The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
Ah, the nuthugger insult. Always a classic. 85 framed the appearance of what he was doing in his texts. Given further posting, it doesn’t seem quite so inconsistent.
Back to personal attacks to cover up for your closet sexism and racism.
LMFAO even more obvious deflection combined with blatant lies.
Wow bob, you really are a joke.
Guess I've broken bob. It was sadly entirely too easy. Not really surprised given your lack of intelligence.
Keep deflecting and name calling to hide your true feelings about minority women.
Really? At this point I'm beginning to think it's not an act, you might actually be a complete fuking moron.
Today I learned that pointing out how you are a liar is a deflection.
You are a lying sack of shit and dumber than a box of rocks. And those aren't personal insults, they are facts.
You two should really just sleep with each other and get it over with.
Nah, fervent anti-Trumpers are a big turn off for me.
In all seriousness - do you not think someone can just not agree with pretty much everything he does?
Do you think Obama did anything good?
- obama rolling back pot offenses was a step in the right direction. he shouldve gone further and removed it from schedule 1.
- he pushed for more renewable energy. i wish he didnt do as much subsidizing as he did though.
- pushed for an increase in fuel efficiency standards.
- finally got osama bin laden
- i actually like that he started talking to cuba. idk if it will pay off, but thought it was worth a try. i absolutely hated him going down there and acting buddy buddy with them though.
Yes, it is impossible to disagree with everything he does.
Yes, I agreed with Obama on a few issues.
His troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan were moves in the right direction, he gave up too soon
Invading Pakistani airspace to kill Bin Laden, bold move without their permission
TPP had good intentions but didn't do enough to protect the US, it was a move in the right direction though
Gay marriage, even though he was pretty late to the game on it
Escalating the use of drones instead of putting pilots in potential danger
Who else is cracking up that 85's only argument is that fried chicken doesn't know who he voted for. That is seriously what he is trying to argue. FC is wrong about who he voted for. You can't make this shit up.
Um not at all what I said. You again either can't read or choose to read what you want to hear. Neither is surprising.
FC made the hilarious claim that he's a "Republican" who wanted a Republican President (not named Trump apparently). Which is f*cking hilarious since every post in the past 48 hours or from prior from him suggests: he hates conservatives, he hates conservatism, he's a huge fan of abortion, he thinks liberals are naturally smarter, he thinks liberals are naturally right about most things, and he goes to bat for every single Democrats ever referenced in this forum.
It's absurd. It'd be like of me or Bob came out tomorrow and said "Gee, we really wanted a Democrat in the 2016 elections!".
FC is either deranged and confused, or a liar for which he tries to amend his positions to fit whatever argument he created. There's no other way to put it.
More like: you have a long history of claiming to know what other people think, which is patently absurd. You have literally called people liars and claimed to know what they "actually" think, myself, bq, fc and others. It's beyond ridiculous.
I personally like the fact that Progressives have alienated not only most moderates, but plenty of liberals. The more they alienate and kick out, the fewer that will vote Democratic.
And 30+ Millennials are slowing but surely waking up to this fact too.
And 30+ Millennials are slowing but surely waking up to this fact too.
No, that's not the point.
No, that's the wrong counter.
Here's the reality ...
While the Progressive-sided US Mainstream Media (MSM) calls things "illegal," when it favors a Conservative, they are letting the exact same "illegal" activities go on when it favors a Progressive. So it's not about "impartiality," but about the MSM actually reporting only Conservatives and the US gov't only selective investigating and prosecuting them the same.
The MSM believes the 1st Amendment applies only to Progressives.
Me? Let it all go. Whatever the Russians and Facebook and others want to do. Because if we start censoring, then we've all lost.
The other issue is that since the '90s, we've let major media outlets become conglomerates. The point we're at now is monopolies. In the past, we've "Trust Busted" these entities. But now we're talking the media, the 1st Amendment.
And that's the bigger problem. We have "Trusts" that are basically protected by the 1st Amendment, all while we're selectively investigating and prosecuting Conservatives.
Well you are a liar, since you throw out heinous claims and then try to assert you never made them, or run from explaining them. Such as, claiming Bob wants to exterminate Muslims.
Calling FC a liar is not a stretch. I laid out exactly my reasons why; instead of confronting my facts that I presented, you chose to attempt an attack on me instead. It's very telling but not surprising.
You mean just like you are attacking me, for something that doesn't involve you in the slightest.
But speaking of outrageous claims, Fox News Bob just claimed that I want to kill all black women. Where are you calling him out on that? You are still obsessed with something I've explained a thousand times, but not a peep out of you about Bob? Explain yourself.
Other than getting the DoJ to come down on civil rights abuses by police (on all races) -- something I'm very upset with the Trump administration and Sessions reversing -- Obama's legacy will likely be Syria and Libya regime change (along with Hillary in the case of the latter, including violation of the War Powers Act), Drone Abuse and expansion of the Federal Watch lists to target all virtually Americans, along with the biggest bloom of special interest in lobbying. Give it another 2-3 decades, when the Progressive media doesn't have as much influence, and historians will remember him very poorly.
You do go all 'MSM' on people at times. I like you Ninja, except when you're spewing crap to 'win an argument' like you're the Progressive media.
You also refuse to agree with people, and see the "greater issue" in their arguments. That makes you a "sheep" that is no better than a truly ignorant Progressive.
Like the Progressive media trying to label semi-auto rifles as "rapid fire" and "best at killing civilians in CQC" to get Americans to outlaw all similar weapons, including all semi-auto pistols tool, because they are just as capable and shoot just as fast -- even faster unrestricted.
