Yawn. More hate speech from Rick, the one-trick cut-and-paste pony. All gun owners are paranoid psychopaths...yada yada You've shown John Stewart clips, various cartoons, editorials, all the same theme, over and over.And all unsupportable. No thoughts or ideas of your own? Didn't think so.
Wait JM, are you acknowledging that the statements the gun owner in the cartoon is making sound like the rantings of a paranoid psychopath?
"are you acknowledging that the statements the gun owner in the cartoon is making sound like the rantings of a paranoid psychopath?"Save the Socratic method for your hippy drum circle. If you are defending the cartoon, then you are just as guilty as Rick for spreading false and hateful stereotype propaganda about your fellow citizen gun owners. Or you are a useful idiot who has fallen for Rick's propaganda (well not Rick's, he's just a cut-and-paste hack).
JM, if you were such a delicate flower you wouldn't be following Ann Coulter and "Uncle Ted," amongst others.Do us a favor and stop with the faux outrage and whine, already..
"JM, if you were such a delicate flower..."So now your theory is that hate speech is good, so long as the targets have thick skin. Yeah, see, this is the problem when you try to think for yourself...stick to cut-and-paste. Leave the thinking to real journalists and bloggers, Fredo. "Do us a favor and stop with the faux outrage and whine, already."I don't think faux means what you think it means. My comment above was to the fact that you've posted this same theme repeatedly ad neauseum: gun owners are all paranoid psychopaths. As a gun owner, I deny that premise and am offended by that premise, and my position does not and will not soften simply because you repeat the meme over and over.I'm not the only one of your readers who knows you have nothing whatsoever constructive to add to the gun rights debate. By now it's transparent, even to the readers who don't like me. So cut and paste from real thinkers to your heart's content, as you love to point out, it's your blog, Fredo. I'm here, waiting.
Oh my. You mean there's more of you out there who think I have nothing of value to say here? Get at the end of the line, JM. Just make sure you don't drop that load of self importance you picked up at K-Mart the other day. I don't think you're a paranoid psychopath. Just paranoid. See...I just proved you wrong..
Your nonsensical retorts beg the question: why do you allow any comments on posts? You lack the will or ability to back up the substance of your copy-and-paste posts, so you resort to diversion and personal attacks, effectively censoring all dissent.And interestingly, on the only post with an attempt at original thought, your response to Random Pixel's cleaning of your clock, you shut comments off.Do you really even deserve to call yourself a true "blogger" in the liberal spirit of that term? Is it really blogging if you just create an echo chamber for your own observations? Or are you really just an empty keyboard?
Why did I shut comments off? Because it's my blog and I didn't want to wade through the intellectual void that boneheads like you create every time they open a comment box. Like I said, JM, get in line. There's a whole bunch of people ahead of you. If SFDB is so, so very intolerable, don't visit. Your day will be so much more pleasant.And so will mine..
You've got the wrong Jew. I don't run and hide from hatemongering, fascist personality-types, i.e. fauxgressives like you.
Oh, go hug Uncle Ted and give Michelle Malkin a kiss. You'll feel better..
Lol, I'm as far from a hippie as you can find. (And who's stereotyping now?) Since your usual comments are a barrage of interrogation, you wouldn't mind to answer what in the cartoon is "false and hateful stereotype propaganda about your fellow citizen gun owners". If you are so horribly outraged, your beef it's not with Tom Tomorrow or Rick,. You know very well that every one of those statements have been uttered by a gun advocate, the same gun advocates you defend every day and whose paranoid and psychopath positions you spouse. It's them -and you- who make all other gun owners cringe.
He gets upset with what he thinks..
