State of the Democratic Party
|
State of the Democratic Party
|
11-17-2016, 07:07 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They have created a division in the Republican party also. I can only assume that is a yes. Please stick with the "Nothing wrong with us; you're just stupid approach". The GOP doesn't have 100% of Congress yet. ![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png) ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png) 
11-17-2016, 07:15 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What policies that helped the working class have they moved away from? You answered your own question, really: (11-17-2016, 06:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And it is even easier to try and blame foreigners when in fact American corporations are making record profits. They have given a lot of lip service to this problem of income inequality, but then in office they focus a lot more on the identity politics, the social issues, etc. I get that the social issues are important as well, but that's not what the working class cares about.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR 
11-17-2016, 07:19 PM
11-17-2016, 08:40 PM
(11-17-2016, 07:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You answered your own question, really: (11-17-2016, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How about incentivizing the ability for US companies to move jobs over seas to take advantage of insanely low wages? So which is it? Companies make record profits...but they go over seas so they can make more profit by paying employees less. How does the government "focus" on making companies stay here AND raise wages? ![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif) Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
11-17-2016, 09:32 PM
(11-17-2016, 08:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: So which is it? That's the big question. If I had the answer I would be making a lot of money as a policy expert. But there are plenty of policy experts in our government that should have some ideas, we just don't hear much about them after the campaign trail.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR 
11-17-2016, 09:35 PM
(11-17-2016, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then white working class are feeling more threatened than ever. There is nothing Domocrats can do about that. Things will get even worse in a few years when whites make up less than half of the population. We will see a huge rise in neo-nazi and white supremacists type parties at that time. Except, it wasn't just ALL WHITES that voted for Trump. This is what bozo's like you can't seem to get into your narrow minded head. It was the working class (this is all races/genders/sexual preferences). Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, Native American's, Muslims, WOMEN, LGBT voted for Trump, not just White folks. Whites make up the majority of people in the country so it's only natural that we would also make up the majority in votes for a candidate. More Whites voted for Hillary than Blacks, Asians, Muslims, LGBT, Hispanics or Native Americans. But that narrative is not what you want to promote.
11-17-2016, 09:42 PM
(11-17-2016, 08:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: So which is it? It's actually much simpler than it would appear. Companies are traditionally short sighted because the people in charge of them are only concerned with the next quarter's profits. A high level executive can kick the can down the road for years, making fat bonuses the whole time, and then move on before the bottom falls out. They are essentially doing the exact same thing by moving to countries were they can pay near slave wages to their workers. They save money in the short term for obvious reasons. The long term effects, which have yet to occur at the scale they eventually will, occurs when fewer and fewer people in the United States can afford to buy their product. The smart, long term, business model is to keep production in the same country that you sell your product, paying wages as high as you can reasonably afford. If this is done you not only have a happy labor force but you have an ever expanding pool of consumers who can afford your product. The people building your iphone in China couldn't afford one of those phones if they saved for years and that's only one example out of thousands. The government further incentivized moving jobs out of the country with tax breaks and low to non-existent tariffs on the imported goods. They made it financially feasible for companies to move and glut themselves on short term profit margins. A billionaire once wrote an excellent article, that I wish I could find, about how a thriving middle class is in everyone's interests. He made the, correct, point that although he makes 500 times what your average worker does he does not buy 500 times the shirts, cars, appliances, etc... The point being that long term success can only come with a strong consumer base, a base that we are losing at a steady rate. It will take years for the bottom to completely drop out but it will happen. The government's role in all of this should be to force businesses to focus on long term viability, both for the company and the country, over the lure of short term profitability. Instead they did the exact opposite, they incentivized not doing so. In this regard they, both GOP an Democrat, have completely sold the US populace out. Trump played to this very effectively. As to whether he follows through in any meaningful way on this issue remains to be seen. The natural cynic in me doubts it, but it could absolutely be done.
