I question the patriotism of liberals and Democrats. (hiring illegals, lawyer, health care system)

[Votre_Chef]

Yeah It is answer I error on the side of liberty...

And I dont find attacks on a basic Constitutional rights since the 1830` a LOL subject.

lol

What's truly funny is how you later on in your same response say you're not a conspiracy theorist while claiming that it's been a concerted effort going all the way back to the 1830s. Stop already with trying to state your own twisted view of history with a sense of gravity as if it's widely accepted fact and not the opinions of far right nutters. And do at least make an attempt to maintain some kind of logical consistency. And the more you trot out buzzwords like "liberty" and "freedom" and play it melodramatically like you're trying to out Glenn Beck the man himself, I'm going to laugh at you, because that's what melodramatics deserves.

How is it a cliche?

It's a banality that betrays a lack of original thought.

Really? How is the State of California and what do the projections look like?

What about Chicago?

Trust me when other cities and whole states are "Detroitted" I guess maybe then your side will listen to basic math..But hey anything you guys dont like is "paranoid nonsense".

What about California? Since repairing their political dysfunction, they're more stable than they have been in years.

What about Chicago? It has a murder rate half of what it was 20 years ago, about the same as it was in the mid-60s and it's seeing population growth again.

What about Detroit? It was an economic one-trick pony, a city that grew into wealth and power based upon an auto industry that held more than 90% of the US market in an age when Americans bought brand new cars every couple of years. It's a modern and large-scale equivalent to an old west boom town (you're in Nevada, ever been to Virginia City? Used to thrive thanks to the mines, now it's a barely-populated tourist trap). The increase in popularity of imports and an oil crisis that Detroit was absolutely unprepared to handle and when they finally faced it, did so in shoddy fashion (do you really think the Pinto and Gremlin could hold a candle to the Toyotas and Volkswagens of the mid-late 70s?) doomed it. Throw in a mayor who defrauded the city and neoliberal free trade policies and you have a disaster of epic, or Detroit proportions. Oh but what's your evidence? Oh yeah, Democrats ran the city, therefore they are to blame for it's downfall, the old correlation = causation fallacy. Boston has been ran by Democrats for almost 100 years (twice as long as Detroit), and amazingly, it's not a ghost town (and it's not the only major city that's been run by Democrats for decades that can make that claim). Of course, the particular details that lead to some cities thriving and others failing might lead one to stop and consider that whether a city lives or dies depends on a lot of factors and variables, I guess it's just easier for you to brush all nuance aside and scream "liberals!!!" at it, all while ignoring the other cities run by liberals that aren't falling apart.

No, I am stating a fact, confiscation of firearms did happen in Hurricane Karina, and yet you claim "no one is wanting to take your guns away" yet it happened clear as day..You talking point is proven wrong...And even in the face of this irrefutable proof you just refuse to accept the fact it happened and might happen yet again.

No, what you're trying to do is use Katrina as some kind of evidence of a larger plot, as if all this was pre-planned in order for nefarious forces to come after your guns. Katrina was an extreme and rare circumstance that has nothing at all to do with legislation.

Any government that arrests and fines people for speaking is corrupt..

But hey if we restrict rights at the whim of those in power they are not rights but privileges.

Sweden is not corrupt and your say-so and attempt to redefine what constitutes corruption does constitute evidence to the contrary. Another common tactic of yours, change the meaning of the word to fit your purpose.

No it is not a cop-out I support actions which take away rights to the states and the people in them.

I never said it was a conspiracy theory, for they have the element of secrecy, they are taking very openly about their intent, wants, and goals...

lol

I beg to differ.

And yeah, it's a cop-out. You're like the founders in this way, liberty for you, not for them. Your own personal, private definition of "liberty." But by God, the Second Amendment will be taken kind of literally, as you nearly artfully fashion it to suit you.

They were going to win regardless but the actions of the resistance greatly sped that effort up and save many live..

By how much, a week, maybe two weeks?

Which side did they pick that of a tyrant or that of the citizenry?

Well, that's not exactly clear, now is it? First they supported the regime for years and then they helped overthrow it, and then they overthrew the regime they put into power in what our administration studiously avoided calling a coup even though it was, if the protests are any indication, might just have been. So did they side with the people in overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood? Who knows for sure? The Egyptian Army definitely has one overarching goal: do what's best for the Egyptian Army.

ISIS was supplied first and foremost by the black market then they used those weapons to secure bigger and better weapons and many vehicles.

Furthermore during any kind of major conflict the National Guard and Armed Force would most likely to defect.Bringing the arms, vehicles and skills with them.

The NG isn't any more likely to defect than the regular Army is. During the Civil Rights Era, when Southern governors tried to use the NG to further their segregationist agendas, the federal government nationalized the guard and the NG always followed the national government's orders, even when their hearts were clearly on the side of the state governments.

You want the answer..Fine they should have a great access to them then we do now.

We can all ready own RPG`s, Grenade, Tanks, and yet we dont have any issues with them..

You can only own a weapon like a live hand grenade if you have an FFL.

No it is valid example of the Slippery Slope which is not a logical fallacy. The link below proves so.

It's not a valid argument because you just plucked it from thin air, you raced to a conclusion that nobody was heading towards and you have no evidence that anyone was heading towards it.

It ended with the Mormons not be exterminated which I would call a victory considering how every other homeland they ever had tried to kill them..

Yes they lost the war but they got to live and live very freely..

Yes Buchanan was a God Damn fool who exacerbated a crisis.

The war aims of the United States government did not in any way include the extermination of the Mormons. It's odd that in spite of thousands of years of warfare through recorded history, you've decided that in order to claim victory, you simply have to avoid complete annihilation, even if that is not the goal of your opponent (and throughout history, it has rarely been the goal of the opponent).

They were the only ones who had them, and the only one with a weapons platform to launch the chemical weapons.

Are you sure? Because RT, which you apparently think is a valid source, claims differently. I wouldn't want you to be inconsistent or anything.

Large planes or groups of them have disappear in the past.

I'm well aware of that, it was sarcasm. You made planes falling from the sky sound like something unique to our times, it isn't. I'm not sure why you listed some of them, since it seems to undermine the point you were trying to make that I was responding to.

Great straw man...

