On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:05:50 -0700, Lab Lover <Labs@rule.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 May 2014 19:56:45 GMT, RIB <rib@rack.com> wrote:
>
>>In reply to "Lab Lover" who wrote the following:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 May 2014 18:47:28 GMT, RIB <rib@rack.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In reply to "Lab Lover" who wrote the following:
>>> >
>>> > > On Mon, 19 May 2014 10:24:27 -0500, Flaco <Old_Fart@Home> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Mon, 19 May 2014 10:22:45 -0500, Flaco <Old_Fart@Home> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > On Sun, 18 May 2014 15:17:41 -0700, Lab Lover <Labs@rule.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Incorrect. True conservatives value liberty above all.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
>>> > > > > > temporary
>>> > > > > > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > -Benjamin Franklin
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Agreed, but the current crop of "right" are NOT "true conservatives".
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > No sacrifice (of the Peoples' rights) is too great to protect us
>>> > > > > against terrorists. (see also "We had to destroy the village in order
>>> > > > > to save it." and "If it saves one childs life!")
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I forgot "Only the Police should have guns."
>>> > >
>>> > > The above philosphy is wholeheartedly embraced by the left wing, Marxists,
>>> > > Communists and progressives. Trying to paint conservatives with this
>>> > > unattributed quote is completely fallacious.
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > I think your use of the word fallacious in this context is completely
>>> > fallacious. Do you HAVE to sound like a complete knob! or is your first name
>>> > Sheldon?
>>>
>>> How very Saul Alinsky of you. You have absolutely no counter argument, so you
>>> attack the person who made the statement.
>>>
>>> I am sorry if your vocabulary is not up to the discussion at hand.
>>>
>>> I will show you the pity you deserve, here is the definition of the word you
>>> object to.
>>>
>>> adj.
>>> 1. Containing or based on a fallacy: a fallacious assumption.
>>> 2. Tending to mislead; deceptive: fallacious testimony.
>>>
>>> Remember, it is never to late for you to get a high school diploma.
>>
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>I'm assuming "to" instead of "too" was a typo? or are you in need of a high
>>school deploma yourself. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black -
>>Hypocrite.
>>
>>I know only "too" well the meaning of the word fallacious. that's EXACTLY what
>>I'm accusing you of being. You REALLY ARE A KNOB! It's been a long time since
>>I've seen someone in the groups as far up his own arse as you. A "Sheldon"
>>indeed. LMAO! Clue - "Sheldon" - "Big Bang Theory" Take a look and cringe.
>
>Ad hominem attacks are an excellent indication you have absolutely nothing to
>contribute to the topic at hand. Thanks for playing, I accept your surrender.
>
>I love how liberals are incapable of conducting a civil debate and can only
>attack, but do so in such an ineffectual manner.
Thats their sole defense. When the average Lefty gets his back up
against the wall...they always try diverson and intimidation, as they
have nothing..nothing else to rely on.
Their quiivers are empty, along with their heads
Its quite amusing to watch. I enjoy baiting them until the dissolve
in a puddle and then drain away through the cracks in the floor.
Gunner
--
"
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?
I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 |
|