GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2013, 08:32   #76
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
Remember, the Democrat party was the party of the plantation/slave south, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc. Thus they have consistently worked to keep guns out of the hands of the underclass. Initially this was blatant with respect to former slaves and their descendants, just as the various voting restrictions were. This became more subtle with the Gun Control Act of 1968, with its bans on "Saturday Night Specials" and imports of war surplus guns. At some point the underclass became all who could not afford their own private security force and were not assigned government-funded security. Now the underclass must be disarmed before its members realize Kristofferson's definition of freedom as nothing left to lose applies to them.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Good history lesson and explanation.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 08:40   #77
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
I also read your previous posts and do not find you the expert you think you are. You just push the party line.
Actually, I don't profess to know a lot about the philosophical divide between Dems and Repubs when it comes to guns. The motivation for my post was to get some answers.

I don't know which party line you believe I'm pushing. I have simply asked straightforward questions in search of answers that ring true.

The responses thus far, for the most part, suggest Progressives want to disarm us in order to control us, to move us away from democratic government. My reaction to that theory is that Republicans surely would expose the control strategy in order to win elections; revealing such a plan would move lots of voters from the left to the right. How is that conclusion off base?

My comments, questions and push backs are only intended to probe for realistic answers. The ideas I've heard so far have been thinly supported theories that paint Ds as demons and Rs as dummies.

I'm not interested in name calling and petty jousting, but I'll gladly accept corrections to my posts.
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 09:30   #78
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Hansen View Post
You're most likely a liberal troll, masquerading as the world's most hopelessly obtuse and/or naive "practical" Republican, so of course you don't follow logic.

Had the feds wanted to "trace" drug gang items, everything from high end vehicles to jewelry to money, and even drugs themselves could easily have been made traceable through microstamping and the use of taggants. Shy of a car crash or an overdose, no one would have died from that sort of "trace".

Operación Rápido y Furioso's purpose was to outrage the hope-a-doped hordes by making it seem like ordinary American gun owners were flooding Mexico with contraband "assault rifles" purchased legally in the U.S.A. The endgame of Operación Rápido y Furioso was for the hope-a-doped hordes to recoil in horror, and subsequently demand an end to the availability of "assault rifles" here in the United States. Given the amount of carnage perpetrated by the cartels, Congress would have no other choice than to end the evil gringos' (a.k.a. bitter clinger NRA types) efforts to flood such a peaceful land as Meheeco, with their instruments of death.



Eric Holder 1995 Interview - Gun Control - "We Must Brainwash People Against Guns" - YouTube

The operation never had anything to do with identifying cartel members or their activities. The feds only used them because of their willingness to break international laws. Even a retarded monkey would understand that one doesn't "trace" druglords by giving them deadly weapons.

The BATFEHIJKLMNOP and the various other alphabet soup agencies would have gotten away with the plot too, had it not been for the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. That horrible event caused a crisis of conscience for at least one of the participants in the operation, and he subsequently ratted out his fellow conspirators.

Now it is once again your turn to say 'aw shucks' kick the dirt a little, and act like you don't get it.

I could be mistaken about your status as a liberal troll... It could very well be that you are as slow of wit/naive as you claim to be. If so, allow me to apologize for characterizing you as something as vile as a liberal, and let me be the first to extend my sympathy for your condition.
Getting back to your explanation for Fast and Furious, it would be helpful to know what source(s) you rely on. I haven't done an extensive search, but Fox and a few other sources didn't explain the objective quite the way you do. Only Rush and Dale Gribble seem to share your point of view...and your attitude.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-19-2013 at 09:47..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 10:09   #79
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
Getting back to your explanation for Fast and Furious, it would be helpful to know what source(s) you rely on. I haven't done an extensive search, but Fox and a few other sources didn't explain the objective quite the way you do. Only Rush and Dale Gribble seem to share your point of view...and your attitude.
Your abundant ignorance is your own problem, not mine.
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana
Fred Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 10:41   #80
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Hansen View Post
Your abundant ignorance is your own problem, not mine.
Fred, I'm beginning to think you may be making this stuff up. Your name calling and harsh comments may be camouflage for a lack of facts.

