Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

User information for RollinThundr

Real Name RollinThundr   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description Banned
Homepage None given.
Signed On May 5, 2009, 08:31
Total Comments 2460 (Senior)
User ID 54946
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ] Older >


News Comments > Op Ed
65. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 17:31 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 17:04:
You're the person being racist, don't call me intolerant because I don't like it. I'm intolerant of bigotry and some diary products, that's it. The reason liberals seem so annoying to you is because you disagree with them. If you disagreed with Rush L, Bill O'R and their pals, you'd find them pretty hateful.

As for logic, well, compare murder rates in other developed countries and try claiming you are the logical one with a straight face. The countries which don't allow inanimate objects only useful for killing which have lower murder rates. How could this be? What logical explanation is there? I wonder! And why is it that fewer criminals actually own guns in a country which doesn't give them away to anyone opening a bank account? There must be a logical explanation but my tiny brain can't find it.

Ah but yes, after the Dunblane massacre our government took away our guns and some serious bad shit followed there. Except it didn't. Damn libtard logic, just because it makes sense and is repeatedly proven right, suddenly it's a good thing. Blasted communist libtards!

And you're still blaming the gun itself like it's a living thinking thing. The majority of times throughout history that guns have been removed by the government, it's led to death, lots of death.

I'm sorry if I don't feel all that comfortable handing my guns over to a government currently led by a man who freely donates US tax payer money to terrorists in Egypt, yet won't cut spending here at home unless its done his way and only his way. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me. I've said it before, any US President that makes Jimmy Carter's presidency seem good in comparison is a pretty fucking terrible president. Shit he makes junior's presidency look good and Bush Jr. wasn't great by any means.

Bottom line is again guns don't kill on their own. They don't talk, they're not breathing beings. I know it seems difficult for folks like you to grasp because you need something to blame for bad people. But those bad people are what kill, not the guns, it's a tool, if it wasn't a gun it'd be a knife, or other object.

Car accidents were the leading cause of death in the US last year. I don't see anyone in a rush to ban evil death causing cars though. Again another inanimate object.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
61. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 16:20 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:11:
RollinThundr, you're the first to get angry when people talk negatively about Republican Culture, but you defend someone talking negatively about Black Culture.
Inevitably you usually come back to "tolerate my intolerance you stupid libs!" or "freedom of speech you tards!"

But whenever anyone says something critical about something you like you pretty well explode. Usually with accusations of someone being a lib, a tard, or a libtard. Because in your world people either agree with you or are a mentally handicapped liberal.

It's fascinating. Please donate your brain to science (tomorrow, if possible.)

Oh now It's republican culture? Wow there's a lot of new cultures apparently. No what I get mad at has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with logic and liberals general lack there of. What makes me angry is a president that swore to uphold the constitution, hates the damn thing. What makes me angry is liberals preaching tolerance and acceptance ad nauseam when they're the most intolerant, snarky, hateful group there is.

Lets take all the guns away from law abiding citizens! We'll be so much SAFER! Guns KILL! It's the inanimate object "enabling" people to kill! Meanwhile only the criminals are left with guns because they, being criminals don't follow the law to begin with.

Meanwhile ignoring that every time through out history that a government disarms the public usually leads to some serious bad shit.

Look at you in this thread, multiple cries of racist and essentially implying someone you disagree with politically to go kill themselves. You sure seem tolerant to me, yes siree!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
59. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 16:06 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:01:
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:53:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:42:
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:33:
But the original statement from David Starkey said black, not rap culture. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

I think both you and I know what he was referring to. But that's ok, write off anything the man has to say because you think he's racist.

I'm not particularly interested in what a bigot has to say but I haven't written anything of his off in this thread.

As for what he was referring to ... that's the point! He referred to all these negative things by stating a race as if these are intrinsic to said race. Can you really not see what's wrong with that?

Of course he can't. White culture is all about saying racist things then denying you're racist.