You still haven't heeded that reality which I've tried to make you aware of, just because you want to disagree with me -- even though you know that the Progressive media and their sheep are far, far more ignorant than I, and are trying to get all guns outlawed as a result.
lol bs still replying to me. Dude I DGAS what you think about any other issue, if you are so stupid to think handguns are deadlier than rifles you obviously have nothing intelligent to offer.
You do realize that argument is why handguns will also be outlawed with rifles, correct?
That people like @sirdingydang believe handguns are 'slower' and 'less deadly' than rifles, but that's why when they write 'assault weapons' legislation, virtually all semi-automatic pistols are also included because they are just as fast and are just as deadly.
^^^ This is a perfect example of your Progressive media sheepism, and why what I said was very important to understand my point. But you fail to understand the bigger issue here, and that's why you're going to be part of the reason we all lose.
It's demonization of weapons and self-defense as "assault" and "vigilantism" that will result in an UK-like state where if you are held at knife or even gunpoint in the UK, and kill an intruder in self-defense, you will be convicted of manslaughter. Demonization of weapons and self-defense.
Nah, @NinjaKnight he's just a Progressive media sheep spewing crap. He's been programmed and cannot think for himself. He joined @sirdingydang and others in this regard.
He is actually very intelligent, and I would very much trust him when he's away from that. But he's so nearsighted, because the MSM has him so focused on non-sense, he cannot see the obviousness of the truth. He is just focused on destroying people's arguments, using their common arguments, mixed in with enough fact.
And that's really the sad part. He'd make a great ally in these debates. But he's so programmed, when he shouldn't be. He's definitely got sound knowledge in these matters. He is just so allergic to any, Conservative viewpoint because of the MSM.
lmao I don't care about your ramblings about outlawing stuff, you said something incredibly stupid and 100% wrong, and so I quite frankly don't give a shit about what you think.
Which is why you're media sheep. You utterly missed the entire reason I pointed it out.
I knew posting it that, on a basic physics-energy argument, it would seem untrue. But energy only applies to wounding.
It does not apply to the statistics of near-instantaneous killings and non-battlefield bleed out, especially unaimed fire, especially against the small, combat ineffective .223, especially at sub-1.5KJ where tumbling does not happen (like out of the M4 carbine).
Because when it comes right down to it ...
Virtually all semi-auto pistols are "assault weapons" too. And that's what this is all about. The ability to kill in close quarters. So you sell people on the AR-15, and you get them to outlaw the Glock.
Just like they outlawed the M16 ... so we can outlaw the AR-15 later, getting people to think the M4/M16 = AR-15, and is faster than a semi-auto pistol.
That's been the master plan of the anti-Glock lobby since the early '80s. Back then, they were laughed out of the room. Today, they are accepted as the norm, especially after they took over the Brady Foundation.
You've yet to agree this is the case. And that's why you are a media sheep. You refuse to recognize the bigger issue.
oh no Milton called me a sheep! My feelings are so hurt. It's like being insulted by a 1st grader.
You are still 100% wrong.
So I'm allegedly 100% wrong ...
It's like being insulted by a 1st grader.
You are still 100% wrong.
But @sirdingydang wasn't about "rapid fire" with rifles, while pistols are not capable?!
If you're even 1% objective, you'd admit @sirdingydang was 100% wrong.
That's my problem with you ... you cannot even be 1% objective.
And why I call you out a lot, even though I think you're very intelligent.
You just get so nearsighted, like the Progressive media.
sorry, I'm not debating with morons unless you either:
A) admit you are wrong about pistols being deadlier than rifles
B) Provide proof for your asinine claim
A) admit you are wrong about pistols being deadlier than rifles
B) Provide proof for your asinine claim
I never said pistols are deadlier than rifles, and that's part of your original problem!
I said the NATO 5.56x45 cartridge ...
- Is the best at wounding (versus virtually every auto-pistol round), especially for battlefield bleed out, but ...
- Urban combat is not battlefield, where first responders and medical facilities are nearby, and ...
- The cartridge loses a lot of energy in SBRs like the M4 (including its inability to tumble)
- Pistols, within 10m, don't lose much energy, and some come very close to 5.56 out of a SBR
- Pistols calibers have 3-4x the cross-section of .223, and ...
- Near-instaneous kills aren't just about energy, but aiming, cross-section and load
- The 9mm has over 30 years of self-defense load R&D, while ...
- The .223 has only 10 years of similar R&D (which the FBI is leading a lot of R&D), which is why ...
- Even special forces use at least a .26-30 in CQC for a reason!
- And the US Army and USMC consider the .223 combat ineffective for CQC out of the M4
- But logistics and inertia are a real bitch (which is also why the FBI is leading the R&D, because the .223 cannot be replaced in most law enforcement units too)
Please provide proof of @sirdingydang claim that 5.56 is a "rapid fire" weapon, while pistols are not. It was in the same thread and 100% wrong and you know it.
I refuse to admit anything until you admit that you cannot be remotely objective, and refuse to cross someone you often agree with in common, Progressive views.
Last edited:
How about I flip this ... let's just agree I'm ignorant and just wrong.
Which statement is more of a threat to our civil rights?
My statement about killing in CQC between a large pistol caliber and a .223 rifle?
Or @sirdingydang 's statement about "rapid fire"?
Which one supports the Progressive's reasoning and the resulting assault weapons ban that includes semi-auto pistols as "assault weapons," and why the MSM still shows an AR-15 when a semi-auto pistol is used? How can someone believe an AR-15 is more "rapid fire" than a semi-auto pistol? How can we get all guns banned in the same regard?
That was my point from post #1. But apparently the common assumption, thanx to the Progressive MSM, is why we have posts like @sirdingydang 's. Who's the bigger issue? Who's more wrong in the bigger picture? And even better ... why do people assume an AR-15 is always used in mass killings? Especially those with high body counts?
Last edited:
