The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-12-2014, 03:29 PM   #126
bombay
Ring of Famer
 
bombay's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: denver
Posts: 5,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Stupid / weak people actually believe that the government will provide safety in exchange for reduced individual liberty.
Yep. The patriot act was a very bad idea.
bombay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 03:31 PM   #127
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,141

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Stout View Post
Wait... when did we start talking about drunk driving rather than just cars? I thought we were blaming the cars, not the drunks?!?!
You equated the car analogy with the backyard nuclear silo analogy. But many people are killed with mis-utilized cars every day. Your nuclear scenario is science-fiction hyperbole.


Quote:
Almost all of our rights are limited to some degree. The biggest imposition to all rights is the general concept that you have the right and freedom to do anything, so long as that right does not limit or infringe on others rights to do as they please. Civic values often override rights so that things may be accomplished.

If on one hand you claim there is no limit to the second amendment, but on the other assert that claiming a right to bear nuclear arms is ridiculously out of proportion to the reality of a debate (i.e. Godwin's law), where does the middle fall? I'm actually curious and appreciate a good discussion on the topic, because I truly believe there is always a fine line between all civil liberty, responsibility and loss of right.
I drew a simple line for you. If I'm Constitutionally entitled to armed protection, it's reasonable to ask for the same level of protection deemed necessary for our civil law enforcement personnel.

If they might need an AR-15 to deal with the local crime establishment, then proportionality demands that I might need that same level of protection as well.

Whether I want to utilize my right to that protection, or train myself to enhance that protection is completely and solely up to my free discretion.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 06-12-2014 at 03:33 PM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 03:37 PM   #128
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
Riiiiight.... Something tells me by your original impassioned response that I hit a nerve in regards to your feelings about Bush v Obama. Clearly you supported the Iraq War when it was fashionable now you want to play the part of the pacifist because your guy isn't in office anymore. If Bush had Obama's track record on killing terrorists you'd have wanted to put him on Rushmore. Whatever, you can have the last word.
No. I never voted for Bush. What's funny is guys like you who constantly bring up the Iraq War which ended 5 years ago, to somehow justify this administrations 14+ illegal wars. Or you just somehow conveniently forget everything that's happened in the last 6 years.

Acting like the Iraq war, which was legal as voted on by Congress, somehow trumps every other war that the US has entered or expanded since then, while completely dismissing the current administration's extremely destructive foreign policy.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 03:55 PM   #129
DenverDynamite
Seasoned Veteran
 
DenverDynamite's Avatar
 
HORSE POWER!!!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Thornton
Posts: 394

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DeMarcus Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
No. I never voted for Bush. What's funny is guys like you who constantly bring up the Iraq War which ended 5 years ago, to somehow justify this administrations 14+ illegal wars. Or you just somehow conveniently forget everything that's happened in the last 6 years.

Acting like the Iraq war, which was legal as voted on by Congress, somehow trumps every other war that the US has entered or expanded since then, while completely dismissing the current administration's extremely destructive foreign policy.

Ok... I can't let you have the last word afterall,

The war was legal as voted by Congress with COOKED intelligence. Again, by making that arguement you are showing your taste for some freedom fries.
You insist on making false equivalences by comparing the greatest foreign policy blunder (outside of Vietnam) in American history, to a series of military operations on par with almost every single modern president.
Ok... fine, I'll mop up all the blood spilled since Iraq, 2010-2014, you've got the Iraq War 2003-2010... I'll need a dish rag, you'll need a street sweeper.
DenverDynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 03:59 PM   #130
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,141

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
Ok... I can't let you have the last word afterall,