White culture eh? riiiiight. What ever justifies your intolerance in your narrow little liberal way of looking at things there Beamer. White culture.. what the fuck is white culture?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
53. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 15:42 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:33:
But the original statement from David Starkey said black, not rap culture. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

I think both you and I know what he was referring to. But that's ok, write off anything the man has to say because you think he's racist.

And LOL so much for banning assault rifles, Harry "I won't put forth a budget vote but gun bans are good" Reid doesn't think it'll pass. There's an article on AP right now about it, unfortunately tinyurl won't generate a link to post here. hosted.ap.org should lead one there though.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
51. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 15:31 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:27:
Azusa wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:18:
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:05:
That is the context. He said black. I think he meant that sort of criminal rap culture, but he said black as if it's the same thing and that's racist.

How so? I agree that his words as written were a racist statement. But it seems you are suggesting here that even if he hadn't said 'black people', but had instead referred to a culture, he's still a racist?

Racism is a belief that a group of people are inferior because of the physically identifiable characteristics of their race. It has nothing to do with culture. Culture is a choice, race is not. The fact that race isn't a choice is the singular reason that racism is such an abhorrent idea. Applying that same level of stigma to someone because they addressed a perceived problem in a culture is dishonest.

Would it also be racist to suggest a culture of cannibal Asians was a 'bad' culture?

If he'd referred to a by-choice culture then it wouldn't have been racist. The reason he is racist is because he heavily implied that in general, black people are of this culture because of their race.

I'd suggest that a culture of cannibalism is bad regardless of race, much like a culture of criminality is bad regardless of race.

This is what he could have said:
What's happened is that a substantial section of the Chavs that you wrote about have a culture of criminality. The looters are people who have come to see crime as normal. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion

That is, I believe, what he meant. However, he used a race to describe this culture and it is very clearly very racist to assume that black = criminal!


edit:
Geez RollinThundr are you kidding me? That these rappers are most often black does NOT mean that black people are most often criminals. I am debating and the reason I'm talking about racism? BECAUSE OF ALL THE RACISM.

I am debating, you are playing the 'playing the X card' card.

That isn't at all what I said. People who tend to be deep in that culture, gang bangers and the like, can be white or black or Asian or <insert ethnicity here>. But generally? Yes they're prolly criminals if they live out the rap culture in real life.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
44. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 14:23 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:12:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:07:
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:05:
That is the context. He said black. If he uses black to mean some sort of criminal rap culture then he's racist in a slightly different way.

That's why context is important. It seems to me he's more talking about the culture itself, kids with their pants down to their ankles, gang banging etc.

Yes... And he described this as 'black'. There is no one black culture but his implication is that there is, and it's criminality. Hence, racist.

Well most rap artist who promote this style and rap about banging hoes and fuck the police are black no? It's kinda like you're just looking for a reason to say "racist!" When he's just calling it pretty much as it is without further intent implied.

Which is what I mean when I say that those on the left tend to run to the race card quite quickly when confronted with a topic they can't easily debate.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
41. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 14:07 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:05:
That is the context. He said black. If he uses black to mean some sort of criminal rap culture then he's racist in a slightly different way.

That's why context is important. It seems to me he's more talking about the culture itself, kids with their pants down to their ankles, gang banging etc.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
39. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 13:49 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 13:27:
Racism is only going away because people bring it up. When it wasn't brought up, we had slavery.

He isn't afraid to speak his mind and he doesn't sugar coat things which is great, but what is in his mind is racist.

Talking about the London 'riots' (looting) a couple of years ago (a chav is a young working class/under class person, typically white):
What's happened is that a substantial section of the Chavs that you [author Owen Jones] wrote about have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion

That's racist. What the hell has white guilt, white shame or any other strawman got to do with this? He said that the reason people were committing crimes is because they were acting like black people. That's not pretending anything, that's not guilt, there's no grey area here; this is black and white racism, tortured pun intended. This isn't the only example.

