JohnRich 4 #151 June 29, 2006 QuoteNo...... what he is ....is just another fucking right wing hypocrite..... ESPECIALLY after all the positions he has taken on drugs and junkies...... I guess you MISSED that part huh.. or is it since he is an ultra rightie like you....he can do anything he wants because you let him. kallend: See what I mean about taking my share of abuse? Amazon: I'm not an ultra-rightie. I'm an atheist, and I'm in favor of abortion, up to a point. Sorry to burst your bubble of perception. kallend: See how I responded? I didn't whine about being attacked and mischaracterized. I responded with calm facts. Try it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #152 June 29, 2006 >From the liberal viewpoint, when a conservative does drugs, he's an >evil person who must be destroyed. Uh, you realize that the only person mentioned in this thread who is claiming that drug users are evil people that should be 'destroyed' (i.e "let's be rid of them") is Rush, right? I don't think he would consider himself a liberal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #153 June 29, 2006 QuoteWith his Dr shopping etc.. he had thousands of them in his greedy little hands. How the hell do you take THAT many yourself??? Regular dosing is 1-2 every 4-6 hours for vicodin. Figure 8 per day. 1000 would be a 4 month supply.\ But the abusers might be taking 40 per day (that can't be good for internal organs) - so we're talking 3.5 weeks for that 1000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #154 June 29, 2006 Quote Small Caps have been historically a bad idea. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of folks who have made a great deal of money in small Caps, but the way the Market has been the past few weeks, it's pretty risky. if your investment window is only a few weeks, you got problems. History shows small caps to be a key holding as part of a larger portfolio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #155 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo...... what he is ....is just another fucking right wing hypocrite..... ESPECIALLY after all the positions he has taken on drugs and junkies...... I guess you MISSED that part huh.. or is it since he is an ultra rightie like you....he can do anything he wants because you let him. kallend: See what I mean about taking my share of abuse? Amazon: I'm not an ultra-rightie. I'm an atheist, and I'm in favor of abortion, up to a point. Sorry to burst your bubble of perception. kallend: See how I responded? I didn't whine about being attacked and mischaracterized. I responded with calm facts. Try it! well, except for the whining you keep doing towards kallend about him whining. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #156 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo...... what he is ....is just another fucking right wing hypocrite..... ESPECIALLY after all the positions he has taken on drugs and junkies...... I guess you MISSED that part huh.. or is it since he is an ultra rightie like you....he can do anything he wants because you let him. kallend: See what I mean about taking my share of abuse? Amazon: I'm not an ultra-rightie. I'm an atheist, and I'm in favor of abortion, up to a point. Sorry to burst your bubble of perception. Huh? That makes about as much sense as "I'm not a liberal, I believe in God". Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess. By definition, Limbaugh is a hypocrite. To me, that is much worse than being a drug addict. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #157 June 29, 2006 QuoteBy definition, Limbaugh is a hypocrite. To me, that is much worse than being a drug addict. I think the Bible has a few things to say about hypocrisy too.... http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=hypocrite&qs_version=31 I only brting this up because SOOOO many of the ULTRA Righties claim a personal relationship with GOD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #158 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuote Nice generalizations. I don't want drug addicts in jail. I'd like to see them helped to overcome their addictions. Quote I would like to see drug dealers in jail for a very long time, however. Where did I put that pigeonhole I'm supposed to be in? QuoteGo ask the guys in jail for life with 3 possession of pot charges if my statement was a generalization. Right. Republican's passed the laws that put the guy in jail for life. edited to add: The 3 strikes law went into effect in 1994. Hmmmm.... who was President then? Here is your generalization, in case you forgot. QuoteThey don't feel this way about drug addicts in general - in general, they want them in jail, or worse. They only feel this way about THEIR drug addicts. Pretty broad brush you have there. I don't personally know of a single Conservative who wants someone put in jail for life for possession of marijuana. I'm wondering if you still have the gullibility you admitted to earlier and have transferred it to the other side of the fence. Just a thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #159 June 29, 2006 Quote I don't personally know of a single Conservative who wants someone put in jail for life for possession of marijuana. Where exactly is this giant hole you live in, and how deep is it? And this is a state by state thing, and Clinton had nothing to do with it. So, I guess "get tough on crime" and "the war on drugs" were liberal ideas? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #160 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteI would like to see drug dealers in jail for a very long time, however. Since Rush was effectively dealing to himself...should he go to jail for a long time too? You really should consider deleting this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #161 June 29, 2006 QuoteRegular dosing is 1-2 every 4-6 hours for vicodin. Figure 8 per day. 1000 would be a 4 month supply.