User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:27:16 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Liberals arent liberals anymore. Theyre progressives. And progressives are the scum of the earth. I eagerly await the day the term "progressive" is a footnote in history. Well, that's not very progressive of you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:28:15 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP is correct, too many fucked up dickheads in here. Guess what, they're the new normal in this FUSA. Name calling when you don't go along with their groupthink. And that's just for starters, try speaking some truth in here and get your timeouts. Wake up, like the rest of this country, this forum has been subverted, and most here kiss the asses of those subverting it. Ah, the Obama Generation speaks. Thanks for your input. This site went down hill after Y2K turned out to be a bust. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:40:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It just comes from the exasperation of explaining why their premise is wrong....over and over ad infinitum. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
See, now, this kind of thing is why you come across as arguing like an ass. You have ZERO reason to say that, other than to try to discredit him and any statement he might try to make by tying him to a person reviled by the bulk of the site, a tie that, given his statements that he's only ever voted R or L, is without any basis. It's name-calling in an attempt to tear him down and bolster your part of the discussion, of the most base sort. I gave up on even pointing it out years ago. I thought we had all just accepted it as fact and moved on. Very Polite 
It just comes from the exasperation of explaining why their premise is wrong....over and over ad infinitum. GWB had a Republican congress for six years of his presidency. You can't blame Democrats for that time. If you can demonstrate to me how he reduced government, reduced spending, eliminated regulation, repealed bad laws, got the government out of our business, or increased our freedom, I'll concede the fucking point. Go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:41:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK WOOOF |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:53:42 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only thing you got right is the Bush Sr. import ban. Everything else is 75% Dem and 25% Republican. Nice try though. I'm sure your choice in Hillary will be fiscally responsible and very pro-gun.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> In my life, I've seen Republicans ban more guns than Democrats, run up huge debts, raise taxes, increase spending, and expand the government on all levels. <snip> No you haven't. That's absurd and just stated in order to appear as (false) support for your last sentence.  The '89 import ban was the largest ban on firearms in this country's history -signed into law by Republican Bush Sr. The same guy who signed it into law raised taxes. Reagan signed a law prohibiting ownership of new full-autos in '86. Are you denying that Republican pols have also run up huge debts, raised taxes, increased spending, and expanded government? I could provide many examples of every one of these things. The only thing you got right is the Bush Sr. import ban. Everything else is 75% Dem and 25% Republican. Nice try though. I'm sure your choice in Hillary will be fiscally responsible and very pro-gun. Of course Dems are better at these things. As far as 75/25, 50/50 or whatever, I can't put a number on it. It involves a lot of details (and I did imply that state governments were included in my assessment, though they aren't really what I was thinking of). If you believe that the FedGov shrank, federal taxes and spending were reduced, the debt was reduced, and regulations were eliminated by Republicans, then you aren't just a party guy, you're delusional. I'm sure your choices like the Pro-gun and anti-government-healthcare Romney, and the eminently ideological McCain, will save America by leading us into a bold new future (if they accomplish anything other than losing to dems). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:56:29 AM EDT
[#6]
Is Texas becoming the next liberal state? After reading ,some posts here, I`m starting to think so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:11:54 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The other side. With more liberal views being expressed, like some of mine, on the forum we are seeing more rounded support for responsible gun ownership. It just more "liberal" people are owning and shooting AR15s which is the common tie that most of us have to this forum. Because the evil black rifle has found it's way into "EVERYONE'S" hands the forum and site in general is seeing traffic that reflects the general population. Gun ownership is not just for the far right anymore and gun ownership is not just tied to the traditional stereotypes that it once was. I will vote 3rd party Libertarian and have for a number of years. I defected from the republican party and won't ever vote democrat because both have proven themselves ineffective at running the country. It is time for other views and leaders to have a chance. Obamacare made health care affordable for my 20 something year old working kids. Both of my kids work hard, have college degrees but they also both work for small businesses that don't offer health care. (Vet Tech and Chef) So OC worked for them as it should. I don't support taking our right to bear arms away nor do I like the .gov hoarding of ammo to stifle the usage of our firearms. That is interfering with that right. I could go on but you get the picture, moderate and mixed up views are prevalent across the nation. Be happy we have different views and can express them. Wow! You support Libertarian Party unrestricted immigration AND obamacare. You're not the only "liberal" progressive left libertarian. Unrestricted political refugees; but restrict threats Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. Source: 2014 Libertarian Party Platform , Nov 1, 2014 Eliminate all restrictions on immigration We welcome all refugees to our country. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference. We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000 http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Immigration.htm Libertarian Party Candidate Sean Haugh Makes No Bones About His Support for Medicaid Expansion 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:16:53 AM EDT
[#8]
lol, no it hasn't.
