Post by: Rush on December 02, 2018, 04:05:37 PM
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/watchmen-the-graphic-novel.115393/
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 02, 2018, 04:16:44 PM
OTOH, you assumed the gender of Nature. Could cause a new subclass of restriction in the ROC.
Post by: Steingar on December 03, 2018, 08:57:52 AM
Quote
Unfortunately, there is a very loud call from certain quarters for an elevation of state's rights. This is what you get, different and often contradictory laws from state to state.
I identified no one, blamed no one in particular, and simply said that the farrago of gun control laws from state to state was an unintended consequence of State's rights. It is ironic that firearms supporters are among those who most promulgate states, yet I think they suffer the unintended consequences most. We can be grateful that aviation is controlled at the Federal level. Can you imagine FARs that change with State boundaries?
I haven't posted on POA since and have no plans to do so. POA was started as a reaction to the strong moderation found on the AOPA boards, which are now mostly a sterile place where folks post crashes. If moderation is going to get bad on POA, what's the point? I think they made a huge mistake shutting down the Spin Zone. Yeah, it was the source of most of the problems, but also a third of the message traffic. Personally, I think if it was too much work for the mods they should have gotten new mods. I can't stand those who take on a position and then shirk its duties. If its too much work, quit and have someone else do it.
Christ, what does a message board need with a "Governing Council" in the first place!
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 03, 2018, 10:41:12 AM
Post by: Little Joe on December 03, 2018, 11:19:42 AM
There are always people that want to be the MFWWIICCsMFWIC means "Mother Fucker Who's In Charge.
It sounds appropriate in context, but what do all the other letters mean?
Post by: Number7 on December 03, 2018, 11:45:52 AM
And because chuck is a pussy.
Post by: Anthony on December 03, 2018, 12:20:12 PM
What got me my 3 day ban was a post in a gun thread:
I identified no one, blamed no one in particular, and simply said that the farrago of gun control laws from state to state was an unintended consequence of State's rights. It is ironic that firearms supporters are among those who most promulgate states, yet I think they suffer the unintended consequences most. We can be grateful that aviation is controlled at the Federal level. Can you imagine FARs that change with State boundaries?
I haven't posted on POA since and have no plans to do so. POA was started as a reaction to the strong moderation found on the AOPA boards, which are now mostly a sterile place where folks post crashes. If moderation is going to get bad on POA, what's the point? I think they made a huge mistake shutting down the Spin Zone. Yeah, it was the source of most of the problems, but also a third of the message traffic. Personally, I think if it was too much work for the mods they should have gotten new mods. I can't stand those who take on a position and then shirk its duties. If its too much work, quit and have someone else do it.
Christ, what does a message board need with a "Governing Council" in the first place!
Michael, we are friends, and I have said this before. I am a HUGE States Rights supporter. However, there are a few Rights that the States agreed to when becoming States as the pervue of the Federal Government. One was freedom of speech, the second was Private, Legal Ownership, and carrying of FIREARMS. Get over it. Why can't you understand this?
Post by: Steingar on December 03, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
Michael, we are friends, and I have said this before. I am a HUGE States Rights supporter. However, there are a few Rights that the States agreed to when becoming States as the pervue of the Federal Government. One was freedom of speech, the second was Private, Legal Ownership, and carrying of FIREARMS. Get over it. Why can't you understand this?
Anthony, one of the biggest difference between me and the arch Trumpkins on this site is I listen to cogent argument. That's why I am a confirmed firearm rights supporter, despite not owning and having no desire to own a firearm. I think States rights have their place, but I feel their place is far more limited in an interconnected nation like ours. I will never understand how they can even begin to regulate something that is in the Constitution, under the verbiage "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" I really don't understand how any governmental agency can regulate firearms when that verbiage is in the fucking Constitution.
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2018, 03:41:00 PM
Anthony, one of the biggest difference between me and the arch Trumpkins on this site is I listen to cogent argument. That's why I am a confirmed firearm rights supporter, despite not owning and having no desire to own a firearm. I think States rights have their place, but I feel their place is far more limited in an interconnected nation like ours. I will never understand how they can even begin to regulate something that is in the Constitution, under the verbiage "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" I really don't understand how any governmental agency can regulate firearms when that verbiage is in the fucking Constitution.
