Here you go

[Origin]

Originally Posted by ineedone

They argued that in the lower federal courts many times. Just not at the SCOTUS. However, that does not matter. Oral arguments and briefs to a court are to help persuade. If the SCOTUS wants they could decide the case on completely different issues that no side argued. It was Roberts, not Kennedy - and I am the one who knows nothing - and he did not look for a way to make it work. I doubt you read the opinion or ever will so just stop with being a constitutional scholar now. So UK Top Gear knows about US policy and taxes? That is funny, never took the UK Top Gear law class... damnit I knew I was missing something. I cannot agree with a wackadoo loon prophesying about the impending doom that is surely (not happening) happening. How is it so hard for you to understand that if the stuff is not happening, just because you think it will, does not mean other people think it is or will happen. You still have not cited ONE example backed by ONE fact.

Wow, you are stupid. You are the most inept at comprehension (still). Unless you are just taking meanings out of context and instituting your own so you don't look like an ass. I won't bother trying to explain things to you anymore because I feel like I'm talking to a dog. I MISSPOKE saying Kennedy. I MISSPOKE, am I allowed to do that? You know, you are as insane in your beliefs as I am.

I think you should stop being a wannabe lawyer. You're not, nor will you be. But you would make a good one. Lawyer's don't have common sense and as our stuck in what's in writing as mathematicians are in numbers. They don't bother with what is right, or what is wrong, if it's there in writing that's the way it is no matter who gets the shaft. You do yourself a great disservice holding that hot coal of anger.

[BarrigaS14]

Not exactly going with the thing you are stating but close...

So the abstinence of a clear explanation for this unbelievably stupid gun program that mirrored only a slightly less unbelievably stupid one that began during the Bush years, is evidence of a larger conspiracy to ban assault weapons? Are you sure it’s not evidence that Obama is just arming Mexico and lead them to take back the Alamo? Do you think it is that? Maybe he is using the weapons to weigh Mexico down…sinking it…thus creating acres of new beach front property, to soil with an oil spill. Obama has given no explanation to believe otherwise so I am inclined to go with it.

If that is the case though, what did ya’ll think of the Bush year’s shenanigans? Secrete torture programs, wiring taping citizens without a warrant, putting signing statements onto laws that negated what the law actually said, stone walling congress, holding Americans without trial by calling them enemy combatants, what was your working theory on the tyranny and lawlessness of those secret programs?

It says you didn’t vote for them. (obama)

This was section from John Stewart. It was a pretty good point. Conspiracy people make up all types of crap because of what they want to believe. Rather than actually wait for factual evidence, they use it for their own dumb intentions.

[Origin]

My text will be in bold. Not sure if you can tell the difference otherwise.

Originally Posted by ineedone

This is your logical reason for the government restricting access to high powered automatic, military weaponry? Not safety? Not shit like Waco? They have .50 cal sniper rifles at waco. That shit is real dangerous. I do not want some idiot cowboy picking up a highpowered assault because that shit looks cool, then going and killing himself or someone else by accident. Some toys only trained pros should get to play with. Big, awesome guns... are one of them. But I guess that makes me a liberal? Yeah, go figure.

I already stated (which you purposefully neglected, and I am getting tired of you doing) that those men that have licenses to have weapons like that have committed NO deaths. EVER. They are responsible, everyone one of them. Your argument is invalid. And QUIT TRYING TO TURN THAT STATEMENT AROUND. You like gun control, YES YOU ARE A LIBERAL. What an idiot for fuck's sake quit being an ass.

Uh, says who? Find me where the constitution does not allow spying. Please, find it for me. See, to me the constitution does matter, that is why I am asking you where. What is unconstitutional is if they use those drones to do illegal searches. Just spying though, that is the same as a cop posted outside your front damn door just sitting there waiting for you to do something. Unethical? maybe, Unconstitutional? NO.

You can't be serious. You CAN'T be serious.
The most frequently quoted statement by a Supreme Court justice on the subject of privacy comes in Justice Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. U. S. (1928):

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect." But no, I'm sure you will find a way around that. A drone looking at your house is not being left alone.

