Open carry: how many guns is too many?

lol!

I doubt Beto can identify an AR-15. And I say that knowing there's a good chance he owns one! Since 20% of all Democrats own guns it's likely they mean what they say, have any intent to follow through on those promises (threats?), or will actually act on it. But... you never know. The Dems acted pretty radically when took over the Virginia State legislature two years ago.

Do you know how to tell if a politician is lying?

Read their mind?
Attempt "to guess his thoughts and intents"?
 
Great. Now that we got that out of the way,

Please prove never bothering "to ask about law abiding citizens, particularly black Americans, who are shot by overzealous police officers, all because somebody was frightened of a legally carried firearm," is a concern valid to this op.

Prove never bothering to ask law abiding citizens who are shot by overzealous police officers is a valid concern.

Great. Show me their validity.


And I'll promise no childish trolling if you promise to keep all derisive mentions of other posters out of the posts. Just show me the op-relevant validity of asking law abiding citizens who are shot by overzealous police officers because somebody was (supposedly) frightened of a legally carried firearm.
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.

Proverbs 26:4 says we're not to argue with fools, so I'm afraid you're on your own.
 
lol!

I doubt Beto can identify an AR-15. And I say that knowing there's a good chance he owns one! Since 20% of all Democrats own guns it's likely they mean what they say, have any intent to follow through on those promises (threats?), or will actually act on it. But... you never know. The Dems acted pretty radically when took over the Virginia State legislature two years ago.

Do you know how to tell if a politician is lying?
Yeah, I heard that one.
 
At their peak, a 7 day subscription yielded well over 500 pounds of paper.

Just one year. Their goal is to sell advertising.
Yep.

It's important everyone understand that before they start reading/listening. We are being marketed. We're being marketed for money. Facts screened and then interpreted then presented in a manner entertaining to an audience and by the time the finished product is presented it is much different than the original facts of the event. Entertainment is now news, news is no longer facts, and we're fodder for marketing.

But... when it comes to print media there's something different going on. Print media is rarely profitable. Cyber news props up the print version, and even there it is often not very profitable. MSN just reported net earnings of $0.01 per share. So why be in business? To market an agenda, a worldview. Most "news" agencies hire their own. Editors at WaPo are 100% self-identifying as Democratic. The same is true of NPR and PBS. Even when NPR has conservatives on to interview, rarely are they truly conservative (such as my aforementioned Eugene Robinson). Fox is openly deliberate with this practice out of a (supposed) conscious effort to provide some alternative to MSN, NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc., but the larger truth is Ailes saw an opportunity to make money.

Facts are changed into entertainment and then called "news" for the sake of material and political profit.
 
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.
No, what you're not doing is evidencing and justifying your own claims. A series of statements were made, and their discussion refused even after inquiry. You are not discussing any of them. The discussing has been refused in favor of ad hominem, appeals to ridicule, and strawmen and other completely unnecessarily adversarial responses.
Proverbs 26:4 says we're not to argue with fools,
No one is asking you to argue. Even here you've screwed up. Sadly, in this case, it has to do with the abuse of God's word. Conflating a discussion with arguing is all on you, Mike.


I would simply like to know how you justify your earlier post. How is the implication something not mentioned is relevant justified? Where are these supposed "overzealous police"? And if that was rhetoric intended to highlight the paucity of the left's propaganda, then why wasn't that plainly acknowledged when asked? How many law-abiding citizens have these overzealous police shot and how in heaven and earth are they relevant to this op? If something did go over my head why would you not clarify or better explain it? The irony, of course, is that all of it started with an accusation vibise hadn't considered any of it and when you were asked to make it relevant you refused. In the end it is you refusing to do so.

"...she never bothers to ask about law abiding citizens, particularly black Americans, who are shot by overzealous police officers, all because somebody was frightened of a legally carried firearm."

Well, you did not do so either and you were asked!

No, Mike, this is all on you.
...so I'm afraid you're on your own.
So be it.
 
LOL!

No, the answer to the question, "Do you know how to tell if a politician is lying?" is

Yes, their lips are moving. :D

Yeah I've heard the politicians lie "jokes" for at least 5 decades.
So do you vote? That would be a funnier joke.

Also pretty funny that you've made accusations of lying while chastising someone else for assuming another's motives.
 
Yep.

It's important everyone understand that before they start reading/listening. We are being marketed. We're being marketed for money. Facts screened and then interpreted then presented in a manner entertaining to an audience and by the time the finished product is presented it is much different than the original facts of the event. Entertainment is now news, news is no longer facts, and we're fodder for marketing.

But... when it comes to print media there's something different going on. Print media is rarely profitable. Cyber news props up the print version, and even there it is often not very profitable. MSN just reported net earnings of $0.01 per share. So why be in business? To market an agenda, a worldview. Most "news" agencies hire their own. Editors at WaPo are 100% self-identifying as Democratic. The same is true of NPR and PBS. Even when NPR has conservatives on to interview, rarely are they truly conservative (such as my aforementioned Eugene Robinson). Fox is openly deliberate with this practice out of a (supposed) conscious effort to provide some alternative to MSN, NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc., but the larger truth is Ailes saw an opportunity to make money.

Facts are changed into entertainment and then called "news" for the sake of material and political profit.
I don't think the Jeff Bezos is overly concerned about whether or not the Washington Post is wildly profitable. I think Jeff Bezos is interested in how Jeff Bezos is going to be remembered. And the best way he can fortify his legacy is to own The Washington Post. And while he continues to linger on this mortal coil, he also uses the outlet to fortify his political objectives.
 
Yeah I've heard the politicians lie "jokes" for at least 5 decades.
So do you vote? That would be a funnier joke.

Also pretty funny that you've made accusations of lying while chastising someone else for assuming another's motives.
Don't expect me to engage that dross. Post it to someone more inclined to take that bait.
 
Back
Top