New Ani-Gun Cali Law

[Nobody]

(can be)

And you are arguing over split hairs. Since you fail to even try to engage in it and only represent the meme quota, you do not enter in or engage in a conversation. I know it's a stretch to back up your view points with coherent thoughts, but you could try.

It was not finite

And it is open for interpretation. Thus, if you leave it open, you can not get mad when someone takes it for opposite of what you said.

Same / similar*Not wrong

And since it is based on what I am doing, it is not the same. To have a discussion you should have 2 differing opinions and you talk to support your views. Mostly I get called an idiot, a meme and being talked down to and never has anyone entered into conversation mode. Those are not similar, those are being talked down to because you cannot illustrate your view without confusing yourself.

J

ust more garbage in an attempt to spin

Is it spin cause you can't understand it or is it spin cause you don't want to admit a point that is important and it would look bad upon you. Hate to tell you, by my estimation, on your views of supporting trump, you look bad, bad the fact that you wish to trash anyone against that view, you look bad. But the mere fact that you are exactly the hypocritical mass that is the epitome of do as I say, not as I do, you look bad. Face it Billy mays, you look bad.

I have the stones to go toe to toe but as the meme suggests and I've already proven.

You don't. You say you do, but in reality, you don't. Might want to check with the ex-wife on the stones part. You see, if you enter into a conversation, you asking to hear the other side and put it against yours. So by not entering into it, you are safely sure that you cannot be wrong cause you never have to test your views against anything. Its called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is pointless to discuss anything with you because there is just too much crap to sift through.

Why, because I challenge you on everything political, that you say? Because I bring up the very points you dismiss . Or is it easier to try and put me down because your viewpoints just don't hold up to scrutiny?

I present facts and you still disregard them and spew your rhetoric (very typical for the uninformed actually).

You have not given anything. Anything you had said, I put a viable argument against it but you just won't believe it and then you have to insult, to back up your point which is very weak for an argument. Because if I was uninformed then any points other have brought up against me would shut me down and I would be changing subjects constantly to avoid the conversation and the consequences. Alas, I see that is what yoir side does, as it can not hold up against any sort of scrutiny at all.

Good job John, you almost had me on the ropes, in your mind.

[Tunaman]

pathetic.

[going_home]

[Nobody]

pathetic.

Compared to a person who is still trying get back the job he lost, who took government records and secrets and didn't want to give them back, who has more pending lawsuits against him than for?

No, what is pathetic is that you cannot s3e the woods through the trees and can't believe the truth when you hear it. If it doesn't meet up with your preconceived notion of what is correct, then it can't be true. That is what's pathetic.

[Nobody]

I see that as capitalism at work. Aren't you a good capitalist?

[Pyrate Jim]

No, I don't. I am not presumptuous to say that, as I am not egotistical enough to think that. I anticipate, I read, I try to understand and I also learn from the past. I also had some great teachings on how to see things. But .ostly in this place it is not difficult nor hard to take what is said, tell the facts and truth of thr matter and see you knuckleheads get everything wrong through your biased rose-colored glasses. And by most of these knee jerk reactions, I have to go down to the knuckledragger levels to explain it to all.

A near perfect example of "doublethink".

https://www.bing.com/search?q=doublethink+meaning&form=ANNTH1&refig=e4dfddc65db5420ab09ce3482fb123aa&sp=1&qs=HS&pq=d&sk=PRES1&sc=10-1&cvid=e4dfddc65db5420ab09ce3482fb123aa

As much as I enjoy leaving you to "fill in the blanks" by my leaving short replies (it's like a "Mad-Libs" game at a drunk sorority), perhaps I should break it down.
You made two contradictory statements in that quote, and you appear to believe both.
"I am not presumptuous to say that, as I am not egotistical enough to think that."
And then you go on to say..."it is not difficult nor hard to take what is said, tell the facts and truth of thr matter and see you knuckleheads get everything wrong"

Do you understand? You egotistically say that you alone preach the fact and truth of the matter and presume anyone else to be a "knuckledragger" getting everything wrong...But you claim you don't do either. You may not say that - You may not think that. You did write it.

Hey, you don't need to listen to some average deplorable, semi-fascist, knuckle-dragging extremist. It's not like I expect You to have some epiphany.
Heck, that would kill the magic.


And in unrelated news, I saw video of recent political rallies in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. of both Trump & Biden. The disparity was astounding.
Trump filled a 65,000-seat arena to capacity, two decks high.
Biden looked like He was in a school gymnasium, and they hadn't even unfolded the bleachers from the walls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmCVmqj8xeM

[going_home]

I see that as capitalism at work. Aren't you a good capitalist?