I do not even know where to begin with this. I guess women are whores who do not go to church? Well, I went to a Catholic and Christian high-school, huge whores. Lots of them. It was fun. Not sure how your love life is, but I am guessing even Handgelina and Palmela do not appreciate the way you talk about their sinful ways.

Again, you incomprehensible moron, I clearly stated fall-backs so I could create a non-"always" scenario. Well you aren't incomprehensible, you now realize I'm not making such rash comments as before and are starting to realize that I am becoming correct. Please, don't answer this one, you just make yourself look foolish.

And your small arms treaty link is stupid. It is a partisan blog. I posted a fact check on those exact claims. But I guess politifact is what? Biased? Sure. Next time use the quote button right.

Of course it's stupid, why wouldn't it be? Everything I post is stupid. Everything I post is wrong you bigoted idiot.

ANNND one more thing. The words of the constitution should mean something, so when it says "WELL REGULATED militia" that to means something more then you and your 3 buddies. I am pretty sure most would agree.

A liberal thinks the constitution means something? That's odd. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia, national guard isn't written there. Just reminding you of the obvious.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by BarrigaS14

Not exactly going with the thing you are stating but close...



This was section from John Stewart. It was a pretty good point. Conspiracy people make up all types of crap because of what they want to believe. Rather than actually wait for factual evidence, they use it for their own dumb intentions.

I am waiting. Patiently, for his second term.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

Wow, you are stupid. You are the most inept at comprehension (still). Unless you are just taking meanings out of context and instituting your own so you don't look like an ass. I won't bother trying to explain things to you anymore because I feel like I'm talking to a dog. I MISSPOKE saying Kennedy. I MISSPOKE, am I allowed to do that? You know, you are as insane in your beliefs as I am.

I think you should stop being a wannabe lawyer. You're not, nor will you be. But you would make a good one. Lawyer's don't have common sense and as our stuck in what's in writing as mathematicians are in numbers. They don't bother with what is right, or what is wrong, if it's there in writing that's the way it is no matter who gets the shaft. You do yourself a great disservice holding that hot coal of anger.

How does pointing out that you picked the wrong justice to go ape shit on taking your words out of context? You did not speak by the way, you typed. You MISTYPED (emphasis added). You have no idea what I believe, but sure I guess I am as insane as you? What do I believe by the way? Just so I know which planet we are arguing on.

I am not sure whether you were complementing my awesome lawyerly skills or just saying that I have skills that would be really good for a lawyer. I am not sure why adhering to the text is all of a sudden an attack from a (assumed) conservative. Is that not what you are suppose to do? God damn Justice Thomas always going by the text like a looney toon liberal. I do not know where you think I have anger. I think this is really funny, I thought my witty sarcasm and sweet .gif made that point... but le sigh.

Oh, and what is "right" and what is "wrong." Dear Raptor Jesus who knows all? because things that are right can be infinitely wrong, where things that are wrong will most definitely be right.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

I am waiting. Patiently, for his second term.

Fixed, Ill get back to you on the other stuff, do not worry cupcake!

[mantas]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Hey, are you still trying to figure out what makes me dumb about Immigration and ICE? Dude, it is taking a long time.


I got my JD, not sure how that makes me a wanna be?

I do not think anyone has an issue with the right to actually have firearms
But what does the amendment allow the government to do? Why did they write it as "to keep and bear" and not "to keep and TO bear?" Why did they say "arms" and not "weapons?" - - How can you answer any of those questions definitively without knowing what the framers had in their heads at the time they wrote it? Does the ghost of Adams speak to you? If you look at state constitutions during the debates, they varied in the way they had their own 2nd amendment type rights. Some said weapons, others had arms, etc. Not only that, but the meanings of the words have changed, you look up the word arms, not only are there numbers different dictionaries, but they all have more then one definition that relates to some sort of weapon. Now do you use a dictionary of today? or of the 18th century? Which one? Do you see how just the word "arms" can be almost impossible to define?