Not a straw man (did you take it seriously?) just a friendly way of pointing out that you're wandering far off topic there.

When have we ever had a terrorist army and a terrorist state?

First of all, define terrorist state. Throughout history a lot of countries would have described their enemies in those terms. And secondly, you're making the ISIS out to be tougher than they actually are. Quit believing the hype.

Yeah with use having the biggest Ebola outbreak in history.
The Southern Border being overran.
Weak leadership
A unstable economy(mostly due to Congress)
And one party/group that does not see these threats and issues..

Oh yes Ebola. When I was a kid, everyone was scared of AIDS.

The Southern Border, I remember Reagan getting his immigration reform bill passed and millions getting on track to become citizens. Yeah, that's really a new issue.

Weak leadership? lol Seriously?

Unstable economy? That's true but this has been building up for a long time and it's definitely repairable. The recession of the early 80s and the one in the early 90s weren't exactly picnics. The gas lines of the early and late 70s weren't exactly fun times either. The late great historian Christopher Lasch wrote about how everyone in the 1970s seemed to believe in impending doom, as if the end of time were near (he wrote this in the 70s). You're not saying anything new. Don't like the ISIS? I grew up with 13,000 Soviet nuclear weapons pointed at my country and the USSR was run by a guy who was drunk most of the time, you don't know what danger is. Study some history and give up these notions that these times are somehow more historically unique and more dangerous than others, they're not.

How am I reaching? I am stating basic facts...

No, you're trying to put a violent spin on a movement that succeeded using peaceful tactics.

They bare very little of it. I blame the failed education system and all who oppose school vouchers.

Why the hell throw good money after bad into a failed system?

Why the have support a broken and and failed system?

Besides again venturing far off topic, school vouchers are a non-starter. Other countries have public school systems that work just fine and yet you're saying ours needs to be junked in favor of an untested system that will see tax dollars going to Biblical literalists and neo-segregationists. It's like having a car with a dead battery and you've declared that cars inherently don't work and we must adopt something completely different even though all around us we see other people using cars that indeed work just fine.

I never said it was not a unchanging state.

And it does it keeps these in power in some state of reluctance to force their mandate of heaven upon the American people.

Undoubtedly, I agree.

Yeah I have noticed that Fait currency always fails..And it is impossible to cover lies, bribes and IOU`s with Gold and Sliver bucause you cant print more of it our of thin air, their is a finite supply.

Hey all we have to is watch the elections came and the result..

Fiat currency does not always fail, it has helped us become a much wealthier nation than we ever could have been with a currency yoked to precious metals (and incidentally, if you have a laptop or a cell phone, those use gold, so if we start hording it, watch out). Our monetary problem comes from the fact that although our currency has no intrinsic value, our central banking system is still designed to operate as if it does.

How is that "laugh out loud".

Because it's funny. The same region also gave us the political philosophy that led to our country's own founding. You cherry picked some bad guys from history while ignoring several salient points:

1. Every region produces bad guys
2. It doesn't gel with your own accusations of American brutality against the Native Americans
3. The same region also produces the philosophers and political leaders that made modern democracy possible. Saying you can learn nothing from people who gave us everything (the US is not the font of Western Civilization and culture) is beyond laughable in its shortsightedness and lack of historical perspective.
4. America has done its fair share of placing bad guys into power when it suited us and supporting brutal regimes when it suited us.

The number was far lower, it also ended in the 1889.

What is the excause of the genocides of the 20th?

They saw what we did, ok they saw that and then they not only did not learn a damn thing, but saw what we did, did the same thing, and went far far far further with it then ever thought possible.

First, genocide isn't excusable no matter what, but it's not some kind of inherent European trait, that's ridiculous.

Second, they didn't learn it from us.

How many nations in Europe have used a government agency to target certain people based on their political views?

First, prove Obama did that. Second, I already said, several times, that without widespread firearms use they have better, less-corrupt governments than ours. So what exactly are you trying to argue about here? This isn't the rabbit season/duck season scene from that Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck-Elmer Fudd cartoon.

How many nations in Europe have staged a false flag operation by running guns to some of the worse human beings on Earth and then even as the lie is brought into the light trying to people law abiding citizens of their nation?

Yes, Iran-Contra was bad, I agree.

Please tell us.

So, you're agreeing with me then?

Yeah only one gun store in the nation..On a Army Base and really limiting the kinds of firearms a person can buy and they are not the best for self defense especially when the criminals of Full Auto AK47 and PKMs.

Plus permits and licenses make it very costly.

Then let's end the drug war so they can live in peace. Maybe it'll help solve that border thing you're so upset about.

Yes they did...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And Heller v D.C protects arms in common usage which select fire firearms being around since 1885 to 2014 have, are, and will be very common.

Two things:

Nowhere did they mention machine guns.

And you can't use Heller to back you up because your own stated views on machine gun ownership doesn't gel with Heller. Like I said to whippersnapper88, Heller is conceding that there's a line somewhere, something you refuse to do.

Does the Hughes Amendment prevent new machine guns from being added to the registry?

Yes or No?

Yeah, and I'm fine with that.

And please use the quotation app on the tools section.

I kind of have to now since you made such a mess of responding.

[Votre_Chef]

For starts it is not a clip, it is a magazine..

No you are wrong the Ruger is not more dangerous, the stopping power of the average .22LR is no where near that of the of average .30-30 which will do more damage per round give the weight, diameter and velocity and stop power..

No it is not more dangerous you are more likey to live after being shot with a 5.56x45 then a larger round say a 30.06 or 7.62x54R


This idea that just because they can fire faster they are some how more dangerous is fallacy.

If you want to shoot a bunch of people in the shortest amount of time, semi-automatic fire and high capacity is your best bet. And that's how I answered the question.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

I don't think all the polls are wrong, it has stronger support than
Social Security, and yet it never had a chance. That's not the people, that's
big money. Same thing if we're talking a lot of other issues of course.

And so, if the polls are right, and 90% of people really did support the Background Check bill, why on Earth would it matter what the NRA had to say about it? I'd rather slight the NRA and satisfy the people who decide my fate at the ballot box, then appease the NRA and lose my job next election. Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

The "big money" thing doesn't make sense either, because if you go against the will of the people { which according to you is exactly what the senators did by voting against the bill } and get voted out of office, then the big money dries up to, because if you aren't in a position of power, the NRA has no use for you.

