Is it time to outlaw camoflauge clothing and tactical gear?
So many school shooters are wearing camoflauge these days. Since we're willing to ban "assault rifles" based upon their scary looks, isn't it time we realized just how scary "camo" gear looks to urbanites. It's "assault clothing". < / sarc>
Assault rifles should be banned based on their scary ability to mow people down and due to the tremendous damage to the human body they cause. Not due to their looks.
ReplyDeletewaffen... is new black ;-P
ReplyDeleteAssault rifles should be banned based on their scary ability to mow people down and due to the tremendous damage to the human body they cause. Not due to their looks.
ReplyDeleteWould you ban a 7mm Remington magnum?
ps - I prefer tigerstripe ala CIA-Vietnam.
ReplyDelete*I* would not suggest any firearm to ban. I am not a firearm expert, a doctor or a law enforcement official. I trust my Democratic lawmakers, in consultation with experts, to make those decisions. We DID have an assault rifle ban and I think (as does President Joe Biden) that it should be reinstated. Because it was effective in reducing gun violence.
ReplyDelete"A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period..."
lol! Assault rifles should be banned based on their scary ability to mow people down
ReplyDeleteNothing mows them down from long range better than a 7mm mag. An AK-47 or AR-15 wouldn't be able to shoot back.
Your Dem friends/ experts ban guns based upon scary looks.
:P
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDelete:P
ReplyDeleteMass shootings all occur from long range? Who knew?
ReplyDelete"Thoughts and prayers" has not worked so far. Pray harder? Is that your "solution". Or is it to just give up because there is nothing we can do?
"Your Dem friends/experts ban guns based upon scary looks"... No. The reason is as I previously stated.
\\Blogger Dervish Sanders said...
ReplyDelete*I* would not suggest any firearm to ban.
Why not? ;-P
There was positive examples -- samurais of Japan -- where ALL and any arms was outlawed. Except for...
\\I trust my Democratic lawmakers
Yap... that's why you are mere i.v. :-))))
Mass shootings all occur from long range? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteLas Vegas baby.
All those AR-10's were .308 calibre. Wanna know what else can be packaged as an AR-10? The 7mm Magnum.
ReplyDeleteIt's SUCH a scary package.
Qtard: "I trust my Democratic lawmakers". Yap... that's why you are mere i.v.
ReplyDeleteQtard says this because he is an authoritarian who hates democracy. Electing representatives that reflect our views is how democracy works. Qtard says that if you like and trust democracy you are an idiot. Qtard hates democracy. He admires authoritarians like donald tRump.
Minus: Las Vegas baby.
The shooter used an AR-15.
You and your half-thruth's...
ReplyDeleteGuns found inside Mandalay Bay rooms 32-135 and 32-134:
Colt M4 Carbine AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. Front sight only.
Noveske N4 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 40 round magazine. EOTech optic.
LWRC M61C AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
POF USA P-308 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine
Christensen Arms CA-15 AR-15 .223 Wylde with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
POF USA P-15 P AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
Colt Competition AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
Smith & Wesson 342 AirLite .38 caliber revolver with 4 cartridges, 1 expended cartridge case.
LWRC M61C AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
FNH FM15 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
Daniel Defense DD5V1 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
FNH FN15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
POF USA P15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
Colt M4 Carbine AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine.
Daniel Defense M4A1 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
LMT Def. 2000 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
Daniel Defense DDM4V11 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip. No magazine. EOTech optic.
Sig Sauer SIG716 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, red dot optic and 25 round magazine.
Daniel Defense DD5V1 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod and scope. No magazine.
FNH FN15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
Ruger American .308 caliber bolt action rifle with scope.
LMT LM308MWS AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod and red dot scope. No magazine.
Ruger SR0762 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
LMT LM308MWS AR-10 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
\\Qtard says this because he is an authoritarian who hates democracy.
ReplyDeleteAnd you able to build a chain of logical inference to demonstrate how it is?
Naah... cause you are Derpy, the i.v. :-)))))))))))))
\\Electing representatives that reflect our views is how democracy works.
And Trump? ;-P
\\Qtard says that if you like and trust democracy you are an idiot.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And you tryed to pretend for so long that you dunno what "i.v." mean.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Just to show here -- that that is what you are
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Priceless! no, I canno laugh more. Cough-cough.
But wait... maybe that is cunning and smartaCe strategy to win in our mental battle -- to make me die from laughing? (cold shiver down my spine... Naaah ;-P
\\Qtard hates democracy.
Yawn. Factless.
\\He admires authoritarians like donald tRump.
Yawn. Baseless.
As always. Yawn. ;-P
\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...
ReplyDelete\\You and your half-thruth's...
And when you'd understand... that that is not because of ill intentions.
Just because of span of attention, and amount of brain... of a subject. ;-P
Guns found aren't guns used.
ReplyDeleteThat Qtard despises democracy is a proven fact. Proven by his own words. Remember he advocated for "right of revolution". i.e. the overthrow of our democratically elected government. i.v. Qtard does not know what the meaning of "baseless" is.
"Electing representatives that reflect our views is how democracy works". And Trump?
ReplyDeleteHe lost the 2020 election due to the horrible job he did as president. The voters turned out in record numbers to get rid of him.
\\That Qtard despises democracy is a proven fact. Proven by his own words.
ReplyDeleteAnd you ABLE to cite em? :-)))))
Naah.
'Cause... you are i.v. ;-P
\\Remember he advocated for "right of revolution". i.e. the overthrow of our democratically elected government.
And NOW, YOU yourself... CONFIRMED your totalitarian alignment.
'Cause, that is only totalitarian leaders and their minions/pawns/slaves -- state it like that -- that it is "unlawful"... to overthrow "our democratic government".
That is exactly what was saying: liliPut, liliXi and liliUn... and many-many other authocrates and totalitarian.
And today... they are trying to orgaize their own "League of UNjustice".
And waiting only for help from such willfully ignorant useful i.v.s... from USA. (because ALL other countries already have enough number of em, ready to become 5th column)
\\Qtard does not know what the meaning of "baseless" is.
:-))))))))))))))))
Even... if that'll be true, or have had any substance behind...
