Time, once again, to make some liberal heads explode.

[Asclepias]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

And consequently, you have no way of proving that it's not.

I'm not the one making any claims. Its on the OP to prove their point.

Yes you are,your claiming the is no connection,a claim.

No. I am claiming the OP has no proof to support his argument. To date he hasnt responded with any proof which pretty much proves my claim.

 

[HappyJoy]

Check this out. One of the safest cities in America, with a population of over 200,000 is Gilbert, AZ. Why will this make liberal heads explode? Well, you see, in Arizona, you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm. All those guns floating around. The streets should be running with blood. But they aren't. Would any of you libtards care to explain this?

But all the guns are in Phoenix, how did it fair?

 

[bripat9643]

If it's false, then why do douche bags like you rely on it? My assumption about your attitude on the 2nd Amendment is 100% accurate.

Your post is retarded. I just told you it was a false assumption. Acting like a cave chimp is not getting your point to be any more valid.

As I said, if it's a false assumption, then why is every argument for gun control based on it?

Every gun argument is based on it because common sense dictates that the harder it is go get a weapon the less shootings there will be. Its only one way of dealing with an issue that will need multiple solutions working together. Those clowns like you with binary thinking never seem to understand that simple truth.

In other words, you choose to believe it because you want to believe it.

Thats why most people believe things. The facts and logic make you want to believe it.

You just said it wasn't logical to believe it.

 

[Lutroo]

Check this out. One of the safest cities in America, with a population of over 200,000 is Gilbert, AZ. Why will this make liberal heads explode? Well, you see, in Arizona, you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm. All those guns floating around. The streets should be running with blood. But they aren't. Would any of you libtards care to explain this?

The only thing that would make anybody's head explode about anything in that post is how excruciatingly dumb you must be and how ******* proud of that monumental stupidity you seem to be. I'd imagine many have saved this emptiest of empty posts for later chuckles and as a cautionary tale of how badly wrong these things can go when someone tries to stretch an iota of factoid abuse into a "story" with some invisible logic and bold faced usurpation of reality. Immature and instantly dismissible fella, back to the drooling board. Shame on you.

I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that searcher failed to actually address anything I said in the OP. Liberals claim that the availability of guns is responsible for crime. Well, Arizona has the most relaxed gun laws in the country, yet it's not some wild west town, where everyone is shooting up saloons, and whatnot. So, here we are. A city in Arizona, with lots and lots of guns, and it's one of the safest places to live. Kinda blows your argument out of the water doesn't it? Sucks to be you.

I've been posting on these boards for about 1.5 years. I haven't posted much on gun control and have never flamed over any posts on gun issues like I did yours. Frustration maybe incited my disdainful flip-off of your post. Awhile back I had a lengthier back and forth with 2aguy over a post he did on Canada's gun policy. His line, "Canada...has seen a spike in gun crime and gun murder" Turned out that it wasn't Canada really, he was generalizing Toronto, our largest city and rather dishonestly I thought hyping the whole story. And trying to smear Obama with his fictional interpretation of the business. I'll give a few more details after I speak to your post.
I think you played fast and loose with "facts" worse than 2aguy even though attempting the same flim-flam, trying to subtly set up the small "safe" city of Gilbert as Arizona itself where "you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm." And you try to sarcastically demean liberals by claiming they think it's streets should be "running with blood". Of course your "facts" weren't quite "true" were they? Gilbert city itself had rather strict gun control laws even after they loosened them up recently.
From an azcentral.com news story - On Gilbert's gun control laws - "Update: Gun owners with a state permit are still prohibited from carrying firearms in "secure areas" of public buildings, including employee-only areas, police and fire department facilities, and the Gilbert Municipal Court and Prosecutor's Office.
Gun owners with a state permit can now carry a concealed firearm inside all Gilbert public buildings, reversing a previous policy that made such deadly weapons illegal."
One more little glitch in your bait and switch, "those without a concealed-carry weapon permit can be asked by a police officer to place their firearms in a gun locker", So really your version of Gilbert where "you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm" And with "All those guns floating around" didn't, and still doesn't exist. Some might say you're a liar.
I won't even bother to get into other details that make your imaginary Potemkin Village a statistical outlier even without your added fictions. So your little story is "blown out of the water", eh? How much does it suck to be you?