"You know very well that every one of those statements have been uttered by a gun advocate,"I also know very well that a Muslim has shouted "Death to America! Death to the Jews!" and beheaded Americans. Does that make all Muslims terrorists? Would a cartoon portraying Muslims as terrorists be immune from a charge of hate speech because one could show an example of a Muslim terrorist? Here's a Socratic question for you Alex...are you really that ignorant? Oops, I guess I meant rhetorical question."whose paranoid and psychopath positions you spouse."Bullshit. Give an example of a paranoid and psychopathic position which I 'spouse'(sic). I guessed you missed the episode where Fredo told the same lies about me, then couldn't back it up, and then is not even man enough to apologize. With comments like that you've proven you're a useful idiot who laps up Fedo's hate speech unquestioningly. "It's ... you ... who make all other gun owners cringe."Again, bullshit. Point out a gun rights position that I support, which a majority of gun owners oppose, or vice versa. You can't. You're imagining facts to fit your narrative, which is a form of mental bias, but in your case I'm guessing a broader mental disorder.Didn't I warn you about swimming in the deep end, child? Now run along and go argue on some American Idol forum, and leave the politics to the adults.
I want you to get a hold of yourself, JM, because I'm showing you a yellow card for vulgar language and off-topic comments, JM.I've given you a long leash in this comment thread. Next time it's red and you're done..
It's a simple debate, JM. If you are so much smarter than me, you shouldn't have to resort to insults.Looks to me that it was you who saw a cartoon repeating statements, not made up by the cartoonists, not written up by Rick, but each and every one of them made by a gun advocate, and took it to mean a portrait of all gun owners.It obviously hit bullseye with you, so much so that now you are equaling them to terrorists (because -and here's a sophism for you, who have name dropped Socrates twice in this thread- those examples you talk about are of terrorists, not Muslims. Unless you also believe all Muslims are terrorist.)But now you have slipped even further into your own "deep end". Let's do a little test of faith: do you believe or not in any of the following: a)Obama is coming to take your guns, b)that you need your guns to protect yourself against a possible tyrannical government, c)that the real purpose of the 2A is to ensure the ability of true patriots to overthrow the government if necessary"?All those are paranoid and psychotic statements -by your own words- so where do you stand Jewish Marksman? Do you believe in them or not? Let's see how well you swim.
*grabbing the popcorn*.
Yeah, I hear crickets. JM must have gone to consult with his NRA "handler".
"Let's do a little test of faith..."I already gave you a test, and you FAILED. You FAILED to give any examples of the "paranoid and psychopath positions" that I supposedly "spouse(sic)." You FAILED to give any example of a gun rights position I hold that "make[s] all other gun owners cringe."You made statements about me which you cannot back up, so you are either a LIAR, or a PUNK who is too immature to apologize when he spouts off about people he knows nothing about."now you are equaling them to terrorists"No, I am equaling you to a stereotyping BIGOT. You're just too STUPID to realize that."If you are so much smarter than me, you shouldn't have to resort to insults."You called me a paranoid psychopath, then whine like a LITTLE BITCH when challenged. Again, go find an American Idol forum where you can argue with people more in your league, CHILD.
And we'll be right back after a brief message from our sponsor, Xanax...
Alex 1, Guy Who Lost His Sh*t (and the argument) In A Comment Thread 0.JM, you just got owned. Even though you All Capped quite frequently..
Guess your NR "handler" told you to come back and throw a tantrum. Not a good move. You are coming off as even more unhinged than usual.I have a busy day today, so I'm going to make it easy for you. You could say I'm setting the target at 7 yards. A "marksman" should be able to hit it with no problems.Copy and paste the following, adding an "X" in front of your response:I, Jewish Marksman, believe that the following statements made in the cartoon are:a) Obama is coming to take my guns___ True ____ Falseb) I need my guns to protect myself against a possible tyrannical government.___ True ____ Falsec) that the real purpose of the 2A is to ensure the ability of true patriots to overthrow the government if necessary.___ True ____ FalseIf marked "True", I further state that those aren't the rantings of "paranoid psychopaths" as I described them earlier, but rather a declaration of principles that patriots should spouse(sic) automatically and without questioning. I just slipped. I'm human. May LaPierre, Nugent, Hammer, etc, forgive me."Come on JM. That's a simple test that no true patriot should hesitate to take.
Jewish Marksman obviously doesn't realize when he has stepped in it.
