Time, once again, to make some liberal heads explode.

[S.J.]

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

I haven't seen the post to which you're referring. Please post it so I can respond to whatever I supposedly said.

Not searching for a thread that was a couple of months ago. It was a Trump thread, you got your shorts in a knot because I said something to the effect about conservatives not voting for Trump. You went on about how *I* don't speak for all conservatives. I did what you did in this thread, referred to a group in general, and you yammered on about me speaking for anyone other than myself. When the same is done to you? Oh, that's different then, isn't it? Not looking for any response from you, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Or maybe you don't want to post it because it WASN'T the "exact same thing". Maybe you were (and still are) just butthurt because Trump beat Cruz.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

I haven't seen the post to which you're referring. Please post it so I can respond to whatever I supposedly said.

Not searching for a thread that was a couple of months ago. It was a Trump thread, you got your shorts in a knot because I said something to the effect about conservatives not voting for Trump. You went on about how *I* don't speak for all conservatives. I did what you did in this thread, referred to a group in general, and you yammered on about me speaking for anyone other than myself. When the same is done to you? Oh, that's different then, isn't it? Not looking for any response from you, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Or maybe you don't want to post it because it WASN'T the "exact same thing". Maybe you were (and still are) just butthurt because Trump beat Cruz.

Sure it was the same. I said 'conservative', just as you posted in this thread 'the left', followed by 'First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left".' No qualifiers, just like my post. But again, anyone with half a brain knows that you didn't mean every single person on the left (as Asclepias is implying), just as I didn't mean every single conservative. Just note, if you hold others to a certain posting/discussion standard hold yourself to the same.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

Thanks, Obama

 

[S.J.]

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

I haven't seen the post to which you're referring. Please post it so I can respond to whatever I supposedly said.

Not searching for a thread that was a couple of months ago. It was a Trump thread, you got your shorts in a knot because I said something to the effect about conservatives not voting for Trump. You went on about how *I* don't speak for all conservatives. I did what you did in this thread, referred to a group in general, and you yammered on about me speaking for anyone other than myself. When the same is done to you? Oh, that's different then, isn't it? Not looking for any response from you, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Or maybe you don't want to post it because it WASN'T the "exact same thing". Maybe you were (and still are) just butthurt because Trump beat Cruz.

Sure it was the same. I said 'conservative', just as you posted in this thread 'the left', followed by 'First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left".' No qualifiers, just like my post. But again, anyone with half a brain knows that you didn't mean every single person on the left (as Asclepias is implying), just as I didn't mean every single conservative. Just note, if you hold others to a certain posting/discussion standard hold yourself to the same.

Then you should have no problem with posting it.

 

[Lutroo]

Huh. And yet when I once said "conservatives", you did exactly that (intimated that I WAS speaking for all conservatives) and kept saying that "you (meaning me) don't speak for all conservatives". You went on and on about it, ignoring my explanation. Funny how it's different when the shoe in on the other foot, isnt' it? ftr, yeah I get that you weren't referring to every single person on the left with your statement ... you never extended the same to me though.

I'd have to see what you're talking about to comment on it.

Face it cave chimp. You just got busted.

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

I haven't seen the post to which you're referring. Please post it so I can respond to whatever I supposedly said.

Not searching for a thread that was a couple of months ago. It was a Trump thread, you got your shorts in a knot because I said something to the effect about conservatives not voting for Trump. You went on about how *I* don't speak for all conservatives. I did what you did in this thread, referred to a group in general, and you yammered on about me speaking for anyone other than myself. When the same is done to you? Oh, that's different then, isn't it? Not looking for any response from you, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

If you cannot post the his reply, then you have nothing but hearsay. Which means that you have no argument at all.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

You can't really prove that more guns means more gun violence because I believe it has a low gun death rate.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I only clicked this because I really thought you were going to shoot some 'liberal' in the head.