2aguy kind of whistled past the real pertinent threads in his story on Toronto. Greater Toronto has a population of over 6,000,000. The year he was referencing they had 27 gun homicides, Philadelphia (pop around 6,000,000) had 233. Incidentally, Arizona with a population close to Toronto's had 233 gun murders in 2010, almost 10 times more than Toronto. Toronto is listed as the safest city in North America. 2aguy - "Yeah..Canada gun crime going up, funny Obama didn't mention this,they have more gun control than us."

Oh well, you guys do what you think you have to to win your gun arguments, I'm just a Canadian who can't imagine why someone needs an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine so badly so quickly and so paranoid you'd rather have someone on the terror watch list own one just to keep gun control one more degree of separation away.

OK. I'll admit you have a few valid points. However, that doesn't change the fact that the most violent cities generally have the toughest gun control laws. They've also been run by democrats for several decades. Do you see a connection there?

The liberal narrative is that guns are responsible for all of the violent crime we see. Every time there's a mass shooting, WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!!! It's like a dog chasing squirrels.

This, despite the fact that a record number of firearms are in the hands of civilians, and the crime rates are going down.

So, no matter what you say...no matter how you twist the evidence, you cannot blame guns. That is all I've been trying to say this whole time. Quit blaming the guns and address the real cause of violent crime.

 

[Asclepias]

Your post is retarded. I just told you it was a false assumption. Acting like a cave chimp is not getting your point to be any more valid.

As I said, if it's a false assumption, then why is every argument for gun control based on it?

Every gun argument is based on it because common sense dictates that the harder it is go get a weapon the less shootings there will be. Its only one way of dealing with an issue that will need multiple solutions working together. Those clowns like you with binary thinking never seem to understand that simple truth.

In other words, you choose to believe it because you want to believe it.

Thats why most people believe things. The facts and logic make you want to believe it.

You just said it wasn't logical to believe it.

I never said it wasnt logical to believe less access to guns will cause less shootings. Like most cave chimps you have a hard time with your own native language and reading comprehension. I said it was false assumption to believe less access to guns will stop all shootings.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As I said, if it's a false assumption, then why is every argument for gun control based on it?

That's easy.

If the promoters of gun control were to openly admit their true motives, then nobody would support them or their cause. They can only get any support at all by flat-out lying, by claiming that they are concerned with public safety, and bamboozling the gullible and foolish into believing that gun control will help promote public safety.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Every gun argument is based on it because common sense dictates that the harder it is go get a weapon the less shootings there will be.

That's exactly the claim that you keep denying that you've made. And it's a claim that has been solidly, repeatedly proven to be false. Trashing the Second Amendment does not make the public safer. It does not make anyone safer except for criminals, terrorists, and tyrants.

And by supporting gun control, regardless of whether you fall back on that debunked lie to support your case, puts you solidly on the side of criminals, terrorists, and tyrants, and against that of law-abiding Americans.

 

[Asclepias]

Every gun argument is based on it because common sense dictates that the harder it is go get a weapon the less shootings there will be.

That's exactly the claim that you keep denying that you've made. And it's a claim that has been solidly, repeatedly proven to be false. Trashing the Second Amendment does not make the public safer. It does not make anyone safer except for criminals, terrorists, and tyrants.

And by supporting gun control, regardless of whether you fall back on that debunked lie to support your case, puts you solidly on the side of criminals, terrorists, and tyrants, and against that of law-abiding Americans.

I never denied I made that claim. You just seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. You are confused and think saying "less access to guns will lower the shooting crimes" is the same as "less access to guns will stop all shooting crimes". Pull your head out of your ass and have an adult help you if you still dont understand the difference.

I think the 2nd amendment is great no matter how you interpret it. I would never trash it. You just seem to have your parities in a bunch because you wish you could walk around with an Uzi to show how manly you are.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The liberal narrative is that guns are responsible for all of the violent crime we see. Every time there's a mass shooting, WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!!! It's like a dog chasing squirrels.

This, despite the fact that a record number of firearms are in the hands of civilians, and the crime rates are going down.

So, no matter what you say...no matter how you twist the evidence, you cannot blame guns. That is all I've been trying to say this whole time. Quit blaming the guns and address the real cause of violent crime.

