So this Liberal says to me...

[jontheturboguy]

Thought this was funny. Mind you this young man is maybe 22 or 23, and is "educated" from a law school down in Texas.
He's an avid Obama fan that just "can't imagine why any body wouldn't vote for a guy with such a strong record in improving poor people's lives."
So I sent him a bunch of dirt on Obama and he comes back to me with this.....

LIBERAL: So what do you know about this Bill Ayers guy?
ME: I know he's a convicted known terrorist against the United States. I also know he pushed Obama through Government by paying his bills.
LIBERAL: Really? He (Bill) was never convicted.
ME: Interesting. Does it ease your mind to know that he was guilty by his own confession, even though the court of law says he's innocent?
LIBERAL:Well no. But that was a long time ago. That was back in the 70's. Every hippie was a "terrorist." He teaches law now. Any teacher who gives back to the community isn't a terrorist.
ME:Interesting. Do you think Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist?
LIBERAL: Yes.
ME: Why?
LIBERAL: Because he blows up people and stuff.
ME: But he teaches the Koran, Jihad, and military tactics. You just told me that any teacher who gives back to his community can't be a terrorist.

*COULD HAVE HEARD A PIN DROP*

And you know what this retard says to me?

LIBERAL: Well every body gets funding from terrorists. Bush, Clinton, Osama and even McCain.

I just walked away. With an ignorant, false, hollow and ridiculous comment like that I had nothing more I wished to say to this fool.

Typical liberal talking out his ass.

 

[indyjoe]

I engaged in a 20 minute discussion around gun control on Weds. What I found out is that this person is completely for BULLET control. But she knows nothing about guns or bullets. Her obvious answer to the violence in Indy, is to make it hard to buy bullets. Yet she couldn't answer how if it is already illegal for someone under 21 to buy handgun ammunition, how a 14 year old can get a pistol and bullet to shoot? And she couldn't answer how making it harder for legal users to purchase them (and more expensive) would fix the problem.

She is for required training for anyone allowed to carry a pistol. I asked if she has any proof that those with an LTCH have done anything that is unsafe, justifying the training, or if she just wants this to make it harder to get an LTCH. No answer.

I informed her that it is perfectly legal to walk around with a loaded rifle. Obviously because that is the case, we have people dying to rifle fire ALL THE TIME. Right? Not so much.

I asked where she had seen the largest massacres. She answered schools. I asked if she thought that might be the fact that protective firearms are not allowed there, just like the idiot cities with spiraling violent crime.

I am always civil and try to give my arguments in well reasoned facts that will help educate. I can only hope I added a glimmer of intelligence.

Why is it that those most for banning guns and associated items are the most clueless when it comes to that subject? The whole barrel shroud all over again.

 

[ATM]

Barrel shroud? Isn't that the shoulder thingy that goes up?

No

 

[rhino]

When someone touts Obama's "successes" at improving people's lives in Chicago with his "community organizing," you may wish to inform them that even he admits (in his book) that he was pretty much a failure at improving people's lives in Chicago.

 

[Scutter01]

What I found out is that this person is completely for BULLET control. But she knows nothing about guns or bullets. Her obvious answer to the violence in Indy, is to make it hard to buy bullets.

This is what happens when sheep get their information from Chris Rock.

 

[indyjoe]

What I found out is that this person is completely for BULLET control. But she knows nothing about guns or bullets. Her obvious answer to the violence in Indy, is to make it hard to buy bullets.

This is what happens when sheep get their information from Chris Rock.

When I think of it, I'm for bullet control too. It is good when they hit where I want.

 

[ATM]

Some folks, when refuted with logic and facts, seem to try stepping up their emotion as a counter tactic. It's all they started with so they believe they simply aren't tapping into all of it (or they would be winning the debate.) These two animals don't seem to mix well and should never breed. They will never win the other over. It might do more good to just pinch them (negative reinforcement.) Just thinking out loud. I usually resort to logic and facts as well. It just blows my mind that it's not effective.

 

[PhantomJ]

You can always tell you have won an argument with a liberal, when you here the phrase "we'll just have to agree to disagree". This statement means you have sucessfully countered all my dailykos talking points, but I am still not willing to admit you are absolutely correct.

 

[rhino]

"We'll have to agree to disagree" can also mean, "we both know I'm completely right and you're completely wrong, but I don't want to go to prison for killing if you keep saying stupid things," when it's stated by a non-liberal.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
I just walked away. With an ignorant, false, hollow and ridiculous comment like that I had nothing more I wished to say to this fool.

The worst part is that he probably counts this as a debate he won with that stupid hick Hoosier redneck.

Nice try though. A for effort.

Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

I engaged in a 20 minute discussion around gun control on Weds. What I found out is that this person is completely for BULLET control. But she knows nothing about guns or bullets. Her obvious answer to the violence in Indy, is to make it hard to buy bullets. Yet she couldn't answer how if it is already illegal for someone under 21 to buy handgun ammunition, how a 14 year old can get a pistol and bullet to shoot? And she couldn't answer how making it harder for legal users to purchase them (and more expensive) would fix the problem.

