OT : London Soldier Beheaded in Broad Daylight

[mo_ntresor]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18423701-sickening-and-barbaric-man-killed-in-suspected-london-terror-attack#comments

"A man, reported to be a British soldier, was attacked and killed by
knife-wielding assailants on a London street in broad daylight Wednesday
in what is being investigated as an ideologically-motivated terror attack.,

Eyewitnesses told ITV News that two attackers were later shot by officers.
A witness identified as James told local radio station LBC that he saw two
suspects attack the young victim with knives, including a meat cleaver.

"They were hacking at this poor guy, literally," he told the station.
"They were hacking at him, chopping him, cutting him.""


nothing a ban sharp objects couldn't prevent.

mo_ntresor

[TruthSeeker]

On 22/5/13 12:36 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> nothing a ban sharp objects couldn't prevent.

In the wake of the deaths of the schoolchildren in Oklahoma, the
government needs to pass some tough laws requiring all tornadoes to get
background checks, and limiting the force of tornadoes to F2.

If that would save the life of even one child, we must do it.



--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 22/5/13 12:36 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
>> nothing a ban sharp objects couldn't prevent.
>
> In the wake of the deaths of the schoolchildren in Oklahoma, the
> government needs to pass some tough laws requiring all tornadoes to get
> background checks, and limiting the force of tornadoes to F2.
>
> If that would save the life of even one child, we must do it.
>
>
>

So acts of god and acts of humans are on the same footing now? You may
argue that your post was an attempt at humor, but beneath the surface is
poorly disguised ignorance.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 22 2013 8:15 PM, Dutch wrote:

> So acts of god and acts of humans are on the same footing now? You may
> argue that your post was an attempt at humor, but beneath the surface is
> poorly disguised ignorance.

LOFL ... what a goddamn idiot.

mo_ntresor

[Dave the Clueless]

A carbon tax in 1996 would have saved those children. Democrats are sure
of this.

-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!

[Dave the Clueless]

Are you saying that God killed those people in OK?

[fffurken]

On 23 May, 14:39, "Dave the Clueless" <a987...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On May 22 2013 11:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > TruthSeeker wrote:
> > > On 22/5/13 12:36 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
> > >> nothing a ban sharp objects couldn't prevent.
>
> > > In the wake of the deaths of the schoolchildren in Oklahoma, the
> > > government needs to pass some tough laws requiring all tornadoes to get
> > > background checks, and limiting the force of tornadoes to F2.
>
> > > If that would save the life of even one child, we must do it.
>
> > So acts of god and acts of humans are on the same footing now? You may
> > argue that your post was an attempt at humor, but beneath the surface is
> > poorly disguised ignorance.
>
> Are you saying that God killed those people in OK?

Natural disaster AKA "Act of God".

Btw, shame on all of you assholes for using these horrific events to
parrot your dumb gun advocacy talking point.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 23 2013 7:38 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> A carbon tax in 1996 would have saved those children. Democrats are sure
> of this.

there are vids of people -- filiming -- and talking to these animals just
after the murder, knives in bloodied hands. disarmed and socialist,
mindless, nutless, mush.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

You are truly an obnoxious simpleton.

[Mossingen]

"fffurken" wrote in message
news:b0f99d78-24d1-43ac...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

______________________________________



It's a good observation. I think the reaction here in Oklahoma City to
seeing two men hack someone to death would likely be to pull out a concealed
handgun and shoot them to death, then wait for the authorities as a
secondary course of action. In socialist countries, the first course of
actions seems to be do nothing and wait for authority to come deal with it.

I think it's a real cultural difference in how people live, and the reason
why gun violence is so high here in the U.S. as compared to other first
world countries. When free, self-reliant people are armed they can cause a
lot of havoc along with the benefits; when people who are trained to rely on
the government for everything are armed, nothing much happens (e.g., Canada,
U.K.)

[Tim Norfolk]

Parsing that last sentence suggests that people in the UK and Canada are likely to have concealed weapons. This is not the case.

[fffurken]

On May 23, 5:22 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "fffurken"  wrote in message
>
> news:b0f99d78-24d1-43ac...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> On 23 May, 15:38, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23 2013 7:38 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> > > A carbon tax in 1996 would have saved those children. Democrats are sure
> > > of this.
>
> > there are vids of people -- filiming -- and talking to these animals just
> > after the murder, knives in bloodied hands.  disarmed and socialist,
> > mindless, nutless, mush.
>
> > mo_ntresor
>
> You are truly an obnoxious simpleton.
> ______________________________________
>

> It's a good observation...

Yeah, I suppose I'm sometimes blinded by how the gratingly obnoxious
simpleton makes almost every post, regardless of the topic, about
denominators/deadbeats/"socialists"..

Wait a minute, WHAT "good observation"?!

I think it's quite clear there's a negligible chance that any murders
would have been prevented in this case even if a member of the public
was armed. What would mo have done if he had just witnessed these
animals butcher a person on the street? Jump in (yes unarmed) and save
the day? I don't think so.

As far as gun ownership in general goes, consider some people in the
UK may be happy with the status quo they have, a fraction of the gun
murders the US has despite having 20% the population.

And as for the notion that people were just standing idly by chatting
with the killers (who weren't trying to flee), the people who talked
to the killers have been commended for their bravery, including one
woman who asked to lay down beside the dying or dead soldier to pray
for him.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 23 2013 1:25 PM, fffurken wrote:

> Yeah, I suppose I'm sometimes blinded by how the gratingly obnoxious
> simpleton makes almost every post, regardless of the topic, about
> denominators/deadbeats/"socialists"..
>
> Wait a minute, WHAT "good observation"?!
>
> I think it's quite clear there's a negligible chance that any murders
> would have been prevented in this case even if a member of the public
> was armed. What would mo have done if he had just witnessed these
> animals butcher a person on the street? Jump in (yes unarmed) and save
> the day? I don't think so.

called the police, stayed the fuck away, and made sure others did the same.

> As far as gun ownership in general goes, consider some people in the
> UK may be happy with the status quo they have, a fraction of the gun
> murders the US has despite having 20% the population.
>
> And as for the notion that people were just standing idly by chatting
> with the killers (who weren't trying to flee), the people who talked
> to the killers have been commended for their bravery, including one
> woman who asked to lay down beside the dying or dead soldier to pray
> for him.

they're idiots. complete and total idiots.

in texas, these guys may -- MAY -- live 30 seconds after the murder ...
they sure as fuck don't make it to the hospital to be "treated" for
injuries.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

On May 23, 8:32 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 23 2013 1:25 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I suppose I'm sometimes blinded by how the gratingly obnoxious
> > simpleton makes almost every post, regardless of the topic, about
> > denominators/deadbeats/"socialists"..
>
> > Wait a minute, WHAT "good observation"?!
>
> > I think it's quite clear there's a negligible chance that any murders
> > would have been prevented in this case even if a member of the public
> > was armed. What would mo have done if he had just witnessed these
> > animals butcher a person on the street? Jump in (yes unarmed) and save
> > the day? I don't think so.
>
> called the police, stayed the fuck away, and made sure others did the same.

So what did you mean by "socialist, mindless, nutless, mush."? In
particular 'nutless'?

> > As far as gun ownership in general goes, consider some people in the
> > UK may be happy with the status quo they have, a fraction of the gun
> > murders the US has despite having 20% the population.
>
> > And as for the notion that people were just standing idly by chatting
> > with the killers (who weren't trying to flee), the people who talked
> > to the killers have been commended for their bravery, including one
> > woman who asked to lay down beside the dying or dead soldier to pray
> > for him.
>
> they're idiots.  complete and total idiots.

The people who intervened did so out of concern for other people, but
not themselves. Only a dikhead calls them "idiots".

> in texas, these guys may -- MAY -- live 30 seconds after the murder ...
> they sure as fuck don't make it to the hospital to be "treated" for
> injuries.

That's great Rambo. I'm usually in favour of taking terrorists alive
if possible, not because I care about their lives, so they can be
interrogated.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 23 2013 1:45 PM, fffurken wrote:

> > called the police, stayed the fuck away, and made sure others did the same.
>
> So what did you mean by "socialist, mindless, nutless, mush."? In
> particular 'nutless'?

i meant, "socialist, mindless, nutless, mush." when i said "nutless", i
meant "nutless" ... in particular.

