All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
2/13/2013 8:57 AM
LMAO

SWAMP,MIKET, AND MUCOUS= THE THREE STOOGES MEET THE TEABAGGERS
2/13/2013 1:18 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 2/13/2013 6:01:00 AM (view original):
"7 I am honored to be the go to punching bag of the left. The more you lash out blindly against me the more I know I am doing my job right!"

Are you ruling out the potential realization that you are just a raging moron?  Because you are an embarrassment to most of the right. 
The right does not walk in lockstep. We can have honest disagrements over many issues. The Tea Party will actually stand up for their beliefs and cost Republicans seats in congress. You never see the left doing that. They are all about the power.

So when MikeT takes me to task for some issue he believes I have addressed in error it doesnt mean he thinks I am a crazy, evil moron like the left does. Or when some of the more extreme Cons on the board attack my more "Rino" ways they are just trying to define the direction they want America to take.

When you or Seamar or Jiml blast me you think I am a moron.
2/13/2013 1:31 PM
I think your failure to recognize your errors can make you a moron.   The latest was the "But you don't have to aim AW so they're safer than shotguns/handguns in some cases" is a good example.

That was simply a stupid statement.   You could have said "Yeah, I worded that horribly."   You didn't. 
2/13/2013 1:33 PM
9 times out of 10, when we agree, I have to say "swamp has a point.  What he means is........."  

That's not a good thing.
2/13/2013 2:45 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 2/12/2013 9:03:00 PM (view original):
State of Denial
State of Sheeple led by the Fox
State of Willful Ignorance
State of Ignorant Ignorance
State of anti-democratic senate where minority can prevent governance
State of Corporate Rule
State of Swamphawk Dumbassery

+ the 50 others = 57.
So basically what you're saying is that you're just as much of a dumbass as swampy?
2/13/2013 4:19 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/13/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
9 times out of 10, when we agree, I have to say "swamp has a point.  What he means is........."  

That's not a good thing.
If you just make your point you sometimes get ignored. you need a little razzle dazzle!

If I say "Obama's polices are infringing on personal liberty"....Yawn.
If I say "Obamacare is something Stalin would approve of"...Bam!

The left takes no quarter in dealing with the policies of the right, why should we always be the civil guys?

2/13/2013 5:58 PM
Understood.   I use hyperboles all the time.

"Assault weapons aren't always as dangerous as shotguns/handguns because you don't need to aim to kill" does not qualify.
2/13/2013 6:21 PM
Let me try to clear this up a bit.

I dont know if you have ever fired an assualt style weapon in the open air. You get a little fired up about it.

If you were shooting at a group of people you might fire multiple rounds and injure but not kill some of the people.

With a handgun you tend to aim more. Get cleaner shots.

Shotguns are either a sure kill or to far away.

There is an idea there.

And the main point was just to tear down the idea that a n AW ban would make things better just because there was no AW. I tried to find a possible scenario where it might actually be worse to not have one.

It may not have been the best example, but it wasnt completly out of left field.
2/13/2013 9:55 PM
<<The right does not walk in lockstep. We can have honest disagrements over many issues. The Tea Party will actually stand up for their beliefs and cost Republicans seats in congress. You never see the left doing that. They are all about the power.>>

Ralph Nader + Al Gore = President George Bush

Another Swamp lie exposed.
2/14/2013 12:27 AM
1 I dont think the idea that Nader cost Gore the election holds water. I admit a case could be made but I feel it would be weak,

2 It isnt the same thing. The Tea Party is still a part of the Republican Party. It just stands for a core set of values, over the idea of the big tent. Third Party candidates always exist. Show me a wide spread case of Democrats fighting for people people who are more progressive idealogicaly even though there are stronger moderates.

The Tea Party is a whole new ballgame. It represents a fundemental split in the party. They agree on a lot, but refuse to back down on taxes.
2/14/2013 2:10 AM
<<1 I dont think the idea that Nader cost Gore the election holds water. I admit a case could be made but I feel it would be weak,>>

How dumb do you have to be to believe this? If Nader is not on the ballot how many Nader votes vote for Gore in Florida? How many vote for Bush. Do the math. And that is a "weak" argument? The weakest thing here is your critical thinking and reasoning ability.
2/14/2013 3:02 AM
CNN exit polling described most of the Nader supporters as independents. And they are almost all Perot voters on 96. With such a small group it is really hard to nail what they would do if the option never existed. Would they find another 3rd party, not vote or split between Bush and Gore.

It might get a win for Gore, but it is hard to clearly nail that as a given.
2/14/2013 9:09 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 2/13/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Let me try to clear this up a bit.

I dont know if you have ever fired an assualt style weapon in the open air. You get a little fired up about it.

If you were shooting at a group of people you might fire multiple rounds and injure but not kill some of the people.

With a handgun you tend to aim more. Get cleaner shots.

Shotguns are either a sure kill or to far away.

There is an idea there.

And the main point was just to tear down the idea that a n AW ban would make things better just because there was no AW. I tried to find a possible scenario where it might actually be worse to not have one.

It may not have been the best example, but it wasnt completly out of left field.
See?  That's not better than what you said before.

If the goal is to shoot people, maybe you kill them, maybe you injure them, you're not firing into the air.   You're firing into a crowd.   Many, many times with a AW, considerably fewer with a handgun. 

As for AW/shotgun, if I'm one of 20 people being fired at, please do it with a shotgun.    I think my odds of getting hit are slimmer.
2/14/2013 2:46 PM
When I said open air I didnt mean into the air, I meant not at a range where you are in a confied spot.
2/14/2013 3:19 PM
So what you're saying is that when you fire an assault weapon, you get a raging hard-on?

Do you also yell "YEE-HAW!!!!" when you pull the trigger?

You would serve your cause better if you would just STFU, because every time you post you fall deeper into your own vortex of stupidity.
of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.