\ But the abusers might be taking 40 per day (that can't be good for internal organs) - so we're talking 3.5 weeks for that 1000. I would think that normally any person arrested with a 3.5 week supply of an illegal substance, that person would get charged for more than just simple possession. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #162 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuote I don't personally know of a single Conservative who wants someone put in jail for life for possession of marijuana. Where exactly is this giant hole you live in, and how deep is it? And this is a state by state thing, and Clinton had nothing to do with it. So, I guess "get tough on crime" and "the war on drugs" were liberal ideas? Well let me put on my liberal thinking cap here. O.K. Clinton should have used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to speak out about how wrong this was, but he sat there in silence and said nothing. He is responsible for all those people in jail for possession of pot because he did nothing. There, how's that? See how dumb it sounds coming the other way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #163 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteRegular dosing is 1-2 every 4-6 hours for vicodin. Figure 8 per day. 1000 would be a 4 month supply.\ But the abusers might be taking 40 per day (that can't be good for internal organs) - so we're talking 3.5 weeks for that 1000. I would think that normally any person arrested with a 3.5 week supply of an illegal substance, that person would get charged for more than just simple possession. Does anybody remember that he was never charged with possstion. Dr Shopping is what the illeagal part was and now that is gone too. I can't believe I came back to this thread AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #164 June 29, 2006 QuoteWhere exactly is this giant hole you live in, and how deep is it? Do a poll. Bet you will be surprised how wrong you are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #165 June 29, 2006 QuoteDoes anybody remember that he was never charged with possstion. and Clinton never committed perjury nor lied under oath.....at least not officially...doesn't seem to stop you from throwing that around.... can't believe you look in a mirror that many times a day Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #166 June 29, 2006 Quote Well let me put on my liberal thinking cap here. O.K. Clinton should have used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to speak out about how wrong this was, but he sat there in silence and said nothing. He is responsible for all those people in jail for possession of pot because he did nothing. There, how's that? See how dumb it sounds coming the other way? Actually, I agree. Clinton shouldn't have supported the 'three strikes law'. It's totally arbitrary and a prime example of the 'law of unintended consequences.' So, you were right, Clinton is at least partially to blame. But I wasn't then, nor am I now a big Clinton fan. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #167 June 29, 2006 Would the three strikes law even apply to possession of marijuana? I thought that the "three strikes" (or at least two of them) had to be for violent crimes.(?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #168 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteI guess you MISSED that part huh.. or is it since he is an ultra rightie like you....he can do anything he wants because you let him. Amazon: I'm not an ultra-rightie. I'm an atheist, and I'm in favor of abortion, up to a point. Sorry to burst your bubble of perception. Huh? That makes about as much sense as "I'm not a liberal, I believe in God". Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess. By definition, Limbaugh is a hypocrite. To me, that is much worse than being a drug addict. I highlighted the part of the original message to help you understand what my comment was about. Hint: it wasn't about "hypocrisy", it was about "ultra-rightie". Since you noted yourself that your interpretation didn't make sense, that should have been a clue to you that you were off-target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #169 June 29, 2006 QuoteWould the three strikes law even apply to possession of marijuana? I thought that the "three strikes" (or at least two of them) had to be for violent crimes.(?) California has a requirement along those lines, but not all states do. Possession is just a misdomeanor here, too, I believe, dating back to when Jerry Brown was guv. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #170 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteWould the three strikes law even apply to possession of marijuana? I thought that the "three strikes" (or at least two of them) had to be for violent crimes.(?) California has a requirement along those lines, but not all states do. Possession is just a misdomeanor here, too, I believe, dating back to when Jerry Brown was guv. That was my understanding when I voted to keep the three strikes law (here in Cali). I think that possession of marijuana might still count for a third strike(???), but only if the person has already been convicted of two violent crimes (in which case they're a total idiot if they choose to continue breaking ANY laws). