RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

bounty44 -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 4:37:47 AM)
i think that's an excellent point as concerns vile critter parts, but it also reminded me, have you heard of "synesthesia?"

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 5:20:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i think that's an excellent point as concerns vile critter parts, but it also reminded me, have you heard of "synesthesia?" We have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, shiteater44, and you are et up with it, have you heard aboutfactless slobbering toiletlicking nutsuckers? Have you looked in the mirror?

Lucylastic -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 5:37:06 AM)
FR..a light joke... Just because someone has tourettes, Doesnt mean you Aren't a "wanker" [image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/colllar/tourettes.jpg[/image]

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 5:53:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It makes no sense what so ever conversing with you vile critter parts. I'm done with it. Cretinous, which you have demonstrated to everyone here, is that you are incapable of using and cogitating English with more than filthy gutter level nutsucker crap. You are the quintessential definition of nutsucker. Dude, trying to understand some people is like trying to smell the color "9" Michael There isnt much to understanding nutsuckers, they are about the factlessness, the hallucinations, and the ignorant shiteating.

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 5:55:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. Why should they have recieved any representation for the slaves? Because without the compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified, surely you know that. So, the country was founded by men of no principles. Doesn't mean that nutsuckers need to continue on with no principles, and they clearly have none.

thompsonx -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 9:00:21 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx I try not to be condesending when explaining for example that one reason I don't keep the safety of my revolver on is that they don't have one. Not according to tom clancy. It doesn't surprise me that some revolver somewhere may have a saftey, but none that I have ever had or seen have had one. The fact that you found the exception in no way changes the basic rule of thumb. You got that completely assbackwards. Tom clancy is the dumbass who puts safetys on revolvers in his novels so his fictional heros can "flick" them off just before shooting the "bad guy"

thompsonx -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 9:01:44 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. Why should they have recieved any representation for the slaves? Because without the compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified, surely you know that. I don't know that and you do not know that.

DaddySatyr -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 9:38:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i think that's an excellent point as concerns vile critter parts, but it also reminded me, have you heard of "synesthesia?" My best friend has it. She sees sounds as colors. Michael

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 11:39:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. Why should they have recieved any representation for the slaves? Because without the compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified, surely you know that. I don't know that and you do not know that. Funny, I got my information from a Notre Dame PHD teaching in a predominately black school who specialized in "the black struggle", I think I will take her word and documentation over your word any day.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 11:41:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx I try not to be condesending when explaining for example that one reason I don't keep the safety of my revolver on is that they don't have one. Not according to tom clancy. It doesn't surprise me that some revolver somewhere may have a saftey, but none that I have ever had or seen have had one. The fact that you found the exception in no way changes the basic rule of thumb. You got that completely assbackwards. Tom clancy is the dumbass who puts safetys on revolvers in his novels so his fictional heros can "flick" them off just before shooting the "bad guy" So now you have circled around and you agree with me.

AtUrCervix -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 4:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With the explinations of the 2nd amendments "true" meaning we have been getting what do the other amendments mean if read the same way? Wow. That was a remarkably short essay in to "what the fuck?"

thompsonx -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 9:26:39 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx I try not to be condesending when explaining for example that one reason I don't keep the safety of my revolver on is that they don't have one. Not according to tom clancy. It doesn't surprise me that some revolver somewhere may have a saftey, but none that I have ever had or seen have had one. The fact that you found the exception in no way changes the basic rule of thumb. You got that completely assbackwards. Tom clancy is the dumbass who puts safetys on revolvers in his novels so his fictional heros can "flick" them off just before shooting the "bad guy" So now you have circled around and you agree with me. No dumbass I was pointing out the irony of a rt wing gun phreque who publishes brodly what you claim that left wing anti gun phreques say. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

thompsonx -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 9:30:15 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. Why should they have recieved any representation for the slaves? Because without the compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified, surely you know that. I don't know that and you do not know that. Funny, I got my information from a Notre Dame PHD teaching in a predominately black school who specialized in "the black struggle", So what? I think I will take her word and documentation over your word any day. Well lets see this documentation. Show us where the lazy punkassmotherfucking slavers could have survived without "the union" in 1789

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 9:41:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx I try not to be condesending when explaining for example that one reason I don't keep the safety of my revolver on is that they don't have one. Not according to tom clancy. It doesn't surprise me that some revolver somewhere may have a saftey, but none that I have ever had or seen have had one. The fact that you found the exception in no way changes the basic rule of thumb. You got that completely assbackwards. Tom clancy is the dumbass who puts safetys on revolvers in his novels so his fictional heros can "flick" them off just before shooting the "bad guy" So now you have circled around and you agree with me. No dumbass I was pointing out the irony of a rt wing gun phreque who publishes brodly what you claim that left wing anti gun phreques say. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. So I was right, but since you found someone who you claim said that, but provide nothing but your word, you say I was wrong, even though you agree with what I said. You who demand citation for everything you don't like can't prove that he said that in a work of fiction. Since you have heard some "rightwinger" say they like him you think that gives you an excuse to attack me for something that you admit is correct. BTW I have never heard a pro 2nd person make that claim.

thompsonx -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 9:46:47 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx I try not to be condesending when explaining for example that one reason I don't keep the safety of my revolver on is that they don't have one. Not according to tom clancy. It doesn't surprise me that some revolver somewhere may have a saftey, but none that I have ever had or seen have had one. The fact that you found the exception in no way changes the basic rule of thumb. You got that completely assbackwards. Tom clancy is the dumbass who puts safetys on revolvers in his novels so his fictional heros can "flick" them off just before shooting the "bad guy" So now you have circled around and you agree with me. No dumbass I was pointing out the irony of a rt wing gun phreque who publishes brodly what you claim that left wing anti gun phreques say. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. So I was right, but since you found someone tell us you have never heard of tom clancy? you say I was wrong, No dumbass...get a grown up to read what I said.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 9:55:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: thompsonx The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. Why should they have recieved any representation for the slaves? Because without the compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified, surely you know that. I don't know that and you do not know that. Funny, I got my information from a Notre Dame PHD teaching in a predominately black school who specialized in "the black struggle", So what? I think I will take her word and documentation over your word any day. Well lets see this documentation. Show us where the lazy punkassmotherfucking slavers could have survived without "the union" in 1789 You, who won't even tell me what book Clancy is alleged to have said revolvers had safeties, what you to provide you with an online cite from a history course I took 14 years ago? Get real.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 10:22:07 PM)
FR Done about an hour of research and it appears that Clancy never claimed that a revolver had a safety. He seems to have made other firearms mistakes, but not that one. Thanks Thompsonx you have reafirmed my faith in your vast knowledge, or lack thereof.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.273438E-02