It's just not ultra right wing the sky is falling like you apparently would like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:18:48 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is Texas becoming the next liberal state? After reading ,some posts here, I`m starting to think so. Lol No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:19:44 AM EDT
[#10]
This site was much better when it was on the IBM mainframe and we communicated via punch cards.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:23:26 AM EDT
[#11]
Wish I had a dollar every time beararms posts a pic of Gary Johnson.
Maybe he should post a pic of Jeb giving Hillary the Liberty Medal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:24:01 AM EDT
[#12]
Aiden's thesis does hold water.
Check out how many people like Clinton and voted for him twice. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1742221_I_liked_Bill_Clinton.html&page=1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:30:54 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aiden's thesis does hold water. Check out how many people like Clinton and voted for him twice. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1742221_I_liked_Bill_Clinton.html&page=1 
Nice convenience sample. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:32:29 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course Dems are better at these things. As far as 75/25, 50/50 or whatever, I can't put a number on it. It involves a lot of details (and I did imply that state governments were included in my assessment, though they aren't really what I was thinking of). If you believe that the FedGov shrank, federal taxes and spending were reduced, the debt was reduced, and regulations were eliminated by Republicans, then you aren't just a party guy, you're delusional. I'm sure your choices like the Pro-gun and anti-government-healthcare Romney, and the eminently ideological McCain, will save America by leading us into a bold new future (if they accomplish anything other than losing to dems). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> In my life, I've seen Republicans ban more guns than Democrats, run up huge debts, raise taxes, increase spending, and expand the government on all levels. <snip> No you haven't. That's absurd and just stated in order to appear as (false) support for your last sentence. The '89 import ban was the largest ban on firearms in this country's history -signed into law by Republican Bush Sr. The same guy who signed it into law raised taxes. Reagan signed a law prohibiting ownership of new full-autos in '86. Are you denying that Republican pols have also run up huge debts, raised taxes, increased spending, and expanded government? I could provide many examples of every one of these things. The only thing you got right is the Bush Sr. import ban. Everything else is 75% Dem and 25% Republican. Nice try though. I'm sure your choice in Hillary will be fiscally responsible and very pro-gun. Of course Dems are better at these things. As far as 75/25, 50/50 or whatever, I can't put a number on it. It involves a lot of details (and I did imply that state governments were included in my assessment, though they aren't really what I was thinking of). If you believe that the FedGov shrank, federal taxes and spending were reduced, the debt was reduced, and regulations were eliminated by Republicans, then you aren't just a party guy, you're delusional. I'm sure your choices like the Pro-gun and anti-government-healthcare Romney, and the eminently ideological McCain, will save America by leading us into a bold new future (if they accomplish anything other than losing to dems). So your Ron Paul and Gary Johnson won? How much did they manage to see FedGov shrank, federal taxes and spending were reduced, the debt was reduced, and regulations were eliminated by Republicans Paul and Johnson, then you aren't just a party guy, you're delusional. Perhaps you can explain how lying about the Dems and Repubs being "the same" helps anyone but Hillary? 
Your further false narrative about anyone here being happy about the lack of progress over reducing .gov and spending, etc. is an undeserved slap in the face to those of us who actually WORK toward those ends. Many of us do more than just work to tear down by promoting a false narrative (lie) about how things are. Voting for the latest Libertarian loon isn't "doing something." Lying about the Dems and Repubs being "the same" isn't "doing something."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:35:35 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aiden's thesis does hold water. Check out how many people like Clinton and voted for him twice. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1742221_I_liked_Bill_Clinton.html&page=1 No it doesn't. The guy who started that thread is getting absolutely dogpiled. It's at least 10:1, and this is what you present as evidence that the forum has slid too far to the left? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:39:20 AM EDT
[#16]
Conservative hero Jon Boehner likes the clintons.