11-17-2016, 10:07 PM
(11-17-2016, 09:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's actually much simpler than it would appear. Companies are traditionally short sighted because the people in charge of them are only concerned with the next quarter's profits. A high level executive can kick the can down the road for years, making fat bonuses the whole time, and then move on before the bottom falls out. Don't fall over...but I totally agree with this. Especially the bolded part. "Trickle up economics" is something I support. Poorer people will spend the money they make. Richer people will save it. The problem is the folks on the right tend see that last paragraph and "big government interfering with business". Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
11-17-2016, 11:30 PM
(11-17-2016, 10:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Don't fall over...but I totally agree with this. Especially the bolded part. "Trickle up economics" is something I support. And that is what makes it all very difficult. What policies can be implemented that will carry this effect? How will they play out in the arena of public opinion? What will they cost? How are they enforced? The broad idea of what will fix this seems simple, implementing it is difficult. Especially since the largest and most influential lobbying power in this country will fight them tooth and nail.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
11-18-2016, 12:16 AM
(11-17-2016, 10:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Don't fall over...but I totally agree with this. Especially the bolded part. "Trickle up economics" is something I support. I'm honestly not shocked because this isn't a partisan issue. Your second point is especially true. As to the last, it is government interfering with big business. The way to counter the assertion is to point out that China does not do this and you get lead in everything and poisoned pet food. (11-17-2016, 11:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And that is what makes it all very difficult. What policies can be implemented that will carry this effect? How will they play out in the arena of public opinion? What will they cost? How are they enforced? The broad idea of what will fix this seems simple, implementing it is difficult. Especially since the largest and most influential lobbying power in this country will fight them tooth and nail. The policies are simple. As to the rest of your points the answer is also deceptively simple. As with any problem that you want solved in the United States, you cloak it in patriotism. Move jobs back to America or you don't love America! You'd rather pay a Chinese/Mexican than an American?! I could go on but I know you get the point. If Trump's election has taught us anything it's that mobilizing the masses can totally nullify long standing power blocks. In this case the press, public polling, punditry and public shaming all took a back seat to appeals to patriotism and perceived economic benefit. A really skilled person could do a better job of this than Trump. 
11-18-2016, 01:26 AM
(11-17-2016, 07:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I fear your reading comprehension skills deteriorate with each passing month. I didn't state confiscation has happened in the past, I said it is happening now as we speak. As for the history angle, I'll use my horribly broken, in terms of the 2A, state of CA as an example. In the eighties they passed a ban on "high capacity" magazines, any magazine that holds more than ten rounds. They grandfathered in all such magazines already in the state. The purpose of this was not to necessitate confiscation of citizens legally purchased property. It was also stated at that time that this would not change. Fast forward to today and not only are all such magazines, even the previously grandfathered ones, banned they must be surrendered or removed from the state or the owner faces criminal charges. This is confiscation. Thus, history has shown that gun owners should trust anti-gun politicians and people as much as pro choice people should trust pro-life people and politicians, i.e. not at all. Or Connecticut where they shoved through a bunch of gun laws after Sandy Hook without any voting. Including also a ban on magazines of more than 10 rounds, but a grandfathering in of larger magazines, so long as they don't have more than 10 rounds loaded into it outside of home or a shooting range. Also still nobody can define what an "assault weapon" is, but everyone wants to ban them. Certain cities make it so hard to legally own a gun that they have effectively banned it for everyone except criminals who DGAF. Heck, apparently they don't recall the fact that they had to get the Supreme Court to confirm that a handgun was part of the 2nd amendment, because they wanted to take them away. Just because the guns haven't been confiscated yet, doesn't mean if people stopped resisting it happening that they wouldn't be. They've been trying regardless inch by inch. ____________________________________________________________
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
11-18-2016, 02:00 AM
