Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on May 05, 2008, 07:17:03 AM
-
Who will the man choose?
-
Who will the man choose?
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
I'd have to really think about that one.
-
Who is the highest bidder?
-
Who is the highest bidder?
haha good one.
-
love that chicken from popeyes
-
I'm surprised this guy is still mayor, let alone a superdelegate....
-
I'm surprised this guy is still mayor, let alone a superdelegate....
He is a douche. but he takes more blame for katrina than he should. He told the idiots to leave, they didn't listen. He didn't have the resources to save everyone afterwards - FEMA did, and didn't act for 3 days.
-
I agree that he had only his personality at his disposal in the time immediately following the storm, but I have yet to see what he's bringing to the table.
According to the crime statistics, the question we need answered is whether the security issue is a local, state, or national problem?
I would say it's more of a state than a local issue.
-
According to the crime statistics, the question we need answered is whether the security issue is a local, state, or national problem?
Some would argue crime is directly related to the economy.
People that are broke and desperate commit more crime.
In a community where business is good, people are more likely to go to work.
I follow my city crime news closely, and home invasions and small robberies have spiked since january.
-
But you have your trusty glock tucked under your pillow...
I can just see you now... stroking it lovingly as you fall asleep. :D
-
But you have your trusty glock tucked under your pillow...
I can just see you now... stroking it lovingly as you fall asleep. :D
I never got your feelings on guns. Are you pro-gun or anti-gun?
-
I never got your feelings on guns. Are you pro-gun or anti-gun?
I believe a civilized country has no need for an armed citizenry.
I believe quite strongly in the US 2nd amendment.
-
He is a douche. but he takes more blame for katrina than he should.
But he sure did a great job of making sure the law abiding who remained were without their means of self defense:
What a sh*& bag.
-
I believe a civilized country has no need for an armed citizenry.
I believe quite strongly in the US 2nd amendment.
LOL...
Hey, the uncivilization starts at the top and trickles down!
-
I believe a civilized country has no need for an armed citizenry.
I believe no "civilized" country should ever prevent it citizenry from being armed, and those those wrote the 2A felt exactly that way:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they can achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." - James Madison
Those are just a few. There is exactly ZERO ambiguity in exactly what these men intended by the 2A. If anyone can find me writings or quotes that adds some ambiguity to their original intent, I have yet to see it, but am happy to read it if you can find it.
I believe quite strongly in the US 2nd amendment.
Um no, it appears you really don't as an armed citizenry is exactly what the 2A is intended to protect.
-
We gotta remember one thing....
It only takes a stroke of the pen for some very bad things to become perfectly legal.
If you told any of us, 8 years ago, that we'd be attacked, our leaders refused for 441 days to investigate it, would you believe it?
If you told any of us, 8 years ago, that we'd be in 2, possibly 3 wars of such a massive scale, would you believe it?
If you told any of us, 8 years ago, that we'd be the most hated country in the world, would you believe it?
If you told any of us, 8 years ago, that we'd be living under the patriot act, habeas corp would be suspended, etc... would you believe it?
If you told any of us, 8 years ago, that we'd be $9 trillion in debt (when we'd only gathered 4.5 tril in the last 80 years), would you believe it?
If you told any of us, 8 years ago, that we'd have leaders of new "homeland" branch, using fear tactics on TV for political purposes, would you believe it?
If you told any of us, 8 years ago (when gas prices were $1.30), that we'd be paying $4 today, would you believe it?
If you told any of us, 8 years ago, that the dollar would be so unwanted and unstable in the world, would you believe it?
Face it, the last 8 years show us that a group in power can make a great deal of change, that we cannot possibly imagine. We have NO clue what the next 8 will hold. Imagine the trend doubling... 4 wars? 6? Double the Patriot Act? Double debt to $18 tril?
No one can see the future, and our founding fathers knew that. They designed the system so that it could be run by devils. And even though devils have the power to *amend* this, an armed populace ensures they don't get too frisky in stripping liberties.
-
We gotta remember one thing....
It only takes a stroke of the pen for some very bad things to become perfectly legal.