The collapsing of a once great country makes you happy huh.

Thanks for your concern....

[Nobody]

The collapsing of a once great country makes you happy huh.

Thanks for your concern....

So capitalism is bad?

Does the president of the United States actually control the prices of consumable products?

And when the prices fall, like gasoline(currently $3.75 here, nationally $3.78), it makes that picture worthless. Sure you can even say that 100 years ago, the price was $0.29 but through inflation to $3.59 in 2022 dollars. So is it that bad, or do we not include any context in what we write?

[Nobody]

A near perfect example of "doublethink".

https://www.bing.com/search?q=doublethink+meaning&form=ANNTH1&refig=e4dfddc65db5420ab09ce3482fb123aa&sp=1&qs=HS&pq=d&sk=PRES1&sc=10-1&cvid=e4dfddc65db5420ab09ce3482fb123aa

As much as I enjoy leaving you to "fill in the blanks" by my leaving short replies (it's like a "Mad-Libs" game at a drunk sorority), perhaps I should break it down.
You made two contradictory statements in that quote, and you appear to believe both.
"I am not presumptuous to say that, as I am not egotistical enough to think that."
And then you go on to say..."it is not difficult nor hard to take what is said, tell the facts and truth of thr matter and see you knuckleheads get everything wrong"

Do you understand? You egotistically say that you alone preach the fact and truth of the matter and presume anyone else to be a "knuckledragger" getting everything wrong...But you claim you don't do either. You may not say that - You may not think that. You did write it.

By your estimation. You see, I do not presume to know anymore than the average person, and I am not egotistical to think that only I know exactly what is being talked about. So I take my knowledge and consider it the baseline for fact, as that is all I have to work with. Yet, when other people come in and appear to know less, thinking that their alternative facts do not mesh with mine, then yes, it will appear as I know more about it than you. So I will tell what I take as fact till I am priced wrong.

But what about you(not you directly, you deal more with opinion than fact, or is it observation?) or the others here that say one thing but write contradictory statements? Yes, turn the mirror back onto yourselves. How is the party of law and order able to stand with those lawbreakers? How can people who tout that polls mean nothing for approval but cheer at another's low approval polls? So is that any more right that you do it but wrong if I do?

Hey, you don't need to listen to some average deplorable, semi-fascist, knuckle-dragging extremist. It's not like I expect You to have some epiphany.
Heck, that would kill the magic.

If that is what you paint your self portrait as, so be it. My opinion is that you are neutral and your own actions, views move that bar up or down. But also, I like a conversation that isn't an echo chamber. That is boring.

And in unrelated news, I saw video of recent political rallies in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. of both Trump & Biden. The disparity was astounding.
Trump filled a 65,000-seat arena to capacity, two decks high.
Biden looked like He was in a school gymnasium, and they hadn't even unfolded the bleachers from the walls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmCVmqj8xeM

Oh no, if only the crowd sizes were votes, then we would have a different POTUS.

Why is crowd size important? I know, cause the looser in chief said so. Maybe those crowd are not endemic of the area but fervent supporters that are coming in from far and wide to make it seem like a bigger crowd for the area. Or maybe, just maybe that when you are president that a smaller crowd is easier for the secret service to control, vet and make sure that no one tries to assassinate the president.

And I should now, as Trump held a rally in my area. When I say my area, I mean literally my area, 15min from my house, 7min from my work. Never heard the numbers of that, which is interesting cause it was held in a small building. The funny thing is that people were coming from 3 or 4 hours away to attend. Yes, crowd size is so important...

[pimped mag 01]

I see Nobody is whining as usual then again he probably only supports the government and these guys having guns.

Screenshot_20220808-161900.jpg

[going_home]

So capitalism is bad?

Does the president of the United States actually control the prices of consumable products?

And when the prices fall, like gasoline(currently $3.75 here, nationally $3.78), it makes that picture worthless. Sure you can even say that 100 years ago, the price was $0.29 but through inflation to $3.59 in 2022 dollars. So is it that bad, or do we not include any context in what we write?

Joe Bob the diaper kings policy's caused all those price increases my friend.



Just like the orange mans policies had gas under $2 , Russia didn't mess with Ukraine....

[Loguzzzzzz]

Joe Bob the diaper kings policy's caused all those price increases my friend.



Just like the orange mans policies had gas under $2 , Russia didn't mess with Ukraine....