You know perfesser, you are almost there as far as being able to hold cogent argument. Had you left out the little slur "Trumpkins" that would have been a great talking point.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 03, 2018, 04:12:17 PM
MFWIC means "Mother Fucker Who's In Charge."Mother Fucker What Is In Complete Control"
It sounds appropriate in context, but what do all the other letters mean?
Post by: Anthony on December 03, 2018, 05:53:23 PM
Anthony, one of the biggest difference between me and the arch Trumpkins on this site is I listen to cogent argument. That's why I am a confirmed firearm rights supporter, despite not owning and having no desire to own a firearm. I think States rights have their place, but I feel their place is far more limited in an interconnected nation like ours. I will never understand how they can even begin to regulate something that is in the Constitution, under the verbiage "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" I really don't understand how any governmental agency can regulate firearms when that verbiage is in the fucking Constitution.
Any State, Local, or Federal law restricting firearms is ILLEGAL. ALL OF THEM. So I agree.
Post by: Rush on December 03, 2018, 06:10:23 PM
"Mother Fucker What Is In Complete Control"
Yabbut there were 2 W's in the original one.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 03, 2018, 07:40:36 PM
Yabbut there were 2 W's in the original one.
My bad :-[
Post by: bflynn on December 03, 2018, 10:15:11 PM
I think States rights have their place, but I feel their place is far more limited in an interconnected nation like ours. I will never understand how they can even begin to regulate something that is in the Constitution, under the verbiage "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" I really don't understand how any governmental agency can regulate firearms when that verbiage is in the fucking Constitution.
Because we screwed it up, probably out of fear. Then having screwed it up, we continued to believe that screwed up is the correct way.
Gun control is not the only thing.
Post by: nddons on December 04, 2018, 12:51:34 PM
Any State, Local, or Federal law restricting firearms is ILLEGAL. ALL OF THEM. So I agree.Scalia screwed the pooch on his Heller opinion in this regard.
Post by: Steingar on December 04, 2018, 01:28:56 PM
Any State, Local, or Federal law restricting firearms is ILLEGAL. ALL OF THEM. So I agree.
Where I do hold exception to this is there are weapons that we really don't want in private hands. Cannons are a nice example, as are ordinance made from fissile materials. The question is do the currently targeted firearms fall into this category?
And it gets complicated. I can't blame the Congresscritters. What do they say to their constituents who've had relatives murdered by these maniacs? At the same time the vast majority of these weapons are used responsibly by law abiding citizens. Why should they have to give up their firearms because some maniacs decide to run amok?
Calling these sporting rifles seems to me a bit of a stretch though. Sorry, I don't know anyone who goes deer hunting with an AR15.
Post by: nddons on December 04, 2018, 01:31:21 PM
Where I do hold exception to this is there are weapons that we really don't want in private hands. Cannons are a nice example, as are ordinance made from fissile materials. The question is do the currently targeted firearms fall into this category?If only the founders specified deer hunting in drafting the 2A.
And it gets complicated. I can't blame the Congresscritters. What do they say to their constituents who've had relatives murdered by these maniacs? At the same time the vast majority of these weapons are used responsibly by law abiding citizens. Why should they have to give up their firearms because some maniacs decide to run amok?
Calling these sporting rifles seems to me a bit of a stretch though. Sorry, I don't know anyone who goes deer hunting with an AR15.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181204/d3ebe305fdade335b2902531e647c929.jpg)
Post by: Steingar on December 04, 2018, 01:33:39 PM
If only the founders specified deer hunting in drafting the 2A.
They didn't, though they did say something about a militia. I've never met a member of a militia. Anyhow, like I said, calling assault weapons "sporting rifles" jus seemed a bit of a stretch.
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2018, 01:34:54 PM
Where I do hold exception to this is there are weapons that we really don't want in private hands. Cannons are a nice example, as are ordinance made from fissile materials. The question is do the currently targeted firearms fall into this category?
And it gets complicated. I can't blame the Congresscritters. What do they say to their constituents who've had relatives murdered by these maniacs? At the same time the vast majority of these weapons are used responsibly by law abiding citizens. Why should they have to give up their firearms because some maniacs decide to run amok?