It depends on what the context is, is he talking about the rap culture? In that case he isn't really wrong, unless he's just saying it's only blacks who loot or whatever, that would be racist.

Granted it may be different across the pond in comparison to how it is here in the US.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
37. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 13:11 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:39:
We don't have the Euro, and Starkey's kind of racist. I didn't know he was known outside these borders, he's a bit of a nobody now - especially since the whole racist thing.

Why is he a racist? Is it because he's a historian who believes in preserving British culture rather than embracing mass immigration and multiculturalism that the left is all about? That isn't racist. Or is it because he isn't afraid to say what's on his mind and not sugar coat things so as not to hurt anyone's poor feelings?

The idea that there isn't colleges and the like promoting white guilt like the University of Wisconsin having white students paint their faces with messages like "Unfair" and that white's should be ashamed simply for being born white? Pretending this isn't happening and isn't a form of liberal indoctrination is flat out foolish.

And I'm positive this isn't only happening in the US either. So racism is bad right? Why is it alright then to essentially tell white people to "check their privilege" simply for being born a particular color?

Racism would prolly go away if the left didn't bring it up every 5 fucking minutes.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
30. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 11:17 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:08:
The line between a democracy and a republic is so vague, it might as well not exist. I'm not aware of any country that can be described as one and not described as the other. Even in the UK, where "republican" means someone opposed to the Royal Family, we operate as a republic. We also operate as a democracy, just not a direct democracy.

I didn't know about the 3/4 rule. That seems wrong, why should a voter in Wyoming get about 50x the power of someone in California? That's still a form of democracy, it just moves the bar from 50% to 75%. That's still mob rule. Any system where the population has any say in the law is mob rule, and these are better systems than the alternatives.

Honestly I think you folks in the UK have it worse what with the failure that is the euro. Who in their right mind honestly thought having every country on the exact same currency was a good idea, so that if one country has shit hit the fan economically like say a Greece, it affects everyone else? Great thinking there.

At the very least you guys still do have a couple voices of reason and logic with folks like David Starkey. That guy is absolutely brilliant.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
27. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 10:55 RollinThundr
 
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 09:41:
Azusa wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 02:50:
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 02:21:
I won't engage in a discussion of 'civil applications'. The 2nd amendment isn't about civil applications, it's about resisting a militia/army that has usurped government from the people. Nothing civil about it.

Fair enough about moving the goal posts, but I could likewise charge that you're splitting hairs: the point is that there is a whole hell of a lot of military hardware, hardware that would be ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to resisting a tyrannical government/military, that you cannot get and will never get. As such, the second Amendment's ability to actually protect citizens from tyranny is extremely limited -- the technology of war has become so complex and so expensive, that the best that a man with only a rifle in his hand and an idea in his head can do is hide in the hills and be a gadfly by occasionally detonating a car bomb.

I'm not against freedom: I think gun laws should be as lax as is conducive to the public good. But I am not convinced that assault rifles serve a civilian purpose, and thus I think the net utility of assault rifles is to the detriment of the public good. Whether banning them is constitutional, I cannot say for certain -- although we did have such a ban for over a decade and the Supreme Court never, to my knowledge, struck it down -- but purely on the basis of public policy, separate from constitutional law, I think we lose more than we gain by having assault rifles, sub-machine guns, machine guns, et al. freely available.

So what do you suggest? People just cave into what the left wants and remove rights in line of "feeling good'? When you really break down the incidents that have happened recently, it ties far more into mental state of the nutbags performing these heinous acts than anything else. Yet there isn't a major outcry to look at ways to improve mental heath treatment so that these types of people don't continue to snap in the first place. Why is that? Is it because it's a far more complicated issue than just passing feel good happy bans on semi automatic guns?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
22. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 08:43 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 18:37:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 14:22:
Cutter wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:49:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:06:
Creston wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 10:44:
What is this logic you're spewing, Seattle Times. The gun lobby and its bought-and-paid-for assholes Representatives have no time for this kind of prattle!