If those on the far-wrong were to address the real causes of crime, it would undermine very large portions of their agenda. They would be forced to admit that it is their own agenda, promoting lawlessness, sexual perversion, and destruction of marriage and family, that has led to most of the problems we are seeing with violent crime.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Every gun argument is based on it because common sense dictates that the harder it is go get a weapon the less shootings there will be.

That's exactly the claim that you keep denying that you've made. And it's a claim that has been solidly, repeatedly proven to be false. Trashing the Second Amendment does not make the public safer. It does not make anyone safer except for criminals, terrorists, and tyrants.

And by supporting gun control, regardless of whether you fall back on that debunked lie to support your case, puts you solidly on the side of criminals, terrorists, and tyrants, and against that of law-abiding Americans.

I never denied I made that claim. You just seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. You are confused and think saying "less access to guns will lower the shooting crimes" is the same as "less access to guns will stop all shooting crimes". Pull your head out of your ass and have an adult help you if you still dont understand the difference.

I think the 2nd amendment is great no matter how you interpret it. I would never trash it. You just seem to have your parities in a bunch because you wish you could walk around with an Uzi to show how manly you are.

You speak with a forked tongue.

The problem with lying as much as you do, is that it become difficult to keep track of what lies you have already told, and to tell new lies that are consistent with the previous lies.

 

[Asclepias]

Every gun argument is based on it because common sense dictates that the harder it is go get a weapon the less shootings there will be.

That's exactly the claim that you keep denying that you've made. And it's a claim that has been solidly, repeatedly proven to be false. Trashing the Second Amendment does not make the public safer. It does not make anyone safer except for criminals, terrorists, and tyrants.

And by supporting gun control, regardless of whether you fall back on that debunked lie to support your case, puts you solidly on the side of criminals, terrorists, and tyrants, and against that of law-abiding Americans.

I never denied I made that claim. You just seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. You are confused and think saying "less access to guns will lower the shooting crimes" is the same as "less access to guns will stop all shooting crimes". Pull your head out of your ass and have an adult help you if you still dont understand the difference.

I think the 2nd amendment is great no matter how you interpret it. I would never trash it. You just seem to have your parities in a bunch because you wish you could walk around with an Uzi to show how manly you are.

You speak with a forked tongue.

The problem with lying as much as you do, is that it become difficult to keep track of what lies you have already told, and to tell new lies that are consistent with the previous lies.

View attachment 79524

Only white people speak with forked tongues and thats why the guy is white in your picture. You are operating with substandard reading comprehension and blame me for being smarter than you.

 

[Searcher44]

Check this out. One of the safest cities in America, with a population of over 200,000 is Gilbert, AZ. Why will this make liberal heads explode? Well, you see, in Arizona, you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm. All those guns floating around. The streets should be running with blood. But they aren't. Would any of you libtards care to explain this?

The only thing that would make anybody's head explode about anything in that post is how excruciatingly dumb you must be and how ******* proud of that monumental stupidity you seem to be. I'd imagine many have saved this emptiest of empty posts for later chuckles and as a cautionary tale of how badly wrong these things can go when someone tries to stretch an iota of factoid abuse into a "story" with some invisible logic and bold faced usurpation of reality. Immature and instantly dismissible fella, back to the drooling board. Shame on you.

I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that searcher failed to actually address anything I said in the OP. Liberals claim that the availability of guns is responsible for crime. Well, Arizona has the most relaxed gun laws in the country, yet it's not some wild west town, where everyone is shooting up saloons, and whatnot. So, here we are. A city in Arizona, with lots and lots of guns, and it's one of the safest places to live. Kinda blows your argument out of the water doesn't it? Sucks to be you.

