Liberal Forum

ROFL I've been doing a search for an old post and have come across some good stuff. Clem started a thread whining about how Liberals were fleeing him. A great poster named rem had the best response....... There was a good poster named Pundit Hater who Clem stalked until he left the forum. He came back as political-forum-guy for a while, then Clem drove him away for good. I swear when I read Pundit Hater's posts I'm amazed at how much they mirror my own posts in regards to Clem's behavior. And when I read the things that Clem said to Pundit Hater and the way he hounded him, it's like Deja Vu. You know, Misty, he had me in his sights for a while with that same treatment, and made the forum quite unpleasant for a bit. He would reserve his spamming for my most serious threads, and he would fill them with his puffery to the point that real debate was stifled. It was then that I went on the offensive. I began refering to him as Glory Hole Clem,and posting that glory hole pic in response to his tripe, and began comparing him to the John Kennedy Toole character Ignacius J. Reilly from A Confederacy of Dunces. I posted that poll thread where even half of the cons said he was full of crap (and that poll thread was used against him by all and sundry in the months that followed), and I began parodying him, stalking him, harassing him, until he left me quite alone. He was more than happy to escape my attention - turn about is, after all, fair play. Then there was individual...

You know, Misty, he had me in his sights for a while with that same treatment, and made the forum quite unpleasant for a bit. He would reserve his spamming for my most serious threads, and he would fill them with his puffery to the point that real debate was stifled.I know the feeling. He ruined more of my threads than I can count.And other people's threads that I posted in as well.I got blamed for their threads being derailed, even though he was the one who followed me into them, and not the other way around.

Depends on which Libs you're talking about.I know you right wingers like to paint us all with one big broad brush.The Libs that count, the ones in Congress, are not calling for taking all guns away.They are talking about banning a specific type of weapon and a specific type of ammo clip.Libs on the internet can spout off all they want.We will NEVER ban all guns in this country, nor should we.Better get off that slippery slope before you fall down and break your ***. Fair enough.Now, in that same vein, why is the left trying to portray all the right as being in lock step with the NRA?I know you right wingers like to paint us all with one big broad brush.I didn't paint Jack. I asked a question.So, Misty, who am I supposed to believe: You? Or your fellow libs that say the opposite of what you say?Please to use your English.And now, a small digression...Why do you think Slow wants doctors to ask patients if they have a gun in their home? I understand he's not a lib in Congress, so does that mean he doesn't count?

Now, in that same vein, why is the left trying to portray all the right as being in lock step with the NRA?I make a distinction between the NRA leadership and the rank and file members.I don't think most of the country is in lock step with the NRA leadership, even the rank and file members.Why do you think Slow wants doctors to ask patients if they have a gun in their home? I understand he's not a lib in Congress, so does that mean he doesn't count?I know it's not polite, but I will answer your question with a question.Why has the CDC up until now, not been allowed to do research on gun violence?Now, I'll answer my own question:From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)But in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence, [Dr. 1994 1999 Mark Rosenberg, president of the Task Force for Global Health and director CDC's Center Injury Prevention Control from to] said.http://www.slate.com...esearch_17.htmlNow why do you suppose the NRA put pressure on legislators to block federal research into gun violence?It's good to see you teacher.I hope you've been well.

I make a distinction between the NRA leadership and the rank and file members. I don't think most of the country is in lock step with the NRA leadership, even the rank and file members.I know it's not polite, but I will answer your question with a question. Why has the CDC up until now, not been allowed to do research on gun violence? Now, I'll answer my own question: what your study doesn't acknowledge whatsoever is whether people are safer in completely enforced gun free environments. were the people under stalin or mao safer due to their lack of guns, enforced by those leaders? once the people in this country become disarmed, we will become slaves. colonial slavery is actually another example. notice the black slaves in this country weren't recognized citizens and therefore had no gun rights. think they were safer without the right to possess arms?

Fair enough. Now, in that same vein, why is the left trying to portray all the right as being in lock step with the NRA? I didn't paint Jack. I asked a question. Please to use your English. And now, a small digression... Why do you think Slow wants doctors to ask patients if they have a gun in their home? I understand he's not a lib in Congress, so does that mean he doesn't count? Because the *** doesn't understand the Constitution, that's why. He doesn't want to accept the Constitution - he wants to change it. This is a direct violation of Obamacare seeing that it says directly in it - that this type of behavior won't happen. Note: Because I know Misty is going have a piss fit about me using the word "***" in this context, I wanted to define "***" as a disclaimer: The word "***" is latin for Black. Unless you're infidel in the Oval Office is purple - he's a ***.

The word "***" is latin for Black. We speak English on this forum, not Latin. I'm not interested in getting involved in one of your psychodramas, so take it somewhere else. what your study doesn't acknowledge whatsoever is whether people are safer in completely enforced gun free environments. were the people under stalin or mao safer due to their lack of guns, enforced by those leaders? once the people in this country become disarmed, we will become slaves. colonial slavery is actually another example. notice the black slaves in this country weren't recognized citizens and therefore had no gun rights. think they were safer without the right to possess arms? I don't know where I ever said that I wanted the people in this country to become'disarmed'.

We speak English on this forum, not Latin. I'm not interested in getting involved in one of your psychodramas, so take it somewhere else. Then I will expect you to cease using words such as "etc" and "et al" and other latin phrases. Your President is a ***. If you cannot handle that - I suggest you see a psychiatrist. We speak English on this forum, not Latin. I'm not interested in getting involved in one of your psychodramas, so take it somewhere else. I don't know where I ever said that I wanted the people in this country to become'disarmed'. Far as I can tell - this topic is within "no holds barred" and your liberal *** is not going to tell me where I can and cannot post on it. It would be different if it were in the LO. Don't like your thread in the NHB? Take it over to the LO like you did your other "melodrama" thread about being a news junkie.