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #171 June 29, 2006 QuoteI highlighted the part of the original message to help you understand what my comment was about. Hint: it wasn't about "hypocrisy", it was about "ultra-rightie". Since you noted yourself that your interpretation didn't make sense, that should have been a clue to you that you were off-target. OK... now we get it.. even though you espouse the values and the positions of the Ultr Right.. and you support Ultra Right politicians.... that does not make you an Ultra Rightie and yet you are supporting an Ultra Right mouthpiece.... lock stock and barrel( to use a gun term). On the other hand.. I guess you are on board with hypocrisy though.......I get it now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #172 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteI highlighted the part of the original message to help you understand what my comment was about. Hint: it wasn't about "hypocrisy", it was about "ultra-rightie". Since you noted yourself that your interpretation didn't make sense, that should have been a clue to you that you were off-target. OK... now we get it.. even though you espouse the values and the positions of the Ultr Right.. and you support Ultra Right politicians.... that does not make you an Ultra Rightie and yet you are supporting an Ultra Right mouthpiece.... lock stock and barrel( to use a gun term). You're still off-target. I even provided two examples of positions on which I'm the opposite of your so-called "ultra righties" (message #151). So I don't know how you can still pigeonhole me as an "ultra rightie". You're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Neither am I supporting the "ultra right mouthpiece" (Limbaugh). If you were reading my messages (message #149), you would have seen that I stated, that I was only supporting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which is a cornerstone of our justice system, and likewise, speaking against those who jump to a conclusion of guilt despite the lack of necessary facts which have yet to come to light. So, since you've managed to miss all that, I guess I'll just have to write you off as someone who doesn't pay attention, and one who makes false allegations regardless of available facts. This can only lead to a loss of credibility for your reputation. It's your bed, you made it, lie in it. You really should try to pay more attention so that you don't do this to yourself. Have a nice day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #173 June 30, 2006 QuoteOK... now we get it.. even though you espouse the values and the positions of the Ultr Right.. and you support Ultra Right politicians.... that does not make you an Ultra Rightie and yet you are supporting an Ultra Right mouthpiece.... lock stock and barrel( to use a gun term). Who's "we" in your diatribe? If I've ever seen anyone in this forum who stands alone in their extreme black and white views, it's you. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #174 June 30, 2006 QuoteThis can only lead to a loss of credibility for your reputation. It's your bed, you made it, lie in it. You really should try to pay more attention so that you don't do this to yourself. Have a nice day. Would you like some cheeze with that... Come on John.. fess up... you can do it... I have read your stuff for 3 years now.. you support the right wing over and over and over...Tom Delay could fuck over your whole family and you would still kiss his ass. You follow ANY thing the NRA sends out as talking p[oints.... I gave up my membership because they no longer support gun rights.. they support the ULTRA RIGHT. Face it.. when it sounds like a rightie... and supports the righties.... you sure as hell aint a progressive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #175 June 30, 2006 Quoteyou support the right wing over and over and over...Tom Delay could (expletive deleted) over your whole family and you would still kiss his ass. You follow ANY thing the NRA sends out as talking p[oints.... I gave up my membership because they no longer support gun rights.. they support the ULTRA RIGHT. Face it.. when it sounds like a rightie... and supports the righties.... you sure as hell aint a progressive. OFF TARGET! You need to buy a scope for your gun, or something, because you're not even hitting the paper! Tom Delay: Just like this thread with Limbaugh, all I did was stand up for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". You seem to stand for: "If he's conservative, he's guilty". Tom Delay has yet to be convicted of anything. In fact, he's been cleared of all but one of the charges against him so far. And just yesterday, the top court found that his Texas redistricting plan was perfectly legal. So I'm not kissing his ass, I'm just reporting facts, against the knee-jerk conclusion-jumping of Republican-haters. And those Republican-haters are so off-the-wall goofy, that they're suing in court to keep Delay's name on the election ballot, even though he's not even running for reelection, and has moved out of that district and isn't even eligible to run. So just who is nuts there? NRA: I don't read the NRA web site, nor receive their e-mails. I can't even remember the last time I looked at their web site. I post the sources of my gun news stories, and all of them come from mainstream press publications. You can check them yourself. Go ahead, do a search and tell me when was the last time I referenced the NRA for anything. Maggie Drawers! (That's shooter's lingo for a complete "miss".) Check your gun's sights - something may be loose - because something is seriously wrong with your ability to portray me correctly. Keep right on ignoring the facts, at your own reputation's peril. When you're digging yourself a hole and hit rock bottom, it's a good idea to stop digging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Zipp0 1 #159 June 29, 2006 Quote I don't personally know of a single Conservative who wants someone put in jail for life for possession of marijuana. Where exactly is this giant hole you live in, and how deep is it? And this is a state by state thing, and Clinton had nothing to do with it. So, I guess "get tough on crime" and "the war on drugs" were liberal ideas? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #160 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteI would like to see drug dealers in jail for a very long time, however. Since Rush was effectively dealing to himself...should he go to jail for a long time too? You really should consider deleting this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #161 June 29, 2006 QuoteRegular dosing is 1-2 every 4-6 hours for vicodin. Figure 8 per day. 1000 would be a 4 month supply.\ But the abusers might be taking 40 per day (that can't be good for internal organs) - so we're talking 3.5 weeks for that 1000. I would think that normally any person arrested with a 3.5 week supply of an illegal substance, that person would get charged for more than just simple possession. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #162 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuote I don't personally know of a single Conservative who wants someone put in jail for life for possession of marijuana. Where exactly is this giant hole you live in, and how deep is it? And this is a state by state thing, and Clinton had nothing to do with it. So, I guess "get tough on crime" and "the war on drugs" were liberal ideas? Well let me put on my liberal thinking cap here. O.K. Clinton should have used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to speak out about how wrong this was, but he sat there in silence and said nothing. He is responsible for all those people in jail for possession of pot because he did nothing. There, how's that? See how dumb it sounds coming the other way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #163 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteRegular dosing is 1-2 every 4-6 hours for vicodin. Figure 8 per day. 1000 would be a 4 month supply.\ But the abusers might be taking 40 per day (that can't be good for internal organs) - so we're talking 3.5 weeks for that 1000. I would think that normally any person arrested with a 3.5 week supply of an illegal substance, that person would get charged for more than just simple possession. Does anybody remember that he was never charged with possstion. Dr Shopping is what the illeagal part was and now that is gone too. I can't believe I came back to this thread AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #164 June 29, 2006 QuoteWhere exactly is this giant hole you live in, and how deep is it? Do a poll. Bet you will be surprised how wrong you are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #165 June 29, 2006 QuoteDoes anybody remember that he was never charged with possstion. and Clinton never committed perjury nor lied under oath.....at least not officially...doesn't seem to stop you from throwing that around.... can't believe you look in a mirror that many times a day Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #166 June 29, 2006 Quote Well let me put on my liberal thinking cap here. O.K. Clinton should have used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to speak out about how wrong this was, but he sat there in silence and said nothing. He is responsible for all those people in jail for possession of pot because he did nothing. There, how's that? See how dumb it sounds coming the other way? Actually, I agree. Clinton shouldn't have supported the 'three strikes law'. It's totally arbitrary and a prime example of the 'law of unintended consequences.' So, you were right, Clinton is at least partially to blame. But I wasn't then, nor am I now a big Clinton fan. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #167 June 29, 2006 Would the three strikes law even apply to possession of marijuana? I thought that the "three strikes" (or at least two of them) had to be for violent crimes.(?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #168 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteI guess you MISSED that part huh.. or is it since he is an ultra rightie like you....he can do anything he wants because you let him. Amazon: I'm not an ultra-rightie. I'm an atheist, and I'm in favor of abortion, up to a point. Sorry to burst your bubble of perception. Huh? That makes about as much sense as "I'm not a liberal, I believe in God". Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess. By definition, Limbaugh is a hypocrite. To me, that is much worse than being a drug addict. I highlighted the part of the original message to help you understand what my comment was about. Hint: it wasn't about "hypocrisy", it was about "ultra-rightie". Since you noted yourself that your interpretation didn't make sense, that should have been a clue to you that you were off-target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #169 June 29, 2006 QuoteWould the three strikes law even apply to possession of marijuana? I thought that the "three strikes" (or at least two of them) had to be for violent crimes.(?) California has a requirement along those lines, but not all states do. Possession is just a misdomeanor here, too, I believe, dating back to when Jerry Brown was guv. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #170 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteWould the three strikes law even apply to possession of marijuana? I thought that the "three strikes" (or at least two of them) had to be for violent crimes.(?) California has a requirement along those lines, but not all states do. Possession is just a misdomeanor here, too, I believe, dating back to when Jerry Brown was guv. That was my understanding when I voted to keep the three strikes law (here in Cali). I think that possession of marijuana might still count for a third strike(???), but only if the person has already been convicted of two violent crimes (in which case they're a total idiot if they choose to continue breaking ANY laws). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #171 June 29, 2006 QuoteI highlighted the part of the original message to help you understand what my comment was about. Hint: it wasn't about "hypocrisy", it was about "ultra-rightie". Since you noted yourself that your interpretation didn't make sense, that should have been a clue to you that you were off-target. OK... now we get it.. even though you espouse the values and the positions of the Ultr Right.. and you support Ultra Right politicians.... that does not make you an Ultra Rightie and yet you are supporting an Ultra Right mouthpiece.... lock stock and barrel( to use a gun term). On the other hand.. I guess you are on board with hypocrisy though.......I get it now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #172 June 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteI highlighted the part of the original message to help you understand what my comment was about. Hint: it wasn't about "hypocrisy", it was about "ultra-rightie". Since you noted yourself that your interpretation didn't make sense, that should have been a clue to you that you were off-target. OK... now we get it.. even though you espouse the values and the positions of the Ultr Right.. and you support Ultra Right politicians.... that does not make you an Ultra Rightie and yet you are supporting an Ultra Right mouthpiece.... lock stock and barrel( to use a gun term). You're still off-target. I even provided two examples of positions on which I'm the opposite of your so-called "ultra righties" (message #151). So I don't know how you can still pigeonhole me as an "ultra rightie". You're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Neither am I supporting the "ultra right mouthpiece" (Limbaugh). If you were reading my messages (message #149), you would have seen that I stated, that I was only supporting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which is a cornerstone of our justice system, and likewise, speaking against those who jump to a conclusion of guilt despite the lack of necessary facts which have yet to come to light. So, since you've managed to miss all that, I guess I'll just have to write you off as someone who doesn't pay attention, and one who makes false allegations regardless of available facts. This can only lead to a loss of credibility for your reputation. It's your bed, you made it, lie in it. You really should try to pay more attention so that you don't do this to yourself. Have a nice day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #173 June 30, 2006 QuoteOK... now we get it.. even though you espouse the values and the positions of the Ultr Right.. and you support Ultra Right politicians.... that does not make you an Ultra Rightie and yet you are supporting an Ultra Right mouthpiece.... lock stock and barrel( to use a gun term). Who's "we" in your diatribe? If I've ever seen anyone in this forum who stands alone in their extreme black and white views, it's you. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #174 June 30, 2006 QuoteThis can only lead to a loss of credibility for your reputation. It's your bed, you made it, lie in it. You really should try to pay more attention so that you don't do this to yourself. Have a nice day. Would you like some cheeze with that... Come on John.. fess up... you can do it... I have read your stuff for 3 years now.. you support the right wing over and over and over...Tom Delay could fuck over your whole family and you would still kiss his ass. You follow ANY thing the NRA sends out as talking p[oints.... I gave up my membership because they no longer support gun rights.. they support the ULTRA RIGHT. Face it.. when it sounds like a rightie... and supports the righties.... you sure as hell aint a progressive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #175 June 30, 2006 Quoteyou support the right wing over and over and over...Tom Delay could (expletive deleted) over your whole family and you would still kiss his ass. You follow ANY thing the NRA sends out as talking p[oints.... I gave up my membership because they no longer support gun rights.. they support the ULTRA RIGHT. Face it.. when it sounds like a rightie... and supports the righties.... you sure as hell aint a progressive. OFF TARGET! You need to buy a scope for your gun, or something, because you're not even hitting the paper! Tom Delay: Just like this thread with Limbaugh, all I did was stand up for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". You seem to stand for: "If he's conservative, he's guilty". Tom Delay has yet to be convicted of anything. In fact, he's been cleared of all but one of the charges against him so far. And just yesterday, the top court found that his Texas redistricting plan was perfectly legal. So I'm not kissing his ass, I'm just reporting facts, against the knee-jerk conclusion-jumping of Republican-haters. And those Republican-haters are so off-the-wall goofy, that they're suing in court to keep Delay's name on the election ballot, even though he's not even running for reelection, and has moved out of that district and isn't even eligible to run. So just who is nuts there? NRA: I don't read the NRA web site, nor receive their e-mails. I can't even remember the last time I looked at their web site. I post the sources of my gun news stories, and all of them come from mainstream press publications. You can check them yourself. Go ahead, do a search and tell me when was the last time I referenced the NRA for anything. Maggie Drawers! (That's shooter's lingo for a complete "miss".) Check your gun's sights - something may be loose - because something is seriously wrong with your ability to portray me correctly. Keep right on ignoring the facts, at your own reputation's peril. When you're digging yourself a hole and hit rock bottom, it's a good idea to stop digging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