More evidence that the republicans have become democrats. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:40:27 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it doesn't. The guy who started that thread is getting absolutely dogpiled. It's at least 10:1, and this is what you present as evidence that the forum has slid too far to the left? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Aiden's thesis does hold water. Check out how many people like Clinton and voted for him twice. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1742221_I_liked_Bill_Clinton.html&page=1 No it doesn't. The guy who started that thread is getting absolutely dogpiled. It's at least 10:1, and this is what you present as evidence that the forum has slid too far to the left? Dogpiled might be a bit of an overstatement. The guy's not getting high fives all around, but there's still quite a few more members admitting to voting for Clinton than I'd have thought around here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:41:02 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dogpiled might be a bit of an overstatement. The guy's not getting high fives all around, but there's still quite a few more members admitting to voting for Clinton than I'd have thought around here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aiden's thesis does hold water. Check out how many people like Clinton and voted for him twice. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1742221_I_liked_Bill_Clinton.html&page=1 No it doesn't. The guy who started that thread is getting absolutely dogpiled. It's at least 10:1, and this is what you present as evidence that the forum has slid too far to the left? Dogpiled might be a bit of an overstatement. The guy's not getting high fives all around, but there's still quite a few more members admitting to voting for Clinton than I'd have thought around here. So what does that prove? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:42:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what does that prove? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aiden's thesis does hold water. Check out how many people like Clinton and voted for him twice. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1742221_I_liked_Bill_Clinton.html&page=1 No it doesn't. The guy who started that thread is getting absolutely dogpiled. It's at least 10:1, and this is what you present as evidence that the forum has slid too far to the left? Dogpiled might be a bit of an overstatement. The guy's not getting high fives all around, but there's still quite a few more members admitting to voting for Clinton than I'd have thought around here. So what does that prove? That this place isn't a bastion of conservatism? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:44:13 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That this place isn't a bastion of conservatism? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aiden's thesis does hold water. Check out how many people like Clinton and voted for him twice. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1742221_I_liked_Bill_Clinton.html&page=1 No it doesn't. The guy who started that thread is getting absolutely dogpiled. It's at least 10:1, and this is what you present as evidence that the forum has slid too far to the left? Dogpiled might be a bit of an overstatement. The guy's not getting high fives all around, but there's still quite a few more members admitting to voting for Clinton than I'd have thought around here. So what does that prove? That this place isn't a bastion of conservatism? By citing a thread about Clinton where a minority of the posters have some affinity to Clinton? How does that prove to be indicative of the forum as a whole? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:50:51 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By citing a thread about Clinton where a minority of the posters have some affinity to Clinton? How does that prove to be indicative of the forum as a whole? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dogpiled might be a bit of an overstatement. The guy's not getting high fives all around, but there's still quite a few more members admitting to voting for Clinton than I'd have thought around here. So what does that prove? That this place isn't a bastion of conservatism? By citing a thread about Clinton where a minority of the posters have some affinity to Clinton? How does that prove to be indicative of the forum as a whole? Proves? No. Provides evidence of liberals on the board? Yes. I've also seen people here admit to voting for Obummer. And people come out of the wood work to say that they're "social liberals" around here. Has the board been "taken over" by liberals? I wouldn't go that far. Are there more liberals here than many assume? Probably. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:53:22 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Proves? No. Provides evidence of liberals on the board? Yes. I've also seen people here admit to voting for Obummer. And people come out of the wood work to say that they're "social liberals" around here. Has the board been "taken over" by liberals? I wouldn't go that far. Are there more liberals here than many assume? Probably. