authored. Really fox, you can not be this profoundly stupid... you simply can't! You can type for pete's sake! Your love of arguing is staggeringly irrational.
edit: Should've read the entire post... the last sentence, you can not be for real when making such a ridiculous statement as that. Funny.[:D]
So you are claiming that the GOA is irrelevant?0 -
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? 0 -
Besides Wolf, if all I did for gun rights was to promote and support the NRA then I would be ashamed to show my face around here. But I also support GOA and SAF with my membership being on their list of members to help with their political and financial clout. I have participated in several pro-gun/pro-constitution demonstrations in the last few years. How about you and yours? How many have you participated in?
I contact my various legislators (city, state and federal) involving gun and constitutional rights and I encourage other citizens to do the same. I have even gone so far as to write letters to those legislators and gone around giving my fellow citizens an easy way to try and influence their legislators by co-signing my letter. I write numerous letter to the newspaper which are published. When I read an article about the constitution or gun rights that I believe is of particular value, I email it to other people and also make copies and pass around.
So, even though I seem to be a lighting rod for some here, the almost humor thing is that I actually am doing something in the real world to fight for our rights. Even if I am doing the wrong things (which I'm not) AT LEAST I AM OUT THERE DOING SOMETHING. It is again almost funny that you and yours see me as an enemy when it would make more sense to me for you to see the vast majority of citizens WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS AND DO NOTHING as their real enemy. I guess it is just easier for you and yours to hate me because I am one of the few that consistantly resist you.
Of course, as far as that goes, you notice our little "war" has been going on for years and it has always been several against the one of me. But I'm still here. That alone should be a hint that if there is ever a need for people to actually step up and do something, I probably will be among the few that don't run away.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
Elaborate please. Short insults contain no worthwhile information.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
Elaborate please. Short insults contain no worthwhile information.
Another demonstration was not necessary. An observation is not the same as an insult. Try reading the post again. If you still can not decipher it, I will help you.P.S. If I remember to come back to this thread. g'night fox.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
So.....now you are a black mailer.
Blackmailer???
WOW......someone is having a MELTDOWN.
I think you have finally gone off the deep end Larry. I posted a QUESTION. I even emphasized that it was JUST A QUESTION. Show me where I threatened to post that info?
The point of my post was to show YOUR hypocrisy. I was going to await your answer, then point out where YOU have continually, over and over and OVER again accused others of being a hypocrite because they do not post their real info. Your latest example below, in a now locked thread, that I could not reply to. Get it, locked thread, I couldn't reply, so I used THIS thread. Can you comprehend that?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
The posers not only hide behind their keyboard, hide behind their screen names as compared to using their real names.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
BTW, you didn't think I actually threw away that envelope you used years ago to mail me your petition did you? Maybe I should put your address out on the internet also.
Now that sounds like a threat.
You can do what you feel is best, but the person that was interested enough to send you something (with that info you have) might get REAL PISSED.
You see Larry, while I liked your idea back then (and still do) I thought it had "0" chance of going anywhere. If I was wrong, and it actually took off, I would have chipped in. But I was NOT wrong, and it went exactly NOWHERE.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I also wonder how GB.com admin would feel about one of the moderators threatening a member with posting their personal information? Want to find out or do you want to STFU?
Again I say, show me the threat, since you DID go crying, whining, sniveling, and bawling to admin.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
... since you DID go crying, whining, sniveling, and bawling to admin.
It is a fact, that there is no depth too low for this individual. ABSOLUTELY not to be trusted by anyone EVER. For those that have, bad choice. He will always seek out authority for personal gain or a pat on the head, but never fairness or justice. A childlike and deadly personality when it occurs in an adult and in the right circumstances. Petulant.
For the record, it was and is a good idea, but has even more remote possibilities than straight out electing a 3rd party. Evidently fox has held a personal grudge all these years against all of us for not making it happen for him. It is not normal, but there is no other possibility. The guy is unstable. Seeking help would likely be a waste of time, unless they have "grow up" prescription he can get.0 -
NRA presenting at the UN was a breakthru... 0 -
Larry, you have NO CLUE how many times I have emailed "my friends" to let them know they were over the line. Like wise, you have NO CLUE how many posts of "my friends" that I have deleted. So why don't you take your own advice and SHUT THE............
P.S.
I don't care how many "notes" or comparisons you make. It is not like YOU have not been out of line a time.....or 20, and I have let it go.
Do what you will. You are showing your own mentality.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Larry, you have NO CLUE how many times I have emailed "my friends" to let them know they were over the line. Like wise, you have NO CLUE how many posts of "my friends" that I have deleted. So why don't you take your own advice and SHUT THE............
P.S.
I don't care how many "notes" or comparisons you make. It is not like YOU have not been out of line a time.....or 20, and I have let it go.
Do what you will. You are showing your own mentality.
Well actually your post sounds pretty reasonable but it seems your "friends" haven't paid much attention to your requests.
BTW, what was wrong with my post about JPWolf, a construction worker I believe, and my reference and question regarding his possible construction work in a bathhouse? Looks to me like you are W-A-Y too picky about what you delete when it comes to me and JPWolf.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
56 comments