BASELESS | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › baseless
baseless definition: 1. not based on facts: 2. not based on facts: 3. without supporting facts: . Learn more.
Baseless definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
www.collinsdictionary.com › dictionary › basel...
If you describe an accusation, rumour, or report as baseless, you mean that it is not true and is not based on facts. The charges against her are baseless. ...
Baseless - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com
www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › baseless
If something's baseless, it can't be proven or justified. A baseless accusation of cheating, for example, has no facts or evidence to back it up.
AND.
93 Synonyms & Antonyms of BASELESS - Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com › thesaurus › baseless
Synonyms for BASELESS: unreasonable, unfounded, groundless, unsubstantiated, unwarranted, irrational, unsupported, false
ALSO.
fallacious
meaningless
nonvalid
weak
inconsistent
unconscionable
specious
wrong
implausible
untenable
misled
unsound
unconvincing
stupid
flimsy
gratuitous
uncalled-for
asinine
nonsensical
foolish
silly
nonlogical
fatuous
preposterous
insane
unwise
ill-advised
lunatic
simpleminded
mad
brainless
senseless
nutty
harebrained
whacky
wacky
crazy
crackpot
half-witted
PS Thank you Derpy for your suggestion. That opened for me Whole World of English synonims... to describe your circumstances. ;-P
PPS \\And Trump?
\\He lost the 2020 election due to the horrible job he did as president. The voters turned out in record numbers to get rid of him.
Yep.
That's what your Demn-Propaganda teaches you to say. ;-P
Eve though that is UNlawful, UNdemocratic, UNtolerant...
AND
UNrespectful toward your fellow peers Americans.
As well as any other and all of the law-abiding and democraticly-aligned, respecting-human-rights people of the whole World.
Means. In addition to being i.v., you a totalitarian scoundrel too. Well, unsurprisingly.
The United States is a democracy. Joe Biden was democratically elected. Qtard thinks placing quotes around "democratic government" and dropping names of totalitarian leaders is proof otherwise because Qtard is i.v.
ReplyDeleteQtard has never offered any evidence that Joe Biden is not the legitimate democratically elected president. J6 insurrectionists have "right of revolution" just because they did not like the election results. As per the democracy-hating Qtard.
If Joe Biden being the democratically elected president is "Demn-Propaganda", what is your PROOF, Qtard??? You keep derping about "Demn-Propaganda" yet have never offered any evidence to refute "Demn-Propaganda".
"A baseless accusation of cheating, for example, has no facts or evidence to back it up"... This describes tRump's accusation that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Baseless. Not "Demn propaganda".
Half-truth Dervy...
ReplyDeletePaddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles, and the round used to kill himself from the Smith & Wesson revolver.[28]
During the subsequent investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined that the firearms found in his hotel room, along with more guns found in his homes, had been legally purchased in Nevada, California, Texas, and Utah.[86] In the month preceding the shooting, he had attempted to purchase tracer ammunition, but the gun dealer he approached did not have the item in stock.[87] He bought tracer ammunition from a private seller at a Phoenix, Arizona gun show.[88] In addition, ammonium nitrate (often used in improvised explosive devices) was found in the trunk of his Hyundai Tucson SUV, along with 1,600 rounds of ammunition and 50 pounds (23 kg) of Tannerite, a binary explosive used to make explosive targets for gun ranges.[89][90] Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said that while Paddock had "nefarious intent" with the material, he did not appear to have assembled an explosive device.[87][91]
After Paddock used a hammer to break two of the windows in both of his suites,[9] he began shooting through them at 10:05 p.m.[27] He ultimately fired over 1,000 rifle rounds[28] approximately 490 yards (450 m) into the festival audience.[29][30][e] He initially started out with a few single gunshots before firing in bursts that usually ranged from 80 rounds to 100 rounds.[9][28] Many people in the crowd initially mistook the gunfire for fireworks.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to shooting at the concertgoers, Paddock fired eight bullets at a large jet fuel tank at McCarran International Airport (since renamed Harry Reid International Airport) 2,000 feet (600 m) away.
As of October 2020, there were 60 deaths, not including that of Paddock. The immediate dead comprised 58 victims—36 women and 22 men—all of whom died from gunshot wounds.
Approximately 867 people were injured, at least 413 of them with gunshot wounds or shrapnel injuries.
Energy of an AR-15 .223 bullet at 500 yards = 207 ft-lbs
Energy of an AR-10 .308 bullet at 500 yards - 1,089 ft-lbs
Had he not been such a pussy and used the AR-10's more, the causualties would have been incredibly worse.
He shot at the Jet fuel tanks with the AR-10. It didn't blow up (w/o the Tannerite).
ReplyDeleteHe probably couldn't handle the gun's "kick". Good thing.
ReplyDeleteFamily of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians. "Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47", the Stoner family [said]. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events".
ReplyDeleteBAN BOTH.
\\Anonymous Dervish Sanders said...
ReplyDeleteThe United States is a democracy.
Because there is Democratic Party of Democrats? ;-P
They called that way -- the MUST be mean that they are democratic? :-)))
\\Qtard thinks placing quotes around "democratic government" and dropping names of totalitarian leaders is proof otherwise because Qtard is i.v.
No.
That is what that "names of totalitarian leaders" like to boast about.
Like calling their totalitarian state "most democratic", or "very specially democratic".
And same time point their fingers in direction of USA smearing it as "undemocratic".
And you... sound very in unisone with them.
Like when you trying to deny people their right to revolt. ;-P
\\Qtard has never offered any evidence that Joe Biden is not the legitimate democratically elected president.
And why I should??? :-))))
I never doubted that. That he is legitimate. Well, as far as USAians themself do not doubt it. As that is not of my business. And not my problem. To assess him as ligitimate or not.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
\\J6 insurrectionists have "right of revolution"
Revolution they call it... ONLY when it succeed. ;-P
You'd knoe that, if you'd learn Hsitory. And would not such an i.v.
\\If Joe Biden being the democratically elected president is "Demn-Propaganda", what is your PROOF, Qtard???
Easy-peasy. That was NOT what I commented. ;-P
Reminding you.
Here is PRECISE citation.