All I'm saying is that your explanation of the key motive for Operation Fast and Furious doesn't seem to be supported in the literature I've been reading. I'd like to have the benefit of your source of information (a published report, an interview with a credible Republican, Libertarian or Independent spokesman, a WSJ article or editorial, etc.). RTP

The only way to eliminate my "abundant ignorance" is to provide enlightenment. Help lift me up just this one time by sharing your sources.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-19-2013 at 21:23..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 23:23   #81
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
Fred, I'm beginning to think you may be making this stuff up. Your name calling and harsh comments may be camouflage for a lack of facts.

All I'm saying is that your explanation of the key motive for Operation Fast and Furious doesn't seem to be supported in the literature I've been reading. I'd like to have the benefit of your source of information (a published report, an interview with a credible Republican, Libertarian or Independent spokesman, a WSJ article or editorial, etc.). RTP

The only way to eliminate my "abundant ignorance" is to provide enlightenment. Help lift me up just this one time by sharing your sources.
Why not ask your secular humanist messiah, Captain Zero, to release all of the documents pertaining to Operación Rápido y Furioso?

If the operation resembled the yarn you spin, i.e. that it was meant as a method of "tracing" the guns to Meheecan drug cartels, then there couldn't possibly be a shred of damning evidence contained within those documents n'est–ce pas?

Surely the man who vowed to "fundamentally transform America" and his colleague Commander Brainwash should be able to explain in detail how arming some of the most psychotic killers on planet Earth was a most excellent idea, devoid of any insidious subterfuge, and that thousand of cartel thugs were subsequently traced to the thousands of deadly weapons that were gifted to the murdering psychotics in question.

Certainly the man who exhorted his useful idiots to vote for him in order to exact "revenge" on their behalf could be magnanimous enough to throw us 'bitter clingers' a friggin' bone, and let us know how tracing firearms purchased in America to dip**** cartel foot soldiers--who can be replaced for a nickle a dozen any day of the week--was able to reap tangible benefits meeting or exceeding the murder and chaos said deadly weapons facilitated in the hands of rabid animals.

Perhaps you could beseech him to do it for the children? That usually works with liberal scum, does it not?
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana
Fred Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 23:28   #82
flw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 357
Like most people the fear of the unknown is greater than the fear of the known.

Most Dem's don't know anything about guns except clips. They always seem to bring that old tool of yesteryear up. They seem to have a real hard on for clips. Sure glad I have detachable magazines that don't use clips.
flw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 01:27   #83
RJ's Guns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
Its difficult to respond to questions you don't have plausible answers to.

Your failure to respond is itself a very clear response.

I suspect you read and observe the sources that support your views, and information or questions that challenge those views are ignored, or laughed off as nonsense. You're not looking for a serious discussion, in my view.

Thanks for your non-response.

You think too highly of yourself. Perhaps janice6 is like me. I could respond to your statements, in an articulate and cogent manner, refuting your drivel, but I have better things to do with my time and responding to you is just not worth it to me.
RJ

Last edited by RJ's Guns; 01-20-2013 at 01:29..
RJ's Guns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 11:56   #84
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ's Guns View Post
You think too highly of yourself. Perhaps janice6 is like me. I could respond to your statements, in an articulate and cogent manner, refuting your drivel, but I have better things to do with my time and responding to you is just not worth it to me.
RJ
Participating here at GT usually means more than posting an opinion or information to realize personal satisfaction. Others read our exchanges and, hopefully, decide for themselves what is truth and what is trash.

My OP was intended to elicit answers about philosophical differences between Ds and Rs on gun issues. The responses varied a little, but most opined that Progressives want to disarm us in order to control us. This tactic, some said, is part of a grand plan to move the country to socialism, or even communism. The underlying motivations for transforming the USA are that Ds hate individualism and personal wealth, they want all citizens to be totally dependent on government, they want disarmament so no one can rebel. The end game, as I interpret their vision, would be a society like North Korea. Democratic government as we know it would disappear.

