the ATF has some 'splaining' to do

SmarterThanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Let's see: the gov't is tyrannical and rogue.....I wonder if that's regardless of what party is in power? I didn't read all this trash talk on the chat boards during the Reagan/Bush years. and there was total silence or grand support for the Patriot Act, or when the Shrub threw FISA out the window. Hypocrisy from the neocon/birther/oather/teabagger cabal...Go figure.

Me, I'll wait and see if heads will roll at the ATF.
Click to expand...

you must have had a whole bunch of shit in your ears, because those of us who are both Libertarians and TEA party members railed against the Patriot act, TARP, and a whole bunch of other shit that both parties did, but don't let that spoil your liberal shit for brains ideology.
Click to expand...

The only shit here is the BS YOU have been spewing for awhile, STY. The self serving convoluted logic, willful ignorance and intellectual cowardice of Libertarians and Teabaggers (of whom have an extra dose of sheer stupidity) has been well documented on these boards and in the media during the reign of the Shrub and in the last two years of the Obama administration. ONLY when the neocon/teabagging/oather/birther/Libertarian bullshit backs up on your doorstep do you truly whine like a stuck pig...otherwise, you stretch reality to the breaking point to suit your personal beliefs.

The "Tea Party" was less than a piss in the wind with a few idealist before Dick Armey and the Kock Brothers got interested. Hell, even those who claim to be originators of the tea party have publically condemned what's been astro-turfed since Obama announced his candidacy. And Libertarians are a fucking two faced joke....period.

Bottom line: the apparent royal screw up by the ATF has NOTHING to do with the consistent paranoia of gunners who for years have sworn that the federal gov't was just a hair's breath from taking away their guns. Deal with it. Meanwhile, I'll wait to see what shakes out with this latest case, and will lay blame/condemnation accordingly.
 
King of Guns said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Think, my friend.....If I state that I didn't read such trash talk on chat boards during the Reagan/Bush years, what does that tell you? Hint: you had a father and his son respectively hold the office of presidency.
Click to expand...

So in other words you weren't on the internet when STY was rallying against Bush. Cool.
Click to expand...

:palm: The King of Guns misses the target again!

It means that I was on various chat boards during the Clinton and Bush years. If STY was wailing against the Shrub or Reaganomics or Daddy Bush, I sure didn't see it...but then again I've been on a few boards over the years....maybe he changed his screen name? In any event, some of the jokers on this board were on others that I belonged to once...and they sure as hell did nothing that changed my observation.

But do continue to miss the target or shoot blanks, oh mighty KOG. I look forward to your predictable entertainment.
 
TCL, if you never saw people railing against Bush during his tenure, then the only possible solution is that you were never on any message boards. Period.
 
King of Kings said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Think, my friend.....If I state that I didn't read such trash talk on chat boards during the Reagan/Bush years, what does that tell you? Hint: you had a father and his son respectively hold the office of presidency.
Click to expand...

Since there weren't any chat boards during the Reagan years, and the HTTP wasn't invented until 1991, I figured it would be irrelevant to speak of internet message boards during the Bush Sr. administration. You also don't have a sense of humour, so I figured you would not bother to throw up a statement like that just to be silly (i.e., I never saw supporters of Windell Wilkie speak ill of FDR on message boards). That leaves the Bush II years...
Click to expand...

What makes you think that discussion of the Reagan/Bush era policies wasn't happening from 1992 on during the early discussion boards, commentary sections of various MSM news sites, etc.? Well in any event, you figured wrong.
 
King of Kings said:
TCL, if you never saw people railing against Bush during his tenure, then the only possible solution is that you were never on any message boards. Period.
Click to expand...

You're not paying attention....I was referring to the so-called conservatives, the neocons, the birthers, the oathers, the Libertarians, the teabaggers....
 
Sorry Taicheatsonhistaxesandliesaboutliberal, but the chronology of the posts shows that there were plenty of Libertarians speaking ill of bush from the very inception of this board.
Well, I'm not really sorry.
 
King of Guns said:
Except you didn't win. As originally written the 2A protects the rights of citizens to own personal nuclear weapons. However, if you remember article 6, you'd remember that all treaties ratified are considered legal and go hand in hand with the constitution as far as legality and supremacy go. Therefore when we signed the several nuclear non-proliferation treaties we've signed, we've effectively ended the argument against civvies owning nukes.
Click to expand...

good lord...i did, your memory is failing you...btw....we couldn't own nukes before that

also...we cannot make any treaty that abrogates or violates the US constitution..thus, it is legally impossible for a treaty to violate any amendment
 
Taichiliberal said:
You're not paying attention....I was referring to the so-called conservatives, the neocons, the birthers, the oathers, the Libertarians, the teabaggers....
Click to expand...

in other words, anyone not liberal. you're a bigger partisan hack than i gave you credit for. I should have kept your ignorant ass on ignore.

go be more blissful.
 
King of Kings said:
Because the past is prologue.
Click to expand...

....and those who do not learn the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. The sheer hypocrisy of the forementioned variations of "conservatism" when it comes to reaganomics, the Presidents that advocated such, and Obama is plain for all to see.
 
King of Guns said:
Sorry Taicheatsonhistaxesandliesaboutliberal, but the chronology of the posts shows that there were plenty of Libertarians speaking ill of bush from the very inception of this board.
Well, I'm not really sorry.
Click to expand...

As I said to another joker, Libertarians are a bunch of two faced clowns....they get all pissed about one aspect of the Shrub and reaganomics when it directly effects them while wildly supporting the basis of that ideology.

And given his childish name calling, the King of Guns has yet to realize he's shooting intellectual blanks.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
in other words, anyone not liberal. you're a bigger partisan hack than i gave you credit for. I should have kept your ignorant ass on ignore.

go be more blissful.
Click to expand...

As the chronology of the posts shows, what I was pointing out was addressing the supporters of reaganomics and the Shrub.....last time I checked no one labled "liberal" or "progressive" were advocates of such, so the above accusation makes no sense.

So once again, STY proves what a lie his screen name is....another dopey threeper/oather proving willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is indeed everywhere.
 
Taichiliberal said:
As I said to another joker, Libertarians are a bunch of two faced clowns....they get all pissed about one aspect of the Shrub and reaganomics when it directly effects them while wildly supporting the basis of that ideology.

And given his childish name calling, the King of Guns has yet to realize he's shooting intellectual blanks.
Click to expand...
So we're two faced because we have a different set of political ideology from Republicans, yet you're not because...why exactly?

And once again Taidonthaveclueandamagigantichack, misses the point and insteads chooses to resort to 'clever' (I.E. Stupid) remarks like 'shooting blanks' and 'missing the target'. Great argument there buck-o. Real intellectual material.
 
Taichiliberal said:
....and those who do not learn the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. The sheer hypocrisy of the forementioned variations of "conservatism" when it comes to reaganomics, the Presidents that advocated such, and Obama is plain for all to see.
Click to expand...

Wow, when did libertarianism/classical liberalism become conservatism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top