Creston
Must suck to hate the constitution and to be afraid of tools that do nothing on their own unless a person is using them.

Not as much as it sucks to be a paranoid tin-foil hat wearing bigot and racist though.

Oh Cutter and your strawmen adhom bullshit. At least sweetheart try and be original in the future. I know I know, if you believe in fiscal conservatism and the US constitution, you're clearly racist, a bigot, and insensitive to the awesome benefits of "progress' and cultural Marxism that the left is so fond of. blah blah blah Same ol liberal rhetoric.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, someone has to pull the trigger to shoot. That's fact, you can blame video games, the NRA, whatever, at the end of the day the person using the gun decides to pull the trigger, therefore said person is responsible. There's that big R word that folks like you hate Cutter, Responsibility.

Ahahahahaha! Great work, the subtle blending of accusation of strawman leading into a massive strawman argument of your own is trolling of the highest quality. Kudos on your satirical impression of a Fox News talking head. Nice use of "comrade" too, slipping in such finely crafted nonsense isn't as easy as you make it look. And to top it off, Godwin's law! Brilliant!

Drop the fox news stuff, the funny thing is there was a recent study done that rated news content vs opinion content on all 3 major cable news channels. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, guess which news station was rated to be more opinion than news out of all 3 of the cable news channels? I'll give you two hints, it wasn't CNN or Fox.

http://tinyurl.com/bqrj73a

This comment was edited on Mar 19, 2013, 08:49.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
12. Re: Op Ed Mar 18, 2013, 17:58 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 17:48:
I wonder if people used the Hitler and Mao argument when the government took away the only weapons that would actually stop them from doing anything - automatic weapons.

They took it away when most of this board was alive.


No one ever seems to bring that up. I do, repeatedly. That's when RollinThundr usually exits a gun discussion.

And banning automatics won't do shit either but hey, have at it, that isn't the end goal however and you and I both know it. All it is is knee jerk feel good bullshit.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
10. Re: Op Ed Mar 18, 2013, 17:35 RollinThundr
 
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 16:32:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 14:56:
snip

RollinThundr, meet Strawman. Strawman, meet Rollinthundr.

Unsurprising that you resort to wild misrepresentation of opposing positions, when your opening gambit in this little tiff was that someone, who thinks blaming video games for gun violence is stupid, must hate the Constitution.

Oh wise and wonderful Constitution lover, wherefore the illegality of you owning a Multiple Launch Rocket System if your right to bear arms is sacrosanct? Wherefore a ban on child pornography if your freedom of speech and expression is similarly sacrosanct? Wherefore Christmas as a national holiday if "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Wherefore the capacity to amend the Constitution if it is as infallible as the word of God?

Could it possibly be that there are reasonable limits to freedoms, even those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? Could it possibly be that the Constitution was written by mortal men, who are prone to error and misjudgement? Could it possibly be that, although the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, there is not just one way to interpret and implement its provisions?

I was merely doing what Cutter does every time he can't debate something or doesn't have the chops to actually debate. Play the race card, except in this instance really those points aren't too far off. Liberals think government is going to take care of them and they need to control everything to make this happen. When government has proven time and time again how inept and inefficient they are at pretty much everything.

But hey lets "amend" the 2nd, and remove the right to bare arms. That worked oh so well for the people when Hitler took all the guns away, Or Stalin or Mao. Don't worry! The government will protect you! They then killed millions of defenseless innocent people.

If you think for half a minute that it couldn't happen in the US with the right combination of people in office, and hey Obama seems pretty totalitarian what with all his Czars and his severe case of narcissism that he has going on.

Sure there's limits and not all laws are bad, no one is asking for anarchy btw, just stop spending us into bankruptcy.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > John Riccitiello Leaving EA
15. Re: John Riccitiello Leaving EA Mar 18, 2013, 17:23 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 17:03:
Darks wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 16:55:
This is a Ruse; EA thinks that if they get this guy to step down, people will lay the blame solely on this guy for all of EAS short coming in the past few years. This nothing but a move to try and get people to have that happy feel good feeling. Sorry EA your Jedi Mind tricks don’t work on me.