(11-17-2016, 11:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You seem to have some misconceptions. JFK was the most liberal POTUS we have had since FDR. Based on his positions on congressional actions at the time he was in office, he was very liberal. We've actually seen the Democrats in the Oval Office trend more conservative since JFK, and GOP presidents as well for that matter. I would never deny that climate change is happening, has been happening and will never stop happening. We as humans cant control it, and our impact on it is either nill to zero. In fact, they had a UN climate summit just recently and here are a few highlights... As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.” In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed! The United Nations has publicly stated its goal is not to ‘solve’ climate change, but to seek to redistribute wealth and expand its authority through more central planning. UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics: Global Warming ‘a new religion’ Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted. “Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.” “The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted. “I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.” Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’ An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn't face an existential crisis. 'What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger.' UN Climate treaty is 'POINTLESS.' Climate change 'CANNOT BE SOLVED' 'Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.' ~~(some of us actually DO understand that lol) Green Guru James Lovelock Condemns green movement: 'It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific' Lovelock rips scientists attempting to predict temperatures as 'idiots': “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” Read the Full Article Key climate data highlights: Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War. Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s. Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising. Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration. Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather. So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration. A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’ In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade’ Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically. Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s. While the climate fails to behave as the UN and climate activists predict, very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.” There is plenty more but I'll stop there. It wont be long, and climate change lovers will be considered the biggest tin foil hat wearing pushovers in human history. I will say, I've been saying this stuff to my friends and family for years now. It's nice to see some of the front line scientists basically saying exactly what I've been saying --mainly that climate change is a religion and not real science, and the only good we can do as conservationists is to clean and solve pollution problems because its something we can actually do lol. But keep on buying it. It's a massive sinking ship and has been for a few years now. It's all coming apart at the seams. The only reason most of you dont know this is because you dont look or try. They will NOT say this stuff on CNN, MSNBC Huffpo, etc, etc. They are told not to. 
11-18-2016, 02:39 AM
Same people who believe ^ this garbage ^ were proposing shooting our garbage into space about a decade ago. Those dum-dums have a pseudo-political-actual-corporate agenda guiding them, or was that a tin foil hat too? Look at the science guy.
Praise Jesus.
11-18-2016, 10:18 AM
(11-18-2016, 02:00 AM)djam Wrote: I would never deny that climate change is happening, has been happening and will never stop happening. We as humans cant control it, and our impact on it is either nill to zero. In fact, they had a UN climate summit just recently and here are a few highlights... I will give you the same advice I gave Fred, read my post before responding to it. I'm well aware of the contentiousness of climate change, especially the current stuff because I have regular conversations with my human ecologist brother-in-law whose entire field of study may not be climate science, but is the interaction between humans and our environment. This is why my position is as it is. I have a feeling if you read my paragraph on the climate change issue in its entirety you would realize that you were arguing against something I did not say, and that you probably agree with what I said. At least, if you actually were as concerned about the environment as you purport to have been you likely would.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR 
11-18-2016, 04:24 PM