\\\\He lost the 2020 election due to the horrible job he did as president. The voters turned out in record numbers to get rid of him.
As it easy to see... there was NOTHING about Biden there.
ONLY about dRump.
And "horrible job he did as president" -- that is excerpt of Demn-Propaganda EXACTLY.
AS that is NOT YOU are one who voted for him -- that is NOT up to you to decide -- was he excellent or horrible.
But that, that you trying to judge him...
well, whatever. Not my problem.
\\This describes tRump's accusation that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Baseless. Not "Demn propaganda".
Well... that is his "feeling of facts". ;-P
And. You. Your Demn-Propaganda keep using it AGAINST him.
Same as he used that "basket of deplorables". Against Demns. ;-P
And I. As uninvolved foreigner. Think that there is something FAIR, in how it balanced...
\\BAN BOTH.
Then ban all Colts and Smith&Wessons -- cause they ALSO can kill people.
Then ban all mushkets and other historical rifles -- cause they ALSO can kill people.
Then ban all things with sharp blades and pointy tips -- cause that is what people was killing people in all times before powder.
Then go ban pebbles and sticks... ;-P
Stoner's AR-15 was designed to be LIGHT-WEIGHT. The "AR" in AR-15 is for "Arma-Lite Rifle." Lite. It's a bunch of plastic wrapped around the working parts that lighter than wood. THAT is what an "AR-xx" means.
ReplyDeleteThe Left's war against "Assault Rifles" is a war against plastic materials used in guns.
ReplyDeleteQtard: Like when you trying to deny people their right to revolt.
ReplyDeleteI *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution. That right does not exist in a democracy. The US had just held a democratic election. Joe Biden was legitimately elected president. A FACT you do not dispute.
If the election had been stolen that would be a basis on which to claim the right of revolution. But that did not happen. Joe Biden is the legitimate president. His election represents the Will of The People. This is democracy. I support it, Qtard hates it. PROVEN FACT. Proven by your baseless assertion that people have the right of revolution in a democracy.
Qtard: Easy-peasy. That was NOT what I commented.
PROOF you are a qtarded i.v. I assumed you were asserting Joe Biden was illegitimately elected. Because that is the ONLY way citizens would have any basis to claim the right of revolution. But Qtard says J6 insurrectionists have the right of revolution JUST BECAUSE they were angry that their candidate lost. Qtard (with this assertion) SPITS on democracy.
Qtard: ...that is his "feeling of facts". And. You. Your Demn-Propaganda keep using it AGAINST him.
"Feeling of facts" counts for NOTHING. Only actual facts count. PROOF that Qtard hates facts. Don't try to tell me again that the reverse is true. You have PROVEN that YOU hate facts. Unequivocally and indisputably.
Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign. Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: "Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one". This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President Donald Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome. (Reuters 2/15/2021).
Then ban all Colts and Smith&Wessons -- cause they ALSO can kill people. Then ban all mushkets and other historical rifles -- cause they ALSO can kill people. Then ban all things with sharp blades and pointy tips -- cause that is what people was killing people in all times before powder. Then go ban pebbles and sticks... ;-P
i.v. comment. According to Qtard's stupidity, NO weapon can be banned. Yet there ARE banned weapons. Weapons ordinary citizens can not legally own.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"... JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA.
Minus: Stoner's AR-15 was designed to be LIGHT-WEIGHT. The "AR" in AR-15 is for "Arma-Lite Rifle".
Yes. So what?
Minus: The Left's war against "Assault Rifles" is a war against plastic materials used in guns.
It isn't. The Left opposes gun violence. As do the majority of republican voters. Why do you keep posting such absurd comments? Comments about banning clothing and banning guns due to plastic content. So DUMB.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
ReplyDeleteThe Left's war against "Assault Rifles" is a war against plastic materials used in guns.
New Green tech. :-))))))
\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution.
Well.
You did it.
And proudly.
Admitted that you yourself.
Are totalitarian who deny people their human rights. ;-P
Then.
\\That right does not exist in a democracy.
So??? Your USA is non- or even anti-democratic from its roots???
HOW DARE you to revolt against Holy Rule of Monarch. :-)))))))))))))))
\\If the election had been stolen that would be a basis on which to claim the right of revolution.
Naah.
There is no such thing as "the right of revolution".
Or... you can try to be original. Even if this one time.
And BASE your claims on something. ;-P
Article 11: Any act directed against a person, apart from the cases and without the forms determined by law, is arbitrary and tyrannical; if attempt is made to execute such act by force, the person who is the object thereof has the right to resist it by force.
\\PROOF you are a qtarded i.v. I assumed you were asserting Joe Biden was illegitimately elected.
Yeah. You are right. You apparently behave as that i.v.
Who cannot help it to "assume" instead of opponent -- what he didn't mean. Or even NEVER have said.
\\Because that is the ONLY way citizens would have any basis to claim the right of revolution. But Qtard says J6 insurrectionists have the right of revolution JUST BECAUSE they were angry that their candidate lost.
Right of Revolution | Encyclopedia.com
www.encyclopedia.com › politics › right-revol...
RIGHT OF REVOLUTIONThe right of revolution is not a right that is defined and protected by the Constitution but a natural right.
Natural right -- that's exactly "just because". ;-P
The same as right of TGs to claim being women... while still having dicks. :-))))))
\\Qtard (with this assertion) SPITS on democracy.
Yep. I spit at that self-proclaimed demonrats... who think that they can redefine what words (like democracy) mean. ;-P
\\"Feeling of facts" counts for NOTHING. Only actual facts count.
Ha... but that is YOU are one... who keep claiming that it have some intimate feeling toward facts. Like believeing in em. Like liking or disliking. And on that base declaring that some non-facts EXIST. :-))))))))))))))
\\Don't try to tell me again that the reverse is true.
Even if that'll be actual fact? :-))))))))))))
Boy, you arew no end of fun. :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign.
So what??? I do not dispute this obvious fact. :-)))))))))))
I understand -- it would be easy for you, if I would.
That's why you keep strawmaning into me that I claim what I never claimed.
But... that would be AGAINST open obvious and self-evidant facts... cannot help it -- but *I* CQNNOT do that. ;-P
'Cause... I do not "believe" in something that do not need to be believed.