We speak English on this forum, not Latin. I'm not interested in getting involved in one of your psychodramas, so take it somewhere else. to be quite honest we all-you included-speak a mixture of latin, greek, old german, and french.

Then I will expect you to cease using words such as "etc" and "et al" and other latin phrases. Your President is a ***. If you cannot handle that - I suggest you see a psychiatrist. Far as I can tell - this topic is within "no holds barred" and your liberal *** is not going to tell me where I can and cannot post on it. It would be different if it were in the LO. Don't like your thread in the NHB? Take it over to the LO like you did your other "melodrama" thread about being a news junkie. You can post anywhere you please. That doesn't mean I have to respond, or even stick around to read it. Looks like you're really itching for a fight today, huh? Sorry, if you think it's going to be with me, you're SOL. Later.

I make a distinction between the NRA leadership and the rank and file members.I don't think most of the country is in lock step with the NRA leadership, even the rank and file members.Did you see that Channel 4 footage I sent you?That lady I with me is an old friend, our kids went to together.She is on the NRA board of directors.She is listed on kill lists run by whacky leftists hater sites with all her personal information, her son's and husband's too. Out of all the NRA board of Directors, hers is in red.I'm sure that means something.But she is the leadership, and I am the rank and fileWe're pretty much in line with each other.I know it's not polite, but I will answer your question with a question.Why has the CDC up until now, not been allowed to do research on gun violence?Presidential directive, or in this lack, lack of it.Obama's incompetence is the answer you seek.Now, I'll answer my own question:Bet you get it wrong, thoughNow why do you suppose the NRA put pressure on legislators to block federal research into gun violence?LOLIF Obama can fix it with an executive order, then it's his fault it wasn't happening earlier.

You can post anywhere you please. That doesn't mean I have to respond, or even stick around to read it. Looks like you're really itching for a fight today, huh? Sorry, if you think it's going to be with me, you're SOL. Later. I'm glad you're finally beginning to realize that. Congratulations.

to be quite honest we all-you included-speak a mixture of latin, greek, old german, and french. Yes and I supposewe all go around using what Jamie says is the latin word for black. I just love how you two like to tag team people. LOL Like I told Jamie, I am not interested in getting involved in one of your long drawn out fights. I have better things to do. Later.Did you see that Channel 4 footage I sent you?No. Where did you send it? E-mail? Facebook?That lady I with me is an old friend, our kids went to together.She is on the NRA board of directors.She is listed on kill lists run by whacky leftists hater sites with all her personal information, her son's and husband's too. Out of all the NRA board of Directors, hers is in red.I'm sure that means something.I don't condone that stuff, when either side does it.I was against that newspaper publishing the name of registered gun owners.But she is the leadership, and I am the rank and fileWe're pretty much in line with each other.You speak only for yourself.The poll that Frank Luntz did of NRA members showed that they don't all agree with the leadership.

Yes and I supposewe all go around using what Jamie says is the latin word for black. I just love how you two like to tag team people. LOL Like I told Jamie, I am not interested in getting involved in one of your long drawn out fights. I have better things to do. Later. no. i don't refer to blacks as anything but blacks. that aside, latin and the other languages i mentioned are the english language.

MistyBlue, on 20 Jan 2013 - 15:36, said:You can post anywhere you please.That doesn't mean I have to respond, or even stick around to read it.Looks like you're really itching for a fight today, huh?Sorry, if you think it's going to be with me, you're SOL.I'm glad you're finally beginning to realize that. Congratulations.I'm not sure which of those things you are referring to when you say 'that'.I have always known that you can post anywhere you please in NHB, and I have also realized for quite some time, that you are usually itching for a fight, so I am not 'finally beginning to realize' either one of those things.

I have also realized for quite some time, that you are usually itching for a fight, Just think: They, just like Chunky, are the Kristian representatives on this forum. They are their own worst enemies.

no. i don't refer to blacks as anything but blacks. that aside, latin and the other languages i mentioned are the english language.I wasn't arguing the fact that the English language is derived from many other languages.I'm well aware of that.My point was that Jamie justifying her use of what is considered to be a racial slur, by saying it's the Latin word for black was ****.

Did you see that Channel 4 footage I sent you?The video won't play for me, but I read the article.I'll try it again later.

I posted this in another thread about a guy who walked into a JC Penney's store with an AR-15 strapped to his back.Golfboy, on 18 Jan 2013 - 22:48, said:Is it terrible living in such abject fear of all your fellow citizens?Just a silly question.....Can you tell just by looking at him that this fellow citizen is not going to start shooting people?As a white male, he fits the profile of people who have committed mass shootings in schools, movie theaters and shopping malls.What if everyone carried that type of weapon?Could you tell which ones had bad intentions, and which didn't just by looking at them?Seems to me that would just make it easier for a shooter to bring his gun into the place he intends to use it, if everyone else was carrying guns too.I never got an answer, so I'll pose the question here.If everyone was walking around with an AR-15 over their shoulder, which many people say they have the right to do, how do we tell the good guys from the bad guys?

From another thread:JTZilla, on 20 Jan 2013 - 15:32, said:ows was a bunch of *** - Misty.This. This is what you need to strive for.Yes, Jamie.I think that's what we all strive for, to be a racist homophobe like JT.