My reaction to the take-over scenario was to question the plausibility of it. I asked why Republicans don't expose the grand scheme to win elections; God knows we need something to restore Republican prominence. I probed for evidence that legitimate Conservative thinkers are speaking out about the core principles of Progressivism and the threat they pose to Democracy.

The overwhelming response to my queries has been criticism, name calling and whatever you call Fred Hansen's babbling. Thats why I made the remark that Janice6's non-answer is, in its emptiness, a clear answer.

You folks have convinced me that any honest inquiry about your views is unwelcome. Any queries that ask for support of your ideas beyond 'fringe' theory are met with name calling. Any attempt at sincere discourse is rebuffed. So be it.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-20-2013 at 21:30..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 15:05   #85
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldendog Redux View Post
Democrats want guns because they believe without access to guns, people cannot kill one another. There is no reason to over think it or make it more dramatic than it really is.
I believe the real answer lies here^^. Dems against guns (private citizens and pols) just don't know anything about guns or understand the feelings of people who want them, enjoy them and insist on owning them. They are afraid of guns, and mass shooting incidents exacerbate their fear. They believe if ARs are owned by more citizens and high cap mags are available, everyone is in greater danger. They can't imagine being armed for self defense because they fear the weapons used for SD.

The cities are strongholds for anti-gunners because the only exposure these citizens have to guns comes from TV, movies, crime statistics and overblown news coverage of gun crimes. They are inundated with media scare tactics any time crime can be linked to guns.

Guys like Schumer, Bloomburg, even Scarboro, have no first hand knowledge about firearms. Like so many people I've known who were never exposed to guns for sport and fun or in the military, they are truly afraid of them. They don't know a magazine from a clip or an automatic from a semi-auto. They don't understand calibers or ballistics. All they believe is that guns are dangerous killing machines, they are scared s---less of them, so firearms should be eliminated.

Politicians representing states like New York and Connecticut reflect the thinking of their anti-gun constituents. Indiana and Kentucky politicians represent the dominant attitude of their pro-gun constituents. Thats how politicians get elected. Big cities tend to be anti-gun while rural area citizens want their guns left alone. Harry Reid is a prime example of constituent influence; he is a flaming liberal, but he won't fight for gun control because he'd get skinned in the next election. Citizen attitudes and fears drive anti-gun politics, not political philosophy, in my opinion.

Thats how this debate shakes out for me after thinking about various explanations for politicial behavior on gun issues. The fear factor and a lack of positive experiences with firearms, along with media propaganda, fuels anti-gun attitudes in our society. This explanation at least seems plausible, but I have no expert evidence to support it. This is just my opinion.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-22-2013 at 17:39..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 15:41   #86
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
Again, this must be one of the best kept secrets in the world!

Why aren't Repubs shouting warnings about this threat from the roof tops! Elections could be a slam dunk if this truth became the Republican platform centerpiece.
It isn't a secret and you are being warned by both parties, they just don't put it in terms that sound like "conspiracy." It actually requires you to think to understand what's going on. The Democrats would deny any "conspiracy to control" and they would be telling the truth as they see it. But if you break it down into parts, they'll freely admit that want more regulation of business and trade, more regulation of ever personal freedom you can name (especially guns), more of your money to be taken away and redistributed by those who know best. It goes on and on - they don't think of it as a conspiracy to disarm and control you, because most of them never bother to think or put the big picture together either. They just keep making little "inmprovements" until you have no freedom left.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 20:32   #87
SJ 40
Senior Member
 