\\i.v. comment. According to Qtard's stupidity, NO weapon can be banned. Yet there ARE banned weapons. Weapons ordinary citizens can not legally own.
No.
Just that there CANNOT be "rational" reason for such ban. ;-P
Based on "because people was/can/will be killed" first of all.
Qtard: Well. You did it. And proudly. Admitted that you yourself. Are totalitarian who deny people their human rights.
ReplyDeleteThat is YOUR proud admission. YOU are a totalitarian who wants to deny people their human right to elect the leaders of their choice in free and fair democratic elections.
Qtard: HOW DARE you to revolt against Holy Rule of Monarch.
The US isn't a monarchy with a ruler power due to birthright or by imaginary decree of God. The United States is a democracy. Any "revolt" by losers is a denial of the RIGHT of the citizens to elect the leader of their choice. Qtard supports this type of revolt because he hates democracy. PROVEN by his own words.
Qtard: Yep. I spit at that self-proclaimed demonrats... who think that they can redefine what words (like democracy) mean.
There are no "self-proclaimed demonrats". And Democrats are sticking with actual definition of democracy. People vote to select their leaders. YOU are the one who rejects democracy.
Qtard: YOU are one... who keep claiming that it have some intimate feeling toward facts.
Impossible. I can't "keep claiming" something I have never claimed. Also, I am not an "it".
Qtard: So what??? I do not dispute this obvious fact.
So tRump lost. "Right of revolution" that enables losers to retain power is the position of those who hate democracy.
Qtard: "there ARE banned weapons"... No. ...there CANNOT be "rational" reason for such ban.
Yes. And there is. There ARE banned weapons. The reasons are completely rational. To save lives. Or to save ALL lives. In the case of nuclear weapons. Which is a banned weapon. An ordinary citizen cannot own a nuclear weapon. Yet Qtard claims this ban CANNOT be rational. Proof beyond a doubt that he is an i.v.
\\Blogger Dervish Sanders said...
ReplyDeleteQtard: Well. You did it. And proudly. Admitted that you yourself. Are totalitarian who deny people their human rights.
\\That is YOUR proud admission. YOU are a totalitarian who wants to deny people their human right to elect the leaders of their choice in free and fair democratic elections.
And you can prove it with PRECISE quotes? Naah. ;-P
You only can pile up strawmaning onto baseless assusations onto your i.v.'s primal screaming. :-))))))))))
\\Qtard supports this type of revolt because he hates democracy. PROVEN by his own words.
That was SARCASM, dumb ass. ;-P
Pointing to an obvious fact -- that when you revolted against Brithish Crown... you, hypocriticly, have had totally opposite ideas about "right of revolution".
Or... you was truthful that time. And a-morally hypocritical -- now? ;-)
\\Qtard: Yep. I spit at that self-proclaimed demonrats... who think that they can redefine what words (like democracy) mean.
\\There are no "self-proclaimed demonrats". And Democrats are sticking with actual definition of democracy.
Aha... each time actual, each time ad hok, each time when Demonrat wants "true" definition backing his split-tongue words. ;-P
\\People vote to select their leaders. YOU are the one who rejects democracy.
Yep-yep-yep. While that "their leader" is Biden. Or Killary.
But no-no-no-never such a scumbags like dRump. ;-P
\\Qtard: YOU are one... who keep claiming that it have some intimate feeling toward facts.
\\Impossible. I can't "keep claiming" something I have never claimed. Also, I am not an "it".
Can I conclude here -- that you dismiss your earlier moronic claim -- that you "believe in facts"? ;-P
And you are "it" to me -- because you visibly lacking agency to be seen as conscious human. ;-P
\\The reasons are completely rational. To save lives.
Why you not banned ALL weapon?
Cause you know -- weapon is a tool, to take lives.
Wouldn't it be "reasonable" and "rational" to eradicate ALL WEAPON? ;-P
\\Yet Qtard claims this ban CANNOT be rational. Proof beyond a doubt that he is an i.v.
I showed my logical and simple inference -- just above. ;-P
You -- never able to base your claims on anything... that is reasonable and factual.
That's why you screaming so much. Because it's ONLY way you can "prove" your words -- scream more slogans of your Demn-Propaganda into faces of innocent people. :-)))))))))))))))
Cause you are mere i.v. On a Demn-Propaganda spreading spree. :-))))))))))))))
Qtard: And you can prove it with PRECISE quotes? Naah.
ReplyDeleteYES. I have. Multiple times already. When Qtard wrote, "Like when you trying to deny people their right to revolt", he says this in reference to an attempted revolt to overthrow a Democratically elected president. Qtard makes his hatred for democracy crystal clear with this statement. Still he denies it. And absurdly attempts to claim he supports democracy. Or that I am a totalitarian for supporting democracy. Because Qtard is a FM.
Qtard: You only can pile up strawmaning onto baseless assusations onto your i.v.'s primal screaming.
Presenting facts that prove you are a FM isn't "strawmaning". Your own words proving how much you despise democracy aren't "baseless accusations". But you can (and surely WILL) continue your derping. Repeating your lies and baseless accusations over and over because you are convinced that makes them true. Because you are an FM.
Qtard: Can I conclude here -- that you dismiss your earlier moronic claim -- that you "believe in facts"?
No. I made no such "moronic claim" to dismiss.
Qtard: Why you not banned ALL weapon? Cause you know -- weapon is a tool, to take lives. Wouldn't it be "reasonable" and "rational" to eradicate ALL WEAPON?
I have no power to ban any weapon. And I noticed that you ignored my comment about nuclear weapons. Because Qtard knows it is proof that some weapons SHOULD and MUST be banned. Instead the FM Qtard talks about "eradicating all weapons". "Proof" (the FM Qtard believes) that no weapons should be banned.
Qtard: That's why you screaming so much. Because it's ONLY way you can "prove" your words -- scream more slogans of your Demn-Propaganda into faces of innocent people.
That is the ONLY way Qtard can "prove" his words. Scream "Demn-Propaganda". Qtard mistakes laughs at his stupidity for screaming in frustration at his (imagined) brilliance. Because he suffers from narcissistic delusions of grandeur. My layman's diagnosis. I'm not claiming to be a psychiatrist.