No matter how you slice it, the senators voted against the bill because they know that their constituents, the ones who are actually paying attention and would vote on this issue, did not support it.

But who's driving the bus here? You mentioned how they send you gloom and doom
material, especially around election time. Would gun owners all arrive at these
opinions completely independently if say, there was no NRA? Or is the NRA
helping drive opinion in the direction they want it to go. At this moment in
time, I agree with what you're saying about the NRA and it's membership, but I
would say that the NRA played a role in getting us to this point by doing their
part to shape the opinions of gun owners on the issue.

No, I don't think the NRA has shaped their members views. There are varying views amongst NRA members about all sorts of different things. With 5 million+ members, there are bound to be. However, the collective view of the bulk of their membership is pretty much the same. True, they do like their over the top scare tactics at times, but those are used to gin up and mobilize the base, as well as to drive donations. At times, the NRA does things that it's members do not support. Take the Heller case for example. That landmark ruling made the individual right interpretation official, but had the NRA had it's way, the case would have never made it to the SCOTUS because they were scared of what might happen. As I said before, the NRA doesn't see eye to eye with all of it's members with every decision, so obviously not all members are told what to think by the NRA. The NRA can't say "an assault weapons ban is ok now" and have all it's members follow suit. Again, NRA represents the collective interests of the bulk of it's members. If they were to sit down at the table as you suggest, and support something that went completely astray of the collective opinion, it'd lose all of it's support and influence right quick.

I have a Mosin-Nagan M1891 that holds five rounds. (bolt action)

A Winchester 94 .30-30 that holds seven. (lever action)

My brother has a Remington shotgun that holds five. (pump action)

My friend has a semi-automatic Ruger with a clip that holds 25 round
(actually he has two of them and they attach clunkily to each other upside down
so he can flip it, so it's more like 50 rounds). I say clunkily because he
basically has now resorted to duct tape to keep them together. It's the
handyman's secret weapon.

At range, the Winchester wins easily, unless you're wearing body armor, then
probably the Mosin-Nagant. But more dangerous in most common situations? I'd say
the Ruger wins easily. It can move through 50 rounds quick. If assault rifles
weren't more dangerous than traditional rifles, the world's armies probably
wouldn't use so many of them. It throws more rounds at your opponent in a
shorter span of time, so of course it's more dangerous.

I hate to be a stickler, but you didn't answer my question. I asked it very specifically. Why is an AR15 so much more dangerous { which would be covered under an assault weapons ban } than a Ruger mini-14? { which would NOT be banned under an assault weapons ban }

I'll save us both a little time and assume you don't know. That's ok.

There is functionally no difference between these two rifles at all. They both fire the same bullet, they both hold the same number of rounds, and they are both semi-automatic rifles. However, one of these rifles is considered an "assault rifle" and the other isn't. One would be covered under an assault weapons ban, the other wouldn't. Does that make any sense at all whatsoever to you? It doesn't to me. There is one difference though, and if you looked at the links I provided, that difference is obvious. One of them is a scary black rifle that look like a military rifle, the other a traditional looking hunting rifle. That is what the whole "assault rifle" lie is based upon.... cosmetic features. The way a rifle looks, { not how it functions } determines whether it is considered an assault rifle or not.

By the way, the type of "assault weapon" we're discussing here? Militaries do not carry them. The general public does not have access to full-auto or select fire weapons, which is what is issued to our military.

I don't think that necessarily follows exactly how I think you mean it (perhaps
not), but I kind of see what you're saying. A background check system could
register the sale, the firearm, the seller and the buyer and that information
would form a de facto database. So in other words, the sale would become a de
facto registration. I don't think they would make people all register their guns
so that there's this sales database, they would just count on sales going
forward. So if you already owned a gun, and never sold it, it would never show
up.

If all guns are not connected to a citizen, than a universal background check cannot be enforced. Ok, lets say a bill passed last year requiring that all sales have a background check, even sales between two private parties. So, it is now mandatory to go do a background check on my buyer, right? So, say I have this handgun I want to sell, { and mind you, that this handgun is not in any government registry or database... there is nothing connecting me to this handgun } So, I'm going to sell it, but I know my buyer won't pass the background check, so I don't do the background check and sell it to him anyway. What exactly is the government going to do about it? How are they going to punish me for selling this gun without doing a background check, when they don't even know that I ever owned it to begin with? Do you see the problem here? The bottom line is, how are you going to make criminals go run background checks on each other before selling a gun?

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

lol

What's truly funny is how you later on in your same response say you're not a conspiracy theorist while claiming that it's been a concerted effort going all the way back to the 1830s. Stop already with trying to state your own twisted view of history with a sense of gravity as if it's widely accepted fact and not the opinions of far right nutters. And do at least make an attempt to maintain some kind of logical consistency. And the more you trot out buzzwords like "liberty" and "freedom" and play it melodramatically like you're trying to out Glenn Beck the man himself, I'm going to laugh at you, because that's what melodramatics deserves.

At no point id I ever say it was a conspiracy theory.

It is not my "twisted" view of history, I am stating a fact...

Once again using buzzwords like "Glenn Beck" ..We have a winner here dont we.

It's a banality that betrays a lack of original thought.

How so?

But then again anything to change the subject.

What about California? Since repairing their political dysfunction, they're more stable than they have been in years.

What repair? They still have the same polices on the books and fools in office..But it a one party rule so nothing really changes..

Demographics
Regulations and high taxes chasing businesses and high income earns
The public debt bubble is about to burst
Just a joke for a education system
Home to more bankrupt cities then any other states
One of the highest rates of gang violence in the nation

And growing list of other reasons...

What about Chicago? It has a murder rate half of what it was 20 years ago, about the same as it was in the mid-60s and it's seeing population growth again.

What kind of population group?

Welfare voters and gang banger or college students and entrepreneurs?

Furthermore that number is dropping due to Illinois became the last state in the America to legalize self defense via CCW laws.

That and I think the gang bangers have been killing each other off at a rate that they can not replenish their ranks..

What about Detroit? It was an economic one-trick pony, a city that grew into wealth and power based upon an auto industry that held more than 90% of the US market in an age when Americans bought brand new cars every couple of years.