SJ 40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 6,388
It is one of the tenants of the Commiecrat Religion and it is a Religion,plain and simple. SJ 40
SJ 40 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 20:57   #88
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
"... they'll [Democrats] freely admit that they want more regulation of business and trade, more regulation of ever personal freedom you can name (especially guns), more of your money to be taken away and redistributed by those who know best." "...they don't think of it as a conspiracy to disarm and control you, because most of them never bother to think or put the big picture together either. They just keep making little "inmprovements" until you have no freedom left."
Thanks, Bren. Your explanation has a reasonable ring to it, as least as part of the puzzle's answer, if I understand it: The Progressive solution to all social ills is implementation of more entitlement schemes, more regulation and bigger government, which are paid for by income redistribution. Over time, individualism and self sufficiency are weakened by dependency on government. Surrendering rights, including 2A, becomes a byproduct of Progressive gradualism. Interesting.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-20-2013 at 21:38..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 21:40   #89
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
Thanks, Bren. Your explanation has a reasonable ring to it, as least as part of the puzzle, if I've got it right: The Progressive solution to all social ills is implementation of more entitlement schemes, more regulation and bigger government, which are paid for by income redistribution. Over time, individualism and self sufficiency are weakened by dependency on government. Surrendering rights, including 2A, becomes a byproduct of Progressive gradualism. Interesting.
So you really are just extremely naive. Interesting.

I had the endgame of "progressive gradualism" figured out before the 6th grade. Nixon--father of things like the EPA--was president, and he had just decided to double-down on LBJ's Great Society. The age of giant government was being brought to bear on the citizenry by both parties, and the future looked extremely bleak.

Of course I guess I was fortunate in that I had a social studies/geography teacher at that time who was willing to explain to us why Communism was a great evil, and why we should be extremely grateful for the blessings of liberty that were ours by birthright. Today's NEA union thugs would have had him summarily dismissed.

I suppose that some of us really "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" while others have access to the entire Weather Channel, and still don't get it. Very interesting indeed. Sad too...

One of life's big ****ing mysteries I guess.
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana
Fred Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 23:14   #90
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Hansen View Post
So you really are just extremely naive. Interesting.

I had the endgame of "progressive gradualism" figured out before the 6th grade. Nixon--father of things like the EPA--was president, and he had just decided to double-down on LBJ's Great Society. The age of giant government was being brought to bear on the citizenry by both parties, and the future looked extremely bleak.

Of course I guess I was fortunate in that I had a social studies/geography teacher at that time who was willing to explain to us why Communism was a great evil, and why we should be extremely grateful for the blessings of liberty that were ours by birthright. Today's NEA union thugs would have had him summarily dismissed.

I suppose that some of us really "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" while others have access to the entire Weather Channel, and still don't get it. Very interesting indeed. Sad too...

One of life's big ****ing mysteries I guess.
What really is sad, Fred, is that you probably could help enlighten many of us if you weren't so bloody sarcastic and so infatuated with your own intellect. Good luck.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-20-2013 at 23:16..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 01:27   #91
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
What really is sad, Fred, is that you probably could help enlighten many of us if you weren't so bloody sarcastic and so infatuated with your own intellect. Good luck.
There is no way to enlighten people who--despite living in an age of virtually unlimited access to information--refuse to consider said information and/or think critically about it.

We live in an age where a man can stand in front of a camera, and tell people that he intends to run PsyOps on them in order to "brainwash" away one of their enumerated rights, and the average dumb ass still doesn't 'get it'. Still doesn't get it when it is happening right in front of him/her/it in real time. Hundreds of people dead as a result of the operation--including fellow countryman--no one held accountable, and virtually no one demanding that it be answered for... Instead, I am the problem. That would almost be funny if it wasn't so ****ing pathetic.

The enemies of freedom exude a kind of hubris I never thought I would ever see. Not only do they telegraph their every move to steal freedom away from the human race, they do a little end-zone dance in our face about it.

