This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

General discussion for non music topics. BE RESPECTFUL OR YOUR POSTS WILL BE DELETED.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#246999 by Badstrat
Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:13 am
"I do not answer liberal posts because I seldom read them."

Oh Wow! I guess I should give you an explanation or at least attempt to help you understand what you quoted me as saying. Let me assist you in clearing up this mental adjective substitution that you appear to have made during the interpretation of the words in that particular quote.

Don’t be so lame. I shall come to the rescue and assist you. Put on your big boy pants. First of all there is the word "seldom" that you mentally changed to “never”. Look up the word “seldom” and then see if you can find a sentence where that word "seldom" is used. Then look up the word “never” and find that word in a sentence. Compare the meanings of the two adjectives and you may be able to comprehend the sentence that you quoted from my post. It will help your understanding greatly. Naaaaaaaaa . Never mind.
Little can get through to the liberal mind. I would think that looking inside the liberal mind you might see a per programmed thought endlessly bouncing around in the pitch-blackness of a mental Grand Canyon. Or at the least my experience with SOME liberal leads me to believe that.

As to having the right to do as I please I have the prerogative to read and reply to those posts that I wish to included outside of the "seldom read" grouping. The inference of the word seldom being that I do read and respond to some liberal posts when I feel like it. Those posts generally being in response to a liberal propaganda post refuting the truth of the first post in the thread. Those first posts generally constitute of the well-hidden truth opposing Pravda’s regurgitation. Therefore, to those of limited understanding, that means I will read some threads that interest me and post when I wish to post. And I do still keep my word and not post to those that I don't read.

I imagine to the befuddled raging mind of a far-left fool that if it is hard to comprehend some big words in a sentence. You do need to mentally change their meanings in order to misrepresent to yourself what I have actually said. I suppose it was wishful thinking on your behalf

Amazingly childish third grade level typical leftist behavior at best. How can you possibly see yourself as a "grown up"? By the way, do you like your recess teacher?
Being a fair “guy”, I will give you a big grade school green star on the "maturity" of your post referring to me as a liar.

Your childishness actually made me feel young again. Just like when I was back in 2nd grade. Even if you are completely challenged concerning your ability to read a simple sentence and comprehend what most of the individual words mean and what they mean in a particular order in a very simple sentence, nice attempt.

And you can call me whatever you wish. You don't need to misconstrue the meaning of my sentences to do that. Have at it. Reading the insults and accusations bring back memories of my grade school youth. And that isn’t a bad thing. But if you don't like it, you can run and tell the teacher what I said. She might even give you some hugs to comfort you.
#247000 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:23 am
WOW... Somebody from a strict gun control state sounds a bit paranoid... TOO FUNNY!
#247010 by Planetguy
Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:38 pm
angelsshotgun wrote:Would you all consider not replying to Mark?


glen, if you're that threatened, unable to frame a cogent and coherent response, and intimidated by my posts...don't read them. or better yet... be a pu**y and put me on ignore to shield your delicate sensibilities.


angelsshotgun wrote:Obviously Mark you could never hold a public office, unless you lie, that swears to uphold the constitution.


angelsshotgun wrote:Mark thinks he is doing good for all men... I think he is far more dangerous... I wouldn't let him have a gun. NOT A LAUGHING MATTER!


what's next? are you gonna recommend that no one serves me pasta? tell me to avoid watching Cardinals games? suggest that i don't wear white after Labor Day????

yikes, it's time you get back on your meds. you're making as much sense and acting as crazy as that buffoon trump.
#247015 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:48 am
Yikes, that was as intelligent of an insult as a dog poop in the middle of the road.

Where is your smart ass answer to the question of HOW 46 SENATORS actually voted for UN resolution 2117. It is a UN resolution that is in direct violation of OUR CONSTITUTION. It calls for the "MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT OF ALL UN COUNTRIES"

You being the almighty smart ass that you are... DO NOT see the correlation between constitutional treason and the traitors we have in office as professional politicians. Until you start providing evidence of your understanding of the laws of America, you are in favor of all the anti American activities of these traitors to the CONSTITUTION of AMERICA.