 

[Asclepias]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

You can't really prove that more guns means more gun violence because I believe it has a low gun death rate.

I never claimed i was trying to prove that. Focus on the OP so you dont look silly while youre deflecting.

 

[Lutroo]

I only clicked this because I really thought you were going to shoot some 'liberal' in the head.

Now there's an idea.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Check this out. One of the safest cities in America, with a population of over 200,000 is Gilbert, AZ. Why will this make liberal heads explode? Well, you see, in Arizona, you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm. All those guns floating around. The streets should be running with blood. But they aren't. Would any of you libtards care to explain this?

It's too damn hot to cause trouble.

Hot and bothered: Experts say violent crime rises with the heat

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, he didn't. Anyone with half a brain knows when a poster says "the left" or "the right", they're not talking about every single person that falls into the category, and to ask for "proof of everyone saying ... " is retarded.

What I'm ragging on him is that he did the exact same thing to me to as you're doing to him now ... being stupid.

I haven't seen the post to which you're referring. Please post it so I can respond to whatever I supposedly said.

Not searching for a thread that was a couple of months ago. It was a Trump thread, you got your shorts in a knot because I said something to the effect about conservatives not voting for Trump. You went on about how *I* don't speak for all conservatives. I did what you did in this thread, referred to a group in general, and you yammered on about me speaking for anyone other than myself. When the same is done to you? Oh, that's different then, isn't it? Not looking for any response from you, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Or maybe you don't want to post it because it WASN'T the "exact same thing". Maybe you were (and still are) just butthurt because Trump beat Cruz.

Sure it was the same. I said 'conservative', just as you posted in this thread 'the left', followed by 'First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left".' No qualifiers, just like my post. But again, anyone with half a brain knows that you didn't mean every single person on the left (as Asclepias is implying), just as I didn't mean every single conservative. Just note, if you hold others to a certain posting/discussion standard hold yourself to the same.

Then you should have no problem with posting it.

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

So, when you said "the left" were you speaking about some or all of "the left"? Because you didn't qualify it, just like I didn't.

 

[S.J.]

I haven't seen the post to which you're referring. Please post it so I can respond to whatever I supposedly said.

Not searching for a thread that was a couple of months ago. It was a Trump thread, you got your shorts in a knot because I said something to the effect about conservatives not voting for Trump. You went on about how *I* don't speak for all conservatives. I did what you did in this thread, referred to a group in general, and you yammered on about me speaking for anyone other than myself. When the same is done to you? Oh, that's different then, isn't it? Not looking for any response from you, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Or maybe you don't want to post it because it WASN'T the "exact same thing". Maybe you were (and still are) just butthurt because Trump beat Cruz.

Sure it was the same. I said 'conservative', just as you posted in this thread 'the left', followed by 'First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left".' No qualifiers, just like my post. But again, anyone with half a brain knows that you didn't mean every single person on the left (as Asclepias is implying), just as I didn't mean every single conservative. Just note, if you hold others to a certain posting/discussion standard hold yourself to the same.

Then you should have no problem with posting it.

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

So, when you said "the left" were you speaking about some or all of "the left"? Because you didn't qualify it, just like I didn't.

And those links have what to do with me?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Not searching for a thread that was a couple of months ago. It was a Trump thread, you got your shorts in a knot because I said something to the effect about conservatives not voting for Trump. You went on about how *I* don't speak for all conservatives. I did what you did in this thread, referred to a group in general, and you yammered on about me speaking for anyone other than myself. When the same is done to you? Oh, that's different then, isn't it? Not looking for any response from you, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Or maybe you don't want to post it because it WASN'T the "exact same thing". Maybe you were (and still are) just butthurt because Trump beat Cruz.

Sure it was the same. I said 'conservative', just as you posted in this thread 'the left', followed by 'First of all, I didn't say "everyone on the left". I said "the left".' No qualifiers, just like my post. But again, anyone with half a brain knows that you didn't mean every single person on the left (as Asclepias is implying), just as I didn't mean every single conservative. Just note, if you hold others to a certain posting/discussion standard hold yourself to the same.