Get your bump stocks. Turn EVERY semi-auto into a machine gune. :)
ReplyDeleteps - Get one for all your pistols, too! :)
ReplyDeleteSo, go ahead and ban "assault rifles". Pistols are MUCH easier to conceal.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you love gun violence so much? Do you cheer when you turn on the news and hear of another mass shooting. Or are you usually disappointed that more are not killed. That might explain why you are such a big fan of the Las Vegas shooter.
ReplyDeleteYour link: Donald Trump, signed a memorandum asking the Attorney General to essentially ban anything that takes legal guns into illegal territory, i.e., machine guns.
The result of that action was the clarification of the term “machine guns.” Now, that “includes all bump-stock-type devices that harness recoil energy to facilitate the continuous operation of a semiautomatic long gun after a single pull of the trigger.”
Currently, bump stocks are not illegal in any state since the ruling came down from the appellate court.
Gun violence is not the problem. It's merely a symptom of it. And if gun violence is not getting better, that should tell you something as to the nature of the untreated underlying problem (which is also getting worse).
ReplyDeleteThe economy grows increasingly fragile... and Biden & co. are running out of band-aids.
ReplyDelete\\Qtard: And you can prove it with PRECISE quotes? Naah.
ReplyDelete\\YES. I have. Multiple times already.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well, from person that claimed "I believe in facts"... that is NATURAL thing to say. :-)))))))
Yawn.
\\Qtard makes his hatred for democracy crystal clear with this statement. Still he denies it. And absurdly attempts to claim he supports democracy.
I.
Just 100% support this Joe's claim:
"Gun violence is not the problem. It's merely a symptom of it. And if gun violence is not getting better, that should tell you something as to the nature of the untreated underlying problem (which is also getting worse)."
As he is NOT i.v.
Means. He understand that such questions (about democracy... or gun laws) are NOT that simple.
Like "snake oil merchants"-politicians trying to present to their voters.
Which is... hypocrisy. For the very least -- as they PRETEND that they KNOW easy ways to solve complex problems.
Or... that is manipulation.
Or, that is an open lie.
\\Presenting facts that prove you are a FM isn't "strawmaning".
Your non-facts. ;-P
Here. Facts could ONLY be -- precise citations of my words here.
Double-Checking by the list of definition of what FACT is:
open -- yes, that would be open -- as this is public blog and anybody could come and see your comments and mine, and that that quotes ARE CORRECT.
obvious -- yes, it would not need much brains to confirm that that quotes are correct. Basicly with Ctrl-F tool of browser.
self-evidant -- yes, written words are written words -- are evidance by itself.
ref to Reality -- yes, this blog is part of Reality. As is you and me, and this blog author Joe.
Therefore... that would be FACTS (if you'd learned to do that correctly -- means, not inventing what I said, not giving imprecise what you think I said -- ONLY Ctrl-V Ctrl-C PRECISE CITATIONS... with enough context)
But well... to PROVE that that words... even if PRECISELY CORRLECTLY quoted (which is still hard for such an i.v. to acompliush).
There need to be LOGIC. Logical structures to reveal meaning behind that words.
That... that is seems like thousand years too damn early for you... to acomplish. ;-P
\\Or are you usually disappointed that more are not killed.
ReplyDeleteBecause that could sway Nation to devise something REAL DEAL solution.
Instead of "snake oil merchants"-politicians ideias that it can be patched up with "stricter gun laws" or ignored at all.
Am I right?
\\Because he suffers from narcissistic delusions of grandeur. My layman's diagnosis. I'm not claiming to be a psychiatrist.
Ha-ha-ha.
Open book, as I have said.
I started placing that boasting in my texts deliberately (that is factual, and easy to track, I start doing it only lately).
And you gobled-in that hook. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You are... such a simpleton, Derpy.
True i.v. ;-P
\\Qtard: Can I conclude here -- that you dismiss your earlier moronic claim -- that you "believe in facts"?
\\No. I made no such "moronic claim" to dismiss.
Ha-ha.
Clever trick. NOT. :-)))))
You just making use of that fact that that is not THIS thread you made that claim.
But here
Yap. I admit it. I believe in facts. Unlike Qtard.
Remember now? ;-P
So, are you ready to dismiss it for good? Or maybe you are ready to admit being lyar? :-))))))))))))))))))))
"Lyar-lyar pants on fire." ;-P
I guess no. You'll continue to show yourself i.v. Cause you are one.
Qtard: He understand that such questions (about democracy... or gun laws) are NOT that simple.
ReplyDeleteOther countries have dealt with gun violence by passing stricter gun control laws. Because they identify that the "underlying problem" is too many guns. And easy access to guns. These other countries took action after mass shootings. And REDUCED gun violence. Not hard to understand. Unless you are in denial. Or an FM :(
Qtard: He understand that such questions (about democracy... or gun laws) are NOT that simple.
Does he? Do you? Minus cited an "underlying problem" and claimed that problem is "getting worse". Yet he never identified the "underlying problem". Maybe he was talking about White Supremacy? Though he'd frame it as White Men being "under attack" (his imaginary "cultural genocide"). That is definitely a big part of the problem in the US. So, if that is the problem Minus was talking about, I agree.
Qtard: Instead of "snake oil merchants"-politicians ideias that it can be patched up with "stricter gun laws" or ignored at all. Am I right?
No. You are incredibly wrong.
Qtard: means, not inventing what I said, not giving imprecise what you think I said -- ONLY Ctrl-V Ctrl-C PRECISE CITATIONS...
Citations of WHAT? In any case, your "inventing" or "imprecise" claims are bullshit. "imprecise" your BS way to dismiss "precise citations". Just call them "imprecise".
Qtard: I started placing that boasting in my texts deliberately (that is factual, and easy to track, I start doing it only lately).
"Deliberately". Right. Just like you misspell words "deliberately".
Qtard: Remember now?
No. I made no such "moronic claim" to dismiss. Therefore it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to "remember now". Or ever. I wrote what you quote, but it is not moronic. Only an FM like Qtard would say believing facts is "moronic".