Add those to your research list. Homework is due Monday. (Its the weekend, I mean I only half study so I do not expect you to full study).

So what do you call an arms dealer? Why not a weapons dealer or a guns dealer? Same shit, the wording has nothing to do with it. I gave up on dealing with you, you are a typical wanna be lawyer - cant pass the bar. When you pass it come back and speak about law to us.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

My text will be in bold. Not sure if you can tell the difference otherwise.

You really do not know how to multi-quote? Dude, you can just do a little cut and paste. It makes responding to your jibberish easier.

Originally Posted by Origin

A liberal thinks the constitution means something? That's odd. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia, national guard isn't written there. Just reminding you of the obvious.

What do liberals just not believe in a constitution? Or is it they believe in interpreting the constitution a different way? Yeah that ACLU hates the constitution (I am assuming you know who the ACLU is...) whatever, I wont be convincing your crazy ass anytime soon. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia? thanks for that insight... you seem like a sharp one. Usually you do not define something by using the same words, but I do not know stupid that well, so maybe you can inform me on what the hell that is suppose to mean.

Originally Posted by Origin

I already stated (which you purposefully neglected, and I am getting tired of you doing) that those men that have licenses to have weapons like that have committed NO deaths. EVER. They are responsible, everyone one of them. Your argument is invalid. And QUIT TRYING TO TURN THAT STATEMENT AROUND. You like gun control, YES YOU ARE A LIBERAL. What an idiot for fuck's sake quit being an ass.

So no person that has a legal license to use a gun has committed death? How do you commit death? I know people that commit homicide or suicide, but I guess you win on that one?

You know every person that has a high powered military grade weapon? and you know they are reasonable? How many friends do you have because that is A LOT of people. You do realize states have different gun licensing laws right? So, for example, in VA you can be a complete state ward pyscho, but still have a valid license to buy banana clips for a glock that is modified to fire fully automatic rounds (this would be the Cho kid). That is a completely legal sale in that state. I guess you did not know this guy did you? Well, I mean that is only one guy so I guess that is ok.

I do not know how my argument is invalid. My "argument" or my opinion (which is what I said) is that I feel some weapons are exponentially more dangerous then others. Those weapons should not be available to the general public in my view. However, if you are licensed military, police, or something equivalent (I am thinking of the guys who train people to shoot and what not - my best bud is a gun smith and trains spec ops guys how to shoot so I trust him) then sure go ahead. But some idiot cowboy, yeah that dude can go eat a huge smelly wiener before I feel comfortable with him having some of that shit. I think that view is pretty reasonable and I do not think you can find a serious person who, even if they disagree, thinks that is unreasonable. I like reasonable gun control - which means a unified system so that everyone knows the laws, that everyone who is legally allowed access to firearms can obtain them, and so that some of that crazy shit does not get into idiots hands. I bet you would like to know what guns I have. OH NOOOO!

I am glad that you know what I am. Just in case I forget. And you do know Jesus can read forums right? He is not going to be happy when he sees the language you have been using. Better start those hail marys.

Originally Posted by Origin

You can't be serious. You CAN'T be serious.
The most frequently quoted statement by a Supreme Court justice on the subject of privacy comes in Justice Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. U. S. (1928):

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect." But no, I'm sure you will find a way around that. A drone looking at your house is not being left alone.

What did you do wiki privacy and constitution? Good job.. I guess? But I am glad that you really like Brandeis, a HUGE liberal Justice, super progressive, all up on social justice. I guess there may be some hope for you yet?

Except that it has nothing to do with the issue of drones and privacy. The government is allowed to "spy" on you so long as they do not invade certain spaces. For example, it is completely legal for the police to fly a helicopter over your house. However, it would be illegal/unconstitutional for them to fly over your house and look around with infrared technology without a warrant to do so.

Next step, it is legal for the police to follow you, to park outside your house and wait for you to leave. It would be unconstitutional for them to come on to your property, attach a GPS device to your car, and leave and watch you on GPS.