There are gun owners and gun sellers. The gun sellers are laying low and using people like JM to divert the attention away from themselves. We, the people, want the gun sellers to market their products responsibly. It would seem, though, that some gun owners are making so much noise and arguing about their rights that we are getting away from the real issues. Please stop arguing with JM (who probably is a gun seller). No body is coming after your guns.
Oy veh. The stupid hurts. Let's begin with Alex and Fredo. 1. I have been adamant in my comments on this blog that: *I oppose any ban on semi-automatic rifles or magazine capacity limitations.* I oppose these policies because a) they will not save lives, and b) they are likely unconstitutional. Fredo and the fauxgressives believe these policies are "commonsense," and therefore, ipso facto, good policies and legal. I have left numerous un-rebutted comments on this blog addressing Fredo's position, or more generally addressed it here:http://fauxgressivedeconstruction.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-perils-of-commonsense-of.htmlVery early on in this gun debate, Fredo realized that I was probably right, and that his "commonsense" positions probably would not save lives. Realizing that he could not win a debate based on logic and reason, from then forward all of his gun related posts were purely emotion- and hate-filled. In short, he knows I will win the battle for his readers' minds, so he seeks to win their emotions. He knows that I have more respect for human dignity than to play on emotions for the formulation of sound public policy. And he's right, I'm not going to make emotional appeals for gun rights. What I will do, is point out his constant hate speech, and remind his readers to use their brains and not their emotions when forming opinions on sound public policy. And I especially caution his readers, particularly those who do not read all of the comments, to demand that he and Alex prove all of their statements about my positions and beliefs, because frankly they have made profound misrepresentations, if not outright knowing lies. About a week ago, Rick accused me of lying about my positions, and accused me of taking positions which I never have. He threatened to ban me from the blog, but when I demanded he prove me a liar...he could not do it. You can see above I demanded the same of Alex, and he failed as well...admitting that in order to know my views, he would have to give me a juvenile quiz.You see, Rick and Alex are so driven by hate, so blind to logic and reason, that they have to demonize their political opponents within their own minds. They imagine that those opponents do and say things which simply are not true.
Now for Alex's "quiz""a) Obama is coming to take my guns"Again, Alex, I have not taken that position. In fact, Rick admitted that is not my position here:"Oh, I see what you're saying, JM. You're interpreting 'coming for your guns' to mean 'banning the sale of military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines.' 'Coming for your guns' means not selling a certain style of gun and certain accessories."http://southfloridadailyblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/big-guns-bigger-lies.htmlIf you insist on hyperbole, you could say that I believe that "Obama is coming to take my gun rights." Much to Rick's dismay, I am extremely well informed as to the current legislation proposed and passed in Congress and several state assemblies. Most of these allow for "grandfathering" of existing weapons, but not all. And it is no lie that in some states, politicians did propose confiscations or government funded "buy backs." So to say "gun grabbing" was/is entirely off the political radar is not true. It is simply not politically feasible for those who support it."b) I need my guns to protect myself against a possible tyrannical government.c) that the real purpose of the 2A is to ensure the ability of true patriots to overthrow the government if necessary."Read the landmark 2008 SCOTUS case DC v. Heller. The majority opinion exactly why the 2nd Amendment exists. Not for hunting, not for home invasions, per se. Rather, so that citizens have a collective ability to resist tyranny. That ability is, the court found, a fundamental right.However, based on Heller, I would refine your statement. I would say it is more accurate as follows, "I and my fellow citizens have a right to own guns capable of collectively resisting against a tyranny, if one arises." I think inclusion of statement "c" is unnecessarily specific. The purpose is to resist tyranny.You see, I locked my door last night, and locked my car when I arrived at work. I doubt either will be broken into, actually, but I lock them anyway. Now, your hyperbole would suggest that I am paranoid for doing so? Well, robberies do happen every so often, history teaches that. Well, tyrannies happen every so often, history teaches that. Again, the 2A was already discussed here:http://southfloridadailyblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/sfdb-quote-of-day_31.htmland the long and the short of my position on this blog has been that the 2A and its supporters are not on trial here, rather the scope of it.So, Alex, the current public debate is not about the meaning or scope of the 2nd Amendment. The debate is about what restrictions, if any, might prevent mass shootings. So even if someone had "paranoid psychopathic" views either in favor of certain restrictions or opposed to them, why would that even matter any more than the color of their skin or their sexual preference? Why aren't the real questions: "Will X policy work?" So that begs the question Alex, what are you adding to the debate by your failed attempts to demonize me? How will demonizing me save childrens' lives? Btw. I'm done answering your questions until you answer all of mine.