So you are saying over none of the following had any effect on in its demise?

Over Regulation.

Price inflation due to union costs.

Foreign Competition the did not have such unions and therefore could produce a cheaper product.

Voters thinking they could vote themselves "free" things any someone would always pick up the tab.

A failed school system.(any time you have a failed city, state, or nation its always had a failed education system)

Public Sector unions with a ponzi scheme retirement promise that which hit all ready shrinking tax base.

Fewer public service.

Fewer cops, which means crime goes up...

The spike in crime is always answers by calls to pass some gun law which will have no effect other then disarming law abiding citizen, which emboldens criminals.

Taxes are raised by funds are diverted to pay union lies and the ponzi scheme.

More businesses leave due to higher taxes, higher crime and better offers in other states..

The death sprail just picks up more speed until it is unstoppable.

It's a modern and large-scale equivalent to an old west boom town (you're in Nevada, ever been to Virginia City? Used to thrive thanks to the mines, now it's a barely-populated tourist trap).

Yes I have..creepy place...

The increase in popularity of imports and an oil crisis that Detroit was absolutely unprepared to handle and when they finally faced it, did so in shoddy fashion (do you really think the Pinto and Gremlin could hold a candle to the Toyotas and Volkswagens of the mid-late 70s?) doomed it. Throw in a mayor who defrauded the city and neoliberal free trade policies and you have a disaster of epic, or Detroit proportions. Oh but what's your evidence? Oh yeah, Democrats ran the city, therefore they are to blame for it's downfall, the old correlation = causation fallacy.

Why were imports popular?

Cheaper
Higher MPG(which if not for the oil crisis would not of bad such a big factor)
Really a one two punch.

They produced a crap car and were punished by the market and the consumer..As they should be.

I was more then one mayor and the city council is just as if not more corrupt.

Hey they had 50 years of on party in power for no other reason then they promised "free" stuff.. It did not end very well..It was many factors but they were gasoline on the fire.

Boston has been ran by Democrats for almost 100 years (twice as long as Detroit), and amazingly, it's not a ghost town (and it's not the only major city that's been run by Democrats for decades that can make that claim). Of course, the particular details that lead to some cities thriving and others failing might lead one to stop and consider that whether a city lives or dies depends on a lot of factors and variables, I guess it's just easier for you to brush all nuance aside and scream "liberals!!!" at it, all while ignoring the other cities run by liberals that aren't falling apart.

There are not a one industry town, but with the high cost of living, high taxes, and regulations of the North East we are seeing a brain drain to the free states. As well as a business drain for other states into other areas case in point how everyone is start to really leave California.

Remember how Twitter and Zynga threaten to leave San Francisco? I mean they still might..

Beretta has left Maryland for Tennessee indeed large percentage of the entire Firearms Industry has left the North East.

No, what you're trying to do is use Katrina as some kind of evidence of a larger plot, as if all this was pre-planned in order for nefarious forces to come after your guns. Katrina was an extreme and rare circumstance that has nothing at all to do with legislation.

I am just asking a question, you said no one has confiscated guns and I have proven you completely wrong..

Sweden is not corrupt and your say-so and attempt to redefine what constitutes corruption does constitute evidence to the contrary. Another common tactic of yours, change the meaning of the word to fit your purpose.

So you see nothing wrong with arresting people based on what they say?

lol

I beg to differ.

And yeah, it's a cop-out. You're like the founders in this way, liberty for you, not for them. Your own personal, private definition of "liberty." But by God, the Second Amendment will be taken kind of literally, as you nearly artfully fashion it to suit you.

What do you mean "not for them"..Who`s rights am I denying..And you and your side are ones to take...

By how much, a week, maybe two weeks?

How would D-Day turned out of bridge and rail lines were not blow up ahead of time allowing every armored unit who had defied the orders of the supports and advanced on Normandy and its beaches?

Well, that's not exactly clear, now is it? First they supported the regime for years and then they helped overthrow it, and then they overthrew the regime they put into power in what our administration studiously avoided calling a coup even though it was, if the protests are any indication, might just have been. So did they side with the people in overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood? Who knows for sure? The Egyptian Army definitely has one overarching goal: do what's best for the Egyptian Army.

Hey at least its not waging Jihad.

Any really after the last two fools, anyone can do a better job running that nation.

The NG isn't any more likely to defect than the regular Army is. During the Civil Rights Era, when Southern governors tried to use the NG to further their segregationist agendas, the federal government nationalized the guard and the NG always followed the national government's orders, even when their hearts were clearly on the side of the state governments.

Yes they are, they are home most of them they are rooted in their daily lives and more likely to see and fee the effect of tyranny.

That was a unjust and wrong use of power...

You assume they will obey unjust orders..I know a few active service member and a great many recent vets...I think it safe to say they really dont approve of the direction this nation is heading the actions of the Federal Government.


The is a universe apart for keeping student out of school based on their race and defying orders that would violate everything those men and women stand for and would shred the Constitution.

You can only own a weapon like a live hand grenade if you have an FFL.

Nope just pay the 200$ tax stamp do some "light" paper work and wait about 8 to 14 months..

It's not a valid argument because you just plucked it from thin air, you raced to a conclusion that nobody was heading towards and you have no evidence that anyone was heading towards it.

If you look at laws regarding firearms over the last 80 years it is based on had fact and basic observation.

And if you dont believe me about air rifles please test it our use dry wall.

The war aims of the United States government did not in any way include the extermination of the Mormons. It's odd that in spite of thousands of years of warfare through recorded history, you've decided that in order to claim victory, you simply have to avoid complete annihilation, even if that is not the goal of your opponent (and throughout history, it has rarely been the goal of the opponent).

Hey after the violence that force them out of Illinois and then the Missouri extermination order they had great reason to believe they were coming to finish them off.

That is the main goal of a insurgency..You have to have a flat win, you just have to not lose and just bleed the emeny of soldiers, weapons, and the occupying nation of its wealth and will to fight.






Are you sure? Because RT, which you apparently think is a valid source, claims differently. I wouldn't want you to be inconsistent or anything.

Ok why would the rebels not use a weapon that could turn the tide of the war?

I'm well aware of that, it was sarcasm. You made planes falling from the sky sound like something unique to our times, it isn't. I'm not sure why you listed some of them, since it seems to undermine the point you were trying to make that I was responding to.