Calling these sporting rifles seems to me a bit of a stretch though. Sorry, I don't know anyone who goes deer hunting with an AR15.
Do you even know what a AR15 actually is? Do you know how many configurations there are for an AR-15?
As for "sporting rifles", do you even know what that means? Are we to ban competitive shooters? Are we to ban farmers and ranchers who decide to keep and use an AR15 on their ranch and farms?
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2018, 01:37:16 PM
They didn't, though they did say something about a militia. I've never met a member of a militia. Anyhow, like I said, calling assault weapons "sporting rifles" jus seemed a bit of a stretch.
Assault Weapon was a term crafted by the progressives and repeated by the MSM in order to demonize guns they don't like. Technically, there is no such thing as an "Assault rifle".
You can take a lot of hunting rifles and by adding a few parts make it into a scary "assault rifle".
Post by: nddons on December 04, 2018, 02:04:33 PM
They didn't, though they did say something about a militia. I've never met a member of a militia. Anyhow, like I said, calling assault weapons "sporting rifles" jus seemed a bit of a stretch.They are more sporting rifles than anything else. No soldier would take a semi-auto rifle into battle when an automatic or select-fire weapon is available.
The fact that they look like M-4s or M-16s are both cosmetic and functional. The design vastly minimizes recoil, making them easy and not fatiguing to shoot. The modern style permits complete customization.
A .556 round is underpowered and inhumane for deer. But I know people who hunt deer with an AR-10 in 7.62. AR-15s are excellent varmint rifles.
All of which is completely irrelevant. The term “Assault Rifle” is a made-up term that is used ad nausium by gun control proponents. A “Sporting Rifle” is much more descriptive and accurate.
Post by: Little Joe on December 04, 2018, 02:21:18 PM
Where I do hold exception to this is there are weapons that we really don't want in private hands. Cannons are a nice example, as are ordinance made from fissile materials. The question is do the currently targeted firearms fall into this category?What do deer and sporting rifles have to do with 2A?
And it gets complicated. I can't blame the Congresscritters. What do they say to their constituents who've had relatives murdered by these maniacs? At the same time the vast majority of these weapons are used responsibly by law abiding citizens. Why should they have to give up their firearms because some maniacs decide to run amok?
Calling these sporting rifles seems to me a bit of a stretch though. Sorry, I don't know anyone who goes deer hunting with an AR15.
Post by: jb1842 on December 04, 2018, 03:45:04 PM
Calling these sporting rifles seems to me a bit of a stretch though. Sorry, I don't know anyone who goes deer hunting with an AR15.
Well Ohio only allows straight wall cartridges to hunt deer with, which an AR doesn't shoot. Your arguement is sort of invalid.
Post by: Anthony on December 04, 2018, 04:13:04 PM
You'd want that for Nazi Germany, right Michael?
There is no "Sporting Purpose" in the United States right to keep and bear arms.
Post by: bflynn on December 04, 2018, 04:49:47 PM
They didn't, though they did say something about a militia. I've never met a member of a militia. Anyhow, like I said, calling assault weapons "sporting rifles" jus seemed a bit of a stretch.
Take a look in the mirror. The militia is We.
An Armalite-15 style gun isn't an assault weapon. But it's the only substitute we're being allowed. If I weren't allowed that one, I'd probably have a higher caliber hunting rifle with a scope.
I do know someone who (legally) has an M-24, but it was very, very difficult for him to get.
Post by: Username on December 04, 2018, 07:16:11 PM
I do know someone who (legally) has an M-24, but it was very, very difficult for him to get.
Curious... why was the M-24 hard to get? From the description, it looks like a Remington 700 in 7.62mm with a better scope. Looks like any other bolt action rifle. Or is it a California thing?
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2018, 07:54:48 PM
Curious... why was the M-24 hard to get? From the description, it looks like a Remington 700 in 7.62mm with a better scope. Looks like any other bolt action rifle. Or is it a California thing?
Agreed. Just did a cursory look and several brokers have them.
Post by: Anthony on December 04, 2018, 08:20:43 PM
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2018, 08:58:17 PM
Also I have an Armalite AR-30 with scope. For several years I did precision shooting with it.
Yes, they are both "sporting rifles".
