And, visa-versa, as well. :rotfl:
Laura Ingraham apologizes too late.
- Thread starter The Barbarian
- Start date
- Status
And, visa-versa, as well. :rotfl:
Now he's doing a sawed-off impression of an 'early Hitler.'
If you should need some advise on how to do a reasonably good impression of 'Old GM', PM me. I'm running a SPECIAL this week only.
Barb, what bothers me the most about you is the fact, you've been posting on TOL since 2001 yet, you ONLY have 2042 Pos-reps to your account? The only conclusion that can possibly be drawn is, your opinions don't appear to be very popular with your fellow posters. 
Now, I'm not just trying to KNOCK your inability to garner many 'Pos-reps,' I'm just trying to call attention to something that, you really need to contemplate. Perhaps you ought to concentrate on your word and sentence choices in the future? Your weakness may just lie in the fact that, you don't choose your words wisely? Maybe you start posting without applying enough thought beforehand? I'm here to help you, just say the word. However, choose that WORD, wisely.
Now, I'm not just trying to KNOCK your inability to garner many 'Pos-reps,' I'm just trying to call attention to something that, you really need to contemplate. Perhaps you ought to concentrate on your word and sentence choices in the future? Your weakness may just lie in the fact that, you don't choose your words wisely? Maybe you start posting without applying enough thought beforehand? I'm here to help you, just say the word. However, choose that WORD, wisely.
Thus far, you have about 2000 and some odd number of visits to this thread. If you use some imagination and not just lean on others to bring in your visitors, you might just parlay this thread into double or even triple the amount of its initial visits. That would make you look like a 'BIG man' in these parts, don't ya know?
I have to go for now, I Just hope you have the good sense to take advantage of 'Old GMs,' well thought out advice? I'll talk to ya later, my friend and fellow poster.
Really? (Barbarian checks) Darn, you're right. I seem to make all the right people negative rep me. If I have a few of my loyal minions follow me around a little longer, I might be able to get into negative numbers. That would be cool.
Or really, really, really unpopular with a few obsessed posters.
Lately, at least, it's my ability to make the right people whine and give me negative rep. It's only three of them lately, far as I can see, but they are really industrious about it. Carry on.
You put in all that work, and I never even commented. Sorry. Consider this post the attention you crave.
Really? (Barbarian checks) Darn, you're right. I seem to make all the right people negative rep me. If I have a few of my loyal minions follow me around a little longer, I might be able to get into negative numbers. That would be cool.
Or really, really, really unpopular with a few obsessed posters.
Lately, at least, it's my ability to make the right people whine and give me negative rep. It's only three of them lately, far as I can see, but they are really industrious about it. Carry on.
You put in all that work, and I never even commented. Sorry. Consider this post the attention you crave.
Well, what you just posted kinda gets me all 'teary eyed' for some peculiar reason? I woke up and got on this thread half way expecting you to post something, not exactly to my liking and low and behold I find you giving me kudos and compliments beyond measure. I sincerely want you to know that I've not seen such thankful generosity in all my born days. You must realize that I genuinely commiserate with your thorough lack of Pos-reps and hope this dreadful situation will someday be rectified accordingly? I despise seeing a fellow poster have to go through such a traumatic episode in their walk of life.
Hopefully, you'll be seeing better days henceforth and not have to continue this, horrendous downward spiral?
I'm not certain, however I don't believe the signers of the Constitution had 'Backpacks' in mind when they wrote the Constitution?
musterion
Well-known member
No they didn't.
But these kids are angry, as if it's a violation of some backpack right, about now having to carry see-through backpacks BECAUSE OF THE SHOOTING.
But they're knowingly willing to be the puppets (or maybe they're really this stupid) for hundreds of millions of law-abiding adults losing their established right to firearms BECAUSE OF THE SHOOTING.
Yep. I wasn't being callous. I just never noticed. Clearly you and two other folks put a lot of work into the campaign. I feel ungrateful for not having noticed until now. It's kinda the way I am. NT personalities don't give that stuff much thought.
That's the kind of hysteria we're dealing with now; "If we don't let crazy people get guns, we'll all lose our right to bear arms!" I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but there are people who actually believe that.
No one has a Constitutional right to an opaque backpack. If someone wants to hysterically overreact to a school shooting, it's legal to do so.
It's as if schools suddenly decided to require iron lungs be installed on site, instead of just requiring polio vaccinations. Stupid idea, addressing a downstream effect when dealing with the source would be vastly more effective. But it's legal.
