(08-30-2015 11:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

Wait, you think a companies HR department should be able to decide whether or not someone is mentally capable of purchasing a firearm?

People who misrepresent what others say do so because the truth hurts.

The government failed the people. This guy went violent during his firing, with the police being called there. Why was he not flagged? His coworkers huddles together in hiding prior to his firing because they knew how violent he could be. Yet the liberals protect this guy, which enables him to purchase a gun.

The system failed the people. We dont need gun control, we need common sense.

We had laws on the books that should have prevented this guy from purchasing a gun. But the liberals want to protect the public standing of the flamboyant mental case teletubbies.

(08-30-2015 12:09 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

Wait, you think a companies HR department should be able to decide whether or not someone is mentally capable of purchasing a firearm?

People who misrepresent what others say do so because the truth hurts.

The government failed the people. This guy went violent during his firing, with the police being called there. Why was he not flagged? His coworkers huddles together in hiding prior to his firing because they knew how violent he could be. Yet the liberals protect this guy, which enables him to purchase a gun.

The system failed the people. We dont need gun control, we need common sense.

We had laws on the books that should have prevented this guy from purchasing a gun. But the liberals want to protect the public standing of the flamboyant mental case teletubbies.

But what does that have to do with EEOC or Affirmative Action like you claimed earlier?

(08-30-2015 12:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

Wait, you think a companies HR department should be able to decide whether or not someone is mentally capable of purchasing a firearm? That's really your defense to your statement that EEOC and affirmative action is to blame for this shooting?

You're just flailing, making no sense whatsoever, and doing your best to blame whatever you want to blame whether or not it's logically consistent. There is not a single conservative who would agree with you that a companies HR department should have control over the ability of a person to purchase a firearm, and any sort of legislation that implied that to be the case would rightfully cause a massive backlash. Think about what you post before you post it, please.

Read what people actually say before you reply to them, please (he says with the utmost disdain for the kid).

What mistake did I make?

Did I stutter?

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 07:09 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Just saw a meme from Comedy Central's John Oliver that rings true...

One failed attempt from a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.

31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns.

Excellent point.

No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Oh yeah but banning the rainbow flag is genius?

Well, it worked so well with the Confederate battle flag. Totally repaired race relations...amiright?

(08-30-2015 12:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

Wait, you think a companies HR department should be able to decide whether or not someone is mentally capable of purchasing a firearm? That's really your defense to your statement that EEOC and affirmative action is to blame for this shooting?

You're just flailing, making no sense whatsoever, and doing your best to blame whatever you want to blame whether or not it's logically consistent. There is not a single conservative who would agree with you that a companies HR department should have control over the ability of a person to purchase a firearm, and any sort of legislation that implied that to be the case would rightfully cause a massive backlash. Think about what you post before you post it, please.

Read what people actually say before you reply to them, please (he says with the utmost disdain for the kid).

What mistake did I make?

Did I stutter?

It's somewhat difficult to stutter with textual responses, so I'm not sure how that response even makes sense. I'm asking you to point out what I said that wasn't at the very least implied by his comments, which is what people interested in actual discussions with other posters do instead of posting a single comment, and then defending it by posting asinine things like asking if they stuttered in a textual response.

So again, what did I misrepresent, or are you just doing your usual schtick?

(08-30-2015 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 07:09 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Just saw a meme from Comedy Central's John Oliver that rings true...

One failed attempt from a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.

31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns.

Excellent point.

No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Oh yeah but banning the rainbow flag is genius?

Well, it worked so well with the Confederate battle flag. Totally repaired race relations...amiright?

Nope but it's a start.

(08-30-2015 12:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Excellent point.

No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Oh yeah but banning the rainbow flag is genius?

Well, it worked so well with the Confederate battle flag. Totally repaired race relations...amiright?

Nope but it's a start.

So is banning the rainbow flag.

There is no Govt Failure in any part of this sad story. The failures are found n the individual that committed the hateful act.

Failure of:

Character
Love
Respect
Honor
Compassion

(08-30-2015 08:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 11:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 11:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Excellent point.

No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Jon Oliver is on HBO now, and you should probably watch his show. One of the better researched shows that goes deeper into issues than you'd imagine. For instance, this one on Civil Forfeiture is great





as is this one about Beauty Pageants, which I can promise doesn't make the argument you're assuming it does





His show format involves him going very deep into a single issue, and he does a great job of it.

What do either of these comedy skits do to answer the question I asked? I don't give a schit about some comedians take on civil forfeiture, which I think is an abomination, or beauty pageants, which I think are about as useful as tits on a bull or getting my news and information from comedy central like you amd your cohorts.