You said it is unrealistic, I am providing it is a very realistic event.

Not a straw man (did you take it seriously?) just a friendly way of pointing out that you're wandering far off topic there.

Is that not 90% of all forum posts on the internet?

First of all, define terrorist state. Throughout history a lot of countries would have described their enemies in those terms. And secondly, you're making the ISIS out to be tougher than they actually are. Quit believing the hype.

I mean the first state that is reason for existing and its future is to" wage a rain of terror and jihad upon the non-believers and infidel" that is in their Constitution.

Oh yes Ebola. When I was a kid, everyone was scared of AIDS.

Can AIDS be transmitted by sneezing?

Can Aids be transmitted by shared lip stick, chap stick, spoons?

Does AIDS have 90% mortality ratio?

The Southern Border, I remember Reagan getting his immigration reform bill passed and millions getting on track to become citizens. Yeah, that's really a new issue.

Speaking of which where oh where is the border protections the Dems promised us if we agreed to amnesty?

We lost California because of the damn law..4,000,000 new entitlement voters..Yeah were worked out well of us..Adding up to 30,000,000 entitlemtn voters to the cost of $6.3,000,000,000,000 will be just what this nation needs and wants its not like on party will get a large voting block right?

Amnesty Cost to Taxpayers: $6.3 Trillion

Weak leadership? lol Seriously?

Red lines are not to bought up if you are not willing if you are not willing to nut up..Threats of force if not followed though are bluffs..

Once some would be Saddam in the Middle East can make the President look like a liar it really does set a the stage for other to test how much they can get away with...but when the American consulate is attacked on the anniversary of 9/11 in Benghazi and we dont send people in..I guess it it is clear to see we are not serious.

Not that China did not lunch a missile of the coast of California to test the waters and our reaction...

Unstable economy? That's true but this has been building up for a long time and it's definitely repairable.

They really do something not passing bills which do noting at best and at worse ruin it.

Eliminate the Corporate income tax
Dont tax money made overseas and bought into this nation
Make it easier and cheaper to file patents
Crack the whip on China when the violate our copyright/patent laws
Unleash the Oil/Gas reserves of this nation

Instead they have done the opposite.

The recession of the early 80s and the one in the early 90s weren't exactly picnics. The gas lines of the early and late 70s weren't exactly fun times either. The late great historian Christopher Lasch wrote about how everyone in the 1970s seemed to believe in impending doom, as if the end of time were near (he wrote this in the 70s). You're not saying anything new. Don't like the ISIS? I grew up with 13,000 Soviet nuclear weapons pointed at my country and the USSR was run by a guy who was drunk most of the time, you don't know what danger is. Study some history and give up these notions that these times are somehow more historically unique and more dangerous than others, they're not.

Major difference between America then and America now?

We did not have a group of people claiming the Soviet Union was not a threat and was a nation of peace..

No, you're trying to put a violent spin on a movement that succeeded using peaceful tactics.

How so? i am stating they used firearms in self defense..I hate to break it do you but non violence does not stop a molotov cocktail from throw into your house by Klansmens.

Besides again venturing far off topic, school vouchers are a non-starter. Other countries have public school systems that work just fine and yet you're saying ours needs to be junked in favor of an untested system that will see tax dollars going to Biblical literalists and neo-segregationists. It's like having a car with a dead battery and you've declared that cars inherently don't work and we must adopt something completely different even though all around us we see other people using cars that indeed work just fine.

Hate to break it to you but what works in other nation does not work here...

It is a tested system many other nations have it, it works great in this nation, see New Orleans schools after Katrina, and the D.C program that was shut down by the Boy King.

Do you really think such schools would even be accredited to begin with and if they do will be able to stay in business when the kids are not taught to the liking of the parents?

No the current failure of a system is the battery..Would you not change a dead battery?

Cheaper education, and at a higher quality..brighter student, better schools, higher paid teachers and a win for the tax payer and the future of our nation...While the Union Thugs are removed from the mess they help create...Has is that not a win win?

Undoubtedly, I agree.

Interesting

Fiat currency does not always fail, it has helped us become a much wealthier nation than we ever could have been with a currency yoked to precious metals (and incidentally, if you have a laptop or a cell phone, those use gold, so if we start hording it, watch out). Our monetary problem comes from the fact that although our currency has no intrinsic value, our central banking system is still designed to operate as if it does.

What is the oldest fiat currency?

As the amount of precious metals decreases their value will sky rocket forcing people to find or create replacement.

And what happens when that central bank inflate the currency out of existence?

Because it's funny. The same region also gave us the political philosophy that led to our country's own founding. You cherry picked some bad guys from history while ignoring several salient points:

1. Every region produces bad guys
2. It doesn't gel with your own accusations of American brutality against the Native Americans
3. The same region also produces the philosophers and political leaders that made modern democracy possible. Saying you can learn nothing from people who gave us everything (the US is not the font of Western Civilization and culture) is beyond laughable in its shortsightedness and lack of historical perspective.
4. America has done its fair share of placing bad guys into power when it suited us and supporting brutal regimes when it suited us.

WE can learn a great deal from them, I never said Europe produces nothing but failure and evil..

Nothing on the magnitude of Hitler, Stalin, Moa ect, they are in a league of their own.

First, genocide isn't excusable no matter what, but it's not some kind of inherent European trait, that's ridiculous.

Great point, I never said that it was.. and its great to see

Second, they didn't learn it from us.

Never said they did, that being said they did not learn from us and not only fail to stop but take it a new level..

First, prove Obama did that. Second, I already said, several times, that without widespread firearms use they have better, less-corrupt governments than ours. So what exactly are you trying to argue about here? This isn't the rabbit season/duck season scene from that Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck-Elmer Fudd cartoon.

We can just wait for the hard dive and emails of louse learner to be found...

Its very hard to mess wit, rob and harsses a nation of people are just as if not a little better armed then your jack booted thugs..

Yes, Iran-Contra was bad, I agree.

Fast and Furious Gun Walking Operation is the False Flag Operation I am talking about.

700 plus Mexican nations dead
24 Mexican police officers
17 Mexican Marines
4 American Law Enforcement officer dead, including Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

So, you're agreeing with me then?

