Gelcoater
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 21,693
- Reaction score
- 36,604
Theres no point, lolHypocrisy...
Going to love hearing your explanation of this one.
Theres no point, lolHypocrisy...
Going to love hearing your explanation of this one.
Hypocrisy...
Going to love hearing your explanation of this one.
Hypocrisy...
Going to love hearing your explanation of this one.
You stated that wealth (or rather YOUR perceived level of wealth) is the metric that allows for caring for less fortunate people.
Moreover, you stated outright that being BELOW your station does not permit one to care about others.
So...what’s that make me for instance? One of lesser station that you have the wealth to care about? Or am I one that, being at a lower station (in your head), lacks the ability (means?) to care?
We won’t even address the notion of wealth= empathy.
Mr. Gandhi might have had a few words to say about your statement!
Sorry squeeze, but yeah, the hypocrisy is pretty palpable.
Bullshit...
Not subscribing to the Conservative honored mantra of “Ive got mine so fuck you...” Is not hypocrisy. Empathy has nothing to do with wealth and if experience teaches anything the two or most often mutually exclusive.
I think what is missing in the analysis is the valid complaints of the treatment of those exercising their constitutional rights to peacably protest being lumped in with rioters.
When the government's leadership, in this case Trump, refuses to distinguish between criminals and those exercising their protected constitutional rights then it seem apparent that the 2nd amendment may come into play.
Or as you so eloquently pointed out......The entirety of the Federalist Papers explain that the population's ability to defend themselves was mainly against a standing army of the federal government itself.
I hear circus music...The truth is when I read posts from 530 and Squeezer I feel the need to shower.
Won't ever happen, squeez won't even share a steak with the homeless guy he steps over leaving the Diner!!
Based on his answer, above, the answer is a resounding “no.”You really don’t see the hypocrisy of your political leanings and what you wrote there, can you?
Bullshit...
Not subscribing to the Conservative honored mantra of “Ive got mine so fuck you...” Is not hypocrisy.
He was the nerdy hall monitor that snitched to the teacher, hid behind her skirt and got his ass kicked constantly on the playground at recess.
He never got any pussy and still wouldn't if he didn't have money to buy it.
He went to school so he could show all those meanies who's boss now.
Still he's just a lonely old, two faced narcissistic shell of a man arguing retarded talking points on a boating forum for shits and giggles.
It's the only attention he gets unless he breaks out his check book.
I would have pity on him but..... naaah, fuck that.
Pathetic globalist ghoul.
Hypocrisy...
Going to love hearing your explanation of this one.
Hypocrisy;
Arguing the 2A doesn't mean what it actually says, yet somehow a woman's right to abort her unborn child is actually in the constitution someplace???
or
Eliminating "assault weapons" is worth it, "If it only saves one life" yet HDQ shouldn't be allowed for off label Covid use "even if it only saves one life".
And you need soap that has grit in it to get the Liberal stink off!!!!The truth is when I read posts from 530 and Squeezer I feel the need to shower.
Hypocrisy;
Arguing the 2A doesn't mean what it actually says, yet somehow a woman's right to abort her unborn child is actually in the constitution someplace???
or
Eliminating "assault weapons" is worth it, "If it only saves one life" yet HDQ shouldn't be allowed for off label Covid use "even if it only saves one life".
Not arguing the 2A as much as asking what people think it means... The fact that it opens with 'Well Regulated" and ends with "Shall not be infringed" leaves a lot of room for discussion. The fact that it refers to "State" and not individuals also leaves room for discussion.
The "Saves one life" argument is pretty hollow until you are close to the life that was saved... Seeing that its impossible to prove a negative its more than appropriate to look at what has happened and try and prevent similar future actions.
Hypocrisy;
Arguing the 2A doesn't mean what it actually says, yet somehow a woman's right to abort her unborn child is actually in the constitution someplace???
or
Eliminating "assault weapons" is worth it, "If it only saves one life" yet HDQ shouldn't be allowed for off label Covid use "even if it only saves one life".
"We the people" are the State portlandia boy.The fact that it refers to "State" and not individuals also leaves room for discussion.
See post #77 son.The fact that it opens with 'Well Regulated"
So, human fetuses are now committing capital offenses in utero?You mean like being "pro-life" while pushing for the death penalty?
You mean like being "pro-life" while pushing for the death penalty?
Not arguing the 2A as much as asking what people think it means... The fact that it opens with 'Well Regulated" and ends with "Shall not be infringed" leaves a lot of room for discussion. The fact that it refers to "State" and not individuals also leaves room for discussion.
The "Saves one life" argument is pretty hollow until you are close to the life that was saved... Seeing that its impossible to prove a negative its more than appropriate to look at what has happened and try and prevent similar future actions.
Holy shit......This has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on RDP...and that’s saying a lot.
Strawmen EVERYWHERE!You mean like being "pro-life" while pushing for the death penalty?
You mean like being "pro-life" while pushing for the death penalty?
This has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on RDP...and that’s saying a lot.
I never realized the unborn were committing crimes.
I never realized being pro-life meant you supported terminating life?
Anti-abortion does have a better ring. Or anti-baby killer, hey that's even better.I never realized being pro-life meant you supported terminating life?
I never realized being pro-life meant you supported terminating life?
I’m sure it’s very confusing to you.
I’ll help him: abortion is killing the baby because of the mom’s mistake. Capital punishment is killing the killer because of THEIR mistake.
(Yes, allow abortion in case of rape or incest.)
Yes, that does sound about right. Between Rodn’s policy spewing, Squeezers apologetics, and turdy’s love of money, they make a perfect democrat. Wow.I think what he’s saying is that he supports killing black babies no less than he supports killing black felons EXCEPT those named Mr Floyd?
I could be wrong...it’s hard to follow his reasoning most of the time.