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dogpiled might be a bit of an overstatement. The guy's not getting high fives all around, but there's still quite a few more members admitting to voting for Clinton than I'd have thought around here. So what does that prove? That this place isn't a bastion of conservatism? By citing a thread about Clinton where a minority of the posters have some affinity to Clinton? How does that prove to be indicative of the forum as a whole? Proves? No. Provides evidence of liberals on the board? Yes. I've also seen people here admit to voting for Obummer. And people come out of the wood work to say that they're "social liberals" around here. Has the board been "taken over" by liberals? I wouldn't go that far. Are there more liberals here than many assume? Probably. Do you have any data or evidence to from 2001 to show that things were any different back then? ETA: Or evidence from 2011? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:55:08 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any data or evidence to from 2001 to show that things were any different back then? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what does that prove? That this place isn't a bastion of conservatism? By citing a thread about Clinton where a minority of the posters have some affinity to Clinton? How does that prove to be indicative of the forum as a whole? Proves? No. Provides evidence of liberals on the board? Yes. I've also seen people here admit to voting for Obummer. And people come out of the wood work to say that they're "social liberals" around here. Has the board been "taken over" by liberals? I wouldn't go that far. Are there more liberals here than many assume? Probably. Do you have any data or evidence to from 2001 to show that things were any different back then? No. I also don't need it to demonstrate my conclusion. Man, you must have been kicked awful hard to be yelping like this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:00:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. I also don't need it to demonstrate my conclusion. Man, you must have been kicked awful hard to be yelping like this. So you don't have any verifiable evidence, correct? If you don't need to demonstrate your conclusions then how are they supposed to be taken seriously? Please avoid ad hominems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:04:12 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you don't have any verifiable evidence, correct? If you don't need to demonstrate your conclusions then how are they supposed to be taken seriously? Please avoid ad hominems. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. I also don't need it to demonstrate my conclusion. Man, you must have been kicked awful hard to be yelping like this. So you don't have any verifiable evidence, correct? If you don't need to demonstrate your conclusions then how are they supposed to be taken seriously? Please avoid ad hominems. Except that's not what I said...was it. Not sure if dishonest or unable to read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:07:25 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that's not what I said...was it. Not sure if dishonest or unable to read. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I also don't need it to demonstrate my conclusion. Man, you must have been kicked awful hard to be yelping like this. So you don't have any verifiable evidence, correct? If you don't need to demonstrate your conclusions then how are they supposed to be taken seriously? Please avoid ad hominems. Except that's not what I said...was it. Not sure if dishonest or unable to read. Other than the plural I added how is the part in blue I highlighted any different than the part in red you highlighted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:16:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other than the plural I added how is the part in blue I highlighted any different than the part in red you highlighted? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I also don't need it to demonstrate my conclusion. Man, you must have been kicked awful hard to be yelping like this. So you don't have any verifiable evidence, correct? If you don't need to demonstrate your conclusions then how are they supposed to be taken seriously? Please avoid ad hominems. Except that's not what I said...was it. Not sure if dishonest or unable to read. Other than the plural I added how is the part in blue I highlighted any different than the part in red you highlighted? Notice I said I don't need "it" - it referring to your request for a data set dating back to 2001. Which you of course snipped from our conversation because...honesty. That data set is not needed to prove my conclusion that there are liberal leaning members on this site. I never said I didn't need to prove my conclusion, I said I didn't need the data set you requested to prove my conclusion. So, tell us, are you unable to read or are you just dishonest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:20:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Good god, the whining and hand-wringing about the minuscule presence of "liberals" on this board is still going on?