(11-17-2016, 07:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I fear your reading comprehension skills deteriorate with each passing month. I didn't state confiscation has happened in the past, I said it is happening now as we speak. As for the history angle, I'll use my horribly broken, in terms of the 2A, state of CA as an example. In the eighties they passed a ban on "high capacity" magazines, any magazine that holds more than ten rounds. They grandfathered in all such magazines already in the state. The purpose of this was not to necessitate confiscation of citizens legally purchased property. It was also stated at that time that this would not change. Fast forward to today and not only are all such magazines, even the previously grandfathered ones, banned they must be surrendered or removed from the state or the owner faces criminal charges. This is confiscation. Thus, history has shown that gun owners should trust anti-gun politicians and people as much as pro choice people should trust pro-life people and politicians, i.e. not at all. Enough people have told me they have seen a video of a guy letting someone defecate on him that I believe such videos exist. So, history has shown guys want people to defecate on them. Therefore, you want people to defecate on you. You are following a similar line of reasoning. One state passed a few laws that have limited possession of some guns and this gets extrapolated into every gun owner should fear his or her guns will be confiscated tomorrow. Videos showing people delighting in being defecated on gets extrapolated into you want someone to defecate on you, or you are letting someone defecate on you right now, or you paying someone to defecate on you and film it is imminent. Personally, I find both lines of thinking absurd, but it is nice to know that in your idle moments when not clinging to your guns you may dream of being pooped on.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
11-18-2016, 05:13 PM
(11-18-2016, 04:24 PM)xxlt Wrote: Enough people have told me they have seen a video of a guy letting someone defecate on him that I believe such videos exist. So, history has shown guys want people to defecate on them. Therefore, you want people to defecate on you. Yes, because that is clearly the same thing. The gun restrictions have happened despite there being the 2nd Amendment and a huge resistance against more restrictions being enforced. Even if you focus on just California (and ignore all the other places), that is about 12.8% of the US population. Add in just Chicago and NYC to California, and we are talking about roughly 16% of the US population. You laugh about people getting worried about losing guns small step by small step. Clearly you didn't pay attention to what has happened to smokers over the last 20 years or so. Or how many bills have had to be struck down or deemed unconstitutional when people DO try to ban guns ____________________________________________________________
11-18-2016, 05:54 PM
(11-18-2016, 04:24 PM)xxlt Wrote: Enough people have told me they have seen a video of a guy letting someone defecate on him that I believe such videos exist. So, history has shown guys want people to defecate on them. Therefore, you want people to defecate on you. One of the most specious analogies I've ever seen made on this, or the old, board. Well done. Quote:You are following a similar line of reasoning. One state passed a few laws that have limited possession of some guns and this gets extrapolated into every gun owner should fear his or her guns will be confiscated tomorrow. Not what I said and your analogy is horrifically feeble. It's more than one state, how many new states had gun control measures on their ballot this past election? How many passed? Do you really think that the anti-gun ownership people are finally satisfied and will make no more attempts? I'd call you monstrously naïve if I didn't think you were being deliberately obtuse. Quote:Videos showing people delighting in being defecated on gets extrapolated into you want someone to defecate on you, or you are letting someone defecate on you right now, or you paying someone to defecate on you and film it is imminent. This analogy doesn't get less inane the more you repeat it. Quote:Personally, I find both lines of thinking absurd, but it is nice to know that in your idle moments when not clinging to your guns you may dream of being pooped on. Your response is so devoid of facts, logical thought or reason that you really should just not have bothered. If you disagree, as you clearly do, I would expect you to be able to at least make a cogent argument for why I'm wrong. This drivel actually saddens me, you used to be much better than this.
11-18-2016, 10:10 PM
(11-18-2016, 05:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because that is clearly the same thing. Every night I say a little prayer for the smokers who can no longer foul the air of public buildings. It is a national tragedy on par with the Clean Water Act and the restrictions placed on the people who want to remove your mail from your mailbox and read it. I mean, why is it a felony for Bob and Mary next door to take your mail from your box and read it? I do laugh about people worried about losing their guns small step by small step, because everyone who has any real power in this country knows that as long as the sheeple have their bables (bibles) and their shootin' arns (guns) you can ram a rolling pin up their assholes and they won't say boo because they think they are free and protected by the good book and the big gun. Its ignorant, but what are ya gonna do? Your second amendment rats (rights) give you the authority to have a gun for the purpose of serving in a militia. Any one who missed militia drill last week deserves to have their guns taken, even though it will never happen. (And that's how they get you. They tell you the truth and you believe it and then, wham - they take your guns! PS, Obama is outside your window right now, with a great big ol' hardon you could hang pipe rail gate from, and he's looking at your gun and he's about to TAKE IT!)