> > > As far as gun ownership in general goes, consider some people in the
> > > UK may be happy with the status quo they have, a fraction of the gun
> > > murders the US has despite having 20% the population.
> >
> > > And as for the notion that people were just standing idly by chatting
> > > with the killers (who weren't trying to flee), the people who talked
> > > to the killers have been commended for their bravery, including one
> > > woman who asked to lay down beside the dying or dead soldier to pray
> > > for him.
> >
> > they're idiots. �complete and total idiots.
>
> The people who intervened did so out of concern for other people, but
> not themselves. Only a dikhead calls them "idiots".

LOL. nobody intervened, you fucking idiot. people gawked and filmed.

> > in texas, these guys may -- MAY -- live 30 seconds after the murder ...
> > they sure as fuck don't make it to the hospital to be "treated" for
> > injuries.
>
> That's great Rambo. I'm usually in favour of taking terrorists alive
> if possible, not because I care about their lives, so they can be
> interrogated.

when there's no debate about guilt, i like death. keeping maggots alive
-- giving them a tour of the court and prison facilities -- cost money.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

On May 23, 8:55 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> > > called the police, stayed the fuck away, and made sure others did the same.
>
> > So what did you mean by "socialist, mindless, nutless, mush."? In
> > particular 'nutless'?
>
> i meant, "socialist, mindless, nutless, mush."  when i said "nutless", i
> meant "nutless" ... in particular.

So you meant cowardly, even though you wouldn't have done a goddamn
thing yourself.

> > > > As far as gun ownership in general goes, consider some people in the
> > > > UK may be happy with the status quo they have, a fraction of the gun
> > > > murders the US has despite having 20% the population.
>
> > > > And as for the notion that people were just standing idly by chatting
> > > > with the killers (who weren't trying to flee), the people who talked
> > > > to the killers have been commended for their bravery, including one
> > > > woman who asked to lay down beside the dying or dead soldier to pray
> > > > for him.
>
> > > they're idiots.  complete and total idiots.
>
> > The people who intervened did so out of concern for other people, but
> > not themselves. Only a dikhead calls them "idiots".
>
> LOL.  nobody intervened, you fucking idiot.  people gawked and filmed.

Well if you believe that then you can't read or you didn't bother to
read before you opened your big fat obnoxious mouth.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 23 2013 2:09 PM, fffurken wrote:

> > LOL. �nobody intervened, you fucking idiot. �people gawked and filmed..

>
> Well if you believe that then you can't read or you didn't bother to
> read before you opened your big fat obnoxious mouth.

seeing as the poor bastard was in pieces at the end of the attack, and
seeing the muslim maggots were granting post butchering interviews, i'd
say the "intervention" was a little weak.

LOL

what am imbecile.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

On May 24, 1:03 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I wasn't talking about an intervention to prevent the murder. Are you
an idiot or something?

[brattt]

On May 23 2013 7:13 PM, brattt wrote:

> There has been over 2100 Muslim attacks since 9/11

I apologize - I dropped a zero

That should be 21,000

[brattt]

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:39:33 -0700, "Dave the Clueless"
<a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On May 22 2013 11:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> > On 22/5/13 12:36 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>> >
>> >> nothing a ban sharp objects couldn't prevent.
>> >
>> > In the wake of the deaths of the schoolchildren in Oklahoma, the
>> > government needs to pass some tough laws requiring all tornadoes to get
>> > background checks, and limiting the force of tornadoes to F2.
>> >
>> > If that would save the life of even one child, we must do it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> So acts of god and acts of humans are on the same footing now? You may
>> argue that your post was an attempt at humor, but beneath the surface is
>> poorly disguised ignorance.
>
>Are you saying that God killed those people in OK?

Are you saying he didn't? Who created the tornado?
--

Pepe Papon

[Tim Norfolk]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 3:34:23 AM UTC-4, Pepe Papon wrote:
<snip>

> Are you saying he didn't? Who created the tornado?
>
> --
>
>
>
> Pepe Papon

I believe it was the consortium Panadia.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/23/13 8:37 AM, fffurken wrote:

>>> TruthSeeker wrote:

>>>> In the wake of the deaths of the schoolchildren in Oklahoma, the
>>>> government needs to pass some tough laws requiring all tornadoes to get
>>>> background checks, and limiting the force of tornadoes to F2.

>>>> If that would save the life of even one child, we must do it.

> Btw, shame on all of you assholes for using these horrific events to
> parrot your dumb gun advocacy talking point.

Yes, that was inappropriate, I should have thought about it a bit more
before sending. Although the point about the futility of the proposed
gun control laws is hardly "dumb gun advocay" (even if Dutch didn't get it).

So, do you also condemn Obama for using the Sandy Hook deaths to push
for gun control?



--
Truthseeker

[fffurken]

On 24 May, 16:53, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> So, do you also condemn Obama for using the Sandy Hook deaths to push
> for gun control?

Why would I do that?

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't "condemn" anyone for trying to push for
tighter gun control with a view to saving lives and/or preventing mass
murders.

If it means that ewe guise don't get to play with assault rifles etc.,
I'd more or less be a proponent of "Tuff shit".

[Truthseeker]

On 5/24/13 10:53 AM, fffurken wrote:
> On 24 May, 16:53, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> So, do you also condemn Obama for using the Sandy Hook deaths to push
>> for gun control?
>
> Why would I do that?

To not be a hypocrite. If you complain about someone exploiting deaths
to make a point, it should not matter if that point is one you agree
with or not.

> I'm sorry, but I wouldn't "condemn" anyone for trying to push for
> tighter gun control with a view to saving lives and/or preventing mass
> murders.

You wrote "Btw, shame on all of you assholes for using these horrific
events to parrot your dumb gun advocacy talking point." Now you say
that you are fine with Obama using similar horrific events to parrot his
gun-control talking points. Clearly, you judge whether it's appropriate
to exploit personal tragedies according to whose ox is being gored.

[Dutch]

It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
control gun violence.

[fffurken]

It's a pity the comedy you write on RGP isn't intentional.

[FL Turbo]

Priceless.

You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
hypocrisy it reveals.

[TruthSeeker]

These guys don't get it even when it's pointed out for them. It's
interesting how some of the most naive people are the ones most sure of
themselves.



--
TruthSeeker

[fffurken]

You didn't "point out" any "hypocrisy". Except for your usual make
believe.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:18:29 -0500, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
wrote:

>>
>>It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
>>control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
>>control gun violence.
>>
>
>Priceless.
>
>You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
>hypocrisy it reveals.

Explain exactly what about it is hypocritical.
--

Pepe Papon

[Truthseeker]

OK, for you. When you decry as "insensitive" using a tragedy to further
a political point with which you agree. while claiming that it's not
insensitive if you agree with the point being made, that is
hypocritical. You're basing your judgement of the propriety of
exploiting tragedy on whether you agree with the person doing it or not.

[fffurken]

On 28 May, 16:12, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> On 5/27/13 5:46 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>

> > On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:18:29 -0500, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >>> It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
> >>> control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
> >>> control gun violence.
>
> >> Priceless.
>
> >> You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
> >> hypocrisy it reveals.
>
> > Explain exactly what about it is hypocritical.
>
> OK, for you.  When you decry as "insensitive" using a tragedy to further
> a political point with which you agree. while claiming that it's not
> insensitive if you agree with the point being made, that is
> hypocritical.  You're basing your judgement of the propriety of
> exploiting tragedy on whether you agree with the person doing it or not.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 28, 11:27 am, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 May, 16:12, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/27/13 5:46 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:18:29 -0500, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>> It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
> > >>> control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
> > >>> control gun violence.
>
> > >> Priceless.
>
> > >> You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
> > >> hypocrisy it reveals.
>
> > > Explain exactly what about it is hypocritical.
>
> > OK, for you.  When you decry as "insensitive" using a tragedy to further

> > a political point with which you (don't) agree. while claiming that it's not

> > insensitive if you agree with the point being made, that is
> > hypocritical.  You're basing your judgement of the propriety of
> > exploiting tragedy on whether you agree with the person doing it or not.
>
> Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true

I think he left out something here, so even if I agreed with his
thinking, which I might, what he said here doesn't make sense. I think
there needed to be a don't where I am insterting one in parenthesis.

If that is what he means, then he is right. Of course, the people who
make the argument might be right on the main issue but, whatever you
think of the main issue, if using the tragedy in support of your
position is wrong, it is wrong whichever side you are on. If it is ok,
then it is ok whichever side you are on.

Did he say it clearly the first time? I'm just doing a drive-by on
this thread, so I didn't see earlier posts.

--
Will in New Haven

[fffurken]

He said the same thing the first time, the only question is how long
he'll harp on saying the same thing.

You can read Dutch's response if it helps, that was perfectly
adequate, whereas I just laughed.