Post by: Mr Pou on December 05, 2018, 06:16:12 AM
What Liberals don't want to recognize is that the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, or "sports". It is purely to enable private citizens to legally resist the government,
You'd want that for Nazi Germany, right Michael?
There is no "Sporting Purpose" in the United States right to keep and bear arms.
He'll dodge this one.
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2018, 06:29:40 AM
He'll dodge this one.
No doubt. How convenient.
Post by: Steingar on December 05, 2018, 07:17:25 AM
What Liberals don't want to recognize is that the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, or "sports". It is purely to enable private citizens to legally resist the government,
You'd want that for Nazi Germany, right Michael?
There is no "Sporting Purpose" in the United States right to keep and bear arms.
I never said there was. I just think equating military style assault weapons with deer rifles is a bit of a stretch.
The problem is simple gentlemen. These things put out a lot of bullets and look scary to those who don't own guns. They're been used in a bunch of massacres. Sooner or later the non-gun owning public is going to get jumpy, and someone is going to do something, 2nd amendment or not. Sorry. Not anything I want to see, but it is an inevitable as the tide.
As far as defending agains authoritarianism, your gun ownership will not defend you from the rise of authoritarian power. No matter what, the autocrat will have more firepower, and most autocrats are less than hesitant to sue said power. What really protects you for authoritarianism is robust institutions that keep power in multiple hands, so that no one person gets too powerful, and a healthy and independent press to report when they get out of line.
Post by: Rush on December 05, 2018, 07:26:21 AM
I never said there was. I just think equating military style assault weapons with deer rifles is a bit of a stretch.
The problem is simple gentlemen. These things put out a lot of bullets and look scary to those who don't own guns. They're been used in a bunch of massacres. Sooner or later the non-gun owning public is going to get jumpy, and someone is going to do something, 2nd amendment or not. Sorry. Not anything I want to see, but it is an inevitable as the tide.
As far as defending agains authoritarianism, your gun ownership will not defend you from the rise of authoritarian power. No matter what, the autocrat will have more firepower, and most autocrats are less than hesitant to sue said power. What really protects you for authoritarianism is robust institutions that keep power in multiple hands, so that no one person gets too powerful, and a healthy and independent press to report when they get out of line.
Actually a rifle being "military style" is a strong argument to keep them in the hands of the citizenry. The whole point of a ready civilian based militia is to be armed with the same weapons the typical foot soldier has. So actually fully automatic "assault" rifles need to be allowed.
But your point is right that today I am not sure we would be able to defend against an authoritarian power. The existence of so many guns in the hands of the citizens probably acts as a deterrent though. It backs up your robust institutions that keep power in the hands of the many and your independent press although I think that one is in danger of no longer being independent as more and more people get their news from Facebook and Facebook keeps banning conservatives.
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2018, 07:35:47 AM
So to ban a rifle because it "looks scary" as they did in 1994 - 2004, is ridiculous, and accomplishes nothing. An AR-15 is no more dangerous than most other rifles.
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2018, 07:38:18 AM
Post by: jb1842 on December 05, 2018, 09:14:37 AM
Post by: nddons on December 05, 2018, 10:15:18 AM
Most anti gun people want to ban the scary black gun, but are ok with the "regular" looking gun. Guess what? They are the same gun, a semi-auto rifle that holds 15 rounds that can be shot surprisingly quick.“Yea but, yea but, yea but ..... uh, with the pistol grip you can ‘spray bullets’.”
I hate ignorance. Sadly, ignorant people vote.
Post by: Rush on December 05, 2018, 10:36:53 AM
People notoriously miscalculate the real dangers of things, and go by these emotional impressions. This is all that's behind banning assault rifles.
Post by: Little Joe on December 05, 2018, 10:52:21 AM
I never said there was. I just think equating military style assault weapons with deer rifles is a bit of a stretch.I'm not going to pick a bunch of nits with you, because I agree with a lot of that.
The problem is simple gentlemen. These things put out a lot of bullets and look scary to those who don't own guns. They're been used in a bunch of massacres. Sooner or later the non-gun owning public is going to get jumpy, and someone is going to do something, 2nd amendment or not. Sorry. Not anything I want to see, but it is an inevitable as the tide.
