I can't beleive it GB guys against the 2nd
The guys who hate the NRA because they are not hard line enough
Are now coming out against the right of the PEOPLE to BEAR firearms.
Now the 2nd amendment of the Constitution is being challenged by our own Constitutional experts.
Trump says the right of the people to bear arms across state lines is a goal and we hate Trump so much we use this as an excuse to not vote for him????!!!
Wow just wow
Are now coming out against the right of the PEOPLE to BEAR firearms.
Now the 2nd amendment of the Constitution is being challenged by our own Constitutional experts.
Trump says the right of the people to bear arms across state lines is a goal and we hate Trump so much we use this as an excuse to not vote for him????!!!
Wow just wow
0
-
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
One other thought:quote:Originally written by Thomas PaineGovernment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.We cannot hope to bring about government "in its best state" overnight or with one election, but recognizing that whatever we do we will be stuck with "a necessary evil", we must strive for the lesser evil.
Common sense tells us that.
If your actions, no matter how well intended or noble, result in a greater evil, then you are just as culpable, just as guilty, as those who wish for, support, and vote for the greater evil.
In this election, Hillary is by far the greater evil.
In one election? Are you referring to when Perot ran? I have news for you, 3rd party support has been building for many, many years. One election. What a silly thing to assert.
Please name the third party that could garner 51% of the vote. Or even 25%. Oh, hell, I'll take 10%.
Oh, so you're one of those that only roots for the team after they're winning. I see.
Who was it wrote, "3rd party support has been building for many, many years. One election. What a silly thing to assert"? So where is all this support?
That was me. Who was it that didn't understand it? That was you.
My assertion was that quote:We cannot hope to bring about government "in its best state" overnight or with one election, but recognizing that whatever we do we will be stuck with "a necessary evil", we must strive for the lesser evil.
Your assertion was that there was some kind of great third party support for an election. This election? Who knows what you meant?
If anyone missed a message, it was Mr. Perfect.
If anyone is making unsupported claims, it is you with your imaginary third party.
If anyone doesn't understand exactly what's going on in this country right now, Mr. Perfect leads the list.
So kindly quit with the childish word games.
There are no word games, you just don't seem to understand the simple difference between "one election" and a movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles. Maybe someday you will understand counting and how it works. When you do, feel free to come back and demonstrate.0 -
Hillary will be horrible, Trump is a toss up. He may turn out to be good. I have my doubts but I have no doubt about Hillary. I"ll have to vote Trump. Rand was my choice but he's gone. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
One other thought:quote:Originally written by Thomas PaineGovernment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.We cannot hope to bring about government "in its best state" overnight or with one election, but recognizing that whatever we do we will be stuck with "a necessary evil", we must strive for the lesser evil.
Common sense tells us that.
If your actions, no matter how well intended or noble, result in a greater evil, then you are just as culpable, just as guilty, as those who wish for, support, and vote for the greater evil.
In this election, Hillary is by far the greater evil.
In one election? Are you referring to when Perot ran? I have news for you, 3rd party support has been building for many, many years. One election. What a silly thing to assert.
Please name the third party that could garner 51% of the vote. Or even 25%. Oh, hell, I'll take 10%.
Oh, so you're one of those that only roots for the team after they're winning. I see.
Who was it wrote, "3rd party support has been building for many, many years. One election. What a silly thing to assert"? So where is all this support?
That was me. Who was it that didn't understand it? That was you.
My assertion was that quote:We cannot hope to bring about government "in its best state" overnight or with one election, but recognizing that whatever we do we will be stuck with "a necessary evil", we must strive for the lesser evil.
Your assertion was that there was some kind of great third party support for an election. This election? Who knows what you meant?
If anyone missed a message, it was Mr. Perfect.
If anyone is making unsupported claims, it is you with your imaginary third party.
If anyone doesn't understand exactly what's going on in this country right now, Mr. Perfect leads the list.
So kindly quit with the childish word games.
There are no word games, you just don't seem to understand the simple difference between "one election" and a movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles. Maybe someday you will understand counting and how it works. When you do, feel free to come back and demonstrate.
Okay, now I understand. My message went right over your head.
Let me explain it to you in words of one syllable or less.
You asserted that "3rd party support has been building for many, many years."
I challenged you to "Please name the third party that could garner 51% of the vote. Or even 25%. Oh, hell, I'll take 10%."
Thereafter, you replied, "you just don't seem to understand the simple difference between "one election" and a movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles."
Mr. Perfect, where in hell is this "movement" of yours? What is its name? Who is its candidate?