I don't think there's a need to try to follow any kind of twisted
logic here. If you believe that me saying it was crass of some RGPers
to parrot a dumb gun advocacy talking point on the back of the
tragedies in question and also not "condemn" Obama for
"exploiting" (gun nut's word, not mine) the Sandy Hook massacre to
call for more gun control makes me a hypocrite, then please join
Truthseeker on eh, planet Truthseek.

[Will in New Haven]

You have to understand that I don't get all emotionally involved with
hypocracy. It is fairly normal. So you like it when people who agree
with you act like ghouls in reaction to a tragedy and you don't like
it when people who disagree with you do it.

I guess someone could call you a hypocrite for that but they would
have to care.

[fffurken]

> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I can see my last post was a waste of time.

Or shorter - Shut up, idiot.

[Truthseeker]

I answered his question, and it was already true. You guys just never
yield any point. But what else is new?

BTW, there is a typo in the reply: the first word "agree" in the
paragraph should be "disagree"

[Truthseeker]

On 5/28/13 11:10 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On May 28, 11:27 am, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28 May, 16:12, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

>>> On 5/27/13 5:46 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>>> Explain exactly what about it is hypocritical.
>>
>>> OK, for you. When you decry as "insensitive" using a tragedy to further
>>> a political point with which you (don't) agree. while claiming that it's not
>>> insensitive if you agree with the point being made, that is
>>> hypocritical. You're basing your judgement of the propriety of
>>> exploiting tragedy on whether you agree with the person doing it or not.
>>
>> Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true
>
> I think he left out something here, so even if I agreed with his
> thinking, which I might, what he said here doesn't make sense. I think
> there needed to be a don't where I am insterting one in parenthesis.

Yes, I made a typo, the first "agree" should have been "disagree." Thanks.

> If that is what he means, then he is right. Of course, the people who
> make the argument might be right on the main issue but, whatever you
> think of the main issue, if using the tragedy in support of your
> position is wrong, it is wrong whichever side you are on. If it is ok,
> then it is ok whichever side you are on.
>
> Did he say it clearly the first time? I'm just doing a drive-by on
> this thread, so I didn't see earlier posts.



--

[fffurken]

On May 28, 9:11 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> On 5/28/13 9:27 AM, fffurken wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 May, 16:12, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >> On 5/27/13 5:46 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:18:29 -0500, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
> >>>>> control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
> >>>>> control gun violence.
>
> >>>> Priceless.
>
> >>>> You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
> >>>> hypocrisy it reveals.
>
> >>> Explain exactly what about it is hypocritical.
>
> >> OK, for you.  When you decry as "insensitive" using a tragedy to further
> >> a political point with which you agree. while claiming that it's not
> >> insensitive if you agree with the point being made, that is
> >> hypocritical.  You're basing your judgement of the propriety of
> >> exploiting tragedy on whether you agree with the person doing it or not.
>
> > Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.
>
> I answered his question, and it was already true.

Please add 'hypocrite' to the list of of words or concepts you don't
understand, you can put it right beside "straw man argument" if you
like.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/28/13 1:20 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On May 28, 8:15 pm, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 28, 3:11 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> He said the same thing the first time, the only question is how long
>>> he'll harp on saying the same thing.

As long as y'all ask me questions about it. Hey, is "harp on" your
buzzword de jour? Since it was pointed out how you harp on things, now
you accuse others of it?

>>> You can read Dutch's response if it helps, that was perfectly
>>> adequate, whereas I just laughed.

>>> I don't think there's a need to try to follow any kind of twisted
>>> logic here. If you believe that me saying it was crass of some RGPers
>>> to parrot a dumb gun advocacy talking point on the back of the
>>> tragedies in question and also not "condemn" Obama for
>>> "exploiting" (gun nut's word, not mine) the Sandy Hook massacre to
>>> call for more gun control makes me a hypocrite, then please join
>>> Truthseeker on eh, planet Truthseek

Using the victims of a tragedy to add impact to your political speeches
is exploiting the tragedy, no matter who is doing it or for what agenda.
BTW, how do you define "gun nut?" Anyone who defends the Second
Amendment?

>> You have to understand that I don't get all emotionally involved with
>> hypocracy. It is fairly normal. So you like it when people who agree
>> with you act like ghouls in reaction to a tragedy and you don't like
>> it when people who disagree with you do it.

>> I guess someone could call you a hypocrite for that but they would
>> have to care.

> I can see my last post was a waste of time.

> Or shorter - Shut up, idiot.

Typical reply when you've been caught out.

[fffurken]

On May 28, 9:30 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> On 5/28/13 1:20 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 8:15 pm, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 28, 3:11 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> He said the same thing the first time, the only question is how long
> >>> he'll harp on saying the same thing.
>
> As long as y'all ask me questions about it.  Hey, is "harp on" your
> buzzword de jour?

Just for you Joe.

> >>> You can read Dutch's response if it helps, that was perfectly
> >>> adequate, whereas I just laughed.
> >>> I don't think there's a need to try to follow any kind of twisted
> >>> logic here. If you believe that me saying it was crass of some RGPers
> >>> to parrot a dumb gun advocacy talking point on the back of the
> >>> tragedies in question and also not "condemn" Obama for
> >>> "exploiting" (gun nut's word, not mine) the Sandy Hook massacre to
> >>> call for more gun control makes me a hypocrite, then please join
> >>> Truthseeker on eh, planet Truthseek
>
> Using the victims of a tragedy to add impact to your political speeches
> is exploiting the tragedy, no matter who is doing it or for what agenda.

Before we get into this whole "exploitation" business, have you looked
up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary yet?

And I don't mean wingnut, Fox News type hypocrisy, I mean real
hypocrisy?

Get back to me when you have and let me know how you got on.

[TruthSeeker]

On 28/5/13 2:39 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On May 28, 9:30 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>> On 5/28/13 1:20 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>
>>> On May 28, 8:15 pm, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 28, 3:11 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> He said the same thing the first time, the only question is how long
>>>>> he'll harp on saying the same thing.
>>
>> As long as y'all ask me questions about it. Hey, is "harp on" your
>> buzzword de jour?
>
> Just for you Joe.

Hmmm, an ongoing projecting? Accusing someone else of your own failing?

>>>>> You can read Dutch's response if it helps, that was perfectly
>>>>> adequate, whereas I just laughed.
>>>>> I don't think there's a need to try to follow any kind of twisted
>>>>> logic here. If you believe that me saying it was crass of some RGPers
>>>>> to parrot a dumb gun advocacy talking point on the back of the
>>>>> tragedies in question and also not "condemn" Obama for
>>>>> "exploiting" (gun nut's word, not mine) the Sandy Hook massacre to
>>>>> call for more gun control makes me a hypocrite, then please join
>>>>> Truthseeker on eh, planet Truthseek
>>
>> Using the victims of a tragedy to add impact to your political speeches
>> is exploiting the tragedy, no matter who is doing it or for what agenda.
>
> Before we get into this whole "exploitation" business, have you looked
> up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary yet?
>
> And I don't mean wingnut, Fox News type hypocrisy, I mean real
> hypocrisy?

This says a lot about you, and not anything good.

> Get back to me when you have and let me know how you got on.

Yes, I did, when I made my first post on this. It fits. You're acting
all morally outraged at someone doing something that you approve of when
someone you agree with does it. As I pointed out, with you it's all
about whose ox is being gored -- even the sleaziest tactic is fine with
you if you like the person doing it or the agenda it's supporting.

You're not exactly covering yourself with glory here.



--
TruthSeeker

[fffurken1]

On May 29 2013 1:52 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:

> On 28/5/13 2:39 PM, fffurken wrote:
> > On May 28, 9:30 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >> On 5/28/13 1:20 PM, fffurken wrote:
> >>
> >>> On May 28, 8:15 pm, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On May 28, 3:11 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> He said the same thing the first time, the only question is how long
> >>>>> he'll harp on saying the same thing.
> >>
> >> As long as y'all ask me questions about it. Hey, is "harp on" your
> >> buzzword de jour?
> >
> > Just for you Joe.
>
> Hmmm, an ongoing projecting? Accusing someone else of your own failing?

Oh look. It's an "I know you are but what am I" from Joe Truthseeker.
Quelle surprise.