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
11-18-2016, 10:20 PM
(11-18-2016, 05:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of the most specious analogies I've ever seen made on this, or the old, board. Well done. OK fine, I tried to do it the fun way, but now we'll do it the hard way. Facts In case you are worried that guns haven't sufficiently permeated American culture, here are some startling facts compiled by Jack Date, Pierre Thomas and Jason Ryan of ABC News.
ABC has more > And there are a whole bunch of additional staggering American gun statistics here > One of the favorite talking points of those who want military-grade assault weapons to remain freely available to anyone who wants them is that there aren't enough guns in America. These statistics should reveal that argument for what it is: Laughable. But wait, there's more. There are roughly 300 million privately owned guns in America. So, I can see why you are worried that they are all going to disappear tomorrow. Morefuckinfacts Politics Guns In America, By The Numbers January 5, 201612:09 PM ET ![[Image: scotthorsley_1_sq-7f902d16d4289e137d4e37...00-c85.jpg]](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/01/03/scotthorsley_1_sq-7f902d16d4289e137d4e37a5ea83639244170aff-s100-c85.jpg) Scott Horsley President Obama announced executive actions Tuesday, intended to curtail gun violence. But if history is any guide, the president's effort may have the unintended effect of boosting gun sales — 2015 was a banner year. "After San Bernardino, our business went up probably 50 percent," John Lamplugh, who has run gun shows in Maryland and Pennsylvania for more than three decades, said, referring to the recent shooting in California. "It's either two things: They're scared and need to protect [themselves]. Or they're afraid that [the government is] going to take it from them. There's the two things that drive our business." According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all. Gun sales have increased in recent years. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. gun-makers produced nearly 11 million guns in 2013, the year after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. That's twice as many as they made in 2010. "There's a gun for every man, woman, and child, more or less," says Deborah Azrael of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. But that doesn't mean every man, woman and child has a gun. The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes: One of Obama's executive actions would try to expand background checks and improve background check processing. According to the FBI, 23 million background checks were performed in 2015, nearly three times the 8.5 million performed in 2000. Researchers say a decline in hunting is partly responsible for the shrinking number of households with a gun. Gun ownership rates remain higher in rural areas. And there is considerable variation from state to state. Fewer than 6 percent of households in Delaware and Rhode Island have guns, compared with more than 50 percent in Arkansas, West Virginia and Wyoming. So, those being the facts, I'm right, you're wrong. xoxo
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
11-18-2016, 11:01 PM
(11-18-2016, 10:20 PM)xxlt Wrote: OK fine, I tried to do it the fun way, but now we'll do it the hard way. Or you could do it the fail way, as you just did. [/url] Quote: In case you are worried that guns haven't sufficiently permeated American culture, here are some startling facts compiled [url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/]by Jack Date, Pierre Thomas and Jason Ryan of ABC News.
ABC has more > And there are a whole bunch of additional staggering American gun statistics here > None of which addresses a single point I've made at all. I think you'll find that's a theme in this poorly constructed post. Maybe stick to talking about people pooping on each other? Quote:One of the favorite talking points of those who want military-grade assault weapons to remain freely available to anyone who wants them is that there aren't enough guns in America. These statistics should reveal that argument for what it is: Laughable. I'm enjoying the copypasta but you forgot the sauce. While you're at it, maybe take a break from directly copying other's inane source material and explain to the class what a "military-grade assault weapon" is. I need a laugh, so please gooby. Quote:But wait, there's more. Again, doesn't address a single point I've made. The trend continues. Quote:Politics I've already clearly addressed why this occurs. You've yet to cogently address a single point I've made. You have talked about people pooping on each other though. Quote:"There's a gun for every man, woman, and child, more or less," says Deborah Azrael of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Again, we're all waiting for you to actually make a point. Quote:So, those being the facts, I'm right, you're wrong. xoxo You should have stuck with speculating about scat films, you actually did a better job. Check back in when you can make a point without copying the latest crap from everytown or whichever inane anti-gun rag site you lifted this post wholesale from. We'll be waiting but we won't hold our breath. 
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