Now to drones, it would be legal for them to fly a drone and watch you. It would be unconstitutional or illegal for them to use some of the crazy tech that drones can have to look/listen into your house without a warrant etc.

Privacy is not an absolute. There are certain places where one expects to have privacy (e.g., inside ones home) but once you step into the public space (e.g., outside of the home) you no longer have an expectation of privacy.

4th amendment jurisprudence is really cool and is always being litigated so if it interest you awesome..

Originally Posted by Origin

Again, you incomprehensible moron, I clearly stated fall-backs so I could create a non-"always" scenario. Well you aren't incomprehensible, you now realize I'm not making such rash comments as before and are starting to realize that I am becoming correct. Please, don't answer this one, you just make yourself look foolish.

So your jerking off hands broke up with you? Sorry man.

Originally Posted by Origin

Of course it's stupid, why wouldn't it be? Everything I post is stupid. Everything I post is wrong you bigoted idiot.

I am glad you can admit that, but how am I a bigot? Because I think you are stupid? Trust me, it has nothing to do with your race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, any of that. Mostly because of what you say... but I do not know how thinking someone is dumb because of the actual words they say makes another a bigot... please enlighten me...

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by mantas

So what do you call an arms dealer? Why not a weapons dealer or a guns dealer? Same shit, the wording has nothing to do with it. I gave up on dealing with you, you are a typical wanna be lawyer - cant pass the bar. When you pass it come back and speak about law to us.

You do know that words had different meanings at the time the constitution was written right? You do know that those words matter as to understanding what the constitution means right? That might be the most basic concept... I mean shit, even the righties bust out stuff like the federalist papers to back up their claims... wait... do you know what the federalist papers are? and why people use them when arguing about what the constitution means? oh shit... this is worse then I expected... New homework, read federalist papers.


I have a sweet piece of paper that says JD, I think it is kinda cool. But I will pass, it is a lot of work, but it is not really THAT hard. I mean a lot of idiots are lawyers and I am smarter then a few of them... I hope...

[mantas]

Originally Posted by ineedone

You do know that words had different meanings at the time the constitution was written right? You do know that those words matter as to understanding what the constitution means right? That might be the most basic concept... I mean shit, even the righties bust out stuff like the federalist papers to back up their claims... wait... do you know what the federalist papers are? and why people use them when arguing about what the constitution means? oh shit... this is worse then I expected... New homework, read federalist papers.


I have a sweet piece of paper that says JD, I think it is kinda cool. But I will pass, it is a lot of work, but it is not really THAT hard. I mean a lot of idiots are lawyers and I am smarter then a few of them... I hope...

Federalist papers? Whats that? Never heard of them.........

And good luck with the bar. I dont recall the passing rate but i think its as low as 20% (correct me if im wrong) so dont act like its a walk in the park.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by ineedone

You really do not know how to multi-quote? Dude, you can just do a little cut and paste. It makes responding to your jibberish easier.



What do liberals just not believe in a constitution? Or is it they believe in interpreting the constitution a different way? Yeah that ACLU hates the constitution (I am assuming you know who the ACLU is...) whatever, I wont be convincing your crazy ass anytime soon. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia? thanks for that insight... you seem like a sharp one. Usually you do not define something by using the same words, but I do not know stupid that well, so maybe you can inform me on what the hell that is suppose to mean.



So no person that has a legal license to use a gun has committed death? How do you commit death? I know people that commit homicide or suicide, but I guess you win on that one?

Edit: I will respond to this one, because it's so obvious to anyone with a brain or without an ego (no one in this thread really), that you BLATANTLY changed the meaning of what I said. YOU did. I typed it correctly (and no, it doesn't make you smart to point out I just said "said", and then claimed that I "typed"). I said, one more time to see if your unfathomably stupid mind can comprehend this, that those people, that HAVE the LICENSE required to own weapons that are FULL-AUTO, or things like a .50 caliber, have NOT committed any murders, from using those "Big, awesome guns.." The LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, have NOT caused any reason, to further ban those weapons. THUS, the only reason TO do it, is because SOMEONE does not want you to have them for fear of repercussion, or they just can not stand you having that liberty as it is like ants crawling on your skin. Those people who DO kill, do so at their (and the victims) OWN PERIL. A person can choose to walk away, BUT, if they want someone killed they DO NOT need a gun.