As far as defending agains authoritarianism, your gun ownership will not defend you from the rise of authoritarian power. No matter what, the autocrat will have more firepower, and most autocrats are less than hesitant to sue said power. What really protects you for authoritarianism is robust institutions that keep power in multiple hands, so that no one person gets too powerful, and a healthy and independent press to report when they get out of line.
But let me ask: Do you think we currently have a "healthy and independent press" today?
I personally think the bias of the press is what has brought on all this divisiveness we all talk about so much. And just like you think abuses of the 2nd amendment will result in some sort of public uprising, I think the abuse of "freedom of the press" will also lead to an uprising. In fact, that is what is happening today with the President taking to twitter so much, and his followers applauding him for it.
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2018, 11:38:34 AM
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2018, 11:51:30 AM
Well they want to ban the AR-15 first, then all semi automatic firearms thereafter.
Yep, the classic "nose under the tent" routine.
Ever notice when a gun discussion comes up, and it's brought up about Chicago and their out of control gun murder rate, the dems clam up and won't discuss it?
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2018, 12:22:03 PM
Yep, the classic "nose under the tent" routine.
Ever notice when a gun discussion comes up, and it's brought up about Chicago and their out of control gun murder rate, the dems clam up and won't discuss it?
I was talking about this with a friend today. The Media, and the Dems don't talk about "Gang Violence" anymore. If you remove Black on Black inner city illegal gun use/violence, and SUICIDES, the actual numbers of times guns are used to kill is very, very small. Around 2,500 per year for a nation of what 330 Million? Yet the Media, and Dem make it seem like a epidemic for normal people. Don't do drug deals in the inner city, and don't commit suicide. Problem solved!
Post by: Steingar on December 05, 2018, 02:35:00 PM
I'm not going to pick a bunch of nits with you, because I agree with a lot of that.
But let me ask: Do you think we currently have a "healthy and independent press" today?
I personally think the bias of the press is what has brought on all this divisiveness we all talk about so much. And just like you think abuses of the 2nd amendment will result in some sort of public uprising, I think the abuse of "freedom of the press" will also lead to an uprising. In fact, that is what is happening today with the President taking to twitter so much, and his followers applauding him for it.
No, I think our press panders to whomever they think is watching, listening to, or reading it. Their real job is present space for advertising, to make that worth buying they have to attract a wide audience. That said, I think most honestly present the truth. I do think they're all responsible for spinning it one way or the other. But big stories get reported, mostly because any one outlet doesn't want to get skunked. That said, I think a lot of the blogs post baloney and try and call it news.
Members of this site bought into the baloney big time during the election, a lot of it was put put by Russian trolls. My go to was always Fox News. Yes, they have lots of commentary, and yes they swing right. But they are still journalists, and they still the vast majority of the time get the facts straight, about a much as anyone else.
I think the big stories still get reported, and I think everyone wants to hear about government misbehavior. So I think overall the press in the country is doing all right. The government a little less so, our legislative branch has become hideously dysfunctional. Then again, all you guys think less government is better government, so you should be thrilled with Congress.
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2018, 03:29:15 PM
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2018, 04:37:06 PM
No, I think our press panders to whomever they think is watching, listening to, or reading it. Their real job is present space for advertising, to make that worth buying they have to attract a wide audience. That said, I think most honestly present the truth. I do think they're all responsible for spinning it one way or the other. But big stories get reported, mostly because any one outlet doesn't want to get skunked. That said, I think a lot of the blogs post baloney and try and call it news.
Members of this site bought into the baloney big time during the election, a lot of it was put put by Russian trolls. My go to was always Fox News. Yes, they have lots of commentary, and yes they swing right. But they are still journalists, and they still the vast majority of the time get the facts straight, about a much as anyone else.
I think the big stories still get reported, and I think everyone wants to hear about government misbehavior. So I think overall the press in the country is doing all right. The government a little less so, our legislative branch has become hideously dysfunctional. Then again, all you guys think less government is better government, so you should be thrilled with Congress.
I think the docs have been adjusting your meds. It's gotten better, but you're not quite there yet.