"JM, you just got owned. Even though you All Capped quite frequently."I'm not surprised you believe that, given that Alex avoided all of my arguments, and simply made up lies about me. That is how you conduct yourself, so of course, you would see that behavior as some sort of victory. I'm sure Bob Norman is impressed by both of you.
Gentlemen (not you, JM) - I respectfully remind you of my diagnosis many posts ago. JM is as incapable of reasoning as he is fond of stereotyping. Remember the old Irish adage: Never argue with a pig....you can't win, you get all covered in shit, and besides, the pig likes it. Just two other rude observations: the link you provide above, Jewess Marxman (faugressivedeconstruction) doesn't seem to work. Given my technical ineptitude, that might be my fault, but if not, well, there's more of your blowhard cred exposed.As for Heller being about "resisting tyranny," that's far from clear. Certainly the argument was embraced by SCOTUS conservatives whose position was NOT adopted by the overall Court. But in the analyses I read, even Scalia seems to back off it as an interesting historical truth no longer at center stage (replaced mostly by self-defense). The rest of your rant is familiar by now, altho I need to point out that linking Alex Cuba's treatment of Allan Gross the way you did is such classic bigoted stereotyping that even a lightweight like yourself might call it a "softball." You probably see that differently, of course.Feel free to ALL CAP to your little heart's content.
Oh, I can see this one coming so I better clarify: The overall opinion of the Court DID uphold Heller. It is only the specific view w/r/t "tyranny" that did not carry the day. In fact, as was pointed out in argument, the "tyranny" noted might well have been focused on slaveholders resisting revolution on their plantations. Nice, huh?
Squat-"Given my technical ineptitude, that might be my fault"Copy and paste the link and it works (at least for me). So yes, it is your fault."Certainly the argument was embraced by SCOTUS conservatives whose position was NOT adopted by the overall Court."The majority of the Heller court adopted Scalia's opinion. There were dissenting opinions, a minority, as there often are. There were also dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land. If you don't like that, there are peaceful ways to change it. Or, I'm sure Alex can arrange immigration to Cuba, can't say I'd be sorry to see you go."But in the analyses I read, even Scalia seems to back off it as an interesting historical truth no longer at center stage (replaced mostly by self-defense)."I really don't care what "analyses" you read, given that the plain text of the Heller opinion is in the public domain for all literate people to see. Here is EXACTLY (like the caps?) what Scalia wrote and the CONTROLLING MAJORITY agreed with:"Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."So the "analyses" you read, put simply, lied to you. READ THE OPINION YOURSELF. And keep in mind, Scalia does not say that all guerrilla forces must fail. Before your very eyes, the Syrian rebels started with small arms, and slowly captured heavier weapons (and granted, are probably getting nice toys from the CIA and other 'friends'). But Scalia's point is that it doesn't matter: the people have the right to TRY to resist tyranny with weapons in common use, even if that only means to die trying. For example, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.Alex? He calls me a paranoid psychopath, while meanwhile he blogs in support of a regime holding a senior citizen Jew prisoner for bringing Internet access to Cuban Jews. You goyim call it Stockholm Syndrome, we Jews call it a Kappo.
Squat-Your 1:28 PM posted while I was responding. I will give you this Squat:Unlike Fredo or anyone else on this blog, Squat has been man enough on several occasions to admit when he's wrong. I don't respect his views, but I respect his character.The rest of you are mental midgets.
