That said, sometimes the Second Amendment can be a pain in the neck.

#200 | Posted by REDIAL

Ouch. Too soon? Naahhhhhhh.

Never believed 9/11 conspiracies.

You're absolutely brain dead if you think either of these events are normal or as presented.

If this Republic survives long enough for investigations and inquiries to happen in an objective, rigorous fashion, it's going to be glorious watching you fools stand around mouthing empty sounds of protest as your stupidity gets put on display when instance after instance of you swallowing everything your fed turns out to be utter bulls*&^.

F*&^ these idiots.

They supported this s*&^ and helped get them into office despite being obviously unqualified (some dangerously so) and of poor or no character.

Then they're shocked things aren't working out?

A criminal conspiracy convinced a college admissions coach in California to throw his life away so Trump could hasten his ballroom construction.

#191 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Why would you assume they would have given remotely close to the real reasoning?

Do you think they told Crooks he was going to get brained on that roof?

GFY is about not being allowed to win.

You're still operating under the assumption you were acting in good faith.

You can't be disingenuous and dishonestly representing someone's statements while also be acting in good faith.

Those things are sort of, oh I don't know, mutually exclusive.

Day drinking again?

I'm asking you to see it through the lense of someone who will pick up a weapon and take a shot at the POTUS.

I AM comparing Trump to JFK in that context.

I'm also comparing Charlie Kirk to MLK.

I don't personally compare the virtue and impact of Kirk to MLK. History will always revere MLK and Kirk will never achieve that. Same with Trump.

But with regards to people who are capable of perpetrating such violence and who they are influenced by?

The comparisons are fair.

You fleshed out your thoughts in response to initial scoffing by myself and a few other posters.

Is that not a clarification?

You run right to "GFY" if you're stumped, I guess.

Nope. Took multiple willful misrepresentations of my statements and insertions of false interpretations before that got brought out.

#169 | Posted by eberly

Is it therapeutic for you to be a disingenuous tool?

I mean, technically, he's not a pedophile since the girls and, reportedly, boys he raped in collaboration with Epstein weren't children but were mid teens IIRC.

But 'I didn't rape kids under the age of 13, I always went for 14 and 15 year olds!' isn't quite the dunk Trump thinks it is.

day after day, insult after insult.

What to think of their "credibility".

LOL

#165 | Posted by eberly

Don't cross the streams.

100 out of 100 people will honestly say that "GFY" is something said by someone who had their feelings hurt.

Actually, it's a dismissive attempt to end a conversation that's no longer worth having with a participant who is less than honest or genuine.

I see how you try to keep up with folks on the economy, global politics, war, defense systems, the environment, constitutional law, etc....you know....things you're very very very well versed in. You and JPWGFY I mean.

#163 | Posted by eberly

Try. LOL

Not really sure about "defense systems." I don't follow military topics/tech and have more questions than comments.

And yet you whine when I accurately reference them.

C&Ping a quote then entirely misrepresenting what it means, especially when you go so far as to infer meaning directly contradicted by the poster's explicit statements, is not accurately referencing them.

Hence the GFY.

But I used it to partially describe JFK.....and then you lose your ----.

Hardly. A single post questioning the comparison that was clarified and the subject dropped.

Why? Do you disagree that JFK was guilty of everything I assigned to him?

Why such hostility in response?

Wasn't hostile whatsoever. Dubious regarding the comparison until the clarification. What's this, the fourth time I've said this now?

Because perhaps you're not very smart? And you're upset you're not being allowed to win an argument?

#156 | Posted by eberly

Perhaps you're terrible at communicating an argument and seeing when you're personal biases are driving your interpretation of the conversation?

I merely offered up a contextual comparison to past victims of political violence and you got your wittle feewings hurt.

No feelings hurt, especially when you clarified the comparison.

You're really terrible at reading comprehension and sensing people's positions on things, aren't you?

You can come back tomorrow and pretend you didn't say any of that.

I have no need to disown my statements. They along with my follow up comments are quite clear on where I stand.

I'm not going to go all "GFY" or whatever childish and cowardly crap you throw at people when you're failing to win an argument.

Intentionally misstating people's comments and inserting your own BS assumptions isn't "winning an argument," dumbf*&^.

And GFY is an expected response when one continues to do so.

Anything I say to you here I can gladly say right to your face.

Enjoy the internet, little fella.

#148 | Posted by eberly

Mmmmmmmhmmmmmmm right champ.

which pisses you off you have to say it because you don't believe it.

You're fine with this.

#143 | Posted by eberly

Right. GFY.

That comment right there is a good example.

Only if you're intentionally misunderstanding it.

A man like Trump has no problems bringing those emotions out in people predisposed to having them. His entire shtick is pushing people's buttons and his policies are very much damaging to people's lives and livelihood. There's zero need to demonize him to provoke crazy people to try something.

But sure, it's a great example of me "excusing" violence.

F*&^ing idiot.

You understand we can't allow such behavior but you're rooting for it regardless.

And why? Because Trump deserves it.

#137 | Posted by eberly

Nope.

Might want to take my advice about just SingTFU and finding something else to do.

You are completely fine with this. You think Trump deserves it.

I've already explicitly stated otherwise.

This is the kind of statement that makes me wonder if someone is an idiot and it's not remotely about agreement/disagreement.

You think everyone here who disagrees with you is a complete moron. Just stick with that.

You're wrong of course....it's not that simple. I happen to find many here whom I have disagreements with to be reasonably smart.

You're not capable of that. Which is fine. A man should know his limitations.

#135 | Posted by eberly

It has nothing to do with disagreement. Only a puling moron attempts that simplistic of an answer.

I don't agree with you often enough, but I don't think you're an idiot. I often disagree with other posts like madbomber. Don't treat him like an idiot either.

You know what the common thread is? Reasoned statements with solid backing.

*gasp* why he nevuh!

I think I'm smarter than people like boaz and lfthndcuck and pedoringer because they say things are are demonstrably false and easily found to be so and, most importantly, they continue to say them even after that's been pointed out.

But sure, keep pontificating on stuff you're clearly no very informed about.

The comparisons are fair.

But it's fun watching you walk that tightrope.

#131 | Posted by eberly

Still no tightrope, no matter how many assumptions you want to cram in here.

Your post actually clarified what you were saying because it wasn't previously apparent.

No go ahead and tell me that you were communicating fine and I'm backtracking from an answer I don't want to say but apparently believe.

Nope, you're just trying to weasel your own assumptions into a conversation because you're lazy. You do it all the time.

I don't know who "we" is but I agree it's not a road to go down.

We being the people of the United States. Didn't seem very subtle or cryptic...

Despite what appears to be very shoddy security regarding Trump's protection, the US Government is not going to tolerate this.
The American people have no stomach for it.
#119 | Posted by eberly

You're this close to figuring it out.

-The Kirk question isn't worthy of a response.
You're lying. You absolutely think it's worthy of a response. you just don't like what you have.

#117 | Posted by eberly

No, it's not worthy of a response.

If you're going to try and tell people what they're thinking, just STFU and go back to scratching your balls.

I've yet to see anything on this site I would consider defending the violence.
I have.

#115 | Posted by eberly

Who and what did they say?

And was it someone other than an obvious troll account like legallyyourdead?

Yes, like JFK.
Splintering the intelligence community, refusing to address communism like most of American wanted. Civil rights?

No.....nothing polarizing at all........

#116 | Posted by eberly

Is there a point in here somewhere? If you're seriously comparing JFK to Trump then don't bother trying to make whatever "point" you're going to make.

I'm only responding to this because of the attempts to defend the violence.

I've yet to see anything on this site I would consider defending the violence.