(06-26-2012 12:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 11:28 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 02:01 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  This typical right-wing racism. They are all for gun-control when it involves brown people, but they demand the right to unfettered gun ownership for white people (so they can shoot brown people).

You sound scared of being shot by gun toting conservative. You fear is misplaced, as you are more likely to be involved in a black on black incident.

If I am ever shot, I suspect it would be you or Rebel doing the shooting.

Nah....I expect it to be self inflicted.

Well, maybe just do what the Border Patrol is being indoctrinated to do when they meet an illegal alien. This sounds to me like a liberal wet dream translated into policy. When confronted, run away and hide.

From the website from Border Patrol Local 2544: (MY emphasis added)

Quote:06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting.

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm. One of the videos in this course actually shows a terrified female hiding behind a desk as an example of how to "hide" from some deranged shooter. Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options when encountering some murderous thug in a public place. 1. Run away; 2. Hide; and 3. Only put up a fight as a last resort by acting aggressively and throwing things at the shooter. Not one mention anywhere of "if you are carrying a gun and you have the opportunity take the shooter out". Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage. Telling law enforcement officers that in all instances they are to run away and hide from some thug while innocent victims are butchered is simply inexcusable and pathetic.

It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm. This, in addition to the scrutiny and second-guessing that will come from local authorities and the inevitable possibility of lawsuits and criminal conviction.

Welcome to the New Patrol.

Border Patrol agents taught to "run away" and "hide" when encountering a shooter

Welcome to bizarro world. Janet Incompetano is doing some of her best work up there.

(06-25-2012 01:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Which is worse?
Watergate vs. F&F

Thoughts...?

Both presidents were (IMO), involved and both need(ed) to face charges (sorry, I believe that Obama was involved/knew about F&F...)..

F&F is definitely worse (I'm sorry, but nobody was murdered during Watergate and did not involve international relations).

(06-26-2012 04:15 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Which is worse?
Watergate vs. F&F

Thoughts...?

Both presidents were (IMO), involved and both need(ed) to face charges (sorry, I believe that Obama was involved/knew about F&F...)..

F&F is definitely worse (I'm sorry, but nobody was murdered during Watergate and did not involve international relations).

No need to apologize. Those of us on here who are honest and not blinded by partisanship (Tom,Max,Robert,TOGC) agree with you.

(06-26-2012 04:15 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Which is worse?
Watergate vs. F&F

Thoughts...?

Both presidents were (IMO), involved and both need(ed) to face charges (sorry, I believe that Obama was involved/knew about F&F...)..

F&F is definitely worse (I'm sorry, but nobody was murdered during Watergate and did not involve international relations).

Yes. While both break the principle of non aggression(theft, fraud, violence and destruction of property)....The violence of F/F trump Watergate by miles.

It's just a politically motivated witch hunt. After Republicans lose seats in the fall, it will go away.

(07-01-2012 07:16 PM)TOGC Wrote:  It's just a politically motivated witch hunt. After Republicans lose seats in the fall, it will go away.

Right now Valarie Plame... There was a real issue right?

(07-01-2012 07:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 07:16 PM)TOGC Wrote:  It's just a politically motivated witch hunt. After Republicans lose seats in the fall, it will go away.

Right now Valarie Plame... There was a real issue right?

When an administration exposes the identity of an agent for political reasons, that's a real issue.

(07-01-2012 08:18 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 07:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 07:16 PM)TOGC Wrote:  It's just a politically motivated witch hunt. After Republicans lose seats in the fall, it will go away.

Right now Valarie Plame... There was a real issue right?

When an administration exposes the identity of an agent for political reasons, that's a real issue.

Amazing how profoundly ignorant you are of the Plame incident. No such thing occurred. It's a great lie people like you have willingly bought, but it's in no way, shape or form what occurred.

Enlighten us boo boo, who leaked Plame's name and why did they do it?

(07-01-2012 08:19 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 08:18 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 07:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 07:16 PM)TOGC Wrote:  It's just a politically motivated witch hunt. After Republicans lose seats in the fall, it will go away.

Right now Valarie Plame... There was a real issue right?

When an administration exposes the identity of an agent for political reasons, that's a real issue.

Amazing how profoundly ignorant you are of the Plame incident. No such thing occurred. It's a great lie people like you have willingly bought, but it's in no way, shape or form what occurred.

Enlighten us boo boo, who leaked Plame's name and why did they do it?

You are the ignorant one. Ever hear the name Libby?

Bush said he would fire whoever outed Plame and then commuted Libby's sentence.

THAT was an egregious abuse of power, moreso than Watergate.

(07-01-2012 08:34 PM)TOGC Wrote:  You are the ignorant one. Ever hear the name Libby?

Bush said he would fire whoever outed Plame and then commuted Libby's sentence.

THAT was an egregious abuse of power, moreso than Watergate.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wow, you are exhibit A of the dangers of buying hook line and sinker what you read on your liberal websites.

Educate yourself fool. Then come back and apologize for being so willfully ignorant. It's from the Washington Post, so you can't claim it's a conservative rag.

(07-01-2012 08:41 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wow, you are exhibit A of the dangers of buying hook line and sinker what you read on your liberal websites.

You get dumber with each post. I figure you've got maybe three more left before we have to put you in a pot and start watering you.

(07-01-2012 08:45 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 08:41 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wow, you are exhibit A of the dangers of buying hook line and sinker what you read on your liberal websites.

You get dumber with each post. I figure you've got maybe three more left before we have to put you in a pot and start watering you.

So what you're saying is you refuse to read the article I posted because you can't stand to know the truth. Not a shock. You and facts have never gotten along.

Fool.

(07-01-2012 08:47 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 08:45 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 08:41 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wow, you are exhibit A of the dangers of buying hook line and sinker what you read on your liberal websites.

You get dumber with each post. I figure you've got maybe three more left before we have to put you in a pot and start watering you.

So what you're saying is you refuse to read the article I posted because you can't stand to know the truth. Not a shock. You and facts have never gotten along.

Fool.

Two posts left.

Wasn't Libby.

At least you've shown yourself to be a coward Greg. Not that we didn't all know it, but you've proven it in print for all to see.

Then again I've grown not to expect anything from you other than delusions and attempts and being clever that fail miserably.

It will take more than an uncredited, unsourced editorial (which is an opinion piece) to qualify as any type of "proof."

Good luck finding any. Because there is none.

(07-01-2012 08:51 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  At least you've shown yourself to be a coward Greg. Not that we didn't all know it, but you've proven it in print for all to see.

Then again I've grown not to expect anything from you other than delusions and attempts and being clever that fail miserably.

One more post.

(07-01-2012 08:51 PM)TOGC Wrote:  It will take more than an uncredited, unsourced editorial (which is an opinion piece) to qualify as any type of "proof."

Good luck finding any. Because there is none.

Ah, so what you're saying is the Washington Post is lying when it says Richard Armitage is who leaked Plame's name? That's there's no evidence he did so?

How about CNN?

Or CBS News?

Maybe Slate Magazine work for you?

Are those enough? Or do you need more to prove your rank stupidity on this subject?

Let me guess, even those aren't enough to qualify as proof. Even though Armitage admits he leaked it. Still not enough I bet is it fool?

And that's the last one. Go jump in that pot over in the corner while we get the water.