The war was legal as voted by Congress with COOKED intelligence. Again, by making that arguement you are showing your taste for some freedom fries.
You insist on making false equivalences by comparing the greatest foreign policy blunder (outside of Vietnam) in American history, to a series of military operations on par with almost every single modern president.
Ok... fine, I'll mop up all the blood spilled since Iraq, 2010-2014, you've got the Iraq War 2003-2010... I'll need a dish rag, you'll need a street sweeper.
There's no such thing as cooked intelligence anymore. Bush just accidentally listened to the same guy who told us about the Youtube video in Benghazi. These things can happen, I'm told.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:01 PM   #131
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,287

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
Ok... I can't let you have the last word afterall,

The war was legal as voted by Congress with COOKED intelligence. Again, by making that arguement you are showing your taste for some freedom fries.
You insist on making false equivalences by comparing the greatest foreign policy blunder (outside of Vietnam) in American history, to a series of military operations on par with almost every single modern president.
Ok... fine, I'll mop up all the blood spilled since Iraq, 2010-2014, you've got the Iraq War 2003-2010... I'll need a dish rag, you'll need a street sweeper.
Congress has its own intelligence to verify and or/disclaim Whitehouse intelligence. Regardless, the Iraq War was approved by congress even though British and even Israeli intelligenced warned against the invasion.

This does not justify Obama's foreign policy. The libby left can't keep going back to the Bush years to justify Obama's lousy decisions. Why don't you instead blame Obama for being, well, Obama?
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:03 PM   #132
Quoydogs
I can fix it .
 
Quoydogs's Avatar
 
Here's Johnny !

Join Date: May 2004
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 4,088

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Monte Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
Well, I think it should be at least be as hard to buy a gun as it is buy some allergy medicine... you know the good **** they keep behind the counter.
You have no idea what you're talking about. What you think you can just pick up a pistol on isle 6 at Wal-Mart and AK47'S are on isle 7 ?
Quoydogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:08 PM   #133
DenverDynamite
Seasoned Veteran
 
DenverDynamite's Avatar
 
HORSE POWER!!!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Thornton
Posts: 394

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DeMarcus Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Congress has its own intelligence to verify and or/disclaim Whitehouse intelligence. Regardless, the Iraq War was approved by congress even though British and even Israeli intelligenced warned against the invasion.

This does not justify Obama's foreign policy. The libby left can't keep going back to the Bush years to justify Obama's lousy decisions. Why don't you instead blame Obama for being, well, Obama?
Nope, it has been proven that Congress was provided with the same crap intellegence the administration fed the U.N. Who would have objected anyway? The Republicans had control of the House at the time and all of the foriegn relations committees.
DenverDynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:12 PM   #134
DenverDynamite
Seasoned Veteran
 
DenverDynamite's Avatar
 
HORSE POWER!!!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Thornton
Posts: 394

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DeMarcus Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quoydogs View Post
You have no idea what you're talking about. What you think you can just pick up a pistol on isle 6 at Wal-Mart and AK47'S are on isle 7 ?
At a gun show you can... Oh and didn't the guy who shot up VA Tech buy his weapons at Kmart?

-Sorry, no he didn't. He walked into a gun store and bought the weapon and the ammunition and put it on a credit card. Walked out with it that day.

Same thing.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18170761/n...tudent-killer/

Last edited by DenverDynamite; 06-12-2014 at 04:28 PM..
DenverDynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:13 PM   #135
Irish Stout
Ring of Famer
 
Irish Stout's Avatar
 
Run for it Marty!

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,988

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Wesley Woodyard
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You equated the car analogy with the backyard nuclear silo analogy. But many people are killed with mis-utilized cars every day. Your nuclear scenario is science-fiction hyperbole.
How so? Where is the limit on my right to bear arms? If owning a personal nuclear device is too far fetched, and I agree it is, then what about my right to RPG's, flame throwers, attack drones, land mines, etc... Any of these items could be made with the right tools in someone's garage, but do they have a right to them?

The hyperbole of "blame the gun, blame the car" presented by the OP is on par with stating that the right to bear arms has no limited and I am therefore entitle to a nuclear device. Granted its a different course, but it still takes 4 strokes to break even on those holes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I drew a simple line for you. If I'm Constitutionally entitled to armed protection, it's reasonable to ask for the same level of protection deemed necessary for our civil law enforcement personnel.