Then you should have no problem with posting it.

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

Levins response today about Trump winning

So, when you said "the left" were you speaking about some or all of "the left"? Because you didn't qualify it, just like I didn't.

And those links have what to do with me?

Stop being obtuse, they're your responses from the thread I referenced. Since when did you need spoon feeding?

Answer my question ... when you said "the left" in this thread were you referring to some or all of the left?

The left claims that less gun control leads to higher crime rates.

 

[hadit]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

But it IS a factor that cannot be ignored. By all means, look at ALL factors, like racial diversity, economics, overall contentment, etc. But, given the level of discourse we've been seeing, easy access to guns SHOULD result in high death rates, yet here it does not.

 

[dannyboys]

Check this out. One of the safest cities in America, with a population of over 200,000 is Gilbert, AZ. Why will this make liberal heads explode? Well, you see, in Arizona, you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm. All those guns floating around. The streets should be running with blood. But they aren't. Would any of you libtards care to explain this?

It's too damn hot to cause trouble.

Heat doesn't seem to bother the negroes living in their shitholes.
The hotter the weather the more negroes shoot each other.
The 'black' elephant in the room is the gun-grabber LIB pussies will never be honest enough to acknowledge statistically it's negro on negro gun violence that is the real problem.
Want to reduce the murder rate? Send twenty K National Guard into the inner city shitholes and take away every illegal gun.
Of course the mexican cartels will replace the illegal guns within a year.
Want to stop the mexican cartels from dumping hundreds of thousands of illegal guns into the inner cities?
Build a fucking WALL!

 

[dannyboys]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

correct, I think a more accurate statistic to be considered is that Gilbert is less than 4% black.
That is a greater indication of a crime free city or town.

So what does that really honestly say about negroes and guns?
You want to live where gun violence is extremely rare yet almost everyone carries?
Where your wife and daughters can walk down the street and feel safe?


Live where negroes don't live.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Contrast that with Chicago, the home of the strictest gun control laws. How's that working out? Blacks shooting Blacks with illegal guns on a daily basis yet the liberals are most concerned with the rural and mountain white guys legally owning guns.

 

[mgh80]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

And consequently, you have no way of proving that it's not.

I'm not the one making any claims. Its on the OP to prove their point.

And you will in turn, do what? Prove him wrong? How?

Shoot holes in his claim like I already did. Do you have some proof the crime rate is low because there are lots of guns floating around? Thats what I am interested in seeing instead of you playing captain save a ho for the OP.

There is evidence/statistics that suggest that there is no correlation between states with higher rates of gun ownership and gun homicide.

 

[Freewill]

Me thinks it has more to do with demographics then it does guns.

Gilbert, Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of the census of 2010, there were 208,453 people, 74,147 housing units, and 3.01 persons per household.

• Fastest growing municipality in the United States from 1990-2003. U.S. Census Bureau
• Currently the 4th fastest growing municipality in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau - 2009
• Ranked by CNN's Money magazine in 2008 as one of the best places to live in the United States.[10]
• One of the top 25 safest cities in the United States.[11]
• 34.5% of Gilbert residents hold a bachelor's degree or higher.[12]
• Highest household median income in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area with Population 50,000+ U.S. Census Bureau 2005

2009 According to Nielsens Claritas Demographics,[12] in 2009 the racial makeup of the town was:

• 81.51% White
• 15.39% Hispanics or Latinos
• 3.08% Black or African American
• 0.79% Native American
• 4.70% Asian
• 0.23% Pacific Islander
• 5.97% from other races
• 3.73% from two or more races

 

[ClosedCaption]

The left claims that less gun control leads to higher crime rates.

The old build a strawman with the lead sentence being "The left claims..." and add something stupid.