Jedi Mind trick? You'd need a mind for that one, eh?

A guy is stepping down from a job he loves and makes millions in. Yeah, there's likely a golden parachute, but when you already have millions more millions don't really help you sleep better after admitting to the entire world that you failed at your job.

There is no Jedi Mind trick here. A CEO just admitted failure. That's not some kind of "feel-good" thing, that's a major admission that the entire company is moving in a bad direction.

Though, I'd argue, a smarter direction than it did under Probst, who was CEO from like '97-07. Riccitiello ruined approximately 0 studios you love (well, I dunno, jury is still out, I guess, on BioWare.) Probst ruined, like, all of them.

Riccitiello had a more careful, delicate hand with studios.

I still think in the case of Bioware it was going that way anyway. Look at their history of games, they're all essentially the same plot, change a character here or there. Bingo Standard Bioware RPG.

EA buying them didn't change that philosophy much.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > John Riccitiello Leaving EA
13. Re: John Riccitiello Leaving EA Mar 18, 2013, 17:20 RollinThundr
 
Prolly the best thing that could happen to EA going forward. It's a shame they can't entice Trip to come back and turn EA back into what it originally was, rather than the hated publisher they've become.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
8. Re: Op Ed Mar 18, 2013, 14:56 RollinThundr
 
Since this is so generic, with no examples, it’s pure pointless trolling. But I’ll use it to expound on liberal thinking:

1. Liberals think if we ban abortion, next we’ll ban women working outside the home and probably take away their right to vote.

2. Liberals think we want to police private homes and make sure that sex is ONLY between married, heterosexual couples, just because we don’t want to change the definition of the word marriage. Those we catch having sex outside of marriage they think we want to put a big red A on.

3. Liberals think we want guns and self defense laws, as libfreeordie put it in a Zimmerman thread, “to kill young colored people.” even though we want to protect ourselves from ALL threats.

Conservatives say we want to change government programs to safety nets instead of permanent support and liberals respond “you want to kill the poor!” An emotional, indefensible, changing the subject response. No, we want a system that encourages the poor to pick themselves up.

Conservatives want to restructure Medicare to be a safety net for the poor while giving the option to shop for the coverage right for them, and we’re trying “take away old people’s healthcare!” They can’t argue against the logic that some old people are healthy enough to just need preventative care and others need more. They don’t want to face the fact that Medicare is struggling even though it pays so little most doctors won’t accept Medicare patients any more. Therefore, they can only win by challenging our motives in the hope of getting people to not even listen to us.

What it comes down to is that liberals believe the government is superior to private charity and free markets because those markets have been “unfair” to them. Hey, after all their degree in Womens Studies should make them as much money as the guy with the MBA in the Vice Presidency of a Corporation. They don’t believe private charity works. In the case of rich liberals, they are too lazy or too busy making money to take the time to research and give to charities, so they want the government to just take their money and figure it out. Only, the rich liberals don’t want to voluntarily do that on the IRS website, they want it “fair” by forcing everybody who makes what they do to give “equally” to the government, especially when their “charity”, government, can’t afford to do what they do any more.

How do you know you’re winning a political debate? The liberal starts calling you names or disparaging your intent.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
6. Re: Op Ed Mar 18, 2013, 14:50 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 14:28:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 14:22:
Cutter wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:49:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:06:
Creston wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 10:44:
What is this logic you're spewing, Seattle Times. The gun lobby and its bought-and-paid-for assholes Representatives have no time for this kind of prattle!

Creston
Must suck to hate the constitution and to be afraid of tools that do nothing on their own unless a person is using them.

Not as much as it sucks to be a paranoid tin-foil hat wearing bigot and racist though.