She is for required training for anyone allowed to carry a pistol. I asked if she has any proof that those with an LTCH have done anything that is unsafe, justifying the training, or if she just wants this to make it harder to get an LTCH. No answer.

I informed her that it is perfectly legal to walk around with a loaded rifle. Obviously because that is the case, we have people dying to rifle fire ALL THE TIME. Right? Not so much.

I asked where she had seen the largest massacres. She answered schools. I asked if she thought that might be the fact that protective firearms are not allowed there, just like the idiot cities with spiraling violent crime.

I am always civil and try to give my arguments in well reasoned facts that will help educate. I can only hope I added a glimmer of intelligence.

Why is it that those most for banning guns and associated items are the most clueless when it comes to that subject? The whole barrel shroud all over again.

Nicely done. Love the point about lawful carry of a rifle and how "many" people die to rifle fire. Reps to you.

Blessings,
B

 

[Wabatuckian]

I didn't know it was legal to carry a rifle... actually, do the books even say anything about it?

Nice going Indy Joe, but I doubt I would have walked away. Well, maybe - but I'd put a disgusted look on my face first and shake my head as I was walking away, to let him know that I was disgusted at myself for engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Josh <><

 

[Bill of Rights]

I didn't know it was legal to carry a rifle... actually, do the books even say anything about it?

Nice going Indy Joe, but I doubt I would have walked away. Well, maybe - but I'd put a disgusted look on my face first and shake my head as I was walking away, to let him know that I was disgusted at myself for engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Josh <><

Heh, they sure do.

Article I Sec 32 Indiana State Constitution: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

I know that's not what you were asking. I decided to be a smartass. (Better than the other kind.)

The state code contains "regulation of handguns" but I was unable to locate anything related to regulation of long guns. In the absence of law to the contrary, an act is legal. IANAL, IDSIAHIELN, and TINLA.

Blessings,
B

 

[jontheturboguy]

The worst part is that he probably counts this as a debate he won with that stupid hick Hoosier redneck.

Nice try though. A for effort.

Blessings,
B

Oh so true. And truth be told, he would just show how much of a fool he is.

For I am neither redneck, nor Hoosier. :-)

 

[JcJ]

For I am neither redneck, nor Hoosier. :-)

Close enough

 

[JetGirl]

Close enough

Yep. If you're close enough that he can smell Hoosier on ya...it counts.

 

[PEARCE]

In 2004, I was working on a college news piece on the NRA national convection in Pittsburgh. I did interviews with the Vice President of the NRA, Ted Nugent, his wife, vendors and protesters. Protesters at the event targeted attendees outside the convention center and harassed them. I even got some footage of a attendees and protester doing some heated debates. The attendee was armed with facts and citations (as well as a .45). The protester was just using emotions and misguided information during the debate like, machine guns should be illegal, and handguns were designed to destroy the black culture. It was a beautiful site.
The convention was great and the NRA was very very accommodating and never really put me down for not being a "major network". Hell, even Dick Cheny's people were extremely accommodating unlike Kerry's people. Many of these liberals think too much with their heart on not with their brain. They make emotional and irrational arguments or repeat talking points from MoveOn, Huffington, or DailyKos. They regard soldiers as dumb rednecks that couldn't get into college, they are unwilling to accept personal reliability, which means they want government to take care of us.

 

[finity]

LIBERAL: Well every body gets funding from terrorists. Bush, Clinton, Osama and even McCain.

I just walked away. With an ignorant, false, hollow and ridiculous comment like that I had nothing more I wished to say to this fool.

Typical liberal talking out his ass.

You don't think that our politicians get in the pockets of the Saudi's? You do know that 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's, right? (None were Iraqi's, BTW)

You do know that W has connections with the Bin Laden family that go back 20 or more years?

Before the first Gulf War, Saddam was 'our man' in Baghdad.

It may have been an exaggeration to say 'everybody', but the likelihood of it happening isn't that remote.

With the political climate of today it's easy to see how people can become so jaded. Look at the unfounded rumors & accusations that fly around here.

 

[Panama]

You don't think that our politicians get in the pockets of the Saudi's? You do know that 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's, right? (None were Iraqi's, BTW)

You do know that W has connections with the Bin Laden family that go back 20 or more years?

Before the first Gulf War, Saddam was 'our man' in Baghdad.

It may have been an exaggeration to say 'everybody', but the likelihood of it happening isn't that remote.

With the political climate of today it's easy to see how people can become so jaded. Look at the unfounded rumors & accusations that fly around here.

When you debate (argue) with an idiot, you will end up looking like one as well!

 

[duke]

When you debate (argue) with an idiot, you will end up looking like one as well!

I don't understand, you're not going to debate on these points, but the liberal is an idiot for his Ayers comments?

Please clarify, that's pretty hypocritical.