Post by: Little Joe on December 05, 2018, 04:44:36 PM
No, I think our press panders to whomever they think is watching, listening to, or reading it. Their real job is present space for advertising, to make that worth buying they have to attract a wide audience. That said, I think most honestly present the truth. I do think they're all responsible for spinning it one way or the other. But big stories get reported, mostly because any one outlet doesn't want to get skunked. That said, I think a lot of the blogs post baloney and try and call it news.I think you are overly positive with your believe in the press.
Members of this site bought into the baloney big time during the election, a lot of it was put put by Russian trolls. My go to was always Fox News. Yes, they have lots of commentary, and yes they swing right. But they are still journalists, and they still the vast majority of the time get the facts straight, about a much as anyone else.
I think the big stories still get reported, and I think everyone wants to hear about government misbehavior. So I think overall the press in the country is doing all right. The government a little less so, our legislative branch has become hideously dysfunctional. Then again, all you guys think less government is better government, so you should be thrilled with Congress.
Do you think Trump has NEVER done anything right? I don't believe you do, but that is because you admit to watching FOX. If all you watched were CNN or MSNBC, or all you read was the Washington Post or the New York Times, (not t mention the multitude of smaller and even more biased outlets that rely on things like AP feeds), you WOULD think Trump is the devil incarnate with no redeeming values.
The media doesn't lie much, except by omission. But they omit a lot.
Post by: Steingar on December 06, 2018, 07:00:58 AM
The Media is either owned, run, funded, or heavily influence by the Elite LEFT. Even Fox News to a degree. People like Bezoz, Comcast and their far left CEO Brian Roberts, Google, Facebook, Apple, Yahoo, MSN, Disney/ESPN/ABC, and the other networks, media outlets and Entertainment Industry.
Yeah, yeah yeah, its all a big conspiracy. At least you didn't mention the Jews.
Post by: Anthony on December 06, 2018, 07:07:00 AM
Yeah, yeah yeah, its all a big conspiracy. At least you didn't mention the Jews.
Don't trust me, look at the ownership, both personal, and corporate, and the politics of the people behind the media. Jews, and Gentile's alike. Maybe do some research before you practically accuse me of being anti-semitic.
Post by: Lucifer on December 06, 2018, 07:40:32 AM
Don't trust me, look at the ownership, both personal, and corporate, and the politics of the people behind the media. Jews, and Gentile's alike. Maybe do some research before you practically accuse me of being anti-semitic.
But that's the liberal way. When they get backed into a corner because all of their "facts" are shown to be complete bullshit, they start hurling profanities, calling racist, bigot and saying we hate jews.
All in the playbook.
Post by: Steingar on December 06, 2018, 09:50:49 AM
Don't trust me, look at the ownership, both personal, and corporate, and the politics of the people behind the media. Jews, and Gentile's alike. Maybe do some research before you practically accuse me of being anti-semitic.
Anthony, after I wrote that I realized the implications, and I genuinely apologize. I really, really, really didn't mean it like that at all. My meaning was that there have always been diffuse conspiracy theories about how the world is controlled by shadowy forces. Used to be that the boogeymen were members of the 12 tribes. Now the Boogeymen are all liberals. The tune might have changed slightly, but the song remains the same.
Post by: Anthony on December 06, 2018, 09:55:40 AM
Anthony, after I wrote that I realized the implications, and I genuinely apologize. I really, really, really didn't mean it like that at all. My meaning was that there have always been diffuse conspiracy theories about how the world is controlled by shadowy forces. Used to be that the boogeymen were members of the 12 tribes. Now the Boogeymen are all liberals. The tune might have changed slightly, but the song remains the same.
I know that, Michael, and thanks. I have heard the conspiracy theories about the Joos!!! Lots of liberal/progressive, Democrat, Christians, atheists, and agnostics out there to go around.
Post by: Number7 on December 06, 2018, 12:25:59 PM
I know that, Michael, and thanks. I have heard the conspiracy theories about the Joos!!! Lots of liberal/progressive, Democrat, Christians, atheists, and agnostics out there to go around.
Including Hennings...
Remember his rants on the subject?
Post by: Old Crow on December 09, 2018, 06:11:14 AM
Not to offend anybody, but....🙄
It Snowed Last Night..
8:00 am: I made a snowman.
8:10 - A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn't make a snow woman.
8:15 - So, I made a snow woman.
8:17 - My feminist neighbor complained about the snow woman's voluptuous chest saying it objectified snow women everywhere.