I have a list of gun/2A related vids I often use against the clueless anti gun types, as some people simply can't absorb text and only pictures will do. Below is my list of the "must see" vids on the topic. I'm sure you all have seen most of them. Got any others I should add to my list? I have others, but I find these to be the most effective for getting the point across/countering the points of anti "don't confuse me with the facts" gun types:
John Stossel on 20/20 regarding the myths and facts of gun control:
&NR=1
For those who like to say stupid things like taking guns away from law abiding US citizens when they need them most could ever happen, the Katrina experience:
For those who want to see what happens to others who don't fight for their rights to self defense, the UK and Australian experience:
http://www.weaponvideos.org/viewvideo/259/Gun_bans_in_the_UK__NRA_/
And follow up to the UK and Aussi experience:
For those who like to tell some 120lb woman - who has to face some 200lb rapist/stalker - to "just call the police, you don't need a gun", tell that to this woman:
And for Humor, Penn and Teller on gun control:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gun+control+is+bullshit+by+penn+and+teller#
-
I believe no "civilized" country should ever prevent it citizenry from being armed, and those those wrote the 2A felt exactly that way:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they can achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." - James Madison
Those are just a few. There is exactly ZERO ambiguity in exactly what these men intended by the 2A. If anyone can find me writings or quotes that adds some ambiguity to their original intent, I have yet to see it, but am happy to read it if you can find it.
Um no, it appears you really don't as an armed citizenry is exactly what the 2A is intended to protect.
Two ways to look at something. How we are less civilised than people who shoot each other, and need guns to protect other people from shooting them?
Our crime rates, comparatively speaking are not even in the same ballpark. Most studies have the USA in the top 10 - 15% of all countries, as per their murder rates. "Defending ourselves" is not really an issue here, due to lower crime rates in general. We have cheesy crimes like purse snatching, shoplifting, mugging etc. Can't exactly "cap" a 12 yr old for stealing gum from the store.
I am not anti-gun, in fact my husband owned one when we lived in the USA, as the situation he felt warranted it for safety. Not making an attack, but I hardly those nations that aren't gun mad are uncivilised. Obviously it is 1000000 times easier to maintain our borders being an island with only 2 total ways in whatsoever, our history is one of peace, and the differences cannot make us comparable - so not attacking, just pointing out the flip side that perhaps it is a different type of civilisation when your citizens do not need to be armed.
-
Two ways to look at something. How we are less civilised than people who shoot each other, and need guns to protect other people from shooting them?
That makes no sense to me. Please translate into English.
Our crime rates, comparatively speaking are not even in the same ballpark. Most studies have the USA in the top 10 - 15% of all countries, as per their murder rates. "Defending ourselves" is not really an issue here, due to lower crime rates in general. We have cheesy crimes like purse snatching, shoplifting, mugging etc. Can't exactly "cap" a 12 yr old for stealing gum from the store.
Again, you are not making any sense, and murder rates have no correlation to gun ownership, although rates increased in countries like the UK, etc when guns were banned. Supply what data you are talking about. I hope you are not one of those Brits who knows so little about your own crime rates you think you live in a low crime country, when in fact your crime rates are higher than ours in many areas. It's amazing to me how little most Brits know about their own crime rates....
I am not anti-gun, in fact my husband owned one when we lived in the USA, as the situation he felt warranted it for safety. Not making an attack, but I hardly those nations that aren't gun mad are uncivilised. Obviously it is 1000000 times easier to maintain our borders being an island with only 2 total ways in whatsoever, our history is one of peace, and the differences cannot make us comparable - so not attacking, just pointing out the flip side that perhaps it is a different type of civilisation when your citizens do not need to be armed.
It appears you know very little about your own crime rates, which went up AFTER you banned handgun ownership. Watch the vids again or read read for example:
The following article from the London (England) 'Times' is well worth reading.
British attitudes are supercilious and misguided
Richard Munday
Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?
The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.
Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).
How worried should we be about gun crime?
Serious gun crime is concentrated in particular parts of England; internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns
America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.
In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.
We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.
If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.
As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.
Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.
Richard Munday is editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen
-
That makes no sense to me. Please translate into English.
Again, you are not making any sense, and murder rates have no correlation to gun ownership, although rates increased in countries like the UK, etc when guns were banned. Supply what data you are talking about. I hope you are not one of those Brits who knows so little about your own crime rates you think you live in a low crime country, when in fact your crime rates are higher than ours in many areas. It's amazing to me how little most Brits know about their own crime rates....