I've been posting on these boards for about 1.5 years. I haven't posted much on gun control and have never flamed over any posts on gun issues like I did yours. Frustration maybe incited my disdainful flip-off of your post. Awhile back I had a lengthier back and forth with 2aguy over a post he did on Canada's gun policy. His line, "Canada...has seen a spike in gun crime and gun murder" Turned out that it wasn't Canada really, he was generalizing Toronto, our largest city and rather dishonestly I thought hyping the whole story. And trying to smear Obama with his fictional interpretation of the business. I'll give a few more details after I speak to your post.
I think you played fast and loose with "facts" worse than 2aguy even though attempting the same flim-flam, trying to subtly set up the small "safe" city of Gilbert as Arizona itself where "you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm." And you try to sarcastically demean liberals by claiming they think it's streets should be "running with blood". Of course your "facts" weren't quite "true" were they? Gilbert city itself had rather strict gun control laws even after they loosened them up recently.
From an azcentral.com news story - On Gilbert's gun control laws - "Update: Gun owners with a state permit are still prohibited from carrying firearms in "secure areas" of public buildings, including employee-only areas, police and fire department facilities, and the Gilbert Municipal Court and Prosecutor's Office.
Gun owners with a state permit can now carry a concealed firearm inside all Gilbert public buildings, reversing a previous policy that made such deadly weapons illegal."
One more little glitch in your bait and switch, "those without a concealed-carry weapon permit can be asked by a police officer to place their firearms in a gun locker", So really your version of Gilbert where "you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm" And with "All those guns floating around" didn't, and still doesn't exist. Some might say you're a liar.
I won't even bother to get into other details that make your imaginary Potemkin Village a statistical outlier even without your added fictions. So your little story is "blown out of the water", eh? How much does it suck to be you?

2aguy kind of whistled past the real pertinent threads in his story on Toronto. Greater Toronto has a population of over 6,000,000. The year he was referencing they had 27 gun homicides, Philadelphia (pop around 6,000,000) had 233. Incidentally, Arizona with a population close to Toronto's had 233 gun murders in 2010, almost 10 times more than Toronto. Toronto is listed as the safest city in North America. 2aguy - "Yeah..Canada gun crime going up, funny Obama didn't mention this,they have more gun control than us."

Oh well, you guys do what you think you have to to win your gun arguments, I'm just a Canadian who can't imagine why someone needs an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine so badly so quickly and so paranoid you'd rather have someone on the terror watch list own one just to keep gun control one more degree of separation away.

OK. I'll admit you have a few valid points. However, that doesn't change the fact that the most violent cities generally have the toughest gun control laws. They've also been run by democrats for several decades. Do you see a connection there?

The liberal narrative is that guns are responsible for all of the violent crime we see. Every time there's a mass shooting, WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!!! It's like a dog chasing squirrels.

This, despite the fact that a record number of firearms are in the hands of civilians, and the crime rates are going down.

So, no matter what you say...no matter how you twist the evidence, you cannot blame guns. That is all I've been trying to say this whole time. Quit blaming the guns and address the real cause of violent crime.

Gee, we were getting somewhere.....
And then...all of a sudden at the last minute you just couldn't give up that FlimFlammery™. My post proved quite nicely you twisted the evidence.
Is wondering why someone needs a military style assault rifle with HCM so badly "blaming guns"? If so I guess I'm guilty.... Actually if you explained just that one curiosity it would help a lot.
And I don't think there's just one cause of violent crime, that's one reason why it's so terribly difficult to "solve". Its up there with the most stubborn of psycho/social/cultural issues, e.g. racism, poverty, is a BigMac real food.
Can't do it today, it's beautiful out there, gotta go back to the street market.

 

[Lutroo]

Check this out. One of the safest cities in America, with a population of over 200,000 is Gilbert, AZ. Why will this make liberal heads explode? Well, you see, in Arizona, you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm. All those guns floating around. The streets should be running with blood. But they aren't. Would any of you libtards care to explain this?

The only thing that would make anybody's head explode about anything in that post is how excruciatingly dumb you must be and how ******* proud of that monumental stupidity you seem to be. I'd imagine many have saved this emptiest of empty posts for later chuckles and as a cautionary tale of how badly wrong these things can go when someone tries to stretch an iota of factoid abuse into a "story" with some invisible logic and bold faced usurpation of reality. Immature and instantly dismissible fella, back to the drooling board. Shame on you.

I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that searcher failed to actually address anything I said in the OP. Liberals claim that the availability of guns is responsible for crime. Well, Arizona has the most relaxed gun laws in the country, yet it's not some wild west town, where everyone is shooting up saloons, and whatnot. So, here we are. A city in Arizona, with lots and lots of guns, and it's one of the safest places to live. Kinda blows your argument out of the water doesn't it? Sucks to be you.