Simple questions. Can you understand them or are you still confused? Do you need more explanation?0 -
NRA announcement of Congressional legislation that would require states to recognize each other's concealed carry permits, much like they do driver's licenses, allowing permit holders to exercise their rights in any state they choose to visit. The Senate version, S.498, is sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and is called the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015. There are also three different versions of this legislation pending in the House, H.R.923, H.R.986, and H.R.402. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
One other thought:quote:Originally written by Thomas PaineGovernment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.We cannot hope to bring about government "in its best state" overnight or with one election, but recognizing that whatever we do we will be stuck with "a necessary evil", we must strive for the lesser evil.
Common sense tells us that.
If your actions, no matter how well intended or noble, result in a greater evil, then you are just as culpable, just as guilty, as those who wish for, support, and vote for the greater evil.
In this election, Hillary is by far the greater evil.
In one election? Are you referring to when Perot ran? I have news for you, 3rd party support has been building for many, many years. One election. What a silly thing to assert.
Please name the third party that could garner 51% of the vote. Or even 25%. Oh, hell, I'll take 10%.
Oh, so you're one of those that only roots for the team after they're winning. I see.
Who was it wrote, "3rd party support has been building for many, many years. One election. What a silly thing to assert"? So where is all this support?
That was me. Who was it that didn't understand it? That was you.
My assertion was that quote:We cannot hope to bring about government "in its best state" overnight or with one election, but recognizing that whatever we do we will be stuck with "a necessary evil", we must strive for the lesser evil.
Your assertion was that there was some kind of great third party support for an election. This election? Who knows what you meant?
If anyone missed a message, it was Mr. Perfect.
If anyone is making unsupported claims, it is you with your imaginary third party.
If anyone doesn't understand exactly what's going on in this country right now, Mr. Perfect leads the list.
So kindly quit with the childish word games.
There are no word games, you just don't seem to understand the simple difference between "one election" and a movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles. Maybe someday you will understand counting and how it works. When you do, feel free to come back and demonstrate.
Okay, now I understand. My message went right over your head.
Let me explain it to you in words of one syllable or less.
You asserted that "3rd party support has been building for many, many years."
I challenged you to "Please name the third party that could garner 51% of the vote. Or even 25%. Oh, hell, I'll take 10%."
Thereafter, you replied, "you just don't seem to understand the simple difference between "one election" and a movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles."
Mr. Perfect, where in hell is this "movement" of yours? What is its name? Who is its candidate?
Simple questions. Can you understand them or are you still confused? Do you need more explanation?
Both the Libertarian party and the Constitution parties are gaining support each election cycle. Combined, they represent a large number of voters that are fed up with the Dem=Repub nonchoice presented by the farce system we have in place. Likely you have heard about the tea party? It was not started as a republican movement, but was later usurped by the republicans because it posed such a great threat to them (since a large portion of their base broke off to become a part of it). Yeah... total nonfactor. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the internet and learn about how big the movement actually is. You don't see a leader yet this election cycle, but Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have led it in recent ones.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Both the Libertarian party and the Constitution parties are gaining support each election cycle. Combined, they represent a large number of voters that are fed up with the Dem=Repub nonchoice presented by the farce system we have in place. Likely you have heard about the tea party? It was not started as a republican movement, but was later usurped by the republicans because it posed such a great threat to them (since a large portion of their base broke off to become a part of it). Yeah... total nonfactor. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the internet and learn about how big the movement actually is. You don't see a leader yet this election cycle, but Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have led it in recent ones.
The Libertarian Party garnered 1% of the vote in 2012.
Hahahahahahahahahahah!
The Constitution Party was even less.
The Tea Party is part of the Republican Party.
So, once again with feeling: where's your "movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles?"
At the rate these "other" parties are "growing and still growing," they should be able to elect a president about 250 years from now.
[xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Both the Libertarian party and the Constitution parties are gaining support each election cycle. Combined, they represent a large number of voters that are fed up with the Dem=Repub nonchoice presented by the farce system we have in place. Likely you have heard about the tea party? It was not started as a republican movement, but was later usurped by the republicans because it posed such a great threat to them (since a large portion of their base broke off to become a part of it). Yeah... total nonfactor. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the internet and learn about how big the movement actually is. You don't see a leader yet this election cycle, but Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have led it in recent ones.
The Libertarian Party garnered 1% of the vote in 2012.
Hahahahahahahahahahah!
The Constitution Party was even less.
The Tea Party is part of the Republican Party.
So, once again with feeling: where's your "movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles?"
At the rate these "other" parties are "growing and still growing," they should be able to elect a president about 250 years from now.
[xx(]
[xx(][xx(]Perhaps you can see why, when you look at yourself in particular, their growth has been slow. People, for the most part, are unprincipled, unthinking, dullards, and only join a movement when it's popular to do so. Sheep, if you will. Now, say it with the rest of your crowd: baaaaaaaaa.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Both the Libertarian party and the Constitution parties are gaining support each election cycle. Combined, they represent a large number of voters that are fed up with the Dem=Repub nonchoice presented by the farce system we have in place. Likely you have heard about the tea party? It was not started as a republican movement, but was later usurped by the republicans because it posed such a great threat to them (since a large portion of their base broke off to become a part of it). Yeah... total nonfactor. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the internet and learn about how big the movement actually is. You don't see a leader yet this election cycle, but Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have led it in recent ones.