You know every person that has a high powered military grade weapon? and you know they are reasonable? How many friends do you have because that is A LOT of people. You do realize states have different gun licensing laws right? So, for example, in VA you can be a complete state ward pyscho, but still have a valid license to buy banana clips for a glock that is modified to fire fully automatic rounds (this would be the Cho kid). That is a completely legal sale in that state. I guess you did not know this guy did you? Well, I mean that is only one guy so I guess that is ok.

I do not know how my argument is invalid. My "argument" or my opinion *Knowledge is true opinion, this doesn't qualify for you, coming up next. (which is what I said) is that I feel some weapons are exponentially more dangerous then others. WRONG, weapons do not act by themselves, it's the person behind it that does. Those weapons should not be available to the general public in my view. However, if you are licensed military, police, or something equivalent Because they always do the right thing. (I am thinking of the guys who train people to shoot and what not - my best bud is a gun smith and trains spec ops guys how to shoot so I trust him) then sure go ahead. But some idiot cowboy, yeah that dude can go eat a huge smelly wiener before I feel comfortable with him having some of that shit. Show me one. More times than not, it is a city person that does moronic things like look down the barrel to see if it's loaded. If you really think a (mind you, real cowboy, you know, from out west?) does not know how to handle a gun, you have just proved how stupid you are. I think that view is pretty reasonable and I do not think you can find a serious person who, even if they disagree, thinks that is unreasonable. I like reasonable gun control - which means a unified system so that everyone knows the laws, that everyone who is legally allowed access to firearms can obtain them, and so that some of that crazy shit does not get into idiots hands. I bet you would like to know what guns I have. OH NOOOO!

I am glad that you know what I am. Just in case I forget. And you do know Jesus can read forums right? He is not going to be happy when he sees the language you have been using. Better start those hail marys.




What did you do wiki privacy and constitution? Good job.. I guess? But I am glad that you really like Brandeis, a HUGE liberal Justice, super progressive, all up on social justice. I guess there may be some hope for you yet?

Except that it has nothing to do with the issue of drones and privacy. The government is allowed to "spy" on you so long as they do not invade certain spaces. For example, it is completely legal for the police to fly a helicopter over your house. However, it would be illegal/unconstitutional for them to fly over your house and look around with infrared technology without a warrant to do so.

Next step, it is legal for the police to follow you, to park outside your house and wait for you to leave. It would be unconstitutional for them to come on to your property, attach a GPS device to your car, and leave and watch you on GPS.

Now to drones, it would be legal for them to fly a drone and watch you. It would be unconstitutional or illegal for them to use some of the crazy tech that drones can have to look/listen into your house without a warrant etc.

Privacy is not an absolute. There are certain places where one expects to have privacy (e.g., inside ones home) but once you step into the public space (e.g., outside of the home) you no longer have an expectation of privacy.

4th amendment jurisprudence is really cool and is always being litigated so if it interest you awesome..




So your jerking off hands broke up with you? Sorry man.




I am glad you can admit that, but how am I a bigot? Because I think you are stupid? Trust me, it has nothing to do with your race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, any of that. Mostly because of what you say... but I do not know how thinking someone is dumb because of the actual words they say makes another a bigot... please enlighten me...

You are now just taking things way out of the way to try and make me look bad (which is a lawyer move by the way, and in case you didn't know, they aren't well liked people), because you are starting to realize that I make sense. And I never didn't make sense. You're a wannabe, and I'm with Mantas on this one. don't bother responding, I won't be responding to you back. Since I have been answering your questions and you subsequently turned them into lies. I should thank you, now I know how to argue and what to look out for better next time I encounter a liberal.