No, I am not..

Then let's end the drug war so they can live in peace. Maybe it'll help solve that border thing you're so upset about.

Secure the borders above all else, end the war on drugs just forbid the importation of them...Why shouldn't American get a hold of the massive market?

Two things:

Nowhere did they mention machine guns.

And you can't use Heller to back you up because your own stated views on machine gun ownership doesn't gel with Heller. Like I said to whippersnapper88, Heller is conceding that there's a line somewhere, something you refuse to do.

It says Arms which machine guns are arms and therefore protected.

No they are, and until proven, they by default are protected.

So what is to draw that line at a point that there is only a 2nd Amendment in name only?

Hate to break it you but the registry will be opened if not only for the need of tax dollars at the low end we have about 1,000,000 machine gun "off the books" in this nation mostly vets who decide to bring back some cool tools..at a $200 tax stamp per machine gun and per transfer we are looking at at least $300,000,000 that the feds need...

Yeah, and I'm fine with that.

Really? I have to ask but why?

I kind of have to now since you made such a mess of responding

Hey I am not the one who stopped using the quotation system.

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

For starts it is not a clip, it is a magazine..

No you are wrong the Ruger is not more dangerous, the stopping power of the average .22LR is no where near that of the of average .30-30 which will do more damage per round give the weight, diameter and velocity and stop power..

No it is not more dangerous you are more likey to live after being shot with a 5.56x45 then a larger round say a 30.06 or 7.62x54R


This idea that just because they can fire faster they are some how more dangerous is fallacy.

If you want to shoot a bunch of people in the shortest amount of time, semi-automatic fire and high capacity is your best bet. And that's how I answered the question.

Really..So the fact that the shooter is the only one with any firearm against a disarmed, target rich environment has nothing to do with the death toll?

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

lol

What's truly funny is how you later on in your same response say you're not a conspiracy theorist while claiming that it's been a concerted effort going all the way back to the 1830s. Stop already with trying to state your own twisted view of history with a sense of gravity as if it's widely accepted fact and not the opinions of far right nutters. And do at least make an attempt to maintain some kind of logical consistency. And the more you trot out buzzwords like "liberty" and "freedom" and play it melodramatically like you're trying to out Glenn Beck the man himself, I'm going to laugh at you, because that's what melodramatics deserves.

You're right. That's why I laugh at liberals with their nutty views that if only the rich paid more taxes the economy would be thriving, state run healthcare would be a paradise for everyone, rampant racism is keeping the black man down, and there is a war on women because people don't want to pass out free birth control.

What about California? Since repairing their political dysfunction, they're more stable than they have been in years.

California has tens of billions in unfunded liabilities thanks to idiot liberals who hand out benefits like candy without a care in the world of how those benefits will actually be paid for by future generations. Liberal leaders are, and always have been, financial retards without even a grade school understanding of economics.

What about Chicago? It has a murder rate half of what it was 20 years ago, about the same as it was in the mid-60s and it's seeing population growth again.

Chicago is the shining example of liberal gun control at work. Some of the tightest gun control laws in the country along with some of the worst violent crime in the country. Good job liberals. Your polices work wonders.

What about Detroit? It was an economic one-trick pony, a city that grew into wealth and power based upon an auto industry that held more than 90% of the US market in an age when Americans bought brand new cars every couple of years. It's a modern and large-scale equivalent to an old west boom town (you're in Nevada, ever been to Virginia City? Used to thrive thanks to the mines, now it's a barely-populated tourist trap). The increase in popularity of imports and an oil crisis that Detroit was absolutely unprepared to handle and when they finally faced it, did so in shoddy fashion (do you really think the Pinto and Gremlin could hold a candle to the Toyotas and Volkswagens of the mid-late 70s?) doomed it. Throw in a mayor who defrauded the city and neoliberal free trade policies and you have a disaster of epic, or Detroit proportions. Oh but what's your evidence? Oh yeah, Democrats ran the city, therefore they are to blame for it's downfall, the old correlation = causation fallacy. Boston has been ran by Democrats for almost 100 years (twice as long as Detroit), and amazingly, it's not a ghost town (and it's not the only major city that's been run by Democrats for decades that can make that claim). Of course, the particular details that lead to some cities thriving and others failing might lead one to stop and consider that whether a city lives or dies depends on a lot of factors and variables, I guess it's just easier for you to brush all nuance aside and scream "liberals!!!" at it, all while ignoring the other cities run by liberals that aren't falling apart.

Sounds very similar to what you liberals do when you go around talking about the poor red states that consume more in federal funding than they contribute. It is the epitome of brainlessness to simultaneously hold that red states are the poorest states and that Republicans are all for the rich, and to simultaneously hold that Democrats are for the common man and that the poorest states are Republican. It's pure cognitive dissonance that readily points out how moronic liberalism is. Being a liberal requires simultaneously holding directly conflicting views.

No, what you're trying to do is use Katrina as some kind of evidence of a larger plot, as if all this was pre-planned in order for nefarious forces to come after your guns. Katrina was an extreme and rare circumstance that has nothing at all to do with legislation.

Unless of course you can try to imply Republicans did not act swiftly and competently to take care of Katrina because they are racists who don't care if poor black people suffer and die. Then Katrina has everything to do with legislation. Your dear leader Obama gave a speech doing just that. Then he became President himself and let a gulf oil spill wreck the economy of that very same state for weeks before he did anything about it. Kind of ironic.

Sweden is not corrupt and your say-so and attempt to redefine what constitutes corruption does constitute evidence to the contrary. Another common tactic of yours, change the meaning of the word to fit your purpose.

Sort of like liberals who claim that the 2nd amendment saying no law shall be made restricting the peoples' right to bear arms does not really mean that no law shall be made restricting the peoples' right to bear arms.

And yeah, it's a cop-out. You're like the founders in this way, liberty for you, not for them. Your own personal, private definition of "liberty." But by God, the Second Amendment will be taken kind of literally, as you nearly artfully fashion it to suit you.

And so just after taking someone to task for being using simplistic thinking earlier in this post, you then go and judge the founders using modern conceptions of equality. Good job on the hypocrisy.