The Libertarian Party garnered 1% of the vote in 2012.
Hahahahahahahahahahah!
The Constitution Party was even less.
The Tea Party is part of the Republican Party.
So, once again with feeling: where's your "movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles?"
At the rate these "other" parties are "growing and still growing," they should be able to elect a president about 250 years from now.
[xx(]
[xx(][xx(]Perhaps you can see why, when you look at yourself in particular, their growth has been slow. People, for the most part, are unprincipled, unthinking, dullards, and only join a movement when it's popular to do so. Sheep, if you will. Now, say it with the rest of your crowd: baaaaaaaaa.
You never cease to disappoint me. Here we have one of the most common techniques of the intellectually impaired debaters: ad hominem attack.
Let me explain in very simple terms just what that means.
When a debater of less than adequate intelligence (Mr. Perfect) is cornered, i.e., shown to be painfully wrong, he or she abandons the debate and turns to personal attacks on his or her opponent.
What you foolishly overlooked with your "sheep" accusation is that I do not care to join some insignificant, ill-conceived, half-ass, fringe movement, no matter how great some group of fools may think it is.
Need I point out the fact that I consider you one of that group?
One other thing: you admitted that your silly third-party movement is, as I noted above, slower than the arrival of Christmas when you wrote, "their growth has been slow," and then foolishly tried to blame that shortcoming on me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Both the Libertarian party and the Constitution parties are gaining support each election cycle. Combined, they represent a large number of voters that are fed up with the Dem=Repub nonchoice presented by the farce system we have in place. Likely you have heard about the tea party? It was not started as a republican movement, but was later usurped by the republicans because it posed such a great threat to them (since a large portion of their base broke off to become a part of it). Yeah... total nonfactor. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the internet and learn about how big the movement actually is. You don't see a leader yet this election cycle, but Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have led it in recent ones.
The Libertarian Party garnered 1% of the vote in 2012.
Hahahahahahahahahahah!
The Constitution Party was even less.
The Tea Party is part of the Republican Party.
So, once again with feeling: where's your "movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles?"
At the rate these "other" parties are "growing and still growing," they should be able to elect a president about 250 years from now.
[xx(]
[xx(][xx(]Perhaps you can see why, when you look at yourself in particular, their growth has been slow. People, for the most part, are unprincipled, unthinking, dullards, and only join a movement when it's popular to do so. Sheep, if you will. Now, say it with the rest of your crowd: baaaaaaaaa.
You never cease to disappoint me. Here we have one of the most common techniques of the intellectually impaired debaters: ad hominem attack.
Let me explain in very simple terms just what that means.
When a debater of less than adequate intelligence (Mr. Perfect) is cornered, i.e., shown to be painfully wrong, he or she abandons the debate and turns to personal attacks on his or her opponent.
What you foolishly overlooked with your "sheep" accusation is that I do not care to join some insignificant, ill-conceived, half-ass, fringe movement, no matter how great some group of fools may think it is.
Need I point out the fact that I consider you one of that group?
One other thing: you admitted that your silly third-party movement is, as I noted above, slower than the arrival of Christmas when you wrote, "their growth has been slow," and then foolishly tried to blame that shortcoming on me.
Unsurprisingly you have completely missed the entire point of my post. Sheep on, man.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Both the Libertarian party and the Constitution parties are gaining support each election cycle. Combined, they represent a large number of voters that are fed up with the Dem=Repub nonchoice presented by the farce system we have in place. Likely you have heard about the tea party? It was not started as a republican movement, but was later usurped by the republicans because it posed such a great threat to them (since a large portion of their base broke off to become a part of it). Yeah... total nonfactor. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the internet and learn about how big the movement actually is. You don't see a leader yet this election cycle, but Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have led it in recent ones.
The Libertarian Party garnered 1% of the vote in 2012.
Hahahahahahahahahahah!
The Constitution Party was even less.
The Tea Party is part of the Republican Party.
So, once again with feeling: where's your "movement that has been growing and is still growing over many many election cycles?"
At the rate these "other" parties are "growing and still growing," they should be able to elect a president about 250 years from now.
[xx(]
[xx(][xx(]Perhaps you can see why, when you look at yourself in particular, their growth has been slow. People, for the most part, are unprincipled, unthinking, dullards, and only join a movement when it's popular to do so. Sheep, if you will. Now, say it with the rest of your crowd: baaaaaaaaa.