> >>>>> You can read Dutch's response if it helps, that was perfectly
> >>>>> adequate, whereas I just laughed.
> >>>>> I don't think there's a need to try to follow any kind of twisted
> >>>>> logic here. If you believe that me saying it was crass of some RGPers
> >>>>> to parrot a dumb gun advocacy talking point on the back of the
> >>>>> tragedies in question and also not "condemn" Obama for
> >>>>> "exploiting" (gun nut's word, not mine) the Sandy Hook massacre to
> >>>>> call for more gun control makes me a hypocrite, then please join
> >>>>> Truthseeker on eh, planet Truthseek
> >>
> >> Using the victims of a tragedy to add impact to your political speeches
> >> is exploiting the tragedy, no matter who is doing it or for what agenda.
> >
> > Before we get into this whole "exploitation" business, have you looked
> > up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary yet?
> >
> > And I don't mean wingnut, Fox News type hypocrisy, I mean real
> > hypocrisy?
>
> This says a lot about you, and not anything good.

Ignore what I said, don't let me stop you.

> > Get back to me when you have and let me know how you got on.
>
> Yes, I did, when I made my first post on this. It fits. You're acting
> all morally outraged at someone doing something that you approve of when
> someone you agree with does it. As I pointed out, with you it's all
> about whose ox is being gored -- even the sleaziest tactic is fine with
> you if you like the person doing it or the agenda it's supporting.

Riight, back to the script then. Harp on.

[Pepe Papon]

That's correct if you want to pretend that making light of something
is the same as making a point about something.
--

Pepe Papon

[Truthseeker]

On 5/29/13 12:12 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:12:58 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/13 5:46 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:18:29 -0500, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
>>>>> control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
>>>>> control gun violence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Priceless.
>>>>
>>>> You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
>>>> hypocrisy it reveals.
>>>
>>> Explain exactly what about it is hypocritical.
>>
>> OK, for you. When you decry as "insensitive" using a tragedy to further

>> a political point with which you disagree. while claiming that it's not

>> insensitive if you agree with the point being made, that is
>> hypocritical. You're basing your judgement of the propriety of
>> exploiting tragedy on whether you agree with the person doing it or not.
>
> That's correct if you want to pretend that making light of something
> is the same as making a point about something.

How big a "wooosh!" is that?

What you consider making light others consider making a valid point, and
vice-versa. As with fffurken, with you it all depends on whose ox is
gored. You are willing to accept the sleazy tactic if you approve of
the agenda -- "the ends justify the means."

[fffurken]

On May 29, 8:16 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> > That's correct if you want to pretend that making light of something
> > is the same as making a point about something.
>
> How big a "wooosh!" is that?
>
> What you consider making light others consider making a valid point, and
> vice-versa.

Did you mean: Inappropriate valid point?

Do you think Obama calling for tighter gun control after the Sandy
Hook massacre was an inappropriate or insensitive valid point?

We'll get to the bottom of this hyprocrisy, mine and/or Barack's, yet.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 29, 2:12 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:12:58 -0600, Truthseeker
>
>
>
>
>
> <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >On 5/27/13 5:46 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:18:29 -0500, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
> >>>> control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
> >>>> control gun violence.
>
> >>> Priceless.
>
> >>> You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
> >>> hypocrisy it reveals.
>
> >> Explain exactly what about it is hypocritical.
>
> >OK, for you.  When you decry as "insensitive" using a tragedy to further
> >a political point with which you agree. while claiming that it's not
> >insensitive if you agree with the point being made, that is
> >hypocritical.  You're basing your judgement of the propriety of
> >exploiting tragedy on whether you agree with the person doing it or not.
>
> That's correct if you want to pretend that making light of something
> is the same as making a point about something.

When you call it a valid point, you are saying that the person
speaking is on your side, that you agree with him. So you wouldn't
criticize his tactics.

It is _not_ self-evident that the proposals for firearms control would
mean fewer violent crimes. Once something is not self-evident it
becomes a matter for debate. Giving one side in a debate a free pass
and criticizing the other side shows a lack of balance.

[fffurken]

You're really torturing yourself with TruthProof logic here.

I hope you realise you're following a well known, NRA indoctrinated
gun nut? It just doesn't look good on paper, that's all I'm sayin.

[Will in New Haven]

I will agree with someone when I think he or she is right, to the
extent that I think he or she is right, no matter who it is. I agree
that being associated with those imbeciles in the NRA, people who
think the Second Amendment is about rabbit hunting and home defense,
(and completely miss the Ninth Amendment) would make me uneasy but
political issues make for shifting alliances.

Just as I disagree with you at times, despite the fact that you have
been remarkably reasonable when we get over some of the shit-storms we
have had.

Issues matter, personalities don't. Except I always get sick to my
stomach when I agree with Popinjay.

[TruthSeeker]

On 29/5/13 1:50 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On May 29, 8:16 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> That's correct if you want to pretend that making light of something
>>> is the same as making a point about something.
>>
>> How big a "wooosh!" is that?
>>
>> What you consider making light others consider making a valid point, and
>> vice-versa.
>
> Did you mean: Inappropriate valid point?
>
> Do you think Obama calling for tighter gun control after the Sandy
> Hook massacre was an inappropriate or insensitive valid point?

His use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely. He's
smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have prevented
Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to preventing that,
but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support for his agenda
anyway. He's far from the only politician to do that kind of thing, but
that doesn't make it not sleazy.

> We'll get to the bottom of this hyprocrisy, mine and/or Barack's, yet.

Yours is out here for all to see.



--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

On 29/5/13 5:52 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On May 29, 4:38 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 29, 9:21 pm, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I hope you realise you're following a well known, NRA indoctrinated
>> gun nut? It just doesn't look good on paper, that's all I'm sayin.
>
> I will agree with someone when I think he or she is right, to the
> extent that I think he or she is right, no matter who it is. I agree
> that being associated with those imbeciles in the NRA, people who
> think the Second Amendment is about rabbit hunting and home defense,
> (and completely miss the Ninth Amendment) would make me uneasy but
> political issues make for shifting alliances.

fffurken is such a script follower and stereotyper. I have never been a
member of the NRA, nor do I read its publications or visit its website.
I rarely fire a gun and when I have in recent decades it's been out of
necessity (a shotgun and a borrowed pellet gun). But because I see and
point out the folly of some of the gun-control proposals, and defend our
right to keep and bear arms, to ffurken I'm a gun nut in thrall to the
NRA. Talk about indoctrination!

BTW, I'm annoyed too when people claim the 2nd A. is about hunting.
I've pointed out here that it's about defense, and clearly applies to
the weapons carried by a foot soldier ("...well regulated milita ...").

In case anyone's knickers are getting in a twist about what "necessity"
I had for using a gun, it was this: putting a deer that had been
mortally injured (by being hit by a car) out of his misery and killing a
prairie dog that was making holes in my pasture that were a hazard to my
horses.



--
TruthSeeker

[fffurken]

On 30 May, 04:36, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

> >> What you consider making light others consider making a valid point, and
> >> vice-versa.
>
> > Did you mean: Inappropriate valid point?
>
> > Do you think Obama calling for tighter gun control after the Sandy
> > Hook massacre was an inappropriate or insensitive valid point?
>
> His use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely.  He's
> smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have prevented
> Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to preventing that,
> but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support for his agenda
> anyway.  He's far from the only politician to do that kind of thing, but
> that doesn't make it not sleazy.

I don't agree with you that he was "using" the Sandy Hook victims or
that it was "sleazy", it's valid and was not inappropriate or
insensitive.

You are an NRA indoctrinated moron.

OTOH and by your own admission, YOU were inappropriate. I mean what
kind of silly nonsense did you say, something about tornadoes needing
a background check?

[Truthseeker]

On 5/30/13 2:30 AM, fffurken wrote:
> On 30 May, 04:36, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
>>>> What you consider making light others consider making a valid point, and
>>>> vice-versa.
>>
>>> Did you mean: Inappropriate valid point?
>>
>>> Do you think Obama calling for tighter gun control after the Sandy
>>> Hook massacre was an inappropriate or insensitive valid point?
>>
>> His use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely. He's
>> smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have prevented
>> Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to preventing that,
>> but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support for his agenda
>> anyway. He's far from the only politician to do that kind of thing, but
>> that doesn't make it not sleazy.
>
> I don't agree with you that he was "using" the Sandy Hook victims or
> that it was "sleazy", it's valid and was not inappropriate or
> insensitive.

Of course you believe that. I never expected otherwise from you.

> You are an NRA indoctrinated moron.

I could say that you are an Obama sycophant, and unlike you have a
chance at being right.

> OTOH and by your own admission, YOU were inappropriate.

Yes, for the same reasons that Obama was. I never had any doubt that
you would defend his usage.

> I mean what
> kind of silly nonsense did you say, something about tornadoes needing
> a background check?

It's called satire, have someone explain it to you. A law requiring
tornadoes to undergo background checks would be just as effective as
laws limiting magazine sizes or banning "assault weapons."