\\Qtard: Remember now?
ReplyDelete\\No. I made no such "moronic claim" to dismiss.
And that is YOUR reaction to PRECISE and DIRECT quote of your words.
Well... what can I say -- only that YOUR words are NOT facts. By your own admittion. :-))))))))))))
Suiting of an i.v. ;-P
\\Only an FM like Qtard would say believing facts is "moronic".
O.K. dokey.
There is a fact -- Sun rised in the morning. Feel yourself free to deminstrate -- HOW this fact would change from you believeing ot not believing in it. ;-P
That's it -- it will NOT.
Therefore, claims like "I believe in facts" -- moronic. ;-P
Well, and twice as that -- as you JUST NOW, because of your incredulos claim "I *believe* in facts" disissed the FACT that you YOURSELF produced -- your OWN words.
THAT IS, how much you "believe" in em.
And clearly shows that that "believing" mean -- you moronic idea that you can dismiss ANY fact ANY time. ;-P
\\"Deliberately". Right. Just like you misspell words "deliberately".
Hmmm... and what is correct way? ;-P
About which do not know neither Google nor lots of dictionries it give direct access too?
Well, maybe that "experts in English" know??? :-))))))))))
\\Citations of WHAT? In any case, your "inventing" or "imprecise" claims are bullshit. "imprecise" your BS way to dismiss "precise citations". Just call them "imprecise".
You start writing gibberish nonsense.
Well, suiting such an i.v. Yawn.
\\Qtard: Instead of "snake oil merchants"-politicians ideias that it can be patched up with "stricter gun laws" or ignored at all. Am I right?
\\No. You are incredibly wrong.
Well.
If you think I am wrong. And "incredibly" to boot.
It should not be a big problem to show here -- what is right.
Isn't it? ;-)
Because -- direct OPPOSITE to a False is... True. Isn't it?
But... naah. That is just a primal scream and ZERO understanding behind it. :-))))))))))))))
\\Minus cited an "underlying problem" and claimed that problem is "getting worse". Yet he never identified the "underlying problem".
Well.
Try to ask him: "Elaborate, please?"
Instead of throwing tantrums and accustaions. Screaming "you are wrong!!! wrong-wrong-wrong"... dRump-style. ;-P
Well, that is what non-idiots do. When talking, discussing things with other non-idiotes.
But well... you know... :-)))))))))))
\\Other countries have dealt with gun violence by passing stricter gun control laws.
Other countries HAVE NO such problem with gun violence in the first place.
Because they:
1. Undemocratic
2. Have no such historical freedoms of wealding weapoin.
ReplyDeleteQtard: Other countries HAVE NO such problem with gun violence in the first place. Because they: 1. Undemocratic
False.
That was two SEPARATE points.
ReplyDeleteTwo separate cases.
Like undemocratic countries... state services use weapon as they like, and nobody can stop em anyway.
So, it's not called "gun violence" there, per se.
Other, allegedly democratic countries -- do not have such a consumerist approach troward gun wealding, as USA.
If you know any other such country -- point to it.
Even if they have weapon at home (like in Swirtzerland).
They ALREADY have no such laws and/or traditons, that would allow "gun violence" USA-style. ;-P
So.
That is YOUR OWN problem.
Yes, gun violence is a USA problem. My point. You obviously like it. To you (and your ilk) gun violence equals freedom. You (if you are a foreigner as you say) must be jealous.
ReplyDeleteDervish is the epitome of the American "gun problem". Like many neoliberals, he wants to ban something he's never used.
ReplyDeleteHow can someone who is for solving a problem be the epitome of that problem? BTW, many people shot and killed by guns have also never used them? Are they also the epitome of America's gun problem? As opposed to the shooters and their enablers (pro-gun-murder advocates like Minus).
ReplyDeleteWhat an absurd comment. Apparently he is also suggesting I am a neo liberal. Which I have told him many times I am not.
\\Yes, gun violence is a USA problem. My point. You obviously like it. To you (and your ilk) gun violence equals freedom. You (if you are a foreigner as you say) must be jealous.
ReplyDeleteWAT??? :-)))))))))))
Well. Whatever.
\\How can someone who is for solving a problem be the epitome of that problem?
Well.
You DEMNstrated exactly such type of logic just above.
Quote my words where you think I did this. Also explain how.
ReplyDelete\\Quote my words where you think I did this.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard for you to track your own words even???
Try Ctrl-F. ;-P
Well, seriouasly...
\\\\Yes, gun violence is a USA problem. My point.
Just like Propaganda doing it -- pointing to some obvious facts.
Like here you did.
\\You obviously like it.
Then... intermixing it with some baseless, emotional, personalised shit.
Like "that is JEWS to blame" in case of Hitler.
\\ To you (and your ilk) gun violence equals freedom. You (if you are a foreigner as you say) must be jealous.
Then... spice it up with some pseudo-logical non sequtur.
And Viola! Fresh and smelly propaganda bullet made. ;-P
Joe/FJ just ommited first point -- ref to a fact -- as it already stated.
And then added last two.
\\Dervish is the epitome of the American "gun problem".
Personal insult.
\\Like many neoliberals, he wants to ban something he's never used.
Bogus "rationalisation".
So???
How do yopu like it -- YOUR WEAPON directed at you? ;-P
No answer. Predictable.
ReplyDeleteEaten out by spam-robot. Go ask Joe to disclose. ;-P
ReplyDeleteBut you will not. Self-proclaimed "victory" is much better fer ya.
That's why you run away from discussion in previous topics/posts. :-)))))))))))))))
No. I simply move on when the discussion gets old. Qtard loves debating me so much he wants all our discussions to be never-ending? I should spend hours a day composing replies to Qtard's unending idiocy? That isn't going to happen.
ReplyDelete:-))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteDodge, dodge, dodge... your r Dodgy Derpy, from now on. ;-P
Qtard moronically claimed I represent the epitome of the US gun violence problem. Then, when called out on his BS, he claims he explained his reasoning in an (imaginary) comment that was (he claims) sent to spam. Right. Yet another lame Qtard dodge.
ReplyDelete\\Qtard moronically claimed I represent the epitome of the US gun violence problem.
