Blackburn
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
You're taking backpedaling and crawfishing to a new level of artform.
For a moment, let'signore your blatant attempts to frame the discussion in terms and angles of your choosing. I don't agree with everything he did. If I had to only support people who I only agreed with 100%, nothing would ever get done. You, of course, would rather that I snapped into lockstep with you. Respect for individual thought and positions, my ass.
Next you'll be talking about how anyone who doesn't dress in church-suitable attire is causing problems for carry laws, because the sheeple might be scared.
Would you prefer thatsomeone notdress in "hip hop" gangsta type clothing while open carrying? It would be better if they dressed nicely for church, right? Now what about someone dressed hip hop style and open carrying... while being black.
Would you defend this? Would you criticize it? Would you have thoughts in the back of your head about how that "uppity" boy is "asking for it?"
This is just a logical extension of the position you hold now.
As for what everyone keeps calling you on- the first time someone calls you a horse, punch him in the mouth. The second time, do it again. Someone calls you a horse a third time.. might be time to go shopping for a saddle.
I've destroyed your pathetic argumentsseveral times and everyone knows it. The only person left in denial here is you.
Hawkflyer wrote:
Blackburn wrote:
Still afraid to answer the question aren't you.Exposing your subliminal thoughts is child's play.
It's called divining your true intent. Learn something about forensic writing analysis, why dontcha?
Do you or do you not support everything this guy did and the intent with which he did it as a matter of supporting Second Amendment rights?
Why are you afraid to answer? This does not take a profilers analysis of me for you to answer, but your failure to do so says more about you than my writing does about me.
:lol:
Holy smokes and you people say I'm back peddling.:lol:
You're taking backpedaling and crawfishing to a new level of artform.
For a moment, let'signore your blatant attempts to frame the discussion in terms and angles of your choosing. I don't agree with everything he did. If I had to only support people who I only agreed with 100%, nothing would ever get done. You, of course, would rather that I snapped into lockstep with you. Respect for individual thought and positions, my ass.
Next you'll be talking about how anyone who doesn't dress in church-suitable attire is causing problems for carry laws, because the sheeple might be scared.
Would you prefer thatsomeone notdress in "hip hop" gangsta type clothing while open carrying? It would be better if they dressed nicely for church, right? Now what about someone dressed hip hop style and open carrying... while being black.
Would you defend this? Would you criticize it? Would you have thoughts in the back of your head about how that "uppity" boy is "asking for it?"
This is just a logical extension of the position you hold now.
As for what everyone keeps calling you on- the first time someone calls you a horse, punch him in the mouth. The second time, do it again. Someone calls you a horse a third time.. might be time to go shopping for a saddle.
I've destroyed your pathetic argumentsseveral times and everyone knows it. The only person left in denial here is you.