Andy9o8 2 #126 February 4, 2014 It's like salted peanuts, isn't it? Or maybe heroin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #127 February 4, 2014 Andy9o8It's like salted peanuts, isn't it? When you get to the bottom of a bag of peanuts you can stop. The well of stupidity is never ending.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #128 February 4, 2014 rushmc So you just argue to argue got it How black is your pot? The reality here is that even if your fear is correct, that the UN would go on to demand we create a registry and send it to them, we (Congress, Pres) would again have this fight. We don't have to do a damn thing for the UN, and we've demonstrated it frequently. If we're going to have a national gun registry, it's going to happen because enough people (voters) here decide we want it. Not because of anything that the UN makes us do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #129 February 5, 2014 jakeeQuoteSo you just argue to argue No, I'm arguing because I'm right and you're wrong. Why are you lying? I've asked you about two or three hundred times now what the Resolution says about your claims and you've never provided a single word. You haven't done so because you know it doesn't say anything about it and therefore you know you're lying. If you weren't wrong and if you weren't lying it would be so, so easy for you to prove me wrong and provide a damning quote from Resolution 2117 that blows my argument out of the water. But you are wrong, you are lying and your next reply won't have anything to do with the language in the Resolution either. Just like all the others. I have provided what I think covers your claim Your position of me lying is your to live with You have not blown anything out of the water except that of showing any kind of respect you can not show why this should have been ratified or why you call names and insult I guess you are an expert in your own mind I just have an opinion An opinion that 54 senators agreed with and for this I am thankful Fuck the UN You have no dog in the race when it comes to US ratification I do Glad the senate agreed with me and ignored you"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
DanG 1 #130 February 5, 2014 QuoteMany times through out the treaty, it speaks of states, of states rights and security No shit, Sherlock. If you read the treaty as you claim, it would be exceedingly obvious why it talks about those things. The damn treaty is about controlling arms sales from states to terrorists, and disarming insurgents after a conflict. Your right wing nutjob websites are leading you around by the nose. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #131 February 5, 2014 Andy9o8 It's like salted peanuts, isn't it? Or maybe heroin. Rush killed PSH??? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #132 February 5, 2014 QuoteI have provided what I think covers your claim No you haven't, and you know it. You haven't provided any text from the Resolution since Post 1. You provided a quote from a Secretary-General's report (which you demonstrably did not understand, claiming it was a previous Resolution) which you thought would create a domestic registry of weapons. I explained in posts 41, 44 and 45, in detail and with reasons and supporting links why the quote was a) irrelevant and b) didn't remotely refer to what you claimed. You have had zero comeback against that explanation, you haven't even challenged it. You just waited a day and then started squawking about the Secretary-General's report being mentioned in the resolution even though you know it doesn't support your claim. So tell me, what is it you think you've provided that hasn't been dealt with? What language from the Resolution itself do you believe you've used to support your claim? Quoteyou can not show why this should have been ratified or why I gave a direct answer to that direct question on the first page of the thread in post 22. You didn't challenge my answer. QuoteI guess you are an expert in your own mind I just need to be able to read. I remember a thread where a guy claimed a radio reporter said something offensive and was raging at everyone else who listened to the clip and told him she didn't actually say it. Turned out the guy was partially deaf and that's why he'd misheard. I just couldn't figure out why he was so adamant that he was right and everyone with better hearing than him was wrong. That reminds me of you. I don't understand how someone with such a borderline grasp of written english can be so resistant to having genuine comprehension mistakes pointed out by people who can read. QuoteAn opinion that 54 senators agreed with That's the important part of what's happening, not whether the Resolution passes the House. 54 Senators did not agree with you. Some of them probably did, but more of them just pandered to your people, wilfully un-informed, emotionally led and extremely vocal voters who have such a kneejerk reaction to anything involving guns that they can be led by the nose by unscrupulous demagogues and shape the national discourse on topics like this. They pandered to you because it's easier. Easier than explaining to a mob why their preconceived opinion is wrong. That's a big chunk what's wrong with politics today. QuoteFuck the UN Why? There's nothing in the current Resolution that would affect your guns in any way. You only assume there must be because of your pre-conceived opinions of what the UN wants to do with your guns. But where did that opinion come from? Does it come from any UN actions, or do you just misread every vaguely connected UN Resolution like you misread this one, every misunderstanding just strengthening the bias that leads to the next misunderstanding...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #133 February 5, 2014 DanGQuoteMany times through out the treaty, it speaks of states, of states rights and security No shit, Sherlock. If you read the treaty as you claim, it would be exceedingly obvious why it talks about those things. The damn treaty is about controlling arms sales from states to terrorists, and disarming insurgents after a conflict. . Yes it is about what you post It is the how are you going to do it question that is important But remember The debate is over the senate killed it"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
rushmc 23 #134 February 5, 2014 I dont agree with your reasoning It is in there for a reason and you answered the question of why from the perspective of why the UN is doing this Maybe I was not clear enough so Why should the US sign on?"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
jakee 1,596 #135 February 5, 2014 QuoteIt is in there for a reason What, precisely is in there? What does it say? What does it refer to? What does it mean? "It" is not a quote. "It" is not an argument. "It" doesn't mean anything unless you say what "it" is and support your reasoning. Quoteand you answered the question of why from the perspective of why the UN is doing this Maybe I was not clear enough so Why should the US sign on? No, you were clear on that. And I've clearly already given you an answer. In my last reply to you I told you which post contains that answer. Maybe you're also innumerate though, so I'll make it even easier for you to find. It's the post which starts "Ok. The US should sign on because..."Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #136 February 5, 2014 jakeeQuoteIt is in there for a reason What, precisely is in there? What does it say? What does it refer to? What does it mean? "It" is not a quote. "It" is not an argument. "It" doesn't mean anything unless you say what "it" is and support your reasoning. Quoteand you answered the question of why from the perspective of why the UN is doing this Maybe I was not clear enough so Why should the US sign on? No, you were clear on that. And I've clearly already given you an answer. In my last reply to you I told you which post contains that answer. Maybe you're also innumerate though, so I'll make it even easier for you to find. It's the post which starts "Ok. The US should sign on because..." There is no reason for the us to sign that is worth it Does not much matter now though, does it"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
jakee 1,596 #137 February 5, 2014 Why did you even ask my opinion if you had no intention of responding to it? What's the point? And since you've again refused to provide any support for your own opinion I'll assume that you do realise that the resolution has nothing whatsoever to do with your guns and that every alarmist argument you've made against it is entirely false?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #138 February 5, 2014 wmw999It takes a martian to read it that way. Wow, that never occurred to me. Marc the Martian. It explains a lot. Thanks for the insight.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #139 February 5, 2014 I can understand some one saying: You know what, I didn't fully understand it. Jumped to conclusions based on information I got from people I normally agree with, but now that I have a better understanding, I see your point. What I don't understand is somebody clearly getting their ass handed to them. Getting absolutely no support from those who usually agree with him. Yet, still being completely unwilling to yield in any way. To me, this thread is the prime example of exactly what is wrong with politics today. Politicians behaving like rush in this thread are described as stead-fast and willing to fight for their convictions. It is almost seen as a sign of a strong character. More and more people end up emulating this behaviour, resulting in absolutely no ability to get to any compromise or resolution. It isn't about truth or fiction, it is about how strong and vervently you are willing to hold on to your opinion. Learning is seen as a weakness. Sad really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #140 February 5, 2014 I'm familiar with this process! When I first saw a reference to the UN resolution, I though FUCK!!! But then I read it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #141 February 5, 2014 QuoteIt takes a martian to read it that way. That's so racist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #142 February 5, 2014 Andy9o8QuoteIt takes a martian to read it that way. That's so racist. It ain't easy being green.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