Need the list? Time is short. FCU!
#247027 by Badstrat
Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:43 pm
Speaking of crazy buffoons... Here is another one. How come the radical morons always come up with the most absurd Pollyanna ideas?

NYT’s Barro: ‘Massive’ Gun Grab Only Way To Impact Violent Crime

http://www.infowars.com/nyts-barro-mass ... ent-crime/

"Really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially."

by Newsbusters | Mark Finkelstein | August 31, 2015
Share on Facebook36Tweet about this on Twitter48Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page

Give Josh Barro credit for candor. When it comes to guns, the New York Times correspondent makes no bones about the kind of draconian, Second Amendment-defying approach he thinks is necessary.

Forget about expanded background checks or other such measures. The only way to have a “big impact on violent crime,” according to Barro, is to emulate Australia and “really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially.”

Barro made his comments on MSNBC’s Up With Steve Kornacki this morning [with Jonathan Capehart guest-hosting] during a discussion prompted by the on-air shootings of two TV station employees in Virginia.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hillary Clinton made her comments about gun reform. What do you make of that? I’ll start with you, Josh.

JOSH BARRO: It’s what I would expect a Democratic presidential candidate to say. But if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she’ll be a president facing a Republican House at least, possibly also a Republican senate. So I don’t think that there will be significant change in gun policy if Hillary Clinton is president. I mean, we already have a Democratic president now and we haven’t had significant change on it.

But I would also note, the things that we talk about in the United States are so at the margins on this stuff that I wonder how they would impact gun violence. If you did something like Australia did, where you really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially in society, you could have a big impact on violent crime.
#247111 by Planetguy
Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:54 pm
Image
#247112 by J-HALEY
Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:57 pm
jeff, it's the state not the city that is responsible for gun laws. that'd be illinois and they are not even close to having the strictest gun laws in the country.

That's exactly what I meant Mark. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Your doctored up liberal stats. prove absolutely nothing. Care to try again? :D
#247113 by GuitarMikeB
Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:48 pm
angelsshotgun wrote:Yikes, that was as intelligent of an insult as a dog poop in the middle of the road.

Where is your smart ass answer to the question of HOW 46 SENATORS actually voted for UN resolution 2117. It is a UN resolution that is in direct violation of OUR CONSTITUTION. It calls for the "MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT OF ALL UN COUNTRIES"

You being the almighty smart ass that you are... DO NOT see the correlation between constitutional treason and the traitors we have in office as professional politicians. Until you start providing evidence of your understanding of the laws of America, you are in favor of all the anti American activities of these traitors to the CONSTITUTION of AMERICA.

Need the list? Time is short. FCU!


That was 2 years ago, you know.

Read this for the truth about the resolution: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
Here's the list of senators you are so worked up about: http://www.truthorfiction.com/list-of-traitors/
#247116 by Planetguy
Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:17 pm
mike, don't waste your time. you're dealing with conservative sheep and..... worse, puppets dancing on the strings of their puppet masters... sheep and puppets who get their "facts" from Fox Spews and right wingnut proganda websites.

jeff, you crack me up...another whining conservative bleating about "doctored stats". IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! thanks for the laughs, buddy! :lol:

keep dancing on those strings, pal.

Image
#247131 by GuitarMikeB
Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:32 pm
Planetguy wrote:mike, don't waste your time. you're dealing with conservative sheep and.....


Oh, I know - but when you confront them with the TRUTH, they shut up (because they can't find anything to cut & paste as a reply).
#247165 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:13 pm
You guys are stealing my lines. STOP IT. You are getting me so upset I may start smiling.
FCU the facts are still clear... 46 SENATORS are only protected as traitors to America because of section 1.6.1b of section 5. I'm speaking about our constitution.

Thanks to all the liberal sheep that vote these traitors into office. :D
#247172 by Planetguy
Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:19 pm
i'll say one thing, glen...you never let any facts get in the way of opinions you've already formed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest