NRA Fairy Tales

[calfoxwc]

If you disagree with cal on anything, you're a liberal sissy woodypeckerhead

*****************************************

I disagree with other folks at one point or another. Other folks find fault with my opinions.

 

It's the way they do it that makes it legit. Liberals emotionally illegimately knee jerk, and

they don't make any sense...so they go personal attack to cover for it.

[gftChris]

"Liberals emotionally illegitimately knee jerk" - says the guy with the surgically repaired knee

 

(also, fixed your spelling mistake for you, since I don't like copying errors, but do please keep on pointing out other people's spelling mistakes)

[Pumpkin Eater]

Lib argument: you're stupid because you don't agree with me. Everyone thinks your stupid. I have no facts to dispute your argument but you're stupid because you're not bending over and taking my liberalism right up your ass.

[jrb12711]

Lib argument: you're stupid because you don't agree with me. Everyone thinks your stupid. I have no facts to dispute your argument but you're stupid because you're not bending over and taking my liberalism right up your ass.

 

Still not liberal, but if that's a shot at me literally all my counters include documented sources for my information (that almost always get looked over for dumbass comments like this ironically).

 

 

All these people who 'claim' to be Independent are Progressive Liberals. Bank it.

 

Nah. Honestly, a growing amount of people like me just want to see the outdated and stupid two party system change. I'm so tired of having to pick along party lines where people blindly fall into place because they are on the right or left. There's PLENTY of people in this world like me who try and sit in the middle and let facts and objective realities inform decisions. But, what happens if you're pro-life and pro-LGBT? Who the fuck do you vote for in that scenario? There needs to be a uprising of what I call "moderate" party (lame name, I know) who isn't strictly something because history says they have to be.

[Pumpkin Eater]

except for when you're hurling insults, right?

[jrb12711]

except for when you're hurling insults, right?

 

Except I'm "hurling insults" when people like you make ridiculous claims based on nothing but opinion in the first place? And of course you've never hurled insults on this board either right? Riiiiiiiiight.

 

Sometimes I honestly wish I was in such a delusional one-sided world as some of you, it would make life easier that's for sure.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

Still not liberal, but if that's a shot at me literally all my counters include documented sources for my information (that almost always get looked over for dumbass comments like this ironically).

 

 

 

Nah. Honestly, a growing amount of people like me just want to see the outdated and stupid two party system change. I'm so tired of having to pick along party lines where people blindly fall into place because they are on the right or left. There's PLENTY of people in this world like me who try and sit in the middle and let facts and objective realities inform decisions. But, what happens if you're pro-life and pro-LGBT? Who the fuck do you vote for in that scenario? There needs to be a uprising of what I call "moderate" party (lame name, I know) who isn't strictly something because history says they have to be.

I wish there were a party who was financially right and for small government that was also for social rights, and not made up of haters.

[gftChris]

I wish there were a party who was financially right and for small government that was also for social rights, and not made up of haters.

I'd be on board, generally.

[Browns149]

Lib argument: you're stupid because you don't agree with me. Everyone thinks your stupid. I have no facts to dispute your argument but you're stupid because you're not bending over and taking my liberalism right up your ass.

you could put the word conservative in place of liberal, and it wouldn't change your statement

[Westside Steve]

I'd be on board, generally.

I thought you were already under the impression that the United States wasn't nearly socialist enough for your taste? You could live with bringing even that back toward the right?

 

WSS

[gftChris]

I thought you were already under the impression that the United States wasn't nearly socialist enough for your taste? You could live with bringing even that back toward the right?

 

WSS

There's a difference between privatising everything and being fiscally responsible. I don't want to bankrupt the country with 'free shit' for everybody, but a well balanced budget that makes calculated investments in order to improve life for everybody.

[Westside Steve]

There's a difference between privatising everything and being fiscally responsible. I don't want to bankrupt the country with 'free shit' for everybody, but a well balanced budget that makes calculated investments in order to improve life for everybody.

I repeat you would not be in favor of making our system even more conservative would you?

I thought that was the basis of this new fantasy party.

 

WSS

[gftChris]

I repeat you would not be in favor of making our system even more conservative with you?

I thought that was the basis of this new fantasy party.

 

WSS

I think the US is extremely conservative as it is, relative to most other developed nations, so I wouldn't probably make the US more conservative, no.

[gftChris]

To be clear, I think that there's a whole load of should-already-been-resolved stuff that the republicans are holding back on (social and environmental issues generally) that, once they're out of the way, real conversations can be had about what to do with the country's finances.

[Westside Steve]

To be clear, I think that there's a whole load of should-already-been-resolved stuff that the republicans are holding back on (social and environmental issues generally) that, once they're out of the way, real conversations can be had about what to do with the country's finances.

I don't disagree, just trying to get a handle on how this new party would work. Seems to me that just pushing everything to the left would be the goal?

I don't think there are any federal restrictions on abortion and certainly none on homosexuals or black people. So socially how would you expand anybody's rights?

And in doing so wouldn't that necessarily mean giving more free shit to minorities? If so how could we propose to make the welfare state more conservative?

