Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by beforeobamabans, Jul 24, 2012.
I'm torn with how to respond to such a dumb thread so take your pick from alternate and equally ludicrous titles:
The Feds Paid For This Retarded Thread By Funding and Inventing DARPANET.
Glock Talkers Paid For Colorado Shooters Arsenal By Funding Student Loans Through Taxes
No. The feds paid him a stipend to do competitive research. He can do whatever he wants with that money.
Well, let me offer you some choices in response to this information:
1. Impose severe gun control so people like this (and law abiding citzens) cannot buy 4 guns within a few weeks, thousands of rounds of ammo and full body armor over the Internet.
2. Eliminate public showings of movies because it inevitably attracts psychotic progressive mass murderers.
3. Enact controls over federal student loans to ensure that it goes to schools, rather than indivduals, so that it cannot be spent on non-educational items like body armor, guns and ammo.
You are typical of the leftist elements now in control of our government. Just throw money at the problem with no controls whatsoever and assume that solves the problem. And when that doesn't work, accuse the "rich" of not paying their fair share so that you can achieve your ultimate goal of indiscriminate redistribution of wealth.
What in Gods name are you going on about? Please point out where, in my post, that I alluded to throwing money at anything. In fact, I dare you to do so. My post contained nothing but mockery directed at your pathetic attempt to lay the blame of the shooting at the feet of the federal government.
Did you even read the link that you posted? It said that Holmes received X amount of dollars in financial aid and he may have used some that money to buy guns, etc. How do you go from "may have" to "the Feds paid for the arsenal"? And how do you go from that to advocating for censoring media and prohibiting people from buying guns and ammo online?
As an afterthought, I would be shocked if you actually explained the rationale and reasoning behind your response. I honestly expect you to just construct a straw man to attack instead, if you reply at all. Prove me wrong.
Government built that.
Okay -- in a dark humor sort of way, that was actually funny.
I find the question of how a grad student afforded what appears to be about $10,000 (maybe more counting the contents of his apartment) to be an important part of the story. This early, first story about his funding from the Feds does need further investigation and I hope that this clue is vigorously pursued-although I doubt that it will be. My thread title while provocative was certainly not "dumb". If you don't like the subject matter, just move on.
As has been pointed out here before, the fed produces nothing. So the victims paid for the CO shooter's weapons.
Doesn't that sound better?
I don't think you are laying blame, in as much as stating a fact.
Facts, on occasions, can be uncomfortable for anyone of us.
Outdoor Hub mobile
What else would you expect from the OP??
....he might actually believe his photoshopped avatar of some moron holding a sign facing backwards is real!
Eye-witness testimony suggests he had at least one accomplice (inconvenient as this is for the typical lone-nut narrative).
Had you taken this route - and then based the subsequent discussion on the assumption that the shooters guns were paid for with financial aid money - it could have opened up in to a rational discussion about whether or not there is a need for oversight in the area of financial aid and how much of that oversight the various levels of government should be responsible for. Instead, you took an unsubstantiated "may have" and turned it in to a fact: "The feds paid for the shooters arsenal. Well duh!" And then went on some kind of bizarre rant about censoring media and banning internet sales of ammunition.
The thread title most certainly was dumb, simply because -all else aside- it implies that the federal government is responsible for the shooting. It would be equally dumb to say that the federal government is responsible for drunk driving deaths because they enabled people to acquire vehicles through the cash for clunkers program or loans provided through credit unions. You can try to paint your choice of titles as provocative if you want, but in reality it is nothing but hyperbole.
Speaking of hyperbole, I'm still waiting for you to point out where, in my initial post, that I advocated for "throwing money at the problem" or the redistribution of wealth like a "typical leftist".
I you back...
That's your response? When I call you out to support the random stuff you accused me of, you repeatedly decline to answer and instead try to deflect with emoticons? Seriously? I honestly don't know how to approach that. Even the casual observer can view the thread in its entirety and see that your comments were unfounded and out of line. And yet you still wont own those comments and admit you were wrong. I'm completely blown away at the level of your cowardice and inability to show even the smallest modicum of intestinal fortitude by manning up and admitting fault.
To be honest, I'm a little embarrassed for you. You go ahead and go on about your day. I'm done here.
My threads are easy enough to ignore and I invite you to do so. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye out for yours.
For the record, the photo I chose for my avatar was taken by me at a Tea Party rally in the run up to the 2010 elections. It is unretouched. The gentleman you call a "moron" is in fact a patriot who made his sign two-sided so that everyone fore and aft would get the message. The rally was held on statehouse grounds so there was some question as to whether or not it would be legal to carry at the rally. Being a law-abiding citizen, he chose to respect the law....this time.