Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 4:37:47 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		i think that's an excellent point as concerns vile critter parts, but it also reminded me, have you heard of "synesthesia?"

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 5:20:53 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 6/9/2016 5:22:40 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 5:37:06 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		FR..a light joke...
Just because someone has tourettes, Doesnt mean you Aren't a "wanker"


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 5:53:39 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 5:55:46 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 9:00:21 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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"

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 9:01:44 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 9:38:43 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 11:39:49 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 11:41:39 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 4:04:21 PM   
AtUrCervix


Posts: 2111
Joined: 1/15/2016
Status: offline
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?"

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 9:26:39 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 9:30:15 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 9:41:32 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 9:46:47 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.



(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 9:55:32 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill... - 6/9/2016 10:22:07 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 6/9/2016 10:59:10 PM >

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 117
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.093