Well, that's not exactly clear, now is it? First they supported the regime for years and then they helped overthrow it, and then they overthrew the regime they put into power in what our administration studiously avoided calling a coup even though it was, if the protests are any indication, might just have been. So did they side with the people in overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood? Who knows for sure? The Egyptian Army definitely has one overarching goal: do what's best for the Egyptian Army.

And if Obama wasn't such a fumbling myopic idiot in foreign affairs, none of this would have happened.

The Southern Border, I remember Reagan getting his immigration reform bill passed and millions getting on track to become citizens. Yeah, that's really a new issue.

You remember wrong. Reagan agreed to not veto the immigration reform bill of the Democrats in exchange for securing the border. Then, after they got their immigration legislation passed, the Democrats reneged on the deal and didn't pass the 2nd bill securing the border that they promised.

Unstable economy? That's true but this has been building up for a long time and it's definitely repairable. The recession of the early 80s and the one in the early 90s weren't exactly picnics. The gas lines of the early and late 70s weren't exactly fun times either. The late great historian Christopher Lasch wrote about how everyone in the 1970s seemed to believe in impending doom, as if the end of time were near (he wrote this in the 70s). You're not saying anything new. Don't like the ISIS? I grew up with 13,000 Soviet nuclear weapons pointed at my country and the USSR was run by a guy who was drunk most of the time, you don't know what danger is. Study some history and give up these notions that these times are somehow more historically unique and more dangerous than others, they're not.

Yes, they are. We have a President who is too much of a weak minded ideologue to do what is necessary to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons. Your story about the Soviets and their nuclear arms is worthless in comparison to that. The Soviets were an example of what happens when people of your political persuasion get their way and set up absolute central authority. They were not religious fanatics with openly stated goals of genocide the way that Iran is.

Besides again venturing far off topic, school vouchers are a non-starter. Other countries have public school systems that work just fine and yet you're saying ours needs to be junked in favor of an untested system that will see tax dollars going to Biblical literalists and neo-segregationists. It's like having a car with a dead battery and you've declared that cars inherently don't work and we must adopt something completely different even though all around us we see other people using cars that indeed work just fine.

Other countries have school systems that run fine because their school systems aren't run by Democrats. Our school system used to run fine too. Then you Democrats decided to have the teachers be unionized and have those unions become major campaign donors of the Democrat party. Now our school system is garbage. Instead of our tax dollars going to Biblical literalists and neo-segregationalists our tax dollars are instead going to pay the union dues of teachers, and the unions then give those dues to the Democrat party as campaign contributions. So it's no wonder that you are interested in perpetuating idiotic nonsense about Biblican literalists and neo-segregationalists. Public sector unions are the lifeblood of the Democrats. You have to do whatever you can to marginalize people who want to overturn your applecart.

Fiat currency does not always fail, it has helped us become a much wealthier nation than we ever could have been with a currency yoked to precious metals (and incidentally, if you have a laptop or a cell phone, those use gold, so if we start hording it, watch out). Our monetary problem comes from the fact that although our currency has no intrinsic value, our central banking system is still designed to operate as if it does.

Our monetary problems come from the incompetence of the Federal Reserve that liberals set up and steadfastly refuse to allow any oversight over.

Because it's funny. The same region also gave us the political philosophy that led to our country's own founding. You cherry picked some bad guys from history while ignoring several salient points:

1. Every region produces bad guys
2. It doesn't gel with your own accusations of American brutality against the Native Americans
3. The same region also produces the philosophers and political leaders that made modern democracy possible. Saying you can learn nothing from people who gave us everything (the US is not the font of Western Civilization and culture) is beyond laughable in its shortsightedness and lack of historical perspective.
4. America has done its fair share of placing bad guys into power when it suited us and supporting brutal regimes when it suited us.

Someone who refers to neo-segregationalists, talks about Reagan's immigration reform, and says that the international terrorism in the modern world is not a big threat is not someone who should be talking about historical perspective. You have none.

[Votre_Chef]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

You're right. That's why I laugh at liberals with their nutty views that if only the rich paid more taxes the economy would be thriving, state run healthcare would be a paradise for everyone, rampant racism is keeping the black man down, and there is a war on women because people don't want to pass out free birth control.

lol

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

California has tens of billions in unfunded liabilities thanks to idiot liberals who hand out benefits like candy without a care in the world of how those benefits will actually be paid for by future generations. Liberal leaders are, and always have been, financial retards without even a grade school understanding of economics.

lmao!

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Chicago is the shining example of liberal gun control at work. Some of the tightest gun control laws in the country along with some of the worst violent crime in the country. Good job liberals. Your polices work wonders.

Chicago's gun laws aren't designed to effectively physically prevent guns from entering Chicago (and there's no way they could possibly do that unless they build a wall around the city) but instead are designed to have a deterrent effect, by adding additional charges (and additional penalties) when gun crimes are committed within the city and by making it a little bit more difficult to procure guns. And as I already pointed out, homicide is half what it was in the early 90s. If liberals are responsible for Chicago's murder rate, they're responsible for it being half what it was 20 years ago. You don't get to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Sounds very similar to what you liberals do when you go around talking about the poor red states that consume more in federal funding than they contribute. It is the epitome of brainlessness to simultaneously hold that red states are the poorest states and that Republicans are all for the rich, and to simultaneously hold that Democrats are for the common man and that the poorest states are Republican. It's pure cognitive dissonance that readily points out how moronic liberalism is. Being a liberal requires simultaneously holding directly conflicting views.

You should take it up with the people who complains about the red states then. I have no idea why you're talking about this to me.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Unless of course you can try to imply Republicans did not act swiftly and competently to take care of Katrina because they are racists who don't care if poor black people suffer and die. Then Katrina has everything to do with legislation. Your dear leader Obama gave a speech doing just that. Then he became President himself and let a gulf oil spill wreck the economy of that very same state for weeks before he did anything about it. Kind of ironic.

I didn't say anything about that at all. And I never defended Obama on the oil spill, at all. Try to stay on topic. I have no idea why you're bringing this up, we weren't talking about the Bush Administration's response to Katrina, at all.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Sort of like liberals who claim that the 2nd amendment saying no law shall be made restricting the peoples' right to bear arms does not really mean that no law shall be made restricting the peoples' right to bear arms.