Squat-I admit to only skimming the opinion to find any reference to your claim that the historic record reflects the 2A was enacted to protect slave owners from slaves. Unless you can point to specific language, I will assume that once again you rely on faulty analyses of the opinion rather than reading it yourself. Btw, the opinion is here if you you have resolved your link problems:http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946Quite to the contrary of your supposition, much of the gun control proposed in the US pre-1960s was for the purpose of suppressing Blacks:http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/cramer-racist-roots.htm
A little coffee break, so let's dissect Alex's lies about me when he says "you- who make all other gun owners cringe"So let's visit: http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htmSo let's look at the Feb. CBS poll. Is it fair to use Republicans as a proxy for gun owners views? Probably. 60% of them say keep gun laws as they are, 13% say make them less strict. Oh my Alex! 67% of Republicans oppose a nationwide ban on assault weapons, with 5% unsure. Oh my Alex! The Quinnepac poll yields similar results! Oh my, Alex! The Democrat responses are flipped, so it is possible, I suppose, that Democrat gun owners cringe at my views. Is that what you really meant to say Alex? Or do you have it on good authority that there are more Democrat gun owners than Republican gun owners? Do you Alex?So when you said I make "all other gun owners cringe," were you mistaken Alex, or were you lying?
Oh and Alex, here are quotes from a couple emails I received from readers of my blog this week:(from a non-Jew)"Just wanted to let you know I stumbled across your website and am impressed. ... No point here. Just appreciation for your blog."(from a Jew)"... So, keep up the good work with your blog. I sure do enjoy it."Doesn't seem like "cringing" to me, does it? I had a post up urging Jews to buy AR-15 receivers before any ban, and got mad props from the firearms community.Cringing? Not so much.
Link problem resolved. Cut-and-paste worked; click-on link didn't. Re: Guns and slaves, there's this: http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery ...which is not referenced in the Opinion, but a historical perspective. Patrick Henry is featured.Regarding the concept of tyranny in the Heller decision, there's this: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/04/69.4.williams.pdf ...Again, not in the Opinion, but a fascinating analysis.But I agree that all this aside, we're left with the Opinion itself, which affirms both the right of an individual to possess arms and government's right to regulate. Why it's relevant now in light of the Opinion is exactly what charges these discussions: Where can we go from here? Which is why talk about protecting American citizens from the tyranny of their government, all caps or otherwise, seems silly when we should be talking about how to protect American citizens from getting gunned down by maniacs and criminals, who treat us as collateral damage.PS I'm still laughing over the goyim crack. You poor sod.
"seems silly when we should be talking about how to protect American citizens from getting gunned down by maniacs and criminals, who treat us as collateral damage."I agree, and so does the NRA. Fredo and his ilk are the ones who want to demonize gun owners and re-litigate the Heller case, and the 2A generally. In fact, as you know from reading my blog post, I explicitly stated there:"I freely admit that the efficacy (i.e. the life-saving potential) of banning certain semi-automatic rifles or magazine sizes is debatable, and in fact, America should debate these questions."And ever single attempt I've made to have that discussion here has been stonewalled, to put it mildly."why talk about protecting American citizens from the tyranny of their government"The same reason we talked about the 4th Amendment (illegal search and seizure) and equal protection after 9/11, when the topic of airport searches and racial profiling sprung up as policy issues. A strong pragmatic, "commonsense" case can be made for racial profiling...but we don't, we consider it unconstitutional. Don't you think that's a worthwhile discussion?The same reason we talk about the first amendment when pornography or campaign donations come up. Abortion, gay marriage, etc. We look to our constitution for boundaries, and that is what separates us from Alex's-- oops I mean Castro's Cuba.As you know from reading my blog post, I do not advocate a boundless 2A. To the contrary, in that post I advocate a intermediate or strict scrutiny test, which in plain English means: the State must prove it's restriction of my rights will actually save lives. "Feel good" legislation doesn't cut the mustard.But here's the rub, Squatty. We learned today that the DOJ funded an NIJ study, which finds that none of federally proposed legislation on the table will work (I don't know who did the highlighting):http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf(I would note that the memo fails to address some of the arguments made in my post, and I would take issue with the "tweaks" proposed by the memo)So taking the memo on it's face, not only will merely banning future production of semi-auto rifles and large capacity mags fail to save lives, we're not even sure that confiscating those out there would even help. But remember, Fredo *insists* that nobody is going to take my guns, so a confiscation is not even an option anyway.So, Squat, now you see what's going on. It's all about "hate and marginalize gun owners" instead of, "what will work?"In the meantime, more school districts are considering armed security or otherwise bolstering security, and an armed guard saved the day in an Atlanta school a few weeks ago. We armed pilots, we put armed air marshals on planes. Either we were insane to do that, or we're insane not to beef up school security, or at least seriously consider it. Did it fail in the past? Maybe? Where and why did fail? When did it succeed and why? Aren't those more important questions than whether Jewish Marksman wears boxers or briefs?And mental illness? Psychotropic drugs? Protocols for medical professionals to follow when mental illness and psychotropic drugs are in play? Has Fredo made a single post addressing those issues?Squat, you're a fan of Fredo, right? So you tell me, what has he really added to the debate? Why should anyone show him the respect he so desperately craves?