I said the comedians "point" on not passing more dumb laws in order to satisfy the "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" crowd after this coward killed two innocent people would be equally dumb as passing laws for unqualified and incompetent government employees to be patting down granny or my 11 yo daughter, because WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

Don't compound stupidity in one instance by doubling down on that stupidity elsewhere. Hence, the comedians point wasn't "excellent", it was more feel-goodism idiocy.

Utterly vapid.

Please point to where I said that any of those videos would address that "point"? I didn't, I was simply sharing those videos and correcting your statement about which network he works on, which you again incorrectly stated.

You need to calm down there buddy, and actually read what I write. It would help you around here quite a bit.

Are you stupid? Seriously. Are you just dumb? Telling me to "read" when you are apparently incapable of even following one thread?

Here, I'll quote it for your vastly over-pompous asss, I mean it's only right above in the same quote you're quoting...

Quote:Just saw a meme from Comedy Central's John Oliver that rings true...

Now, as someone who does not get his news and information from either comedy central OR HBO, as you leftist, smug fart sniffers seemingly do, I don't have any idea who this comedian is, what dopey channel he may do his skits on or anything else about this guy. I'll leave that up to you.

Oh, and if you're going to chime in on topics and post totally irrelevant videos, you may want to actually read what's being discussed.

I'd suggest it may help you around here to some extent, but then I'd be lying.

(08-30-2015 12:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Wait, you think a companies HR department should be able to decide whether or not someone is mentally capable of purchasing a firearm? That's really your defense to your statement that EEOC and affirmative action is to blame for this shooting?

You're just flailing, making no sense whatsoever, and doing your best to blame whatever you want to blame whether or not it's logically consistent. There is not a single conservative who would agree with you that a companies HR department should have control over the ability of a person to purchase a firearm, and any sort of legislation that implied that to be the case would rightfully cause a massive backlash. Think about what you post before you post it, please.

Read what people actually say before you reply to them, please (he says with the utmost disdain for the kid).

What mistake did I make?

Did I stutter?

It's somewhat difficult to stutter with textual responses, so I'm not sure how that response even makes sense. I'm asking you to point out what I said that wasn't at the very least implied by his comments, which is what people interested in actual discussions with other posters do instead of posting a single comment, and then defending it by posting asinine things like asking if they stuttered in a textual response.

So again, what did I misrepresent, or are you just doing your usual schtick?

Me: read what people actually say.
You: what mistake did I make?
Me: Um, just said. Did I stutter?

Want me to add to that? You didn't read what he actually said OR you are once again intentionally re-writing what was said. Don't know why you constantly do that to me and many others but it sure is annoying as ****. In a special kind of way. It's nice they give all of you ribbons in your Olympics.

Lot of people to reply to here. Not sure why you argue against phantom posts.

Now, let me answer again before you ask for the 3'rd time. Read, and reply, to what people actually say.

Hell, maybe you could create a second account. Then you could make all these previously non-existent posts you so desperately want to argue against.

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 07:09 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Just saw a meme from Comedy Central's John Oliver that rings true...

One failed attempt from a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.

31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns.

Excellent point.

No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Oh yeah but banning the rainbow flag is genius?

The f$%^ you even talking about, genius?

If you're capable, and I really wonder if you are, why not address what I said?

Trolls only address the voices in their heads

Getting really bad with a few around here.

(08-30-2015 12:17 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Oh yeah but banning the rainbow flag is genius?

Well, it worked so well with the Confederate battle flag. Totally repaired race relations...amiright?

Nope but it's a start.

So is banning the rainbow flag.

No one named the confederate flag either.

https://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

(08-30-2015 02:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:17 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Oh yeah but banning the rainbow flag is genius?

Well, it worked so well with the Confederate battle flag. Totally repaired race relations...amiright?

Nope but it's a start.

So is banning the rainbow flag.

No one named the confederate flag either.

The Governor of Virginia sure did. He banned them from license plates. I heard race relations have been repaired completely. I'll let the SC residents tell you if race relations have been completely healed there as well.

(08-30-2015 03:35 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 02:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:17 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Well, it worked so well with the Confederate battle flag. Totally repaired race relations...amiright?

Nope but it's a start.

So is banning the rainbow flag.

No one named the confederate flag either.

The Governor of Virginia sure did. He banned them from license plates. I heard race relations have been repaired completely. I'll let the SC residents tell you if race relations have been completely healed there as well.

He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

I just read a piece somewhere professing the Gadsden flag to represent institutionalized racism. **** is going to far IMO

Mr. Colion Noir knocks it out of the park, per usual.

(08-31-2015 07:57 AM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  I just read a piece somewhere professing the Gadsden flag to represent institutionalized racism. **** is going to far IMO

You're surprised?

There are a group of black nationalists who think white people stole culture and art from Africa... Yea, not ****.