If they might need an AR-15 to deal with the local crime establishment, then proportionality demands that I might need that same level of protection as well.

Whether I want to utilize my right to that protection, or train myself to enhance that protection is completely and solely up to my free discretion.
Your line isn't simple. Your line is that if the government gets an AR-15, you can get one too is fine. But if the government employed individual is required to go through x-hours of training, before being allowed to handle such weapon without supervision, and you don't have to have that training, then its not a line of equality. Once unequal, then simple goes out the window. Maybe the government should be allowed to have employees handling all of the weapons with only optional training? I mean, the employees are individuals anyway. To me, your line isn't even one that makes sense in terms of the second amendment "right to bear arms." Yours is more along the line of "right to have what they have, but with the option of having less training."

I don't even think it should matter what the government is or is not allowed to have. The bill of rights are to secure our individual liberties over governmental obligations/abilities. The question remains though, where does the limit fall under the second amendment. It falls clearly under several circumstances in the first amendment - You cannot loiter, you cannot march down Colfax without permit, you cannot use words that cause harm (civilly and criminally), you cannot practice religion in a way that harms others. Is the only limit to the second amendment: you cannot shoot someone unprovoked?

I am not even trying to have a fight here, I just want to know whether or not you think there should be some civic responsibility to have a limitation on the second amendment. On one hand you tell me I'm ridiculously applying the "nukes" argument, and on the other you tell me you should have the "simple line" of being able to own anything a government run agency can have as a weapon, without the obligation of being licensed, trained, or qualified to use such. Local police forces across the country seem to have some pretty heavy artillery anymore, including armored assault vehicles and incendiary devices.
Irish Stout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:14 PM   #136
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
Ok... I can't let you have the last word afterall,

The war was legal as voted by Congress with COOKED intelligence. Again, by making that arguement you are showing your taste for some freedom fries.
You insist on making false equivalences by comparing the greatest foreign policy blunder (outside of Vietnam) in American history, to a series of military operations on par with almost every single modern president.
Ok... fine, I'll mop up all the blood spilled since Iraq, 2010-2014, you've got the Iraq War 2003-2010... I'll need a dish rag, you'll need a street sweeper.
WTF are you talking about sicko? 74% of total US casualties in Afghanistan have happened under Obama and Hillary Clinton. You're going to need a lot more than a street sweeper to mop up all the innocent civilian blood that has been shed due to Obama and Hillary's twisted foreign policy. Yet this is something you'd like to ignore.

The fact is, you'd like to justify US Military deaths and foreign civilian deaths under Obama. Yet you will demonize Bush for the Iraq war, even though Hillary Cllinton and Barack Obama both voted either to start the Iraq war and/or to expand it.

That is the very definition of a hypocrite.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:21 PM   #137
DenverDynamite
Seasoned Veteran
 
DenverDynamite's Avatar
 
HORSE POWER!!!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Thornton
Posts: 394

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DeMarcus Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
WTF are you talking about sicko? 74% of total US casualties in Afghanistan have happened under Obama and Hillary Clinton. You're going to need a lot more than a street sweeper to mop up all the innocent civilian blood that has been shed due to Obama and Hillary's twisted foreign policy. Yet this is something you'd like to ignore.

The fact is, you'd like to justify US Military deaths and foreign civilian deaths under Obama. Yet you will demonize Bush for the Iraq war, even though Hillary Cllinton and Barack Obama both voted either to start the Iraq war and/or to expand it.

That is the very definition of a hypocrite.
I never claimed to be a pacifist. I also stated that I was for the U.S. pulling out of Afghanistan years ago...

You're the one who apparently wants to cherry-pick.
DenverDynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:27 PM   #138
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
I never claimed to be a pacifist. I also stated that I was for the U.S. pulling out of Afghanistan years ago...