Do you even consider that the laws Obama was proposing would have had
ZERO effect in preventing the Sandy Hook shootings?

On my endurance rides the front-runners often ran into spiderwebs that
were spun across the trail overnight. I used to joke that the Forest
Service should enact a regulation prohibiting the spiders from spinning
webs across horse trails. Same concept -- regulations aren't always
effective.



--
Truthseeker

[fffurken]

On 30 May, 16:22, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> >>>> What you consider making light others consider making a valid point, and
> >>>> vice-versa.
>
> >>> Did you mean: Inappropriate valid point?
>
> >>> Do you think Obama calling for tighter gun control after the Sandy
> >>> Hook massacre was an inappropriate or insensitive valid point?
>
> >> His use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely.  He's
> >> smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have prevented
> >> Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to preventing that,
> >> but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support for his agenda
> >> anyway.  He's far from the only politician to do that kind of thing, but
> >> that doesn't make it not sleazy.
>
> > I don't agree with you that he was "using" the Sandy Hook victims or
> > that it was "sleazy", it's valid and was not inappropriate or
> > insensitive.
>
> Of course you believe that.

And of course you don't. Feel free to be wrong, but don't start
inventing "hypocrisy".

> > OTOH and by your own admission, YOU were inappropriate.
>
> Yes, for the same reasons that Obama was.  I never had any doubt that
> you would defend his usage.
>
> > I mean what
> > kind of silly nonsense did you say, something about tornadoes needing
> > a background check?
>
> It's called satire, have someone explain it to you.

Did you mean: Inappropriate satire?

> A law requiring
> tornadoes to undergo background checks would be just as effective as
> laws limiting magazine sizes or banning "assault weapons."

And you often spout unknowns as if they were fact.

> Do you even consider that the laws Obama was proposing would have had
> ZERO effect in preventing the Sandy Hook shootings?

Yeah well, he was proposing gun control laws, not time travel.

[TruthSeeker]

On 30/5/13 9:50 AM, fffurken wrote:
> On 30 May, 16:22, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> fffurken wrote:

>>> I don't agree with you that he was "using" the Sandy Hook victims or
>>> that it was "sleazy", it's valid and was not inappropriate or
>>> insensitive.
>>
>> Of course you believe that.
>
> And of course you don't. Feel free to be wrong, but don't start
> inventing "hypocrisy".

When you practice it, as you have here, I may point it out.

>>> OTOH and by your own admission, YOU were inappropriate.
>>
>> Yes, for the same reasons that Obama was. I never had any doubt that
>> you would defend his usage.
>>
>>> I mean what
>>> kind of silly nonsense did you say, something about tornadoes needing
>>> a background check?
>>
>> It's called satire, have someone explain it to you.
>
> Did you mean: Inappropriate satire?

No. It was quite appropriate. I know you won't admit that.

>> A law requiring
>> tornadoes to undergo background checks would be just as effective as
>> laws limiting magazine sizes or banning "assault weapons."
>
> And you often spout unknowns as if they were fact.

Sometimes, no doubt. I'm neither perfect nor omniscient. What I said
above is true, though. You just don't see through the propaganda.

>> Do you even consider that the laws Obama was proposing would have had
>> ZERO effect in preventing the Sandy Hook shootings?

> Yeah well, he was proposing gun control laws, not time travel.

Of course he was -- and exploiting a tragedy that his proposals would
not have averted, for political reasons.



--
TruthSeeker

[fffurken]

On May 31, 3:51 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

> >>> I don't agree with you that he was "using" the Sandy Hook victims or
> >>> that it was "sleazy", it's valid and was not inappropriate or
> >>> insensitive.
>
> >> Of course you believe that.
>
> > And of course you don't. Feel free to be wrong, but don't start
> > inventing "hypocrisy".
>
> When you practice it, as you have here, I may point it out.

You may "point out" the sky is green too.

> >>> OTOH and by your own admission, YOU were inappropriate.
>
> >> Yes, for the same reasons that Obama was.  I never had any doubt that
> >> you would defend his usage.
>
> >>> I mean what
> >>> kind of silly nonsense did you say, something about tornadoes needing
> >>> a background check?
>
> >> It's called satire, have someone explain it to you.
>
> > Did you mean: Inappropriate satire?
>
> No.  It was quite appropriate.

But you said it was inappropriate, can't you make up your fucking
mind?

[TruthSeeker]

You really need me to explain it to you?

The satire was appropriate. The use of the tragedy was not.

[fffurken]

On May 31, 6:19 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

> >>>>> I mean what
> >>>>> kind of silly nonsense did you say, something about tornadoes needing
> >>>>> a background check?
>
> >>>> It's called satire, have someone explain it to you.
>
> >>> Did you mean: Inappropriate satire?
>
> >> No.  It was quite appropriate.
>
> > But you said it was inappropriate, can't you make up your fucking
> > mind?
>
> You really need me to explain it to you?
>
> The satire was appropriate.  The use of the tragedy was not.

How does that differ from inappropriate satire?

[FL Turbo]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 04:14:50 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 27 May, 04:41, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>> On 26/5/13 9:18 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:38:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Truthseeker wrote:
>> >>> On 5/23/13 8:37 AM, fffurken wrote:
>> >>>> Btw, shame on all of you assholes for using these horrific events to
>> >>>> parrot your dumb gun advocacy talking point.
>> >>> Yes, that was inappropriate, I should have thought about it a bit more
>> >>> before sending. �Although the point about the futility of the proposed
>> >>> gun control laws is hardly "dumb gun advocay" (even if Dutch didn't get
>> >>> it).
>> >>> So, do you also condemn Obama for using the Sandy Hook deaths to push
>> >>> for gun control?

>> >> It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
>> >> control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
>> >> control gun violence.
>> > Priceless.
>> > You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
>> > hypocrisy it reveals.
>>

>> These guys don't get it even when it's pointed out for them. �It's
>> interesting how some of the most naive people are the ones most sure of
>> themselves.
>
> You didn't "point out" any "hypocrisy". Except for your usual make
>believe.

Maybe the word "hypocrisy" isn't the most appropriate word to use.
Maybe the term "double standard" is closer to what Dutch was
displaying.

You know, as in "If MY side uses Sandy Hook to advance their point of
view, it's perfectly fine; but if THEY use Sandy Hook to advance
their opposite point of view, it is not okay."

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:16:43 -0600, Truthseeker

<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/29/13 12:12 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:12:58 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/27/13 5:46 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:18:29 -0500, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
>>>>>> control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
>>>>>> control gun violence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Priceless.
>>>>>
>>>>> You type that in all innocence, with not even a clue as to the
>>>>> hypocrisy it reveals.
>>>>
>>>> Explain exactly what about it is hypocritical.
>>>
>>> OK, for you. When you decry as "insensitive" using a tragedy to further
>>> a political point with which you disagree. while claiming that it's not
>>> insensitive if you agree with the point being made, that is
>>> hypocritical. You're basing your judgement of the propriety of
>>> exploiting tragedy on whether you agree with the person doing it or not.
>>
>> That's correct if you want to pretend that making light of something
>> is the same as making a point about something.
>
>How big a "wooosh!" is that?

It depends on how far over your head the point went.

>What you consider making light others consider making a valid point, and
>vice-versa. As with fffurken, with you it all depends on whose ox is
>gored. You are willing to accept the sleazy tactic if you approve of
>the agenda -- "the ends justify the means."

The comment was made by Dutch, not me. My comment was based on his
comment, which I took at face value. It would be a lot easier to
talk with you if you'd stop pretending that I've said things I
haven't.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:36:19 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>On 29/5/13 1:50 PM, fffurken wrote:
>> On May 29, 8:16 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's correct if you want to pretend that making light of something
>>>> is the same as making a point about something.
>>>
>>> How big a "wooosh!" is that?
>>>
>>> What you consider making light others consider making a valid point, and
>>> vice-versa.
>>
>> Did you mean: Inappropriate valid point?
>>
>> Do you think Obama calling for tighter gun control after the Sandy
>> Hook massacre was an inappropriate or insensitive valid point?
>
>His use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely. He's
>smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have prevented
>Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to preventing that,
>but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support for his agenda
>anyway. He's far from the only politician to do that kind of thing, but
>that doesn't make it not sleazy.

This is an argument based on the assumption that your position on the
issue is so absolutely correct that any intelligent person *must*
agree with you. That's more than a little bit arrogant, wouldn't you
say?
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

Nowhere did I suggest that it's self-evident, nor did I suggest that
one side gets a free pass and not the other.