I've been posting on these boards for about 1.5 years. I haven't posted much on gun control and have never flamed over any posts on gun issues like I did yours. Frustration maybe incited my disdainful flip-off of your post. Awhile back I had a lengthier back and forth with 2aguy over a post he did on Canada's gun policy. His line, "Canada...has seen a spike in gun crime and gun murder" Turned out that it wasn't Canada really, he was generalizing Toronto, our largest city and rather dishonestly I thought hyping the whole story. And trying to smear Obama with his fictional interpretation of the business. I'll give a few more details after I speak to your post.
I think you played fast and loose with "facts" worse than 2aguy even though attempting the same flim-flam, trying to subtly set up the small "safe" city of Gilbert as Arizona itself where "you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm." And you try to sarcastically demean liberals by claiming they think it's streets should be "running with blood". Of course your "facts" weren't quite "true" were they? Gilbert city itself had rather strict gun control laws even after they loosened them up recently.
From an azcentral.com news story - On Gilbert's gun control laws - "Update: Gun owners with a state permit are still prohibited from carrying firearms in "secure areas" of public buildings, including employee-only areas, police and fire department facilities, and the Gilbert Municipal Court and Prosecutor's Office.
Gun owners with a state permit can now carry a concealed firearm inside all Gilbert public buildings, reversing a previous policy that made such deadly weapons illegal."
One more little glitch in your bait and switch, "those without a concealed-carry weapon permit can be asked by a police officer to place their firearms in a gun locker", So really your version of Gilbert where "you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm" And with "All those guns floating around" didn't, and still doesn't exist. Some might say you're a liar.
I won't even bother to get into other details that make your imaginary Potemkin Village a statistical outlier even without your added fictions. So your little story is "blown out of the water", eh? How much does it suck to be you?

2aguy kind of whistled past the real pertinent threads in his story on Toronto. Greater Toronto has a population of over 6,000,000. The year he was referencing they had 27 gun homicides, Philadelphia (pop around 6,000,000) had 233. Incidentally, Arizona with a population close to Toronto's had 233 gun murders in 2010, almost 10 times more than Toronto. Toronto is listed as the safest city in North America. 2aguy - "Yeah..Canada gun crime going up, funny Obama didn't mention this,they have more gun control than us."

Oh well, you guys do what you think you have to to win your gun arguments, I'm just a Canadian who can't imagine why someone needs an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine so badly so quickly and so paranoid you'd rather have someone on the terror watch list own one just to keep gun control one more degree of separation away.

OK. I'll admit you have a few valid points. However, that doesn't change the fact that the most violent cities generally have the toughest gun control laws. They've also been run by democrats for several decades. Do you see a connection there?

The liberal narrative is that guns are responsible for all of the violent crime we see. Every time there's a mass shooting, WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!!! It's like a dog chasing squirrels.

This, despite the fact that a record number of firearms are in the hands of civilians, and the crime rates are going down.

So, no matter what you say...no matter how you twist the evidence, you cannot blame guns. That is all I've been trying to say this whole time. Quit blaming the guns and address the real cause of violent crime.

Gee, we were getting somewhere.....
And then...all of a sudden at the last minute you just couldn't give up that FlimFlammery™. My post proved quite nicely you twisted the evidence.
Is wondering why someone needs a military style assault rifle with HCM so badly "blaming guns"? If so I guess I'm guilty.... Actually if you explained just that one curiosity it would help a lot.
And I don't think there's just one cause of violent crime, that's one reason why it's so terribly difficult to "solve". Its up there with the most stubborn of psycho/social/cultural issues, e.g. racism, poverty, is a BigMac real food.
Can't do it today, it's beautiful out there, gotta go back to the street market.

Bottom line. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not kill people. People kill people. We do not have a gun problem. We have a people problem. If you got rid of every gun in America, people would be getting stabbed to death, instead of shot. If you take away knives, people will use blunt objects. Take away those, and people will use their fists. The simple truth is that gun control has never had any affect on the crime rates. But denying people easy access to guns has resulted in dramatic increases in violent crime. I could give several examples.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The left claims that less gun control leads to higher crime rates. If that were true, Gilbert, AZ would not be one of the safest cities in which to live. Therefore, the liberals are wrong, which makes the OP right. Case closed.

I'm left and i never make that claim. Prove everyone that is left is saying something that is equally impossible to prove. Case still open.

First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left". Second, you're a liar, and claiming that you've never made that claim is most likely a lie which you cannot prove. Third, you're an irrelevant porch monkey and no one here takes you seriously. No offense.

You said "the left". You didnt say some on the left. You clearly were claiming all people on the left since you made no attempt to be specific. Since you cant prove I made that claim with a quote then I have to laugh at your silly cave chimp deflection.