Man the fuck up. Jesus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:20:20 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its definately on the decline. Especially ever since the " you cant say dindu, or you're a racist" debacle. Suffering fom political correctness just like the rest of media. I refuse to be a paying member.  Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:23:18 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its definately on the decline. Especially ever since the " you cant say dindu, or you're a racist" debacle. Suffering fom political correctness just like the rest of media. I refuse to be a paying member. Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. REKT |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:23:50 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its definately on the decline. Especially ever since the " you cant say dindu, or you're a racist" debacle. Suffering fom political correctness just like the rest of media. I refuse to be a paying member. Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:24:26 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its definately on the decline. Especially ever since the " you cant say dindu, or you're a racist" debacle. Suffering fom political correctness just like the rest of media. I refuse to be a paying member. Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. Boom...headshot! I knew that fuckstick was familiar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:26:27 AM EDT
[#33]
"Dear Diary,
I was driving to work today and I saw a Prius on the road. I also saw another car that had a liberal bumper sticker. I need somebody to hold me." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:28:00 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Notice I said I don't need "it" - it referring to your request for a data set dating back to 2001. Which you of course snipped from our conversation because...honesty. That data set is not needed to prove my conclusion that there are liberal leaning members on this site. I never said I didn't need to prove my conclusion, I said I didn't need the data set you requested to prove my conclusion. So, tell us, are you unable to read or are you just dishonest? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I also don't need it to demonstrate my conclusion. Man, you must have been kicked awful hard to be yelping like this. So you don't have any verifiable evidence, correct? If you don't need to demonstrate your conclusions then how are they supposed to be taken seriously? Please avoid ad hominems. Except that's not what I said...was it. Not sure if dishonest or unable to read. Other than the plural I added how is the part in blue I highlighted any different than the part in red you highlighted? Notice I said I don't need "it" - it referring to your request for a data set dating back to 2001. Which you of course snipped from our conversation because...honesty. That data set is not needed to prove my conclusion that there are liberal leaning members on this site. I never said I didn't need to prove my conclusion, I said I didn't need the data set you requested to prove my conclusion. So, tell us, are you unable to read or are you just dishonest? I missed that point. My apologies. I did not read your first two statements as being in the same line of reasoning, and took them to be two separate thoughts. If you don't have a baseline to gauge if there weren't the same amount of liberals here at a given point of time, then how can you come to the conclusion that it is being taken over? BTW: I snipped the conversation because the COC does not want long thread trees. Again, try avoiding ad hominems, and making assumptions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:35:02 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I missed that point. My apologies. I did not read your first two statements as being in the same line of reasoning, and took them to be two separate thoughts. If you don't have a baseline to gauge if there weren't the same amount of liberals here at a given point of time, then how can you come to the conclusion that it is being taken over? BTW: I snipped the conversation because the COC does not want long thread trees. Again, try avoiding ad hominems, and making assumptions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Notice I said I don't need "it" - it referring to your request for a data set dating back to 2001. Which you of course snipped from our conversation because...honesty. That data set is not needed to prove my conclusion that there are liberal leaning members on this site. I never said I didn't need to prove my conclusion, I said I didn't need the data set you requested to prove my conclusion. So, tell us, are you unable to read or are you just dishonest? I missed that point. My apologies. I did not read your first two statements as being in the same line of reasoning, and took them to be two separate thoughts. If you don't have a baseline to gauge if there weren't the same amount of liberals here at a given point of time, then how can you come to the conclusion that it is being taken over? BTW: I snipped the conversation because the COC does not want long thread trees. Again, try avoiding ad hominems, and making assumptions. I never said that it was being taken over. A reminder of what I said for our...hard of reading members. Has the board been "taken over" by liberals? I wouldn't go that far. Are there more liberals here than many assume? Probably. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:36:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said that it was being taken over. A reminder of what I said for our...hard of reading members. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Notice I said I don't need "it" - it referring to your request for a data set dating back to 2001. Which you of course snipped from our conversation because...honesty. That data set is not needed to prove my conclusion that there are liberal leaning members on this site. I never said I didn't need to prove my conclusion, I said I didn't need the data set you requested to prove my conclusion. So, tell us, are you unable to read or are you just dishonest? I missed that point. My apologies. I did not read your first two statements as being in the same line of reasoning, and took them to be two separate thoughts. If you don't have a baseline to gauge if there weren't the same amount of liberals here at a given point of time, then how can you come to the conclusion that it is being taken over? BTW: I snipped the conversation because the COC does not want long thread trees. Again, try avoiding ad hominems, and making assumptions. I never said that it was being taken over. A reminder of what I said for our...hard of reading members. Has the board been "taken over" by liberals? I wouldn't go that far. Are there more liberals here than many assume? Probably. How do you know there are more liberal members? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:41:20 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you know there are more liberal members? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Notice I said I don't need "it" - it referring to your request for a data set dating back to 2001. Which you of course snipped from our conversation because...honesty. That data set is not needed to prove my conclusion that there are liberal leaning members on this site. I never said I didn't need to prove my conclusion, I said I didn't need the data set you requested to prove my conclusion. So, tell us, are you unable to read or are you just dishonest? I missed that point. My apologies. I did not read your first two statements as being in the same line of reasoning, and took them to be two separate thoughts. If you don't have a baseline to gauge if there weren't the same amount of liberals here at a given point of time, then how can you come to the conclusion that it is being taken over? BTW: I snipped the conversation because the COC does not want long thread trees. Again, try avoiding ad hominems, and making assumptions. I never said that it was being taken over. A reminder of what I said for our...hard of reading members. Has the board been "taken over" by liberals? I wouldn't go that far. Are there more liberals here than many assume? Probably. How do you know there are more liberal members? Jesus dude, how hard is it for you to accurately represent what I say? I said that there are more than assumed. I'm certainly surprised by the number of members who supported Clinton. So, once again, you must have been kicked awful hard for all your yelping. Tell us about your liberal inclinations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:42:09 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Dear Diary, I was driving to work today and I saw a Prius on the road. I also saw another car that had a liberal bumper sticker. I need somebody to hold me." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:42:44 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Its definately on the decline. Especially ever since the " you cant say dindu, or you're a racist" debacle. Suffering fom political correctness just like the rest of media. I refuse to be a paying member. Smart choice. You seem ... familiar.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:43:43 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Took you long enough. I reported that post yesterday.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its definately on the decline. Especially ever since the " you cant say dindu, or you're a racist" debacle. Suffering fom political correctness just like the rest of media. I refuse to be a paying member. Smart choice. You seem ... familiar.
Black Ops! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:44:24 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "Dear Diary, I was driving to work today and I saw a Prius on the road. I also saw another car that had a liberal bumper sticker. I need somebody to hold me." https://i.imgur.com/x9hAFMi.gif Life IS pain, Princess. Anyone who tells you different is selling something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:45:12 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't just let that go, you know. Life IS pain, Princess. Anyone who tells you different is selling something. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Dear Diary, I was driving to work today and I saw a Prius on the road. I also saw another car that had a liberal bumper sticker. I need somebody to hold me." https://i.imgur.com/x9hAFMi.gif Life IS pain, Princess. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:45:38 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its definately on the decline. Especially ever since the " you cant say dindu, or you're a racist" debacle. Suffering fom political correctness just like the rest of media. I refuse to be a paying member. Smart choice. You seem ... familiar. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:49:59 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Conservative hero Jon Boehner likes the clintons. More evidence that the republicans have become democrats. Dug deep for that strawman didn't ya? Name one person here that thinks Boehner is a conservative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:54:13 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Took you long enough. I reported that post yesterday.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its definately on the decline. Especially ever since the " you cant say dindu, or you're a racist" debacle. Suffering fom political correctness just like the rest of media. I refuse to be a paying member. Smart choice. You seem ... familiar.
I actually do work, you know. Well, I go to work at least.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:56:12 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jesus dude, how hard is it for you to accurately represent what I say? I said that there are more than assumed. I'm certainly surprised by the number of members who supported Clinton. So, once again, you must have been kicked awful hard for all your yelping. [red]Tell us about your liberal inclinations. I am just trying to show how fucking retarded the OP's argument is and the "evidence" you cited to show that there are more than assumed, or whatever bullshit you are trying to argue. You have no evidence, and you have shown nothing other than there are some people in GD that supported Bill Clinton at one time. Its nothing but a convenience sample. For a forum that loves to show how liberals argue based upon feelings, there is little if any analytical rigor to many of the people arguing that this forum has been taken over by liberals and most of their arguments consist of feelings and pure anecdotal evidence. Please cite where I expounded a liberal viewpoint to make you think that I am a liberal, or is this argument based upon your feelings? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:58:23 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am just trying to show how fucking retarded the OP's argument is and the "evidence" you cited to show that there are more than assumed, or whatever bullshit you are trying to argue. You have no evidence, and you have shown nothing other than there are some people in GD that supported Bill Clinton at one time. Its nothing but a convenience sample. For a forum that loves to show how liberals argue based upon feelings, there is little if any analytical rigor to many of the people arguing that this forum has been taken over by liberals and most of their arguments consist of feelings and pure anecdotal evidence. Please cite where I expounded a liberal viewpoint to make you think that I am a liberal, or are is argument based upon your feelings? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Jesus dude, how hard is it for you to accurately represent what I say? I said that there are more than assumed. I'm certainly surprised by the number of members who supported Clinton. So, once again, you must have been kicked awful hard for all your yelping. [red]Tell us about your liberal inclinations. I am just trying to show how fucking retarded the OP's argument is and the "evidence" you cited to show that there are more than assumed, or whatever bullshit you are trying to argue. You have no evidence, and you have shown nothing other than there are some people in GD that supported Bill Clinton at one time. Its nothing but a convenience sample. For a forum that loves to show how liberals argue based upon feelings, there is little if any analytical rigor to many of the people arguing that this forum has been taken over by liberals and most of their arguments consist of feelings and pure anecdotal evidence. Please cite where I expounded a liberal viewpoint to make you think that I am a liberal, or are is argument based upon your feelings? If you're looking for rigor on 1. a general discussion internet forum about 2. an inherently subjective and ambiguous topic then you are going to be sorely disappointed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:59:38 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're looking for rigor on 1. a general discussion internet forum about 2. an inherently subjective and ambiguous topic then you are going to be sorely disappointed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus dude, how hard is it for you to accurately represent what I say? I said that there are more than assumed. I'm certainly surprised by the number of members who supported Clinton. So, once again, you must have been kicked awful hard for all your yelping. [red]Tell us about your liberal inclinations. I am just trying to show how fucking retarded the OP's argument is and the "evidence" you cited to show that there are more than assumed, or whatever bullshit you are trying to argue. You have no evidence, and you have shown nothing other than there are some people in GD that supported Bill Clinton at one time. Its nothing but a convenience sample. For a forum that loves to show how liberals argue based upon feelings, there is little if any analytical rigor to many of the people arguing that this forum has been taken over by liberals and most of their arguments consist of feelings and pure anecdotal evidence. Please cite where I expounded a liberal viewpoint to make you think that I am a liberal, or are is argument based upon your feelings? If you're looking for rigor on 1. a general discussion internet forum about 2. an inherently subjective and ambiguous topic then you are going to be sorely disappointed. Good points sir, but one can dream... one can dream.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:02:15 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Man the fuck up. Jesus.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:10:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am just trying to show how fucking retarded the OP's argument is and the "evidence" you cited to show that there are more than assumed, or whatever bullshit you are trying to argue. You have no evidence, and you have shown nothing other than there are some people in GD that supported Bill Clinton at one time. Its nothing but a convenience sample. For a forum that loves to show how liberals argue based upon feelings, there is little if any analytical rigor to many of the people arguing that this forum has been taken over by liberals and most of their arguments consist of feelings and pure anecdotal evidence. Please cite where I expounded a liberal viewpoint to make you think that I am a liberal, or is this argument based upon your feelings? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Jesus dude, how hard is it for you to accurately represent what I say? I said that there are more than assumed. I'm certainly surprised by the number of members who supported Clinton. So, once again, you must have been kicked awful hard for all your yelping. Tell us about your liberal inclinations. I am just trying to show how fucking retarded the OP's argument is and the "evidence" you cited to show that there are more than assumed, or whatever bullshit you are trying to argue. You have no evidence, and you have shown nothing other than there are some people in GD that supported Bill Clinton at one time. Its nothing but a convenience sample. For a forum that loves to show how liberals argue based upon feelings, there is little if any analytical rigor to many of the people arguing that this forum has been taken over by liberals and most of their arguments consist of feelings and pure anecdotal evidence. Please cite where I expounded a liberal viewpoint to make you think that I am a liberal, or is this argument based upon your feelings? Actually, its based on your own words here:http://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1733789&page=5 Originally Posted By Thrasymachus I tend to be libertarian, but that is highly dependent upon the issue. At other times I will hold conservative or progressive views. By your own admission, you hold progressive views. I'm just curious as to what they are. I'm also amused that someone who claims to hold progressive views would be so determined to convince people that there are no liberals on the site. You wouldn't happen to like techno music, would you?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