The first sign of a Liberal, attempted exaggeration or alteration of truth when opposed.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by ineedone

You do know that words had different meanings at the time the constitution was written right? You do know that those words matter as to understanding what the constitution means right? That might be the most basic concept... I mean shit, even the righties bust out stuff like the federalist papers to back up their claims... wait... do you know what the federalist papers are? and why people use them when arguing about what the constitution means? oh shit... this is worse then I expected... New homework, read federalist papers.


I have a sweet piece of paper that says JD, I think it is kinda cool. But I will pass, it is a lot of work, but it is not really THAT hard. I mean a lot of idiots are lawyers and I am smarter then a few of them... I hope...

WRONG, you aren't smarter. You are just better at turning peoples words into what you want others to hear. You're a jackass.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by mantas

Federalist papers? Whats that? Never heard of them.........

And good luck with the bar. I dont recall the passing rate but i think its as low as 20% (correct me if im wrong) so dont act like its a walk in the park.

Thanks! The harder jurisdictions (CA, NY, DE) are closer to 70%. The rest are around 80-90% pass rates for first time takers. So, not a walk in the park, but definitely not THAT bad.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

Edit: I will respond to this one, because it's so obvious to anyone with a brain or without an ego (no one in this thread really), that you BLATANTLY changed the meaning of what I said. YOU did. I typed it correctly (and no, it doesn't make you smart to point out I just said "said", and then claimed that I "typed"). I said, one more time to see if your unfathomably stupid mind can comprehend this, that those people, that HAVE the LICENSE required to own weapons that are FULL-AUTO, or things like a .50 caliber, have NOT committed any murders, from using those "Big, awesome guns.." The LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, have NOT caused any reason, to further ban those weapons. THUS, the only reason TO do it, is because SOMEONE does not want you to have them for fear of repercussion, or they just can not stand you having that liberty as it is like ants crawling on your skin. Those people who DO kill, do so at their (and the victims) OWN PERIL. A person can choose to walk away, BUT, if they want someone killed they DO NOT need a gun.

Couldn't resist could you? You are really too easy man. I am making fun of you. This whole thing, it is other people, pointing, and laughing at you. No one else is taking this seriously. If your argument is that people who do not commit crimes, have not committed a crime. Then you win. Yay!

Originally Posted by Origin

You are now just taking things way out of the way to try and make me look bad (which is a lawyer move by the way, and in case you didn't know, they aren't well liked people), because you are starting to realize that I make sense. And I never didn't make sense. You're a wannabe, and I'm with Mantas on this one. don't bother responding, I won't be responding to you back. Since I have been answering your questions and you subsequently turned them into lies. I should thank you, now I know how to argue and what to look out for better next time I encounter a liberal.

The first sign of a Liberal, attempted exaggeration or alteration of truth when opposed.

Trust me, nothing I did made you look bad. That is all on you. In NO WAY will I take any responsibility for your stupidity

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

WRONG, you aren't smarter. You are just better at turning peoples words into what you want others to hear. You're a jackass.

I thought your other post was your last post? Oh well... this is mine, it has been fun. Do not take it too seriously, I do not need you going on a murderous rampage on my conscience.

Well, toodles sweet pea, see you in a few months if you are not locked up in the looney bin!

[mantas]

Originally Posted by Origin

You are now just taking things way out of the way to try and make me look bad (which is a lawyer move by the way, and in case you didn't know, they aren't well liked people), because you are starting to realize that I make sense. And I never didn't make sense. You're a wannabe, and I'm with Mantas on this one. don't bother responding, I won't be responding to you back. Since I have been answering your questions and you subsequently turned them into lies. I should thank you, now I know how to argue and what to look out for better next time I encounter a liberal.

The first sign of a Liberal, attempted exaggeration or alteration of truth when opposed.

See, liberals are not worth the time, they flip the argument around just so they would not get cornered. There is really no point in debating or arguing with them, and no this whole thread is not about bashing you, its just what liberals have done to this thread. Keep up the good work my friend and ignore irrational assholes that cant stand their ground.

[Origin]

Haha, I see what you mean. He (or she I'm starting to think) just tried to find a way on top and then booked it.