Oh Cutter and your strawmen adhom bullshit. At least sweetheart try and be original in the future. I know I know, if you believe in fiscal conservatism and the US constitution, you're clearly racist, a bigot, and insensitive to the awesome benefits of "progress' and cultural Marxism that the left is so fond of. blah blah blah Same ol liberal rhetoric.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, someone has to pull the trigger to shoot. That's fact, you can blame video games, the NRA, whatever, at the end of the day the person using the gun decides to pull the trigger, therefore said person is responsible. There's that big R word that folks like you hate Cutter, Responsibility.

I love that you whine about everyone thinking a fiscal conservative is racist then turn it into everyone thinking you personally, who has made some bigoted posts on this board, is racist, means they're a cultural marxist.

And I love that you always bring it back to "responsibility," but never put it on anyone but the person doing the action. Which is great, let's prosecute all those school shooters to the fullest extent the law allows you to prosecute someone that went on a suicide mission and succeeded.

Wait, he's dead? Fuck, well, let's keep, uh... talking about how only he's responsible because that will make sure these things never happen again...

Let's also get rid of all government protections, ever. If you drink malk that's your fault! You are personally responsible for what you drink! If you die playing Jarts that's your fault! if your kid is shot by a classmate at school that's your fault for not sending them to a better school, or hell, the kid's fault for not being sick that day!

99.9% of your post and cutter's post are verbatim from the DNC playbook. Someone says something that challenges your narrow lib opinion and right to the racecard/intolerant card you guys go. Every single time like clockwork. It's like watching a bad episode of Comrade Maddow on MSNBC.

If someone decides to personally shoot and kill someone how is it on anyone else but them? Are you going to blame the gun manufacturers for that? Seriously? You guys aren't going to succeed in removing the 2nd amendment. You know, that document that Obama swore to uphold? Stop fucking trying!

Lets look at places in the US with the toughest gun laws already, The Shitcagos and Detroits that are pretty much festering shitholes after 40 years of liberal policies. They've actually brought in outside help in regards to Detroit to handle the fact that the city is fucking bankrupt after years of being run by corruption. Obama should be familiar with all this, being Chicago is his home district.

I'd rather be personally responsible for what I drink of course, if I wanted to buy a large coke for example in NY NY, the bastion of freedom! Mayor Bloomberg shouldn't be able to tell me I'm too fat to have the right to buy a bottle of coca cola.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
4. Re: Op Ed Mar 18, 2013, 14:22 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:49:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:06:
Creston wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 10:44:
What is this logic you're spewing, Seattle Times. The gun lobby and its bought-and-paid-for assholes Representatives have no time for this kind of prattle!

Creston
Must suck to hate the constitution and to be afraid of tools that do nothing on their own unless a person is using them.

Not as much as it sucks to be a paranoid tin-foil hat wearing bigot and racist though.

Oh Cutter and your strawmen adhom bullshit. At least sweetheart try and be original in the future. I know I know, if you believe in fiscal conservatism and the US constitution, you're clearly racist, a bigot, and insensitive to the awesome benefits of "progress' and cultural Marxism that the left is so fond of. blah blah blah Same ol liberal rhetoric.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, someone has to pull the trigger to shoot. That's fact, you can blame video games, the NRA, whatever, at the end of the day the person using the gun decides to pull the trigger, therefore said person is responsible. There's that big R word that folks like you hate Cutter, Responsibility.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > SimCity Compensatory Games Revealed
11. Re: SimCity Compensatory Games Revealed Mar 18, 2013, 14:12 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:22:
I'll credit them with compensating with some top notch stuff. Nice nod for them to add SC4. Still, by not including DLC, you can tell they view this as an opportunity to grab more cash.

Fucking called it! Thanks BN for never disappointing.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 12:57
Can't wait to hear the complaining about the freebies not being GOTY editions. [/quote:

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2460 Comments. 123 pages. Viewing page 51.
< Newer [ 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo