jakee

It's a figure of speech. If it's a lie, it was benign. Your claim that it creates an 'emotional response' is a lie, and (IMO) deliberate. So congratulations, you've just put yourself below the level of the person you think you're calling out. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why did the shooter pull the trigger? Because they were playing pokemon? No. But everyone who commented on the thread, apart from the knee jerk defenders, knew that. So it had no bearing on any reaction, emotional or otherwise. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Nonsense. Anyone who read the article in the OP knows what happened, and the only people who appeared not to have read it properly were those whose knee-jerk response is to defend any arsehole with a gun no matter what. So the 'emotional response' comes from the sheer disbelief at the actions and attempted justifications of this homicidal maniac. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You know what - at least when Rushmc argues from looking glass land it's because he literally doesn't understand what he's saying. When you do it I can't think of any other reason than you enjoy being a dick, because otherwise you're smart enough to know better. You said that you know Clinton wants to ban all guns because a) another elected female democrat wants to and b) because a couple of guys who once worked for her husband said they wanted to. There is no way you can turn that around on me and say I'm being unreasonable for not accepting the absurdity of that logic Non-sequitur. Cuomo's personal goals above and beyond the passing of the actual law as written cannot be so certainly attributed to Bill Clinton, and they sure as hell can't be doubly transferred across to his wife as well. It's the democratic party, not the fucking Borg hive mind You're not this stupid, so stop pretending to be. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So your basing your statement on the twin planks that all employees share the same thoughts as their employers, and all husbands and wives agree on all issues? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I have a feeling, though, that if cranes started regularly collapsing in your city and killing people, you would begin to have opinions on the skills of the engineers who designed them and set them up - and perhaps even start to think that your city should be more careful in who they let set up cranes. Even though you are not an engineer. What if everytime a crane fell down the company that owned the crane conducted the only investigation? What if most of those times the company said "Well we've put the site engineer and foreman on paid suspension while we investigate but there doesn't seem to be any indication they've done anything wrong". What if just one time there was enough public outcry to get a government regulator to conduct an investigation and they said "Well on this one instance the crane falling down was unforeseeable but we've found that this company does have a long history of ignoring safety standards, lax practices, poor engineering and here's the documentation to prove it." And then one guy from that company went onto a web forum and said "That's bullshit, it was just political hatchet job!" Then most people would want to listen to opinions from outside the construction industry. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But you could learn to free-fly head down in them! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Hey, didn't you get the memo? He's the friend of the working man! The champion of the small businessman! Well, except for the ones he's shafted or even ruined by welching on payment for goods and services. Mmm. In the UK right now a major chain of department stores called BHS has closed its door after a man called Phillip Green bought it for £200M in 2000 and sold it for £1 in 2015. The firm owes its own pension fund around £570M, and coincidentally in the 15 years he owned it drove it into the ground he extracted £580M of assets from the firm into his own personal pocket. And I thought, in the '80s (supposedly the heyday of corporate greed) when Robert Maxwell knew he'd be found out for swindling the Mirror Group's pension fund he at least had the good grace to sail out into the atlantic, jump off the side of his yacht and die a cold, lonely death with only his fellow sharks for company rather than live with the shame and disrepute. Now, Green simply sails his own luxury yacht up and down the Riviera from his home in Monaco, wallowing in the luxury that can be bought by equal parts lavish wealth and moral corruption, thumbing his nose at the parliamentary committees that want to give him a damn good talking to but ultimately lack the power to do anything else whatsoever, despite the fact that they (meaning, us) are going to be stuck footing the pensions bill that Green could pay 5 times over from his own bank account without even noticing. And that's what they call progress Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So what Rubio is saying, in a roundabout way, is that he feels the policy positions Trump is campaigning on (the few things he has taken a recognisable position on, anyway) are based on things he might have read about on a blog somewhere? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

There probably is one like that. But of course, when you weigh it against all of his other clearly sexist quotes the tide only goes one way. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I challenged this already with an explanation but you ignored it. So this time I'm just going to say that's unsupported bullshit, and you should stop lying if you want people to take you seriously. 3 people said the same (wrong) thing, and I replied to one. The evidence is there...and not countered. But I'm grown out of the need to play the circular game. If you guys want to pretend that statements of intent to take all guns they can get don't count...have fun with it. Statements of intent from who? Clinton is not Feinstein. Clinton is not Sugarman. Clinton is not Cuomo. I'm going to give you enough credit that I'll assume you are aware of that. (And hey, by the way, Obama isn't any of those people either! Crazy how the world works, right?) If I took the most outrageous pro-theocracy comments from any random GOP bigwigs and ascribed them to Trump, would you let that slide? Would you agree that they speak to his own personal motives? You wouldn't, and you shouldn't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're probably just about smart enough to know that the same applies here. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yes, you wrongly pointed that out earlier. You were told you were wrong, and now, predictably, you're back here spouting the same wrongness now. Fetuses aren't drugs. Besides, that's completely irrelevant because according to your own link that was not the reason that Daleiden's charges were dropped. According to your own link Daleiden's charges were dropped because it could not be shown that the offer he made was for anything other than the perfectly legal covering of PPs expenses. According to Daleiden's own defence, the video showed that PP was willing to accept the perfectly legal reimbursement of their expenses. So they did nothing illegal then, nor would they have in future if the deal had been real. According to Daleiden, according to the court ruling, and according to your own source the undercover video shows that they were willing to to participate in a perfectly legal transaction, involving supply of fetal tissue in return for reimbursement of legitimate costs incurred. That is why Daleidens charge was dropped. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