Well JM, if you shoot like you debate, no wonder you need automatics and large capacity magazines. "Spray and pray" is the only way you can hope to hit a target.After making the effort of whacking through your verbose rants, I think you are answering "True" to "Obama coming to take my guns" (since it's tantamount to coming to take your "gun rights") and "True" to needing them to defend yourself from tyranny (with a biased Heller interpretation, as shown by Squathole.)So basically you agree with the statements made by the fictional gun owner in the cartoon, which you characterized –in your own words, not Tom Tomorrow's, not Rick's and certainly not mine– as those of a "paranoid psychopath". Logic would then indicate that you also consider yourself one. Why then, are you so angry and throwing such fits? Shouldn't you be thanking Rick for propagating views that agree with yours?A few btws: for somebody who gets the vapors about being "misrepresented" or "lied about", you certainly throw innuendo like "Cuban spy" or "blogs in support of a regime holding a senior citizen Jew prisoner" with feckless abandon. Not very original in Miami, and not that I give two you know whats, but since you have what it seems like unlimited amounts of time, feel free to peruse my blog for any statements I've made supporting the Cuban regime –which incidentally, I don't think they are very concerned with your delusional rants to trade them for Alan Gross– and bring them forward. Oh and congrats on the fan mail. You must be the first blogger to get some! I'm very impressed.
"'Spray and pray' is the only way you can hope to hit a target."Interesting, considering I'm classified as a Master in 600 yard long range competition, but ok...let's move on..."I think you are answering 'True' to 'Obama coming to take my guns' (since it's tantamount to coming to take your 'gun rights')"Oh, is that what they teach at Marxist propaganda school, twist your opponents words around? Here Alex: AT NO TIME DURING THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY DO I ANTICIPATE OR IMMINENTLY FEAR AN AGENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMING TO MY HOME AND TAKING AWAY ANY OF MY FIREARMS OR FIREARMS ACCESSORIES. Clear enough? Now for part b) HOWEVER, I DO ANTICIPATE THAT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WILL ATTEMPT TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT WILL CURTAIL MY RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN FIREARMS AND ACCESSORIES IN THE FUTURE, AND OBAMA WILL PROUDLY SIGN ANY BILL THAT MAKES IT THROUGH CONGRESS TO THAT EFFECT. Oy vey, dealing with your stupidity is painful...I mean even Rick figured out where I stand weeks ago."'True' to needing them to defend yourself from tyranny (with a biased Heller interpretation, as shown by Squathole.)"No, I don't need them today. I HAVE A RIGHT, AS DO YOU, TO HAVE ARMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESISTING TYRANNY. The imminence of the "need" is irrelevant, it could be today, 100 years from today. Some believe tyranny is prevented in the first instance merely because Americans are armed, I tend to agree, but it's hard to prove. But the bottom line, Alex, is I DO NOT HAVE AN IMMINENT FEAR OF THE STATE, as portrayed in the hateful cartoon. As for Squathole, he has acknowledged that my interpretation of Heller is correct. Have you read Heller Alex? Or it's not on the Castro Approved Reading List?"So basically you agree with the statements made by the fictional gun owner"See my response above. You're either an idiot or a slimy, lying propagandist. "you characterized [the character in the cartoon] as a 'paranoid psychopath'. Logic would then indicate that you also consider yourself one." I don't think you know what logic is. "Why then, are you so angry"I don't like liars, and I don't like hate merchants. "feel free to peruse my blog for any statements I've made supporting the Cuban regime"Well that took 2 seconds: http://ontwoshores.com/?p=1719"I don't think they are very concerned with your delusional rants"You would know better than me what they think in Havana, Komerade.