Don't tell him that! His mind is set up to deny, Those are NOT facts to him and it might trigger his TDS...
He lives in a bubble.

[Loguzzzzzz]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]103220[/ATTACH]

truth!

[Nobody]

Don't tell him that! His mind is set up to deny, Those are NOT facts to him and it might trigger his TDS...
He lives in a bubble.

Except that because you can put anything on a meme doesn't make it truthful. Gas has gone down every day week for what the last 10 weeks, if not longer. Inflation is going down. And who cares about lumber?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]103220[/ATTACH]

truth!

Except that no one in the government is actually doing so. It is a scare tactic from the right, becaus3 if you aren't scared of anything then you might just stop and think about the real problems.

Here are some real world numbers for you to chew upon.

Let's say there are 350mil guns in the US(it is an arbitrary number).
And 1 person could remove 50 firearms from a person.
And let's say you hire 10,000 people to remove the guns. But because it is a bureaucracy, it is more like 5000 people. The other half is handling the storage, paperwork, etc.
Now, as a government agency only works 5days/week, not accounting for travel time, it will take 1400 days or 3.8 years but it is more like 5.6 years because of weekends, holidays, etc.
But in reality, it is probably more like 7-10 because nothing in the government ever runs smoothly.
But then, who is going to run this new agency, is it going to be part of the ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, or something new?
When will they be housed at?
Where will they get the money to pay for the staff? Don't know about you, but I don't work for free.
As well as, if and when the republicans get control of the spending, who is to say that that budget gets cut, which would further limit the numbers of guns removed, adding to how long that initial 5 years would take.
But we are also forgetting that, that is a rough estimation of how many guns we have NOW, not what is going to be, in the future. And since guns are like guns, 1 never suffices.

So in other words. The only people that talk about taking away your guns, are law enforcement that wish to see illegal firearms off the street, getting the guns away from the people who, legally, can not firearms, and the political talking heads that use tropes like this to get you angry, and mad, to be up in arms(excuse the pun) about an issue that is not really talked about by the other side.

So maybe, I should call you prophylactic, cause your political party uses you and then throws it away when they're done...

[Loguzzzzzz]

Except that because you can put anything on a meme doesn't make it truthful. Gas has gone down every day week for what the last 10 weeks, if not longer. Inflation is going down. And who cares about lumber?

Get your head out of the ... ummm ... let's call it sand. Gas prices skyrocketed after Biden took office... **Doug inserts orange man comment here**
Inflation jumped tremendously after Biden took office...**Doug inserts orange man comment here**
Construction and housing which drives the economy cares about lumber...you &$%#*@ TOOL.

Except that no one in the government is actually doing so. It is a scare tactic from the right, becaus3 if you aren't scared of anything then you might just stop and think about the real problems.

Here are some real world numbers for you to chew upon.

Let's say there are 350mil guns in the US(it is an arbitrary number).
And 1 person could remove 50 firearms from a person.
And let's say you hire 10,000 people to remove the guns. But because it is a bureaucracy, it is more like 5000 people. The other half is handling the storage, paperwork, etc.
Now, as a government agency only works 5days/week, not accounting for travel time, it will take 1400 days or 3.8 years but it is more like 5.6 years because of weekends, holidays, etc.
But in reality, it is probably more like 7-10 because nothing in the government ever runs smoothly.
But then, who is going to run this new agency, is it going to be part of the ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, or something new?
When will they be housed at?
Where will they get the money to pay for the staff? Don't know about you, but I don't work for free.
As well as, if and when the republicans get control of the spending, who is to say that that budget gets cut, which would further limit the numbers of guns removed, adding to how long that initial 5 years would take.
But we are also forgetting that, that is a rough estimation of how many guns we have NOW, not what is going to be, in the future. And since guns are like guns, 1 never suffices.

So in other words. The only people that talk about taking away your guns, are law enforcement that wish to see illegal firearms off the street, getting the guns away from the people who, legally, can not firearms, and the political talking heads that use tropes like this to get you angry, and mad, to be up in arms(excuse the pun) about an issue that is not really talked about by the other side.

So maybe, I should call you prophylactic, cause your political party uses you and then throws it away when they're done...

There is nothing of value here since you made it all up. and you are sadly mistaken...once again. Stop.... just stop!

The democratic party has been talking confiscation and many other means to limit gun ownership with their own interpretation of what the Second Amendment really means. Shall not be infringed isn't really open to interpretation.

You know, every time you make a post like this you really show how under educated you are and what little research you actually do.
Too bad you think you're so smart...because in reality, you are not.