8:20 - The gay couple living nearby threw a hissy fit and moaned it could have been two snow men instead.
8:22 - The transgender man..women...person asked why I didn't just make one snow person with detachable parts.
8:25 - The vegans at the end of the lane complained about the carrot nose, as veggies are food and not to decorate snow figures with.
8:28 - I was being called a racist because the snow couple is white.
8:31 - The middle eastern gent across the road demanded the snow woman be covered up .
8:40 - The Police arrived saying someone had been offended.
8:42 - The feminist neighbor complained again that the broomstick of the snow woman needed to be removed because it depicted women in a domestic role.
8:43 - The council equality officer arrived and threatened me with eviction.
8:45 - TV news crew from ABC showed up. I was asked if I know the difference between snowmen and snow-women? I replied "Snowballs" and am now called a sexist.
9:00 - I was on the News as a suspected terrorist, racist, homophobe sensibility offender, bent on stirring up trouble during difficult weather.
9:10 - I was asked if I have any accomplices. My children were taken by social services.
9:29 - Far left protesters offended by everything marched down the street demanding for me to be arrested.
Moral:
There is no moral to this story. It is what we have become all because of snowflakes
Post by: Number7 on December 09, 2018, 06:41:14 AM
Just put this on POA we'll see if anyone bitches....
Not to offend anybody, but....🙄
It Snowed Last Night..
8:00 am: I made a snowman.
8:10 - A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn't make a snow woman.
8:15 - So, I made a snow woman.
8:17 - My feminist neighbor complained about the snow woman's voluptuous chest saying it objectified snow women everywhere.
8:20 - The gay couple living nearby threw a hissy fit and moaned it could have been two snow men instead.
8:22 - The transgender man..women...person asked why I didn't just make one snow person with detachable parts.
8:25 - The vegans at the end of the lane complained about the carrot nose, as veggies are food and not to decorate snow figures with.
8:28 - I was being called a racist because the snow couple is white.
8:31 - The middle eastern gent across the road demanded the snow woman be covered up .
8:40 - The Police arrived saying someone had been offended.
8:42 - The feminist neighbor complained again that the broomstick of the snow woman needed to be removed because it depicted women in a domestic role.
8:43 - The council equality officer arrived and threatened me with eviction.
8:45 - TV news crew from ABC showed up. I was asked if I know the difference between snowmen and snow-women? I replied "Snowballs" and am now called a sexist.
9:00 - I was on the News as a suspected terrorist, racist, homophobe sensibility offender, bent on stirring up trouble during difficult weather.
9:10 - I was asked if I have any accomplices. My children were taken by social services.
9:29 - Far left protesters offended by everything marched down the street demanding for me to be arrested.
Moral:
There is no moral to this story. It is what we have become all because of snowflakes
The pussy and lesbian moderators will be offended on general principle and ban you just In case someone gets offended someday.
Post by: Anthony on December 09, 2018, 07:52:02 AM
Including Hennings...
Remember his rants on the subject?
Yes, the Joos, the Rothschilds, and Surplus Russian nuke subs tied up to the dock in series to generate electrical power. Makes sense, huh?
Post by: Rush on December 09, 2018, 09:45:48 AM
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/careful-where-you-leave-your-plane.115513/
Antifa is mentioned, and I said "jihadists". That's got to be a banned word. They are "freedom fighters".
Actually in Xinjiang, their terrorist snipings might be morally justified. The Chi Coms are destroying ancient buildings and rewrote their religious texts to turn them into communist propaganda and they execute anyone found with a copy of the Koran not the approved Chinese version, and they imprison anyone who mentions anything bad about their life, such as "the crops don't grow well here" and no men are allowed to have a beard unless they are very old, and on and on and on. Communists might be the only people on earth I hate more than fundamentalist Muslims. But it's close.
Post by: bflynn on December 09, 2018, 10:09:53 AM
Post by: Mase on December 09, 2018, 01:03:24 PM
Post by: nddons on December 09, 2018, 11:21:11 PM
Yes, the Joos, the Rothschilds, and Surplus Russian nuke subs tied up to the dock in series to generate electrical power. Makes sense, huh?Don’t forget the “Urban Agriculture” scam that he had a go fund me or such page set up for donations.