and he did!!!!! What Daleiden's lawyers told the press is evidently completely different to what they told the judge. If Daleiden got off scot free then Planned Parenthood should get off scot free for the exact same reason - the videos showed neither of them doing anything illegal. There was no collusion against planned parenthood. Ooh, body swerve, nice! Sure, there was no collusion against PP. There was also no evidence against them in the videos that Daleiden took. Daleiden proved it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's one charge. (And it's not the technicality I'm hanging my ass on, it's a technicality that you and Daleiden are hanging your asses on. Without it he would be facing conviction because his actions ref the DL were illegal.) But you're ignoring the other charge. The one that was dismissed because Daleiden and his team convinced the judge that the video did not show them doing anything other than perfectly legally offering to cover PPs costs in fetal organ procurement. So why don't you address that head on - if the video doesn't show Daleiden making an illegal offer then how can it show PP accepting one? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

and he did!!!!! What Daleiden's lawyers told the press is evidently completely different to what they told the judge. If Daleiden got off scot free then Planned Parenthood should get off scot free for the exact same reason - the videos showed neither of them doing anything illegal. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Dude, Daleiden's own legal team said Planned Parenthood did nothing wrong, and the judge agreed. Deal with it, sucka! Wrong again No, right again. It said so in your own link. I quoted for you and highlighted the parts of it that said so. Unless you have any substantive argument which references those statements and explains why they don't apply then you have no justification for claiming that I am wrong. Ignoring your own source, ignoring what anyone else says and simply insisting that everyone else is wrong without giving any reason why just makes you look more clueless, more pathetic and more blinded to reality with every passing post. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Dude, Daleiden's own legal team said Planned Parenthood did nothing wrong, and the judge agreed. Deal with it, sucka! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Rush: You can't read. We can. When there is a question of whose comprehension is faulty the answer is yours. Every. Single. Time. So don't even go down that road, you'll just make youself look even more clueless than you already do. Daleidens lawyers will say whatever might help Daleiden. It doesn't matter what they say, it matters which arguments were successful, and why the indictments were dropped. So, for the driving licences: A technicality. The Grand Jury heard the indictment at the wrong time. nothing to do with State collusion, nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence, just a procedural problem. As for attempting to buy tissue: So, Daleiden's team pointed out that the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was asking PP to do anything illegal. I'm going to repeat that because it's clear that you still don't understand this part: The charge was dismissed because it could not be shown that Daleiden asked PP to break the law, or charge more than needed to cover their actual expenses incurred. So after that what is the value of Daleiden's video as an indictment of PP? Zip. Nothing. Nada. Bupkiss. His own legal defence showed that there was nothing incriminating in it. Not just that it woudn't hold up in a court of law, but that it was so innocuous that it wouldn't even get to a courtroom. Hoist by his own petard Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I challenged this already with an explanation but you ignored it. So this time I'm just going to say that's unsupported bullshit, and you should stop lying if you want people to take you seriously. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Uh, yeah. Why is this unreasonable? Doesn't matter. The bottom line is that he is saying that he would not defend NATO members against Russian attacks if he felt they didn't deserve it. You're going to have to twist yourself up like a pretzel if you want to deny that. Hint: He's talking about money. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So, this charge was dismissed on a technicality (the grand jury heard the indictment at the wrong time), and the first charge was dismissed because the defense argued that the money Daleiden was offering was simply the perfectly legal covering of PPs expenses incurred in the procurement of the organs. So ironically, in defending himself Daleiden also (successfully) defended Planned Parenthood against his own accusations of wrongdoing. It's a funny old world Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Does she though? Any reason why she would, or any reason to believe she does? Frankly, with the general consenus being that she's a cynical DC operator who'll only perpetuate the status quo of working for special interest groups and campaign contributors I'm not sure why anyone woud think she has a desire to take a principled stand on any major issue, let alone one as potentially damaging as gun control... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why would weapons just be made available to well regulated militias? Isn't the original intent of the 2nd amendment was for the citizens to own arms so that they could be recruited into a "well regulated militia" if necessary? Derek V If that is the intent, then why have it at anymore? Between your armed forces, including the National guard, how many more well regulated militias do you need? One that can stop a corrupt government from over reaching. Exactly that many and no more. But when the militia stands up to the corrupt government and is slaughtered, you and your friends will say "Hey, the LEOs told them to drop their weapons and when they didn't immediately comply they deserved to be shot!" Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Exactly my point. I wonder if she's ever met Clinton? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Who is Mary Bayer? Do you want to have an ideagasm?