You're the one who apparently wants to cherry-pick.
I'm not a pacifist either. I strongly believe in the US military to defend the best interests of the USA and it's citizens.

Obama and Hillary's foreign policy is not in the best interest of the USA. In fact, it's in stark contrast to the best interests of US citizens.

For you, anything goes in war as long as the published total US Military casualty counts under Obama and Hillary remain less than they were under Bush. Nothing else matters.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:29 PM   #139
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,790
Default

Name one foreign policy positive achievement that this administration has made. You won't find one. Everything they've done ends in complete disaster.

Yet you're ready to pipe up when you can blame something on Bush. Pathetic.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:30 PM   #140
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,141

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Stout View Post
Your line isn't simple. Your line is that if the government gets an AR-15, you can get one too is fine. But if the government employed individual is required to go through x-hours of training, before being allowed to handle such weapon without supervision, and you don't have to have that training, then its not a line of equality. Once unequal, then simple goes out the window. Maybe the government should be allowed to have employees handling all of the weapons with only optional training? I mean, the employees are individuals anyway. To me, your line isn't even one that makes sense in terms of the second amendment "right to bear arms." Yours is more along the line of "right to have what they have, but with the option of having less training."

I don't even think it should matter what the government is or is not allowed to have. The bill of rights are to secure our individual liberties over governmental obligations/abilities. The question remains though, where does the limit fall under the second amendment. It falls clearly under several circumstances in the first amendment - You cannot loiter, you cannot march down Colfax without permit, you cannot use words that cause harm (civilly and criminally), you cannot practice religion in a way that harms others. Is the only limit to the second amendment: you cannot shoot someone unprovoked?

I am not even trying to have a fight here, I just want to know whether or not you think there should be some civic responsibility to have a limitation on the second amendment. On one hand you tell me I'm ridiculously applying the "nukes" argument, and on the other you tell me you should have the "simple line" of being able to own anything a government run agency can have as a weapon, without the obligation of being licensed, trained, or qualified to use such. Local police forces across the country seem to have some pretty heavy artillery anymore, including armored assault vehicles and incendiary devices.
The Civilian Law Enforcement threshold has nothing to do with training. It's only to establish what level of armament is prudent in civil society.

That establishes the absolute floor for what level of armament a citizen has a Constitutional Right to have. Has nothing to do with training requirements or procedures. Only what's justifiable. Once you start arguing that the people's police need better protection than the people, you're undermining the 2nd Amendment.

Official certification or training has nothing to do with it. As we saw in the Segregationist south, those kinds of mechanisms end up being the mechanisms for ultimately denying people their rights.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:32 PM   #141
DenverDynamite
Seasoned Veteran
 
DenverDynamite's Avatar
 
HORSE POWER!!!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Thornton
Posts: 394

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DeMarcus Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
I'm not a pacifist either. I strongly believe in the US military to defend the best interests of the USA and it's citizens.

Obama and Hillary's foreign policy is not in the best interest of the USA. In fact, it's in stark contrast to the best interests of US citizens.

For you, anything goes in war as long as the published total US Military casualty counts under Obama and Hillary remain less than they were under Bush. Nothing else matters.
Bulls**t. 100,000+++ Iraqi civilians were killed AND are being killed as a DIRECT result of Bush foriegn policy. You simply want to demonize Obama and forget that Bush was ever president.
I have stated I was against Obama esculating in Afghanistan, wtf else do you want from me?!
DenverDynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:34 PM   #142
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,287

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
Nope, it has been proven that Congress was provided with the same crap intellegence the administration fed the U.N. Who would have objected anyway? The Republicans had control of the House at the time and all of the foriegn relations committees.
Congress has its own access to intelligence, it's own independent access to intelligence, is that better? In other words, they can "investigate" the intelligence and verify it with other sources of intelligence, be that foriegn or domestic. I've already said that Israeli intelligence warned that an invasion would be a huge mistake.