 

 

WSS

[jrb12711]

To be clear, I think that there's a whole load of should-already-been-resolved stuff that the republicans are holding back on (social and environmental issues generally) that, once they're out of the way, real conversations can be had about what to do with the country's finances.

 

What you're describing is exactly what I mean when I say I want a third major party. Let old school republicans and democrats stay on their stances and form a group that actually can meet on issues that have obvious solutions save crazy partisan lines.

[Browns149]

What you're describing is exactly what I mean when I say I want a third major party. Let old school republicans and democrats stay on their stances and form a group that actually can meet on issues that have obvious solutions save crazy partisan lines.

Just get rid of ALL the parties, and let people run on what they want to run on. There is no need to be in a party anymore. There are very very few people left in this country that follow everything one side stands for. Well, except cal.

[The Cysko Kid]

Small government would necessarily eliminate a lot of bureaucracies. I'd like to see disability limited to those that are actually disabled. Not people with anxiety and other abusers. Welfare should be a limited time frame. No more than two years, say. Gay marriage should be legal and issues like gender and race should not be protected in any way. Everything should be up to the business and or institution without any sort of interference. Theoretically the federal government should collect taxes and deal with the military, intelligence and foreign affairs, nothing more. The state government should have a lot more responsibility.

[jrb12711]

Small government would necessarily eliminate a lot of bureaucracies. I'd like to see disability limited to those that are actually disabled. Not people with anxiety and other abusers. Welfare should be a limited time frame. No more than two years, say. Gay marriage should be legal and issues like gender and race should not be protected in any way. Everything should be up to the business and or institution without any sort of interference. Theoretically the federal government should collect taxes and deal with the military, intelligence and foreign affairs, nothing more. The state government should have a lot more responsibility.

 

While I disgaree with a good bit of what you're saying, this is exactly why the two party system just doesn't work anymore. Where the hell does that put you when it's time to vote? Being pigeon-holed into one thing or the other blows.

 

BTW, your opinion would make most of the founding fathers smile.

[calfoxwc]

The Founding Fathers would never have supported the perverted

redefinition of Real Marriage.

 

I think liberals just dream of having a country run by...them.

 

No Constitution, just demands that things are run to benefit them and anything they want.

 

The liberal desire for some socialism is similar to the liberal desire for some gun control that halfway

is a ban, but only halfway.

 

for now. So then they can gallantly "fight" to get the other half of what they don't have. Liberals demand

the right to decide who is allowed to have the rights they have, and to what degree they have them,

and when they are allowed to have them, which ususally means "only when you agree with us".

 

It's like liberals are the same as manson "family" cult members. They are out of their minds, and want

whatever they want, helter skelter.

[MLD Woody]

Would the founding fathers have supported equal rights for blacks?

[jbluhm86]

Would the founding fathers have supported equal rights for blacks?

3/5th's equal. Or zero, if they were a woman.

[calfoxwc]

so, woodypeckerhead, all blacks are gay perverts? is that what you are saying?

 

sick liberal way of looking at the world.

 

[MLD Woody]

Do you legitimately not understand the point I was making or are you really that dense?

[calfoxwc]

no, just trying to post towards you, like you always post towards me. Asshole woodypeckerhead.

 

and, stop equating the color of somebody's skin, with

 

sexual orientation/perverse behavior. See the above part of this post on the first line, after the period.

 

[MLD Woody]

Both are genetic

[Pumpkin Eater]

Yeah the murdering scumbag Che who was a troublemaker who was finally executed in Nicaragua for troublemaking is a much better hero than George Washington (the first and only man who willingly gave up command of a victorious army, who did not want to be king, who willingly left the presidency)

[Legacy Fan]

3/5th's equal. Or zero, if they were a woman.

Actually, "Let the next generation deal with it."

 

True politicians!!

[jbluhm86]

Actually, "Let the next generation deal with it."

 

True politicians!!

 

"The United States Federal Government - Kicking cans down the road since 1789..."

[calfoxwc]

Posted Today, 07:41 PM

Both are genetic

****************************

BEHAVIOR is not. It is the behavior that is perverse...

Apparently, it could be genetic, brought on by drug use, or screwed up, abnormal dna,

serial killers are genetic, too, you idiot birdbrain. Would you sell a cake to a serial killer?

Livingamongpredators.over-blog.com/article-35527842.html

It has been thought for a long time that people become violent because they are “crazy”. Other people have thought that people become violent because of a ...

 

" Although one can clearly see that genetics, brain chemistry, damage, or dysfunction, or history of mental problems can cause a person to become a serial killer or psychopath, but that is not all it takes."

Serial killers – born or made? | Nature Vs....sites.psu.edu/.../2013/10/18/serial-killers-born-or-made

Serial killers – born or made? 4 ... Davidson concludes that although environment will affect aserial killer’s thoughts, it is a killer’s genetic make-up that ...

 

Davidson concludes that although environment will affect a serial killer’s thoughts, it is a killer’s genetic make-up that inevitably creates murderous thoughts.