You never cease to disappoint me. Here we have one of the most common techniques of the intellectually impaired debaters: ad hominem attack.
Let me explain in very simple terms just what that means.
When a debater of less than adequate intelligence (Mr. Perfect) is cornered, i.e., shown to be painfully wrong, he or she abandons the debate and turns to personal attacks on his or her opponent.
What you foolishly overlooked with your "sheep" accusation is that I do not care to join some insignificant, ill-conceived, half-ass, fringe movement, no matter how great some group of fools may think it is.
Need I point out the fact that I consider you one of that group?
One other thing: you admitted that your silly third-party movement is, as I noted above, slower than the arrival of Christmas when you wrote, "their growth has been slow," and then foolishly tried to blame that shortcoming on me.
Unsurprisingly you have completely missed the entire point of my post. Sheep on, man.
It is your inability to effectively articulate your point that is at fault here, not my comprehension.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
It is your inability to effectively articulate your point that is at fault here, not my comprehension.
I'll try to remember to significantly dumb things down for you in the future. Clear enough?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
It is your inability to effectively articulate your point that is at fault here, not my comprehension.
I'll try to remember to significantly dumb things down for you in the future.No! Don't wait! You'll just talk in circles again if I don't hold your feet to the fire this time.
If you really have a coherent message, post it now or shut up.0 -
Mr. Tall Charlie i want to correct something you said.. the tea party is part of the Republican Party. yes the current version can be grouped thus. However, when the TP was formed it was NOT republican, even Rush, Hannity, Beck and all the other talking heads MFed it for being 3rd party. the tea party was comprised of members of all parties, and even the non-political. its mission was simply taxation and wise use of the revenue.....it had no religion causes , it had no social causes. it was strictly a financial revolt
unfortunately the religious zealots jumped on board and effectively took over the brand name so to speak.
had the thumpers stayed out of the original movement the Tea Party would be a meaningful 3rd party force in politics0 -
quote:Originally posted by discusdad
Mr. Tall Charlie i want to correct something you said.. the tea party is part of the Republican Party. yes the current version can be grouped thus. However, when the TP was formed it was NOT republican, even Rush, Hannity, Beck and all the other talking heads MFed it for being 3rd party. the tea party was comprised of members of all parties, and even the non-political. its mission was simply taxation and wise use of the revenue.....it had no religion causes , it had no social causes. it was strictly a financial revolt
unfortunately the religious zealots jumped on board and effectively took over the brand name so to speak.
had the thumpers stayed out of the original movement the Tea Party would be a meaningful 3rd party force in politics
Try reading the entire discussion before you correct me next time. I did not claim that the Tea Party was part of the Republican party. Mr. Perfect made that claim when he wrote, quote:Likely you have heard about the tea party? It was not started as a republican movement, but was later usurped by the republicans because it posed such a great threat to them (since a large portion of their base broke off to become a part of it).I merely repeated his assertion to emphasize his idiotic contention that there is a strong third-party movement.
I am well aware of the origin and development of the Tea Party, including its bacronym.0 -
idiotic contention.... oh how you miss the point. You think you somehow proved an idiotic contention?
Riddle me this, if the movement wasn't strong and popular, why try to diffuse it the way they did? Why try to take control of it? Apparently, you lose comprehension points every time you post.0 -
quote:Originally posted by discusdad
Mr. Tall Charlie i want to correct something you said.. the tea party is part of the Republican Party. yes the current version can be grouped thus. However, when the TP was formed it was NOT republican, even Rush, Hannity, Beck and all the other talking heads MFed it for being 3rd party. the tea party was comprised of members of all parties, and even the non-political. its mission was simply taxation and wise use of the revenue.....it had no religion causes , it had no social causes. it was strictly a financial revolt
unfortunately the religious zealots jumped on board and effectively took over the brand name so to speak.
had the thumpers stayed out of the original movement the Tea Party would be a meaningful 3rd party force in politics
Don't try to correct smallcharlie, he's not playing with the same deck most folks are.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dennisnielsen
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by discusdad
Mr. Tall Charlie i want to correct something you said.. the tea party is part of the Republican Party. yes the current version can be grouped thus. However, when the TP was formed it was NOT republican, even Rush, Hannity, Beck and all the other talking heads MFed it for being 3rd party. the tea party was comprised of members of all parties, and even the non-political. its mission was simply taxation and wise use of the revenue.....it had no religion causes , it had no social causes. it was strictly a financial revolt
unfortunately the religious zealots jumped on board and effectively took over the brand name so to speak.
had the thumpers stayed out of the original movement the Tea Party would be a meaningful 3rd party force in politics
Don't try to correct smallcharlie, he's not playing with the same deck most folks are.
At least it's not a small deck.
[:D][:D][:D]Made me LOL Dennis.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
77 comments