Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice try, but nowhere did I suggest that the government is required. Harrier making stuff up, just like the premise of this thread. Have you thought about applying to The Onion as a writer?
I am suggesting that instead of making vapid pronouncements about what people should do and leaving it at that, the progressive mindset is to seek actual solutions on the ground and in the trenches.
That may or may not involve government. Either way, it's actually useful, as opposed to making soundbites on anonymous Internet forums.
I'd rather be a solution-seeker than a self-righteous preacher. Which, of course, is why I'm a progressive and not a con.
You did suggest that only force would be the means to effect whatever solution that you had in mind, and whether that involved the government or not, is irrelevant.
You made it clear that forcing people to do things is your modus operandi, and in doing so, you perfectly summed up the mindset of a liberal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
Bwahahahaha. I don't think "solutions" means what you think it means.
Tell me, how exactly do you propose to actually force people to do what you tell them to? Hint: You can't. Again, your platitudes are not solutions, just words.
Let me know when you head out into the mean streets to force all those poor people to do as you tell them. Then we'll talk.
Harrier's point is that the breakfast is silly - for the very reasons that you mentioned - and that only a church leadership with a liberal worldview would hold such a thing - probably because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Besides, the church has plenty of "minorities", but no one at the church sees those individuals as such - we are all brothers and sisters in Christ..
Liberals such as you seem to be obsessed with skin color, however, so point out demographics, if you must.
Harrier has better things to worry about.
NoJiveMan thinks Ms. Harrier is obsessed with liburuls.
We are still awaiting you to produce one shred of evidence that backs your claim the shooter was a voter for democrats, of course you would never knowingly post anything that would be false or misleading. I do believe you're trying to deflect, change the subject or hijack your own thread with your comments posted above;
Liberals such as you seem to be obsessed with skin color,
liberal worldview
Last edited by NoJiveMan; 11-04-2013 at 12:27 AM..
You'll have to admit there is a difference between trying to blame your political opponents for murders committed by a nutcase, and trying to resolve the problem. You don't have to agree with Obamas approach to fixing the problem to admit he is not doing to make a partisan attack. I don't agree with gun control, but I know the people who do, are honest in their thinking that it could work. The OP is a lame partisan attack, especially when it turned out to be a lie.
Thanks to all of you have thoroughly discredited Harrier's description of the LAX shooter with solid facts, reason and logic!
Paul Ciancia, the LAX shooter, is reportedly a registered Democrat.
If so, then he joins good company with other Democrat shooters and bombers like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Nidal Hasan, and Dzohkhar Tsarnaev.
Why is it that Democrats want to ban guns, but they are also the perpetuators of mass shootings?
YOU wrote the above sentence.
YOU stated "is reportedly".
"Reportedly" means YOU obtained this information from another source.
Now provide us with this source!
How many more times do we need to repeat this question?
Paul Ciancia, the LAX shooter, is reportedly a registered Democrat.
If so, then he joins good company with other Democrat shooters and bombers like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Nidal Hasan, and Dzohkhar Tsarnaev.
Why is it that Democrats want to ban guns, but they are also the perpetuators of mass shootings?
Harrier didn't even try to say that it had been proven that the shooter was a Democrat - he in fact took pains to make it clear that the source was unconfirmed and that we were only discussing the possibility that he might be a Democrat.
For you to make such a definitely false statement with a straight face is way beyond the pale.
So that tells me you had no basis to even make the claim that he was a registered Democrat. You just made it up and started this thread to be inflammatory. Like I said earlier: Thread FAIL!!!
"Reportedly" means YOU obtained this information from another source.
Now provide us with this source!
How many more times do we need to repeat this question?
That will never happen. I can't recall any thread where he's actually backed up his claims with proof.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