Wrong again, porch monkey. I don't need to specify "some" on the left. A normal thinking person (which you are not) is intelligent enough (which you are not) to know that one cannot include every single person in a general assessment. Am I talking too far over your coconut head?

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

 

[S.J.]

The left claims that less gun control leads to higher crime rates. If that were true, Gilbert, AZ would not be one of the safest cities in which to live. Therefore, the liberals are wrong, which makes the OP right. Case closed.

I'm left and i never make that claim. Prove everyone that is left is saying something that is equally impossible to prove. Case still open.

First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left". Second, you're a liar, and claiming that you've never made that claim is most likely a lie which you cannot prove. Third, you're an irrelevant porch monkey and no one here takes you seriously. No offense.

You said "the left". You didnt say some on the left. You clearly were claiming all people on the left since you made no attempt to be specific. Since you cant prove I made that claim with a quote then I have to laugh at your silly cave chimp deflection.

Wrong again, porch monkey. I don't need to specify "some" on the left. A normal thinking person (which you are not) is intelligent enough (which you are not) to know that one cannot include every single person in a general assessment. Am I talking too far over your coconut head?

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm left and i never make that claim. Prove everyone that is left is saying something that is equally impossible to prove. Case still open.

First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left". Second, you're a liar, and claiming that you've never made that claim is most likely a lie which you cannot prove. Third, you're an irrelevant porch monkey and no one here takes you seriously. No offense.

You said "the left". You didnt say some on the left. You clearly were claiming all people on the left since you made no attempt to be specific. Since you cant prove I made that claim with a quote then I have to laugh at your silly cave chimp deflection.

Wrong again, porch monkey. I don't need to specify "some" on the left. A normal thinking person (which you are not) is intelligent enough (which you are not) to know that one cannot include every single person in a general assessment. Am I talking too far over your coconut head?

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

 

[Zoom-boing]

First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left". Second, you're a liar, and claiming that you've never made that claim is most likely a lie which you cannot prove. Third, you're an irrelevant porch monkey and no one here takes you seriously. No offense.

You said "the left". You didnt say some on the left. You clearly were claiming all people on the left since you made no attempt to be specific. Since you cant prove I made that claim with a quote then I have to laugh at your silly cave chimp deflection.

Wrong again, porch monkey. I don't need to specify "some" on the left. A normal thinking person (which you are not) is intelligent enough (which you are not) to know that one cannot include every single person in a general assessment. Am I talking too far over your coconut head?

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

 

[Asclepias]

You said "the left". You didnt say some on the left. You clearly were claiming all people on the left since you made no attempt to be specific. Since you cant prove I made that claim with a quote then I have to laugh at your silly cave chimp deflection.

Wrong again, porch monkey. I don't need to specify "some" on the left. A normal thinking person (which you are not) is intelligent enough (which you are not) to know that one cannot include every single person in a general assessment. Am I talking too far over your coconut head?

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

Thats why i said he got busted. You pointed out he was doing the same thing but he doesnt like it when its done to him. Maybe he is trying to "get me back" as he put it.

 

[S.J.]

You said "the left". You didnt say some on the left. You clearly were claiming all people on the left since you made no attempt to be specific. Since you cant prove I made that claim with a quote then I have to laugh at your silly cave chimp deflection.

Wrong again, porch monkey. I don't need to specify "some" on the left. A normal thinking person (which you are not) is intelligent enough (which you are not) to know that one cannot include every single person in a general assessment. Am I talking too far over your coconut head?

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

I haven't seen the post to which you're referring. Please post it so I can respond to whatever I supposedly said.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wrong again, porch monkey. I don't need to specify "some" on the left. A normal thinking person (which you are not) is intelligent enough (which you are not) to know that one cannot include every single person in a general assessment. Am I talking too far over your coconut head?

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

I haven't seen the post to which you're referring. Please post it so I can respond to whatever I supposedly said.

Not searching for a thread that was a couple of months ago. It was a Trump thread, you got your shorts in a knot because I said something to the effect about conservatives not voting for Trump. You went on about how *I* don't speak for all conservatives. I did what you did in this thread, referred to a group in general, and you yammered on about me speaking for anyone other than myself. When the same is done to you? Oh, that's different then, isn't it? Not looking for any response from you, just pointing out your hypocrisy.