Well then, perhaps you can answer the question gunlover so studiously has avoided.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

And so just after taking someone to task for being using simplistic thinking earlier in this post, you then go and judge the founders using modern conceptions of equality. Good job on the hypocrisy.

lol, over your head, obviously.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

And if Obama wasn't such a fumbling myopic idiot in foreign affairs, none of this would have happened.

lol, if I want the GOP's talking points, I can read them or watch Fox News, I don't need that baloney from you.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

You remember wrong. Reagan agreed to not veto the immigration reform bill of the Democrats in exchange for securing the border. Then, after they got their immigration legislation passed, the Democrats reneged on the deal and didn't pass the 2nd bill securing the border that they promised.

That's not even remotely true, just revisionist history from the anti-immigrant crowd that wants to hate illegals, but can't bring themselves to criticize their messiah. Reagan specifically asked for the bill in his State of the Union speech and thank Congress for working in bipartisan fashion (did you forget the GOP controlled the Senate at this time?) to pass it.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Yes, they are. We have a President who is too much of a weak minded ideologue to do what is necessary to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons. Your story about the Soviets and their nuclear arms is worthless in comparison to that. The Soviets were an example of what happens when people of your political persuasion get their way and set up absolute central authority. They were not religious fanatics with openly stated goals of genocide the way that Iran is.

That's just funny in its wrongness.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Other countries have school systems that run fine because their school systems aren't run by Democrats. Our school system used to run fine too. Then you Democrats decided to have the teachers be unionized and have those unions become major campaign donors of the Democrat party. Now our school system is garbage. Instead of our tax dollars going to Biblical literalists and neo-segregationalists our tax dollars are instead going to pay the union dues of teachers, and the unions then give those dues to the Democrat party as campaign contributions. So it's no wonder that you are interested in perpetuating idiotic nonsense about Biblican literalists and neo-segregationalists. Public sector unions are the lifeblood of the Democrats. You have to do whatever you can to marginalize people who want to overturn your applecart.

lol, no marginalizing, the neo-segregationists and biblical literalists are your pals, not mine, and you want them to get tax dollars. And yes, those millionaire teachers are clearly the problem, they're just overpaid.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Our monetary problems come from the incompetence of the Federal Reserve that liberals set up and steadfastly refuse to allow any oversight over.

I already explained what the problem was. You just spouted right wing talking points that like pretty much all the rest of your post, was devoid of any substance or meaning. You could have just saved me the time I lost reading it by just saying "nuh-uh! it's your fault!" and it would have been exactly the same, just more concise.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Someone who refers to neo-segregationalists, talks about Reagan's immigration reform, and says that the international terrorism in the modern world is not a big threat is not someone who should be talking about historical perspective. You have none.

No, I have perspective, all you have is right wing talking points you obediently repeat for us, as if I couldn't have read them elsewhere. If you ever posted something truly original, I think I'd faint out of sheer surprise.

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

lol



lmao!



Chicago's gun laws aren't designed to effectively physically prevent guns from entering Chicago (and there's no way they could possibly do that unless they build a wall around the city) but instead are designed to have a deterrent effect, by adding additional charges (and additional penalties) when gun crimes are committed within the city and by making it a little bit more difficult to procure guns. And as I already pointed out, homicide is half what it was in the early 90s. If liberals are responsible for Chicago's murder rate, they're responsible for it being half what it was 20 years ago. You don't get to have it both ways.



You should take it up with the people who complains about the red states then. I have no idea why you're talking about this to me.



I didn't say anything about that at all. And I never defended Obama on the oil spill, at all. Try to stay on topic. I have no idea why you're bringing this up, we weren't talking about the Bush Administration's response to Katrina, at all.



Well then, perhaps you can answer the question gunlover so studiously has avoided.



lol, over your head, obviously.



lol, if I want the GOP's talking points, I can read them or watch Fox News, I don't need that baloney from you.




That's not even remotely true, just revisionist history from the anti-immigrant crowd that wants to hate illegals, but can't bring themselves to criticize their messiah. Reagan specifically asked for the bill in his State of the Union speech and thank Congress for working in bipartisan fashion (did you forget the GOP controlled the Senate at this time?) to pass it.




That's just funny in its wrongness.



lol, no marginalizing, the neo-segregationists and biblical literalists are your pals, not mine, and you want them to get tax dollars. And yes, those millionaire teachers are clearly the problem, they're just overpaid.




I already explained what the problem was. You just spouted right wing talking points that like pretty much all the rest of your post, was devoid of any substance or meaning. You could have just saved me the time I lost reading it by just saying "nuh-uh! it's your fault!" and it would have been exactly the same, just more concise.



No, I have perspective, all you have is right wing talking points you obediently repeat for us, as if I couldn't have read them elsewhere. If you ever posted something truly original, I think I'd faint out of sheer surprise.

I will correct your lies tomorrow..

How is that revisionism? Was and is the border secured? No, so how are we changing history? Democrats lied to legalize 4,000,000 new entitlement voters...

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

Chicago's gun laws aren't designed to effectively physically prevent guns
from entering Chicago (and there's no way they could possibly do that unless
they build a wall around the city) but instead are designed to
have a deterrent effect, by adding additional charges (and additional penalties)
when gun crimes are committed within the city

That's peculiar, considering that Chicago ranks dead last in jurisdictions prosecuting federal gun crime.

and by making it a little bit more difficult to procure guns.

That's true, but let's be clear here; the only people Chicago's gun laws prevent from procuring a gun are law abiding people, certainly not criminals.

And as I already pointed out, homicide is half what it was in the early
90s. If liberals are responsible for Chicago's murder rate, they're responsible
for it being half what it was 20 years ago. You don't get to have
it both ways.

Sure he can. The violent crime rate has been on a downward trend in this country for the last 20-30 years. Chicago isn't immune from the effects of the over-all trend.

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by Emigrations

I'm 28 and many of my family members were Democrats, but these were mostly older Democrats, many of whom were veterans. Most were Democrats because the Democrats were for the "little guy," and I always thought they generally had the nation's best interests at heart.

Today I see many Democrats who seem to want to redesign America in such a way as to make it unrecognizable to prior generations. They seem to have animosity toward, even hatred of, the way the country is.

It seems the left has become more anti-American over the last few years. How do you feel?

That's fine. Question it aaaaaall you want. I think I'll live.

-Liberal