[theicecreamdan]

What does "he" or "she" have to do with it?

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by theicecreamdan

What does "he" or "she" have to do with it?

He's just trying to provoke Ineedone into responding to another one of his dumbass threads/posts.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by raz0rbladez909

He's just trying to provoke Ineedone into responding to another one of his dumbass threads/posts.

And once the provoked responds, the instigator will refuse to face any specific rebuttal to anything he says appropriately, then call people "liberals" and accuse THEM of changing the subject or massaging the argument to their favor.
Really, the problem is his inability to properly make a point that brings anyone who doesn't already WANT to buy the bullshit he is selling and how it causes him to paint himself into a corner and then lash out in frustration in the only manner he knows how. It is quite entertaining to watch him self-immolate in thread after thread in the EXACT same manner, yet keep trying the same approach.
There is something to be said for someone who repeats the same thing over and over but expects different results.

[Origin]

Screw off, the thread was dead and you two resurrected it. Never met such mindless zilvians. Hard to say that. I was just agree with Mantas on what Liberals do every time they get cornered. Not really a big deal.

"There is something to be said for someone who repeats the same thing over and over but expects different results."

Yes, there is. Perhaps you should quit bitching.

[59bhp]

oop wrong thread

[theicecreamdan]

But is there a difference between a he-liberal and a she-liberal?

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Origin

Screw off, the thread was dead and you two resurrected it. Never met such mindless zilvians. Hard to say that. I was just agree with Mantas on what Liberals do every time they get cornered. Not really a big deal.

"There is something to be said for someone who repeats the same thing over and over but expects different results."

Yes, there is. Perhaps you should quit bitching.

Lol I fail to see how a one day difference in posts makes the thread dead, and there was three of us that resurrected it. I don't see how it's mindless to call you out on exactly what you were doing. You played the "I'm going to insult him by calling him a girl" card. It's funny how everyone who doesn't agree with you is considered a Liberal too. Maybe next time you should put more information into your thread titles instead of shit like "Here you go" and "This explains everything". Usually when you make a thread and expect a reasonable debate, you typically don't start it with things like "All you idiots/morons" and you are definitely one to talk about bitching.

[Piggy]

I don't think any thread has given me more unintentional lol's than this one. I must waste some more time looking up past threads now.

Originally Posted by Phlip

It is quite entertaining to watch him self-immolate in thread after thread in the EXACT same manner, yet keep trying the same approach.

Pretty much.

[drift freaq]

Originally Posted by Phlip

There is something to be said for someone who repeats the same thing over and over but expects different results.

INSANE! ! For those that don't know its the textbook definition of Insanity.

I like how Phlip said it so nicely, but I could not resist spelling it for the people that may not know.

Oh and ya this thread has been pretty insane.

Oh and ya I challenge Origin to call me a bleeding heart liberal. Oh wait he probably has already(in other threads) because I live in California. Ah oh well.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

Screw off, the thread was dead and you two resurrected it. Never met such mindless zilvians. Hard to say that. I was just agree with Mantas on what Liberals do every time they get cornered. Not really a big deal.

"There is something to be said for someone who repeats the same thing over and over but expects different results."

Yes, there is. Perhaps you should quit bitching.

Wait, did you corner me or did I corner you? It has been awhile. I have been away doing important shit that you cannot do so remind me.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by mantas

See, liberals are not worth the time, they flip the argument around just so they would not get cornered. There is really no point in debating or arguing with them, and no this whole thread is not about bashing you, its just what liberals have done to this thread. Keep up the good work my friend and ignore irrational assholes that cant stand their ground.

SO WAIT... No one was cornered? Hey, you and your totally hetero BF Origin agree as to who was or was not in the corner ok? Lets all start making some sense in here!

[Daniel.]

Origin, just accept the fact that once Obama becomes dictator, you're going to be the first to get gassed and thrown into the mass grave.

[kingkilburn]

I am deeply disappointed I missed out on this thread. I could have been called a "liberal" and insulted for not jumping right in line with far fetched bs with no evidence.