ReplyDeleteWAT????
Go to a doctor.
For a medicines. To fix your problems with attantion and cognitive ones.
Or... go use Ctrl-F to find the correct quote. ;-P
Another Qtard dodge -- deny you said it.
ReplyDeleteNow YOU try to make me prove unexistance.
ReplyDeleteWhile that is logically impossible.
Well, yeah. O.K.
I'll admit it.
You are tricky dodger. ;-P
But well... if you'd Ctrl-F it. To refresh your mind -- you'd found that that is OTHER opponent who was saying something about it. Not me. ;-P
Re Qtard's comment "Go to a doctor. For a medicines. To fix your problems with attantion and cognitive ones". This was regarding my comment, "Qtard moronically claimed I represent the epitome of the US gun violence problem".
ReplyDeleteQtard denies his comment? It is right above, Qtard.
Minus FJ wrote, "Dervish is the epitome of the American gun problem. Like many neoliberals, he wants to ban something he's never used".
I responded, writing, "How can someone who is for solving a problem be the epitome of that problem?".
Next, Qtard burged into the conversation, saying, "Well. You DEMNstrated exactly such type of logic just above". IN AGREEMENT with Minus. Minus wrote the original comment, but you agreed with it, dipshit, so wtf gives with your denial?
Not knowing wtf Qtard was yakking about (that I demonstrated that type of logic), I asked him to explain. Qtard ran away. When I asked again, Qtard says he authored a comment but it was sent to Spam. Now, if this was true, Qtard could write it again. I assume it wasn't a long comment. But Qtard refused.
Which lead me (logically) to conclude that Qtard's "Spam" excuse was a dodge. But I gave him a second chance. Again he says it was sent to spam. Maybe. I doubt it.
You don't remember what you wrote, Qtard? You can't summarize it? I don't think Minus saw your comment in spam and decided not to restore it (if it was actually sent there). More proof Qtard lied.
I never asked Qtard to "prove unexistance". I asked him wtf his comment was. The one he SAYS was sent to spam. He refuses because he never wrote the comment in question. If he did, he could just tell me what it was. This is NOT "logically impossible".
\\Qtard denies his comment? It is right above, Qtard.
ReplyDeleteAnd WHAT are you trying to PROVE with it???
That I was relentlessly opposing to your strawmaning of my non-existant claims??? :-))))))))))
Yeah. I am. And why I should not? \If it SO obvious and blatantly UNTRUE???
Maybe. Because you are totalitarian wannabe -- you just want that power of totalitarians -- when they force people to repeat some false claims, while proclaiming that they doing it out of their own free will.
Like people in GULAG or chinese "re-education camps" need to.
Yes, Derpy? Am I correct with understanding of your DEEDS, your behavior here. ;-P
\\Next, Qtard burged into the conversation, saying, "Well. You DEMNstrated exactly such type of logic just above". IN AGREEMENT with Minus. Minus wrote the original comment, but you agreed with it, dipshit, so wtf gives with your denial?
NO.
I said what I said.
FJ used SAME 3-step Propaganda smearing as you are.
Here.
1st STEP -- stating obvious fact. For it all to look "rational talk" altogether.
Hitler: We lost WW1. And it sucks!
YOU(and FJ): Gun violence it's a big problem.
2nd STEP -- some emotional claim, to which public would respond.
Hitler: Those nasty Jew. They are not ones opf us. They sabotaged our fight.
YOU: Yes, gun violence is a USA problem. My point. You obviously like it.
FJ:Dervish is the epitome of the American "gun problem".
3rd-STEP -- some bogus "explanation". Which people would not understand being totally unrelated and irrational. Because on previous step they was enraged and lost ability to think rationally.
Hitler: They was scheming behind our back. They conspire. To throw our great nation into demise.
YOU: To you (and your ilk) gun violence equals freedom. You (if you are a foreigner as you say) must be jealous.
May 1, 2023 at 11:45 AM
FJ: Like many neoliberals, he wants to ban something he's never used.
May 1, 2023 at 3:00 PM
See.
SAME method used.
\\When I asked again, Qtard says he authored a comment but it was sent to Spam. Now, if this was true, Qtard could write it again. I assume it wasn't a long comment. But Qtard refused.
ReplyDeleteWell.
I have write it above.
Happy?
I prophess that you will not be. And will only continue to fuss.
Well. Yawn. :-)))))))))))))
\\Which lead me (logically) to conclude that Qtard's "Spam" excuse was a dodge. But I gave him a second chance. Again he says it was sent to spam. Maybe. I doubt it.
Well.
I remeber now.
There was an error during posting.
So text was lost, and I was bored to recreate it.
But you can continue your fuss. :-)))))))))))))
A long rant to say that I, for thinking the US should do something about gun violence, am like Hitler? A conclusion an FM like Qtard would reach.
ReplyDelete"Because you are totalitarian wannabe -- you just want that power of totalitarians -- when they force people to repeat some false claims, while proclaiming that they doing it out of their own free will. Like people in GULAG or chinese re-education camps need to. Yes, Derpy?"
Because you said you wrote a comment and it was sent to spam -- and I asked, "tell me what you wrote"? How f*cking stupid. But then, you are a FM.
\\A long rant to say that I, for thinking the US should do something about gun violence, am like Hitler? A conclusion an FM like Qtard would reach.
ReplyDeleteObviously.
By being religious bonker.
That would be ONLY thing you'd see there. Word "Hitler".
Not even that I placed FJ alongside that "Hitler" word too. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Because you said you wrote a comment and it was sent to spam -- and I asked
INCORRECT CITATION!
Cause... if you'd do a CORRECT one.
Like, full one:
"
And WHAT are you trying to PROVE with it???
That I was relentlessly opposing to your strawmaning of my non-existant claims??? :-))))))))))
Yeah. I am. And why I should not? \If it SO obvious and blatantly UNTRUE???
Maybe. Because you are totalitarian wannabe -- you just want that power of totalitarians -- when they force people to repeat some false claims, while proclaiming that they doing it out of their own free will.
"
It would be apparent -- WHY I said that QUESTION actually "Maybe. Because you are totalitarian wannabe..."