Not essentially different than arming teachers rather than making it hard for mentally-ill people to get guns in the first place.
You don't need a degree in statistics to figure that out.
musterion
Well-known member
Focus, script reader. WHO is overreacating re: the new policy of clear backpacks? The shooter had a normal (opaque) backpack. So where's the hysteria on this backpack thing, exactly?
Babnarian observes:
If someone wants to hysterically overreact to a school shooting, it's legal to do so.
The people who imagine clear backpacks would be an appropriate response to school shootings. As I said, it's like not requiring polio vaccinations, choosing instead to have plenty of iron lungs available. Both address the issue, but they aren't equally sensible and effective.
He wore shoes, too. Putting in an airlines style shoe inspection probably isn't a very smart idea as well.
It's like those "border inspection checkpoints" 100 miles from the border. They aren't really about stopping illegal immigration. It's for drug interdiction. But if they admitted that's what it's for, they'd be trounced in court over illegal search and seizure. So they use the fear of immigrants to implement some other attack on liberties. Fear always works.
Likewise, (but legally, in this case) clear backpacks allow visible checks for other contraband. Assault rifles, not so much.
It's the way those guys think. Every crisis is an opportunity to increase government control. Fear is so useful.
If someone wants to hysterically overreact to a school shooting, it's legal to do so.
The people who imagine clear backpacks would be an appropriate response to school shootings. As I said, it's like not requiring polio vaccinations, choosing instead to have plenty of iron lungs available. Both address the issue, but they aren't equally sensible and effective.
He wore shoes, too. Putting in an airlines style shoe inspection probably isn't a very smart idea as well.
It's like those "border inspection checkpoints" 100 miles from the border. They aren't really about stopping illegal immigration. It's for drug interdiction. But if they admitted that's what it's for, they'd be trounced in court over illegal search and seizure. So they use the fear of immigrants to implement some other attack on liberties. Fear always works.
Likewise, (but legally, in this case) clear backpacks allow visible checks for other contraband. Assault rifles, not so much.
It's the way those guys think. Every crisis is an opportunity to increase government control. Fear is so useful.
There's some good news in all this. While it's troubling that support (small as it is) for repealing the 2nd Amendment is growing, most Americans are focusing on sensible and Constitutional measures that would make us safer:
But while that gap has widened, the Pew survey did reveal some areas of consensus:
89 percent of Americans want to restrict people with mental illnesses from buying guns.
84 percent think there should be background checks for private gun sales and at gun shows.
83 percent want to ban sales of guns to people on no-fly or watch lists.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533792054/americans-agree-on-some-gun-restrictions-pew-survey-finds
I like the last one, not because it necessarily makes us a lot safer, but because it would cause huge political pressure to justify the number of people on that list. Many are apparently on the list for no other reason than hanging out at Muslim or far-right websites. There's no explanation, no appeal, no accountibilty.
If they started taking guns away from people for those reasons, the pressure would grow to make that process more transparent and just.
But while that gap has widened, the Pew survey did reveal some areas of consensus:
89 percent of Americans want to restrict people with mental illnesses from buying guns.
84 percent think there should be background checks for private gun sales and at gun shows.
83 percent want to ban sales of guns to people on no-fly or watch lists.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533792054/americans-agree-on-some-gun-restrictions-pew-survey-finds
I like the last one, not because it necessarily makes us a lot safer, but because it would cause huge political pressure to justify the number of people on that list. Many are apparently on the list for no other reason than hanging out at Muslim or far-right websites. There's no explanation, no appeal, no accountibilty.
If they started taking guns away from people for those reasons, the pressure would grow to make that process more transparent and just.
Perhaps those 'kids' that are complaining should try and get booked on CNN or one of the other bias Cable news shows? That way, they'll get plenty of air time to discuss their grievances and receive copious amounts of sympathy at the same time.
Perhaps you were just too busy looking for loopholes in the moratorium and it didn't come up on your radar? I can see how that might of happened, after all, you're a very busy far-left zealot on a mission, right?
Far-left zealots like Barb and his ilk are either naive or complicit in concealing the fact that the 'minor restrictions' the LEFT is asking for now, is just the beginning. They have an agenda and that agenda is to eat away at both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. It's merely the old 'Boiling frog' idea, you know, where a frog is placed into a pan of cold water and the heat is slowly raised and by the time the frog notices the extreme heat, the water is boiling and it's too late. Get the idea?
Whether anybody notices it or not, the LEFT have an insidious plan to undermine our freedom of speech and our right to bear arms. Make no mistake about that.
- Status