Perhaps you and I have a different interpretation of what Dutch meant
by "making light" of something.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:16:43 -0600, Truthseeker

P.S. The fact that I don't even agree with Dutch on the issue of gun
control renders your comment complete, unadulterated bullshit.
--

Pepe Papon

[fffurken]

On Jun 1, 1:36 am, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:

> Maybe the word "hypocrisy" isn't the most appropriate word to use.
> Maybe the term "double standard" is closer to what Dutch was
> displaying.
>
> You know, as in "If MY side uses Sandy Hook to advance their point of
> view, it's perfectly fine;  but if THEY use Sandy Hook to advance
> their opposite point of view, it is not okay."

I didn't see anyone use Sandy Hook to "advance their opposite point of
view" in this thread.

Why? Did somone say that Sandy Hook is an example of how we need MORE
guns arming teachers and so on? I've seen that before.

Anyway look, the only hypocrisy imaginable in this thread must be mine
and that's just a work of pure fiction. It's classic Truthseeker
gibbertalk.

[FL Turbo]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:41:23 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 1, 1:36 am, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe the word "hypocrisy" isn't the most appropriate word to use.
>> Maybe the term "double standard" is closer to what Dutch was
>> displaying.
>>
>> You know, as in "If MY side uses Sandy Hook to advance their point of
>> view, it's perfectly fine;  but if THEY use Sandy Hook to advance
>> their opposite point of view, it is not okay."
>
>I didn't see anyone use Sandy Hook to "advance their opposite point of
>view" in this thread.
>

It's a big, wide world out there, fffurker.
There are plenty of opinions out there that don't show up in this

thread.

>Why? Did somone say that Sandy Hook is an example of how we need MORE
>guns arming teachers and so on? I've seen that before.
>

Yes, of course.
In addition, the people defending our 2nd amendment rights have
pointed out that there is nothing in any of the laws proposed by the
anti-gun faction that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

>Anyway look, the only hypocrisy imaginable in this thread must be mine
>and that's just a work of pure fiction. It's classic Truthseeker
>gibbertalk.

I originally wasn't even talking about you.
My response was to Dutch when he wrote:

--------------

"It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
control gun violence."

--------------

Call his statement hypocritical, a double standard, or <fill in your
own term>

[fffurken]

On Jun 1, 3:54 pm, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:41:23 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
>

'Accurate' would be fine.

There is no hypocrisy, there is no double standard. That is all a
figment of your Fox News, NRA ad watching addled brain.

[Truthseeker]

Fine for you, but "accurate" is totally false for objective people.
It's a fine example of a hypocritical double standard.

> There is no hypocrisy, there is no double standard.

You can claim that all you want, your double-standard is clearly
evident. Scurrilous tactics are fine with you if you agree with the
agenda they are being used to promote, but something to be condemned if
used in opposition to what you want.

> That is all a figment of your Fox News, NRA ad watching addled brain.

Not that canard again? Don't you ever get tired of such folly? Are you
really that clueless about how juvenile and silly such statements make
you look (except maybe to those as deep into the kool-aid as you are).

And you wonder why I put your age at about 14?



--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

On 6/1/13 12:45 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:36:19 -0600, TruthSeeker

>> [Obama's] use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely.

>> He's smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have
>> prevented Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to
>> preventing that, but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support
>> for his agenda anyway. He's far from the only politician to do that
>> kind of thing, but that doesn't make it not sleazy.

> This is an argument based on the assumption that your position on the
> issue is so absolutely correct that any intelligent person *must*
> agree with you. That's more than a little bit arrogant, wouldn't you
> say?

You're a fine one to accuse someone of arrogance.

Is there any point in what I wrote that you disagree with,that you can
make a rational objection to, instead of just the usual ad hominem?



--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

"Making light" of politicians' pandering proposals as a way of exposing
them as ineffective panaceas is a valid form of political discourse.
It's called satire, and has been widely used by people of all political
ideologies for a long time.

What was insensitive of me was to post the tornado satire so soon after
the Moore tornado, where it was obviously linked with that event. I
apologized for that. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for anyone
who exploited Sandy Hook to push gun control to do the same.

In case anyone's forgotten the point: it was that it would be just as
effective in reducing tornado deaths to pass a law limiting their wind
speed, as a law limiting magazine size would be in reducing gun deaths.
That is a matter of opinion, of course, but the tornado analogy is a
way of expressing that.

I have no problem with people taking me to task for doing that right
after the Moore tornado, as long as they are equally critical of those
who use Sandy Hook to push gun control laws.

[fffurken]

On Jun 3, 5:28 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> >> "It's insensitive to use such a tragedy to make light of attempts to
> >> control gun violence. Its not insensitive to use one to attempt to
> >> control gun violence."
> >> --------------
>
> >> Call his statement hypocritical, a double standard, or <fill in your
> >> own term>
> > 'Accurate' would be fine.
>
> Fine for you, but "accurate" is totally false for objective people.
> It's a fine example of a hypocritical double standard.
>
> > There is no hypocrisy, there is no double standard.
>
> You can claim that all you want, your double-standard is clearly
> evident.  Scurrilous tactics are fine with you if you agree with the
> agenda they are being used to promote, but something to be condemned if
> used in opposition to what you want.

Unlike tornadoes, Sandy Hook is central to the theme of gun violence.
The unfortunate truth is that it was (yet another) mass murder
committed with legally held firearms. Only a NRA indoctrinated buffoon
thinks of it as "exploitation" to cite it as a case for more gun
control.

> > That is all a figment of your Fox News, NRA ad watching addled brain.
>
> Not that canard again?  Don't you ever get tired of such folly?  Are you
> really that clueless about how juvenile and silly such statements make
> you look (except maybe to those as deep into the kool-aid as you are).
>
> And you wonder why I put your age at about 14?

No, I don't wonder about that at all Joe. It's the age insult,
deployed most commonly by halfwits like you and mo_ron.

As for how you legitimise Fox News? Now THAT I find juvenile and silly.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:32:02 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 6/1/13 12:45 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:36:19 -0600, TruthSeeker
>
>>> [Obama's] use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely.
>>> He's smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have
>>> prevented Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to
>>> preventing that, but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support
>>> for his agenda anyway. He's far from the only politician to do that
>>> kind of thing, but that doesn't make it not sleazy.
>
>> This is an argument based on the assumption that your position on the
>> issue is so absolutely correct that any intelligent person *must*
>> agree with you. That's more than a little bit arrogant, wouldn't you
>> say?
>
>You're a fine one to accuse someone of arrogance.

My alleged arrogance is a diversion from the rational objection I made
to your irrational statement.

>Is there any point in what I wrote that you disagree with,that you can
>make a rational objection to, instead of just the usual ad hominem?

Other than that your argument is based on the assumption that your
position is correct? No.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:43:05 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 6/1/13 12:47 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:21:40 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>> <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you and I have a different interpretation of what Dutch meant
>> by "making light" of something.
>
>"Making light" of politicians' pandering proposals as a way of exposing
>them as ineffective panaceas is a valid form of political discourse.
>It's called satire, and has been widely used by people of all political
>ideologies for a long time.

If the "making light" was satire intended to make a political point,
then you are correct, and I retract my original statement.

>What was insensitive of me was to post the tornado satire so soon after
>the Moore tornado, where it was obviously linked with that event. I
>apologized for that. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for anyone
>who exploited Sandy Hook to push gun control to do the same.

It's nonsensical to call it "exploitation" when one uses an example of
a problem to push for a solution to the problem. That's how
problems get solved. Gun violence is no different from any other
problem in this respect.

>In case anyone's forgotten the point: it was that it would be just as
>effective in reducing tornado deaths to pass a law limiting their wind
>speed, as a law limiting magazine size would be in reducing gun deaths.
> That is a matter of opinion, of course, but the tornado analogy is a
>way of expressing that.

Although I understand your point, it's not really a great analogy.
There's at least some reason to believe that limiting magazine size
would have some impact, however small.
--

Pepe Papon

[da pickle]

On 6/5/2013 1:44 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> In case anyone's forgotten the point: it was that it would be just as
>> effective in reducing tornado deaths to pass a law limiting their wind
>> speed, as a law limiting magazine size would be in reducing gun deaths.
>> That is a matter of opinion, of course, but the tornado analogy is a
>> way of expressing that.
>
> Although I understand your point, it's not really a great analogy.
> There's at least some reason to believe that limiting magazine size
> would have some impact, however small.
> --
>
> Pepe Papon

Of course, the person with the "over-sized" illegal magazine is
violating a law ... while he is murdering all the children, he is also
violating a quite different law with much more serious consequences.
The law that you somehow believe would make an "impact" [certainly not
at Sandy Hook] would be just an ineffective as the law against murdering
children.