It appears you know very little about your own crime rates, which went up AFTER you banned handgun ownership. Watch the vids again or read read for example:
The following article from the London (England) 'Times' is well worth reading.
British attitudes are supercilious and misguided
Richard Munday
Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?
The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.
Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).
How worried should we be about gun crime?
Serious gun crime is concentrated in particular parts of England; internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns
America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.
In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.
We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.
If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.
As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.
Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.
Richard Munday is editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen
Our crime rates went up after we barred gun ownership? Fascinating, as gun ownership was never legal here ???
Why cut and past some massive diatribe about British crime rates trying to use it to make a point, when it is irrelevant to my post?
Why are you accusing me of not knowing my nations crime rates - then quoting another nations rates as proof of this? Very strange.
Even if you did know where I am from [which I thought everyone did by now] I said my nation can only be accessed by 2 points whatsoever, any with any world knowledge whatsoever knows Britain has more than 2 points of access, I mean they have more airports than that. Plus, I said my nation had a history of peace, Britain can hardly say that, they have been involved in many wars. ::)
Really a strange reply, very weird.
Anyway, no offense, you are totally clueless so I will step out here as obviously a rational discussion seems improbable and I am not one to post gibberish or have flame wars for no point. Shoot on Will, shoot on.
-
It was my impression you were a Brit from your comments. I don't plan to play "guess the country" with you. What I can tell you is, world wide or US, it's a topic I have spent far more time researching than you have. That much is clear, be you from Canada or Mars. Thus, add something objective to the debate (ergo, data, etc) you feel supports your statements/opinions, or perhaps try another thread.
-
Ok, Will that was a little better. It made a modicum of sense at least - despite the mashed up quoting abilty [that you edited thank god, as that was a mess :D]
I don't expect people to know where I am from, but most people that post on the politics board have a basic grasp of world affairs.
They know that Britian has been involved in wars, and they know that Britain has more than 2 combined airports and docks. Pretty basic points tbh. But hey, if you fancy yourself an expert go for it.
And I will post where I like thank you. :)
-
Ok, Will that was a little better. It made a modicum of sense at least - despite the mashed up quoting abilty [that you edited thank god, as that was a mess :D]
And what you posted didn't make a "modicum of sense" which is why I asked you to translate to English.
I don't expect people to know where I am from, but most people that post on the politics board have a basic grasp of world affairs.
Post objective support for your comments relating to the actual topic or STFU.
They know that Britian has been involved in wars, and they know that Britain has more than 2 combined airports and docks. Pretty basic points tbh. But hey, if you fancy yourself an expert go for it.
Is there some part of "post objective support for your comments relating to the actual topic or STFU" you don't understand?
-
And what you posted didn't make a "modicum of sense" which is why I asked you to translate to English.
Post objective support for your comments relating to the actual topic or STFU.
Is there some part of "post objective support for your comments relating to the actual topic or STFU" you don't understand?
I made a perfectly nice post at first and coming back rude [and wrong] to begin with
Criticizing my English, when for a non native speaker most people think my English is quite good - and good enough for you to take me as a Brit lol.
Telling me to STFU twice, when not one man on this board has ever addressed me like that in all the years I have posted here, despite varied opinions we have had.
Oh well, sad lack of manners on your part which only reflects on you. :-\
-
And what you posted didn't make a "modicum of sense" which is why I asked you to translate to English.
Post objective support for your comments relating to the actual topic or STFU.
Is there some part of "post objective support for your comments relating to the actual topic or STFU" you don't understand?
Quite the man arnt we?Don't get angry with a woman just because you spent 20 minutes typing out some long rant about a country she isn't even from.Do you make a habit of being abusive to women?
-
I made a perfectly nice post at first and coming back rude [and wrong] to begin with
Criticizing my English, when for a non native speaker most people think my English is quite good - and good enough for you to take me as a Brit lol.
Telling me to STFU twice, when not one man on this board has ever addressed me like that in all the years I have posted here, despite varied opinions we have had.
Oh well, sad lack of manners on your part which only reflects on you. :-\
Does that mean you will shut up now, or do women from your country with no wars and less airports than the UK never stop talking? I'm not generally rude to people, but when a person sticks their nose into a topic they have clearly done zero research on the topic, then set out to annoy and insult me, (1) I get irritated and (2) I return the insults.
