Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. No they're totally effective and pragmatic. People lived for 1000s of years without cars and the world didn't come to an end, they got along just fine. We could just ban private ownership of cars and motor vehicles, and subsidize all public transportation (buses, railroads, taxi cabs, etc). If we did that, then we'd save many more lives, since more people die because of cars each year than have died in all the mass shootings in US history combined (and that's not even counting deaths from pollution, just accidents). Just like alcohol only has a 'benign purpose when it's misused' - the "real purpose" of alcohol is to get drunk and act like an asshole - therefore we should reinstate the Prohibition since it has no 'legitimate purpose' - yawn They have plenty of legitimate uses, such as skeet shooting. Either way my alcohol argument above debunks it. If 'banning guns' is really, well it's way down on the list of priorities from banning cars, since the latter would save exponentially more lives (and make the planet a lot greener too). Let me guess, you're just an apologist who owns a car yourself right? In all seriousness I've never seen a better argument for denying women the right to vote than this thread.
  2. A more pragmatic solution would be to ban cars, since they kill more people per year than died in all of the mass shootings in US history combined (people lived just fine for centuries without cars, and they can do it again). Problem is some people aren't clear thinkers - just emotional thinkers. Basically "guns = scary", so they're bad, but "cars = not scary" - so they're friendly. It's the same line of reason with the anti-pot crowd. No critical thought - they just think "pot = drug" so it's bad, but "alcohol = legal" so it's good, even though it's responsible for way more actual deaths. If the kids in Sandy Hook had been run over by a semi-truck, no one would even still be talking about them, or crying to 'ban semi trucks' - basically in the emotional thinkers' minds if they weren't killed by a gun, they'd be "less dead". Thankfully this silly dream is about as likely to happen as PETA's vision of banning meat, or some extreme religious' wackjobs desire to ban 'sodomy' and bring back stonings. Wackjobs are all in the same camp, regardless of which side of the isle they fall on - and normal people will never buy into it.
  3. My god what a fool you are - don't tell me you weren't persuaded by such an eloquent and convincing argument as the OP - you really must just enjoy living ignorance - even when the truth is spelled out to you so intellectually and wittily worded - putz
  4. Well cars are responsible for more deaths each year than all mass shootings in the US combined
  5. So you'd hire Jerry Sandusky to babysit your kids, just because he never diddled anyone on your premises? Wow you're dumber than I thought.. Some things are just common sense - if a person's got a record and police reports for stalking and death threats IRL then it's common sense to ban them and not make it easier for them to find more victims (and drive others off the site), rules shmules.
  6. You're paranoid schizophrenia's setting in there Koresh, Might need to get the shrink up your dosage, lol You're a little paranoid - there's no real threat of a 'theocracy'. The 'worst' that religion offers us is are the occasional pedophiles like Texasman lurking forums like this in search of little girls to 'teach stuff about Jesus" to. Other than that I've got no problem with religion - some militant atheists are just as crazy
  7. Because if they'd been killed with an M16 they'd somehow be 'less dead'
  8. Complaining about a ban on someone who you permbanned yourself (and reported to police) for IRL stalking and death threats - just because you have a 'feud' with the site? Pretty Machiavellian of you, lol

No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 

  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.

  • By deezer shoove


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?

  • By Robot88


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 

  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems

  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?

  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 

  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 

  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?

  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.

  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 

  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 

  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight

  • By Duck615

    OK thanks


  • By king of the county


  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.

You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
  • Create New...