Point is, congress had the chance to stop the war or at least force a more complete investigation.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:36 PM   #143
DenverDynamite
Seasoned Veteran
 
DenverDynamite's Avatar
 
HORSE POWER!!!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Thornton
Posts: 394

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DeMarcus Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Congress has its own access to intelligence, it's own independent access to intelligence, is that better? In other words, they can "investigate" the intelligence and verify it with other sources of intelligence, be that foriegn or domestic. I've already said that Israeli intelligence warned that invasion was a mistake.

Point is, congress had the chance to stop the war or at least force a more complete investigation.
You're right, but they didn't. Mainly because the Republicans had control of both houses and the White House... they never offered anything contrary.
DenverDynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:41 PM   #144
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
Bulls**t. 100,000+++ Iraqi civilians were killed as a DIRECT result of Bush foriegn policy. You simply want to demonize Obama and forget that Bush was ever president.
I have stated I was against Obama esculating in Afghanistan, wtf else do you want from me?!
1. What about the MILLIONS of Somalians that have been displaced due to US sponsoring the Ethiopian army to take out the government in Mogadishu?

2. What about all the wedding parties that have been bombed in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

3. What about the thousands of Egyptians that were killed or injured due to the Obama administration's sponsorship of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

4. What about Libya, and Obama/Hillary gun smuggling to Syrian rebels? Probably the same ones who are taking over Iraq now?

5. What about this administration illegally smuggling guns to Mexico to kill American's in hope to ban guns?

6. What about this administration's sponsorship of extremists to overthrow Ukraine's legitimate government?

It goes on and on. If you're going to demonize Bush. Demonize Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also. They've killed and displaced millions of innocent civilians.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:41 PM   #145
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,287

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Stout View Post
Your line isn't simple. Your line is that if the government gets an AR-15, you can get one too is fine. But if the government employed individual is required to go through x-hours of training, before being allowed to handle such weapon without supervision, and you don't have to have that training, then its not a line of equality. Once unequal, then simple goes out the window. Maybe the government should be allowed to have employees handling all of the weapons with only optional training? I mean, the employees are individuals anyway. To me, your line isn't even one that makes sense in terms of the second amendment "right to bear arms." Yours is more along the line of "right to have what they have, but with the option of having less training."

I don't even think it should matter what the government is or is not allowed to have. The bill of rights are to secure our individual liberties over governmental obligations/abilities. The question remains though, where does the limit fall under the second amendment. It falls clearly under several circumstances in the first amendment - You cannot loiter, you cannot march down Colfax without permit, you cannot use words that cause harm (civilly and criminally), you cannot practice religion in a way that harms others. Is the only limit to the second amendment: you cannot shoot someone unprovoked?

I am not even trying to have a fight here, I just want to know whether or not you think there should be some civic responsibility to have a limitation on the second amendment. On one hand you tell me I'm ridiculously applying the "nukes" argument, and on the other you tell me you should have the "simple line" of being able to own anything a government run agency can have as a weapon, without the obligation of being licensed, trained, or qualified to use such. Local police forces across the country seem to have some pretty heavy artillery anymore, including armored assault vehicles and incendiary devices.
Dude, just stop. You've lost the argument.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:48 PM   #146
DenverDynamite
Seasoned Veteran
 
DenverDynamite's Avatar
 
HORSE POWER!!!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Thornton
Posts: 394

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DeMarcus Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
1. What about the MILLIONS of Somalians that have been displaced due to US sponsoring the Ethiopian army to take out the government in Mogadishu?

2. What about all the wedding parties that have been bombed in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

3. What about the thousands of Egyptians that were killed or injured due to the Obama administration's sponsorship of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

4. What about Libya, and Obama/Hillary gun smuggling to Syrian rebels? Probably the same ones who are taking over Iraq now?