But.
You OMITED that.
You OMITTED even that most important "Maybe".
And why?
Can there be any reason for doing that???
Apart from YET ONE attempt of strawmaning -- making it look that I said something I DIDN'T said.
To accuse me with some BS accusations.
Ahhh, Derpy?
Is there ANY OTHER explanation?
Like that, that you do not know English lang well enough?
Or... you brain just work that errorneously?
Or... just that that your ego of a blatant narcisists, makes you that way? ;-P
Qtard: INCORRECT CITATION!
ReplyDeleteBULLSHIT! You wrote "Eaten out by spam-robot. Go ask Joe to disclose".
Why would you deny writing this? What is the point? Must be just because you are a FM. I can't come up with any other reason. Are you mentally ill?
Re, "You OMITTED even that most important Maybe"... I didn't. You are wrong. Despite your phony outrage. Which I don't even understand. So what if you had said maybe? You didn't, but so the f*ck what if you had (and I just missed it)?
Re, "Is there ANY OTHER explanation"... Yes. The explanation is that you are a FM.
\\Why would you deny writing this? What is the point? Must be just because you are a FM. I can't come up with any other reason. Are you mentally ill?
ReplyDeleteWriting what???
That comment was eaten out by some spam-bot/error during posting.
So you (and I) not able to see it anymore.
So... what do you opposing here? What you throwing tantrums here about?
Are you mentally ill?
You asked about that missing comment. And I reproduced it. But you -- still unhappy. Definitely some problems with a psychic.
\\Re, "You OMITTED even that most important Maybe"... I didn't.
Here is quote of YOUR quote of my words:
"
"Because you are totalitarian wannabe...
May 12, 2023 at 2:24 PM
"
SEE. No "Maybe" in the beginning.
So, I conclude that -- YOU deliberately mangled my words, to look a claim instead of question.
But you denying it. THOUGH it so obvious.
That makes you OBVIOUS liar. ;-P PROVED.
With easy.
\\So what if you had said maybe? You didn't, but so the f*ck what if you had (and I just missed it)?
And. You even know it YOURSELF... that such a obvious LIE would niot help you.
So you tryed to add some "phony outrage" to mud that obviously stupid DIRECT CONTRE-FACTUAL lie. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
Well... at least you just an idiot, but not complete imbecile -- who obviously would not understand how stupid that lie is, and would not try to cover for it.
But still, you are the idiot. Guilty as it is. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Cannot help it, because of your dumb brain, which could not stop you from producing such a stupid lie in the first place. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
YOU LOST IT. Yawn.
Qtard: No "Maybe" in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThere was no "maybe" at the beginning of your original comment. Your comment begins with "because". In any case, your "maybe" makes no difference. You were clearly implying I am a "totalitarian wannabe". You have made the same accusation many times previously. Qtard has lost it. FM thinks I might fall for his JAQ bullshit.
\\There was no "maybe" at the beginning of your original comment.
ReplyDeletePinnocchio Derpy tryed to bore me with his obvious pinnocchio-derping. Yawn.
Well... I will admit it -- that is tactics that can be successful.
There is no fun talking with such an obvious liar.
Who lying even about SO OBVIOUS facts as content of comments... just above.
\\You were clearly implying I am a "totalitarian wannabe".
On the base of your behavior. Yawn.
\\Qtard has lost it. FM thinks I might fall for his JAQ bullshit.
Yeah.
Continue-continue your la-la-landing. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Give even more definite evidances that you are bona fide imbecile. Yawn.
Pinocchio Qtard: \\There was no "maybe" at the beginning of your original comment. Pinnocchio Derpy tryed to bore me with his obvious pinnocchio-derping. Yawn.
ReplyDeleteYou lie.
You wrote, "Maybe. Because you are totalitarian wannabe..."
There is a period in there. That you make such a big deal about your "maybe" is BS anyway. Given that you have made the allegation that I am a totalitarian wannabe many times with no "maybe". Also no question mark. You simply stated your spurious allegation as a fact.
Yet more definitive evidence that Qtard is a are bona fide imbecile.
\\You wrote, "Maybe. Because you are totalitarian wannabe..."
ReplyDelete\\There is a period in there.
Because. If I'd say it with my own voice -- there'd be a pause there -- to emphatise importance of that "Maybe".
\\That you make such a big deal about your "maybe" is BS anyway
Well... you are right... it was incorrect quote of me anyway. Yawn.
\\ Given that you have made the allegation that I am a totalitarian wannabe many times with no "maybe".
Not alegations. Observations.
You BEHAVE in accordance with that definition.
AKA
If it quack like a duck, if it walk like a duck, if it swim like a duck... it is duck. ;-P
\\You simply stated your spurious allegation as a fact.
Well.
There was neither observations of your.
Nor your own explanations given.
Which would disprove that conclusion.
So, yep, this far it can be treated as "observable fact". Yawn.
Like "If you'd watch for what Derpy doing and what he saing on the Internet -- that would be deeds and talks of totalitarian... wannabe". ;-P
\\Yet more definitive evidence that Qtard is a are bona fide imbecile.
Imbeciles cannot produce such a flawlessly logical elaborations and such a complex and to the point observations.
Naturally.
But, they can oppose to a facts and bad-mouth and scream at people...
which gives a good hint -- who really looks like imbecile here. Yawn.
What bad-mouthing? That Qtard hates democracy and is a f*cking moron and an extremely dishonest asshole are simply observable facts.
ReplyDelete\\That Qtard hates democracy and is a f*cking moron and an extremely dishonest asshole are simply observable facts.
ReplyDeletebad-mouth
verb
bad-mouthed; bad-mouthing; bad-mouths
transitive verb
: to criticize severely
Synonyms of bad-mouth
belittle
cry down
decry
denigrate
deprecate
depreciate
derogate
diminish
dis [slang]
diss
discount
dismiss
disparage
kiss off
minimize
play down
poor-mouth
put down
run down
talk down
trash
trash-talk
vilipend
write off
Well... I trying to be polite. And downplaying it.
Because in Reality that is just relentless and hopeless obscene cursing.
Yap. That's exactly. ;-P
ReplyDelete