I asked you to supply some objective info to the topic at hand from my very first response, and you ignored it in favor of playing games about the fact you are not in the UK with "everyone knows where I come from 'cause I am so damn important here" type comments, with additional comments that made no sense, which...drum roll....tend to get a negative response from me.
-
Quite the man arnt we?Don't get angry with a woman just because you spent 20 minutes typing
About 2-3 minutes, and I respond to men or women who make dumb ass condescending comments like
"It made a modicum of sense at least - despite the mashed up quoting abilty"
"most people that post on the politics board have a basic grasp of world affairs."
"Pretty basic points tbh. But hey, if you fancy yourself an expert go for it."
Guess what sport, those are insults and she deserved the response she got. Finally, I guess this will come to a shock both both of you, but where she is from is irrelevant to the topic, so her using this issue as some sort of useful argument other then the fact I mistook her for a Brit, tells me she's f-ing clueless or being a dink on purpose. She's not a Brit. I thought she was. Stunning stuff there...
So, she - or you - can (gasp) actually add something objective to the topic of gun crime, gun stats, etc., and move on from the revelation she's not a Brit...
You dig? Being neither she nor you seem to actually be able to add something objective here, I will. Countries with the stricter gun laws have HIGHER rates of murder and violence, which was just published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694):
"Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that
"nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."
The Abstract:
Abstract
The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?
This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.
Full paper downloaded here:
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/
-
That makes no sense to me. Please translate into English.
Again, you are not making any sense.......
It appears you know very little about your own crime rates
It seems if you go back and reread the thread then you will find it was you who started the attacks.The poster was clearly speaking in English and although not perfect it was easy to understand what she was saying, you felt the need to try and belittle a woman for whatever reason.Why so angry?Not getting much at home?Maybe try and lose the manboobs and the stupid goatee.
-
It seems if you go back and reread the thread then you will find it was you who started the attacks.
Then your reading comprehension skills are as bad as hers. I said she didn't know the crime rates of the country I thought she was from. That's not an insult. She then followed up with the insulting thread, a few comments of which I posted.
The poster was clearly speaking in English and although not perfect it was easy to understand what she was saying, you felt the need to try and belittle a woman for whatever reason.
No stupid, I really didn't understand what she was saying. I have no idea what her first language is, nor do i care. She said:
"How we are less civilised than people who shoot each other, and need guns to protect other people from shooting them?"
I asked for an English translation of that statement. Please translate that for me, 'cause I don't understand it. You claim you do and it as "easy to understand."
Maybe try and lose the manboobs and the stupid goatee.
Ah, sow now a physical related insult because neither she or you appear able to actually debate the topic. Feel free to post a pic of your huge ripped self before making comments about others.
-
Then your reading comprehension skills are as bad as hers. I said she didn't know the crime rates of the country I thought she was from. That's not an insult. She then followed up with the insulting thread, a few comments of which I posted.
No stupid, I really didn't understand what she was saying. I have no idea what her first language is, nor do i care. She said:
"How we are less civilised than people who shoot each other, and need guns to protect other people from shooting them?"
I asked for an English translation of that statement. Please translate that for me, 'cause I don't understand it. You claim you do and it as "easy to understand."
Ah, sow now a physical related insult because neither she or you appear able to actually debate the topic. Feel free to post a pic of your huge ripped self before making comments about others.
Nicely glossed over, again she was clearly speaking english and what you said was clearly an insult.There is no debating this.You started the stupid attacks and now cannot take it when its dished back to you.Karma is a bitch eh?
-
Nicely glossed over,
Nothing glossed over (sure you even know what that means?) as I addressed every comment.
again she was clearly speaking english and what you said was clearly an insult.
I posted exactly what she wrote, and asked for a translation, which you didn't supply, as it appears you don't understand that jibberish either!
There is no debating this.
Incorrect.
You started the stupid attacks
Incorrect yet again
and now cannot take it when its dished back to you.Karma is a bitch eh?
That's the best you can do? personal attacks on my looks and then lame as talk of karma? Wow, your parents must be proud. Now run along and play while the grownups talk, ok sport?