The tornado that violated wind speed laws would have equal effect on the
tornado. Pretty good illustration of why making something "illegal"
does not always work out so well. Most of the point of the law is
"deterrence" with "punishment" ... if the murderer is also guilty of
double parking, one of the violations is not much of a deterrence of the
other.

[fffurken]

On 5 June, 14:03, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 1:44 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> >> In case anyone's forgotten the point:  it was that it would be just as
> >> effective in reducing tornado deaths to pass a law limiting their wind
> >> speed, as a law limiting magazine size would be in reducing gun deaths.
> >>   That is a matter of opinion, of course, but the tornado analogy is a
> >> way of expressing that.
>
> > Although I understand your point, it's not really a great analogy.
> > There's at least some reason to believe that limiting magazine size
> > would have some impact, however small.
> > --
>
> > Pepe Papon
>
> Of course, the person with the "over-sized" illegal magazine is
> violating a law ... while he is murdering all the children, he is also
> violating a quite different law with much more serious consequences.
> The law that you somehow believe would make an "impact" [certainly not
> at Sandy Hook] would be just an ineffective as the law against murdering
> children.

Eh, clearly laws are "ineffective" when they're broken, did you have a
point?

[Truthseeker]

On 6/5/13 12:33 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:32:02 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/13 12:45 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:36:19 -0600, TruthSeeker
>>
>>>> [Obama's] use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely.
>>>> He's smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have
>>>> prevented Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to
>>>> preventing that, but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support
>>>> for his agenda anyway. He's far from the only politician to do that
>>>> kind of thing, but that doesn't make it not sleazy.
>>
>>> This is an argument based on the assumption that your position on the
>>> issue is so absolutely correct that any intelligent person *must*
>>> agree with you. That's more than a little bit arrogant, wouldn't you
>>> say?
>>
>> You're a fine one to accuse someone of arrogance.
>
> My alleged arrogance is a diversion from the rational objection I made
> to your irrational statement.

How circular is that? Your objection is rational because you say it is?
You rarely point out errors in fact or logic in my posts. You simply
claim that my constructions are "irrational" (apparently because you
can't refute them objectively). It's a pretty well established pattern
by now, I suspect that few people are fooled by it.

>> Is there any point in what I wrote that you disagree with,that you can
>> make a rational objection to, instead of just the usual ad hominem?

> Other than that your argument is based on the assumption that your
> position is correct? No.

Just a simple "No" would have sufficed. The rest is just another
unfounded and unsupported (and false) claim.

[Truthseeker]

On 6/5/13 12:44 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:43:05 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

> It's nonsensical to call it "exploitation" when one uses an example of
> a problem to push for a solution to the problem. That's how
> problems get solved. Gun violence is no different from any other
> problem in this respect.

Even when they line up the survivors and family members as stage props?
Or fill a Congressional gallery with them?

That's a whole lot worse IMO than referencing a tragic occurrence in a
Usenet post.

[Dutch]

Truthseeker wrote:
> On 6/5/13 12:44 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:43:05 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> It's nonsensical to call it "exploitation" when one uses an example of
>> a problem to push for a solution to the problem. That's how
>> problems get solved. Gun violence is no different from any other
>> problem in this respect.
>
> Even when they line up the survivors and family members as stage props?
> Or fill a Congressional gallery with them?
>
> That's a whole lot worse IMO than referencing a tragic occurrence in a
> Usenet post.

I'm guessing they came voluntarily, and were grateful for the chance to
make a difference.

[Truthseeker]

Whoooooosh?

Will the fact that an effect of the law will be to assure that criminals
have more firepower than the police or law-abiding citizens do, for one?

[fffurken]

On Jun 5, 9:38 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> > It's nonsensical to call it "exploitation" when one uses an example of
> > a problem to push for a solution to the problem.    That's how
> > problems get solved.   Gun violence is no different from any other
> > problem in this respect.
>
> Even when they line up the survivors and family members as stage props?
>   Or fill a Congressional gallery with them?
>
> That's a whole lot worse IMO than referencing a tragic occurrence in a
> Usenet post.

Joe, I can see this whole thing about you referencing a tragic
occurrence in a Usenet post has gotten to you, but please, don't make
it worse. Don't make it out like the family members of the victims of
Sandy Hook didn't do what they did of their own free will and desire,
don't call them "stage props" for God's sake Joe! Show some fucking
respect.

[fffurken]

On Jun 5, 9:42 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> >>> There's at least some reason to believe that limiting magazine size
> >>> would have some impact, however small.
> >>> --
>
> >>> Pepe Papon
>
> >> Of course, the person with the "over-sized" illegal magazine is
> >> violating a law ... while he is murdering all the children, he is also
> >> violating a quite different law with much more serious consequences.
> >> The law that you somehow believe would make an "impact" [certainly not
> >> at Sandy Hook] would be just an ineffective as the law against murdering
> >> children.
>
> > Eh, clearly laws are "ineffective" when they're broken, did you have a
> > point?
>
> Whoooooosh?

I dunno, I'm still waiting.

> Will the fact that an effect of the law will be to assure that criminals
> have more firepower than the police or law-abiding citizens do, for one?

Yeeah.. I'll wait.

[TruthSeeker]

Are you going to want Obama to show some respect?


--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

Well, duh, does anyone think Obama sent Federal Marshals to round them
up and force them to come? You don't think the glamor of being on a
stage with the President had anything to do with it?

Are you so in the tank for Obama that you can't even see the political
grandstanding in THIS? Are you like Jerry and think he can do no wrong?



--
TruthSeeker

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:36:10 -0600, Truthseeker

<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 6/5/13 12:33 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:32:02 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/1/13 12:45 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:36:19 -0600, TruthSeeker
>>>
>>>>> [Obama's] use of the Sandy Hook victims and families was, absolutely.
>>>>> He's smart enough to know that what he was proposing would not have
>>>>> prevented Sandy Hook, would not have done the slightest good to
>>>>> preventing that, but he used Sandy Hook to generate emotional support
>>>>> for his agenda anyway. He's far from the only politician to do that
>>>>> kind of thing, but that doesn't make it not sleazy.
>>>
>>>> This is an argument based on the assumption that your position on the
>>>> issue is so absolutely correct that any intelligent person *must*
>>>> agree with you. That's more than a little bit arrogant, wouldn't you
>>>> say?
>>>
>>> You're a fine one to accuse someone of arrogance.
>>
>> My alleged arrogance is a diversion from the rational objection I made
>> to your irrational statement.
>
>How circular is that?

Not at all.

>Your objection is rational because you say it is?

You're making that up. I said nothing of the sort. As a matter of
fact, you're the one stating that my objection is irrational because
you say it is.

> You rarely point out errors in fact or logic in my posts. You simply
>claim that my constructions are "irrational" (apparently because you
>can't refute them objectively). It's a pretty well established pattern
>by now, I suspect that few people are fooled by it.

Absolutely false. You're accusing me of exactly what you're famous
for.

>>> Is there any point in what I wrote that you disagree with,that you can
>>> make a rational objection to, instead of just the usual ad hominem?
>
>> Other than that your argument is based on the assumption that your
>> position is correct? No.
>
>Just a simple "No" would have sufficed. The rest is just another
>unfounded and unsupported (and false) claim.

This is what you do repeatedly. I explicitly state arguments and/or
point out the flaws in your arguments, and you dismiss what I say with
a quick wave of your hands, declaring me wrong with nothing to back it
up except that you say so.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:38:48 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 6/5/13 12:44 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:43:05 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> It's nonsensical to call it "exploitation" when one uses an example of
>> a problem to push for a solution to the problem. That's how
>> problems get solved. Gun violence is no different from any other
>> problem in this respect.
>
>Even when they line up the survivors and family members as stage props?
> Or fill a Congressional gallery with them?

That's correct. Those things do not, in any way, make it
exploitation.

>That's a whole lot worse IMO than referencing a tragic occurrence in a
>Usenet post.

There's nothing even slightly wrong with it. It's how people
generate political support to solve problems. It's how the system
works.
--

Pepe Papon

[fffurken]

On 6 June, 06:56, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

> > I'm guessing they came voluntarily, and were grateful for the chance to
> > make a difference.
>
> Well, duh, does anyone think Obama sent Federal Marshals to round them
> up and force them to come?  You don't think the glamor of being on a
> stage with the President had anything to do with it?