Yes, JM, everyone who supports the elimination of the embargo supports the Cuban regime. Don't tell that to Paul Ryan.It's that kind of horsesh*t along with taking a couple paragraphs to answer a yes or no question and still not answering it that makes me tune out anything somewhat worth reading that you do have to say.Today you've trolled this blog, you've used vulgar language and you've maligned my other readers who are much, much more valuable to me than your sorry as*. You're an undesireable here.Give me something to delete, oh recalcitrant one..
So now you are backtracking again and back to Obama isn't that dangerous and there's no imminent tyranny to use your weapons again? Dude, just admit the obvious: you slipped, stepped in it, refused to admit it and got owned. Or in gun terms, you limp-wristed it and stovepiped the shell. That's about it. Now, as fun as it has been to see you writhing in rage, it's time to end it.
Give me something, JM. C'mon you know you want to..
"So now you are backtracking again"Alex, I'll tell you the same thing I told Fredo: If you accuse me of lying, changing my positions, etc. then prove it. Show me where I wrote that Obama is coming for my guns. Show me where I wrote that Obama is imminently "dangerous" to the Republic. Show me where I wrote that tyranny is imminent. You can't. Rick played that game, and embarrassed himself badly when I called him on it. Alex, the burden is now on you to prove you are not a liar. Your entire argument is founded on twisted logic. Because as much as you insist to the contrary, the statements in the cartoon do not match my views. I have made it abundantly clear that my views parallel those of the majority SCOTUS opinion in Heller, and that Heller's articulation of the 2A does not parallel the views articulated in the cartoon. The cartoon blatantly distorts Heller, mischaracterizes gun owners, and the cartoon's last frame speaks for itself. Your so-called "logic" that my complaint about the characterization of gun owners in the cartoon is a self-indictment fails ab initio, because, again, the cartoon does not reflect my views.Perhaps it is close to the truth to say that you feel that the cartoon reflects the views and mindset of the justices who signed off on the Heller majority. Given your politics, that would not surprise me. It would also explain why you and Rick are kindred spirits."it's time to end it"It ended long ago, as it doesn't take me long to figure out that a person is intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest, incapable of actual reason or logic, and incapable and unwilling to support their wild claims with evidence. But hey, you're a fauxgressive like Fredo, so what do you need silly concepts like those for?
"Give me something, JM. C'mon you know you want to."What I'd really like is that apology I'm owed from you. I'm a fauxgressive's worst nightmare, Rick. An informed citizen with a good memory.
42 comments, JM.You spent literally all day and 42 comments trying to answer 3 "yes" or "no" questions here as a guest on my blog.You may be the most inarticulate "informed citizen with a good memory" in South Florida.Congrats..
"You spent literally all day and 42 comments trying to answer 3 "yes" or "no" questions here as a guest on my blog."Another intellectually lazy observation from you, Rick. "You may be the most inarticulate ..."Doesn't mean much coming from a blogger whose entire blog is a cut-and-paste hack job. But you keep at it Fredo.
And you just. can't. stay. away.Over 40 visits today.Amazing that. It's like crack, isn't it, JM?.
Indeed, we can agree on that.You'll be glad to know that today was sort of an anomalous sick day for me, you'll have your blog back tomorrow.
Oh. So you stayed home, JM?.
Nope, even when sick, those of us that have to pay taxes to support the welfare state still have to go into the office sometimes.
Good answer, JM. .
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.