5. What about this administration illegally smuggling guns to Mexico to kill American's in hope to ban guns?

6. What about this administration's sponsorship of extremists to overthrow Ukraine's legitimate government?

It goes on and on. If you're going to demonize Bush. Demonize Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also. They've killed and displaced millions of innocent civilians.
Jesus, get the ****ing tin foil hat off your head?!!!!
I'm not an Obama cheerleader, but christ... I'd ask you to back some of that crap up with sources, but you'll feed me a bunch of Newsmax articles and right-wing blogs.
Yeah, you DIDN'T vote for Bush... my ass.
You think I'm a hypocrite? Fine, I think you're a LIAR.
DenverDynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:52 PM   #147
R8R H8R
Ring of Famer
 
R8R H8R's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Exiled in So. Cal.
Posts: 2,849

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Virgil Green
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco militia View Post
Funniest thing on this thread. Rep.
R8R H8R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:53 PM   #148
Irish Stout
Ring of Famer
 
Irish Stout's Avatar
 
Run for it Marty!

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,988

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Wesley Woodyard
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Dude, just stop. You've lost the argument.
Really? What's the argument I've lost? I actually don't see an argument, just an unanswered question.

I want to know whether or not there is a limit or should be a limit on the 2nd amendment. No one will give a yes no answer to that.
Irish Stout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:55 PM   #149
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 10,533

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
WTF are you talking about sicko? 74% of total US casualties in Afghanistan have happened under Obama and Hillary Clinton. You're going to need a lot more than a street sweeper to mop up all the innocent civilian blood that has been shed due to Obama and Hillary's twisted foreign policy. Yet this is something you'd like to ignore.

The fact is, you'd like to justify US Military deaths and foreign civilian deaths under Obama. Yet you will demonize Bush for the Iraq war, even though Hillary Cllinton and Barack Obama both voted either to start the Iraq war and/or to expand it.

That is the very definition of a hypocrite.
That's a little unfair dude. It's not like when presidential administrations change that Bush's war stopped and Obama's began. Cmon man, that's just stupid to think that way. It doesn't work like that and you know it. Obama could not just take office and day 1 yank everybody back home. It really sounds like you are just after anything you can find to proclaim your dislike for the man. That's fine, there are some people out there who just see things their affiliated party wants them to see. It really sounded like from your previous post that you truly do want a thriving middle class and I can tell you, that's not what the Republicans in power want. A shrinking middle class is just perfect for them. They would like to grow the poor class as large as they can and further the income disparity. You know this to be true. See the 1% thrive on a bad economy. That's when everything gets so cheap they can buy it all up. They create laws that help them do this. You vote Republican for gun laws, ok, I get that. But you're also helping to keep income disparity the way it is and to further change in favor of the 1%. And don't lay it down like we think everything in America is their fault, that's 5th grader stuff. Every president and congress make bad choices, it's the way it is. But the one thing that never changes, and is as consistent as a good bowl of oatmeal (haha, had to throw that in there) is the 1% attempting to circumvent the system and to continue pushing for ways that their money can be utilized in efforts to tax them less and less and to keep hiding their money overseas, to keep sending jobs over seas, and so on and so on. They don't give a damn about the American people, they give a damn about profit, and that's it. You guys keep talking about rights being taken away. Rights is a relative term. How about a woman's right to choose. How about a gay person's right to marry who ever they want. How about a person right to vote. These are all rights that the hard right wing is hellbent on taking, has taken, or is in the process of taking away. What about those rights?
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 04:56 PM   #150
Irish Stout
Ring of Famer
 
Irish Stout's Avatar
 
Run for it Marty!

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,988

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Wesley Woodyard
Default

Probably about time for this thread to get the ol' bump.

I appreciate the discourse everyone! I think if we can keep these discussions civil, its a great exercise of our American liberties. Unfortunately and too often there is too much attack and defend than give and take.
Irish Stout is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 PM.


Denver Broncos