Gun-Control Issues

A community organizer comes along telling the hope-a-doped hordes that hopey-changey is here at last, and instead of this springing to mind:

Quote:
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana Reason in Common Sense
The hordes chant ˇSí, se puede! in a language they don't even understand. LOL

And if one were so bold as to point out the obvious, the automatic response is to throw the 'race card', the 'you hurt my widdle feewings card', or whatever politically correct canard they happen to prefer. Their ignorance is never their problem. Someone else should have enlightened them to what is right there in front of them. Again, pathetic.

Enjoy your bliss.
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana
Fred Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 04:56   #92
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,021
For the uh... less than enlightened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=miEmIfhfxuc
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana
Fred Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 08:18   #93
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
This seems far more plausible than theories that Democrats want to disarm us in order to control us.
So they don't want to control us, they just want to prevent people from doing things they don't like by taking away the ability of everyne to do those things. But that's not "control."

Do your remarks here, where you seem to distinguish between "control" us and "make us do what they want and not do what they don't want" make sense to you?

If they do, you should spend more time thinking about the issue.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 08:19   #94
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
What really is sad, Fred, is that you probably could help enlighten many of us if you weren't so bloody sarcastic and so infatuated with your own intellect. Good luck.
You would get less sarcastic answers if everything you post here didn't make it seem like you are a lweft-wing, anti-gun troll trying to be subtle enough to bait people without getting called out.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 09:33   #95
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Sorry, my abundance of ignorance resulted in duplicate posts.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-21-2013 at 10:10..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 09:58   #96
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
You would get less sarcastic answers if everything you post here didn't make it seem like you are a lweft-wing, anti-gun troll trying to be subtle enough to bait people without getting called out.
It seems the only way to avoid sarcasm and name calling is to walk lockstep with GT mainstream thinking. However, conforming doesn't allow for asking questions that rub the wrong way. The learning experience is diminished without being free to probe and poke.

If my posts have been troll-like because they challenge unsupported statements and theories that seem unrealistic, then this isn't a place for open debate. If someone posts a 'radical' one liner and I inquire about meat for the bones, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. And, as Fred will tell you, I'm not smart enough to bait anyone.

Since you are a long-time Kentuckian, I would have expected you to support my point that politicians vote according to constituent attitudes in order to get re-elected. In Kentucky and Indiana, where guns are highly favored, Congressmen are expected to vote that way. In New York and Connecticut, Liberal Congressmen are elected who will vote anti-gun, and they do. Schumer, Pelosi, and the other libs are not voting anti-gun according to their conscience, they are voting to preserve electability, to maintain their image, and because they don't understand/appreciate or give a damn about our desire for unfettered gun ownership. Thus, the primary motive for voting yea or nay is reelection, not advancement of a political philosophy, in my opinion; the tail is not wagging the dog.

I agree that Progressive give away programs undermine our economic viability and our value system simply because of the consequences they produce over time. What I still can't accept is the intent of Ds to control our country's future any more than Rs hope to control the course we take. Thats how the system is supposed to work.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-21-2013 at 10:20..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:03   #97
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 26,668
Blog Entries: 1


__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.
kirgi08 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:45   #98
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirgi08 View Post
kirgi, your characterization of this 'discussion' as fencing is pretty close to correct. It would be more appropriate, however, to show one combatant trying to hold off multiple swordsmen.

It seems I'm the only person here who holds the views I do, which is a lesson in itself. Nevertheless, there is always value in debating points of view regardless of the outcome.

You may put the popcorn away, dude, 'cause this bout is over.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-21-2013 at 15:15..
PhotoFeller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 11:16   #99
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 26,668
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
kirgi, your characterization of this 'discussion' as fencing is pretty close to correct. It would be more appropriate, however, to show one combatant trying to hold off multiple swordsmen.

It seems I'm the only person here who holds the views I do, which is a lesson in itself. Nevertheless, there is always value in debating points of view regardless of the outcome.

You may put the popcorn away, dude, 'cause this show is over.

Speak your mind,back your opinion and be honest.I'm somewhat of a black sheep here.'08.
__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.
kirgi08 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:54.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,150
348 Members
802 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42