So now the family members, grieving parents of murdered school
children, were only there for the glamour? To be on TV beside the
President?

Jesus man, exactly how low are you going to go in this thread?

[fffurken]

On 6 June, 07:09, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:38:48 -0600, Truthseeker
>

> <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >On 6/5/13 12:44 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:43:05 -0600, Truthseeker
> >> <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
> >> It's nonsensical to call it "exploitation" when one uses an example of
> >> a problem to push for a solution to the problem.    That's how
> >> problems get solved.   Gun violence is no different from any other
> >> problem in this respect.
>
> >Even when they line up the survivors and family members as stage props?
> >  Or fill a Congressional gallery with them?
>
> That's correct.   Those things do not, in any way, make it
> exploitation.
>
> >That's a whole lot worse IMO than referencing a tragic occurrence in a
> >Usenet post.
>
> There's nothing even slightly wrong with it.

It's "wrong" if you're a wingnut and it's Obama committing the
"scurrilous" wrong. I really think TruthProof should consider turning
off Fox, it's turned his brain into mush.

[Truthseeker]

On 6/6/13 12:09 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:38:48 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 6/5/13 12:44 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:43:05 -0600, Truthseeker
>>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> It's nonsensical to call it "exploitation" when one uses an example of
>>> a problem to push for a solution to the problem. That's how
>>> problems get solved. Gun violence is no different from any other
>>> problem in this respect.
>>
>> Even when they line up the survivors and family members as stage props?
>> Or fill a Congressional gallery with them?
>
> That's correct. Those things do not, in any way, make it
> exploitation.

How so? They are parading their grief to generate emotional support for
policies that would have not even have prevented their grief.

>> That's a whole lot worse IMO than referencing a tragic occurrence in a
>> Usenet post.

> There's nothing even slightly wrong with it.

IMO that you say that says a log about you.

> It's how people generate political support to solve problems. It's how the system
> works.

That is true. That does not make it right. There are lots of rotten
things in the "system."

[TruthSeeker]

On 6/6/13 12:05 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:36:10 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>> On 6/5/13 12:33 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>> My alleged arrogance is a diversion from the rational objection I made
>>> to your irrational statement.

>> How circular is that?

> Not at all.

Oh puleeze.

>> Your objection is rational because you say it is?

Yours statement is not? Why do you keep accusing me of doing that which
you are doing the same? That makes no sense.

> You're making that up. I said nothing of the sort. As a matter of
> fact, you're the one stating that my objection is irrational because
> you say it is.
>
>> You rarely point out errors in fact or logic in my posts. You simply
>> claim that my constructions are "irrational" (apparently because you
>> can't refute them objectively). It's a pretty well established pattern
>> by now, I suspect that few people are fooled by it.
>
> Absolutely false. You're accusing me of exactly what you're famous
> for.

And there you go again.

>>>> Is there any point in what I wrote that you disagree with,that you can
>>>> make a rational objection to, instead of just the usual ad hominem?
>>
>>> Other than that your argument is based on the assumption that your
>>> position is correct? No.
>>
>> Just a simple "No" would have sufficed. The rest is just another
>> unfounded and unsupported (and false) claim.
>
> This is what you do repeatedly. I explicitly state arguments and/or
> point out the flaws in your arguments, and you dismiss what I say with
> a quick wave of your hands, declaring me wrong with nothing to back it
> up except that you say so.

I make rational rebuttals to you all the time, and you simply ignore
them and then claim that I don't make them. Just your saying so does
not make something so.



--
TruthSeeker

[FL Turbo]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:13:38 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 6 June, 06:56, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
>> > I'm guessing they came voluntarily, and were grateful for the chance to
>> > make a difference.
>>
>> Well, duh, does anyone think Obama sent Federal Marshals to round them
>> up and force them to come? �You don't think the glamor of being on a
>> stage with the President had anything to do with it?
>
>So now the family members, grieving parents of murdered school
>children, were only there for the glamour? To be on TV beside the
>President?
>

People don't take an invitation to the White House lightly.
Of course they will go.
Personally, as much as I think Obama is a disgrace to the Presidency,
I believe that even I would go, given the chance.
(Not that me being invited to the White House is bloody likely)

It wouldn't have to have been that way, but as a famous presidential
advisor was quoted: "Never let an opportunity go to waste."
(I'm paraphrasing here, the actual quote is online somewhere.)

I don't believe that any of the family member knew what he was going
to say.
They just got the invitation and took the opportunity to go.
Naturally, it would be rather churlish of anybody to ask them if they
thought they were being used as a stage prop to advance a political
goal (Which is exactly why they were invited there.)

If you think that is appropriate, then you can't turn around and say
that pointing out that none of the proposed gun legislation would have
prevented the massacre is not appropriate.
It's that Double Standard/Hypocrisy thing, ya know.

>Jesus man, exactly how low are you going to go in this thread?

He couldn't help himself.
Fox News made him do it.

[Pepe Papon]

And you accuse me of being circular.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:17:52 -0500, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:13:38 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
><fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 6 June, 06:56, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> > I'm guessing they came voluntarily, and were grateful for the chance to
>>> > make a difference.
>>>
>>> Well, duh, does anyone think Obama sent Federal Marshals to round them
>>> up and force them to come?  You don't think the glamor of being on a
>>> stage with the President had anything to do with it?
>>
>>So now the family members, grieving parents of murdered school
>>children, were only there for the glamour? To be on TV beside the
>>President?
>>
>People don't take an invitation to the White House lightly.
>Of course they will go.
>Personally, as much as I think Obama is a disgrace to the Presidency,
>I believe that even I would go, given the chance.
>(Not that me being invited to the White House is bloody likely)

I was invited to the White House when Bush was president. I went.
While I did see the president speak, fortunately, I did not have to
endure a personal introduction to him nor to Cheney.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:40:28 -0600, Truthseeker

<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 6/6/13 12:09 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:38:48 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/5/13 12:44 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:43:05 -0600, Truthseeker
>>>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's nonsensical to call it "exploitation" when one uses an example of
>>>> a problem to push for a solution to the problem. That's how
>>>> problems get solved. Gun violence is no different from any other
>>>> problem in this respect.
>>>
>>> Even when they line up the survivors and family members as stage props?
>>> Or fill a Congressional gallery with them?
>>
>> That's correct. Those things do not, in any way, make it
>> exploitation.
>
>How so? They are parading their grief to generate emotional support for
>policies that would have not even have prevented their grief.

Your fallacy is in the assumption that they share your opinion on this
matter. You believe that the policies wouldn't have prevented their
grief. They believe that they would.

>>> That's a whole lot worse IMO than referencing a tragic occurrence in a
>>> Usenet post.
>
>> There's nothing even slightly wrong with it.
>
>IMO that you say that says a log about you.
>
>> It's how people generate political support to solve problems. It's how the system
>> works.
>
>That is true. That does not make it right. There are lots of rotten
>things in the "system."

It doesn't make it wrong. It makes it the only way, and I defy you
to come up with a system where it wouldn't be necessary.
--

Pepe Papon

[fffurken]

On 7 June, 05:17, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:13:38 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
>

I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jun 7, 2:50 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:17:52 -0500, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>

Everyone I have talked to who has met Cheney, which is a total of five
people, four of whom dispise his politics, said that he was a delight
to talk to and that they went away wondering what they hated about
him. Of course, it only took them a few days to rediscover it.

--
Will in New Haven

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 7 2013 8:00 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> Everyone I have talked to who has met Cheney, which is a total of five
> people, four of whom dispise his politics, said that he was a delight
> to talk to and that they went away wondering what they hated about
> him. Of course, it only took them a few days to rediscover it.

people hate cheney because he's not a slickster lawyer whore and, more
importantly, because he's bald.

mo_ntresor

[TruthSeeker]

'Round and 'round and 'round we go, and where we stop, nobody knows.

[da pickle]

On 6/7/2013 10:14 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 7/6/13 12:43 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:39:39 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
>>> I make rational rebuttals to you all the time, and you simply ignore
>>> them and then claim that I don't make them. Just your saying so does
>>> not make something so.
>
>> And you accuse me of being circular.
>
> 'Round and 'round and 'round we go, and where we stop, nobody knows.

Around the bowl and ... let this go down the hole.

Let this be the LAST WORD ... ignore this post!

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 7 2013 9:14 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:

> > And you accuse me of being circular.
>
> 'Round and 'round and 'round we go, and where we stop, nobody knows.

you crave the replies as much as he does. you're both demented.

mo_ntresor

[Pepe Papon]

...he says, totally oblivious to the irony.
--

Pepe Papon