I'm still trying to find a happy medium. Being in supervision at work has helped me a lot. Some things have to be said or done that aren't gonna please everyone (or anyone) all the time.

I like making others happy, I just need to focus a little of that on thinking that I deserve to be just as happy.

Switzerland was banker to the world, they did not choose a side. So I tend to disagree.

Human Translation: It's what I believe, if you don't like it go suck-off a bull with anthrax...

It's how they became neutral...

Generally, but I'm a reactor as well. Something pisses me off, and I get the chance to respond right away, it's not usually pleasant. If I can remove myself from the situation though, it doesn't take long to cool myself down. You have no clue how many posts I've started to write, but then deleted after thinking it through.

It is a self-defense philosophy. As far as I can recall from history, Switzerland has never attacked anyone.

That only works if yer' checks are huge as well...

You have such a way with words.

Collusion = Guilt...

I believe the word your looking for is the antonym for eloquant, whatever that may be.

Moooo

I do try... :evil:

I'd suspect blunt, with a dab of venom...

That's actually funny, because I almost put that he puts things so much more eloquantly than I could. ROFL

The decision
Apparently too hot a topic for the moment.

So now Switzerland is a global economic superpower, OK. We all know Germany would have taken that country in 2 seconds had a use of force not been used to stop them in advance. I am not sure what your deal is lately. I know you don't believe 90% of the horseshit you post these days which leads me to wonder why you post it.

Yea I was thinking about that. It would definately depend on the circumstances. If I thought I could scare him away rather than kill him, I'd probably try that 1st. However, if I think immediate action is warrented, I'd probably shoot 1st and ask questions later.

Or, I might just pee down my pants.
:shrug:

When I was like 10 years old mom and pop went on a vacation and I would stay at my friends house across the street at night. I would go home for periods of time during the day and to take a shower and change clothes and eat. One day I got out of the shower and was drying off when I heard someone else in the house. I immediately went in the P's bedroom and grabbed pops rifle, loaded it and headed to the hallway where I layed down and pointed it to the end of the house. He had to come down that hallway to get to me. The intuder was in the kitchen when glanced down at me and jumped back before jumping forward through the opening and out the sliding glass door he came jimmied to gain access to the house. I layed there for about 5 minutes before slowly advancing to the glass door shutting it. If that guy had given me much of a shot I would have taken it. Without the gun I could have easily been a story on Court TV. Then again if we had a real dog back then it probably never would have been an issue. I was taught at a very young age to shoot guns and there were always plenty around the house. I think that fear of guns comes from not being around them and shooting them much. If you have it is very empowering. I know there are those who would love to take the guns and dogs to make themselves feel saaaaaaaaaaaaaaafe and think I should have attempted to just call the cops. To me the bottom line is you are responsible for your own safety. Big Brother can't protect you from everything no matter how much the pantie waist posse would like to believe that is the case.

Here are some of your requested stats Hamas. Unfortunately the first link I posted here that quoted the governmet resources for these stats has now been dedicated to our failing education system. ROFL I am sure you will find that an interesting read.

When anti-gun activists list the number of deaths per year from firearms, they neglect to mention that 60% of the 30,000 figure they so often use are suicides. They also fail to mention that at least three quarters of the 12,000 homicides are criminals killing other criminals in disputes over illicit drugs, or police shooting criminals engaged in felonies. Subtracting those, we are left with no more than 3,000 deaths in the entire country that I think most would consider valid. Give me a freaking break you Geraldo groupies. Get a life and leave are freedoms alone.

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2001/mar01/psrmar01.shtml

Crime prevention Statistics
The Bureau of Justice Statistics says gun-related deaths and injuries fell 33 percent from 1993 to 1997. At the same time, the number of firearms in this country was up by nearly 10 percent.
The Daily Oklahoman, 12-17-2000

In 1979, out of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979, p. 31.
In 1982, Kennesaw, Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89%.
Gary Kleck, 'Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force,' Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
3/5 of felons polled agreed that 'a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.

74% of felons polled agreed that 'one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.

57% of felons polled agreed that 'criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.
The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics -- 1990, (1991):257
"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an under whelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
Joseph Constance (deputy chief of Trenton NJ police dept) in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993
The data from the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study suggest that 150,000 Americans die every year from doctors' negligence -- compared with 38,000 gun deaths annually. Why are doctors not declared a public health menace? Because they save more lives than they take. And so it is with guns. Every year, good Americans use guns about 2.5 million times to protect themselves and their families, which means 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.
Dr. Edgar Suter, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/12/94, Opinion (p. A17)
34% of felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim."
69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also.
34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they might get shot at by the victim."
James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986).



Self Defense Statistics
Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime
As many as 200,000 of the 2.5 million are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime
In 1993 'only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
Newsweek, November 15, 1993
In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm. Thus, armed women will usually have a decided advantage against their attackers.
Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, (1990), at 29, citing U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).
Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.
Kleck, 'Crime Control,' at 13.
85% of Americans believe people should have the right to use firearms to defend themselves in their homes, 64% favor allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection outside their homes, and 72% favor stiffer sentences for criminals who use a gun in crime rather then more gun laws.
Survey of voters, Lawrence Research, 1998.

Had you gotten a good shot, would you have taken it? When I was 18 years old I spent a summer in Mt. Home, AR. My buddy and I rented a room at a small resort. It was one room with twin beds. I kept a single shot 20 guage loaded and broke down under my bed. Late one night our door opened and someone started walking in our room. As soon as the door started opening I fell to the floor grabbed my shotgun, snapped it closed and pointed it at the guy who was probably no more than 10 feet away, I screamed, "hey". There was definately an instant where I had to decide do I shoot or do I see if he'll run. When he saw a gun was pointed at his chest, he screamed at the top of his lungs "wrong room" and ran. Luckily the door was open or he would have run through it. I'm pretty sure this guy was just a drunk that happened to open the wrong door. I'm glad I didn't shoot first and ask questions later.

I want a nuke.

Every situation you have to weigh differently. In my situation they had to break into the house and yes I would have shot. I almost did if he hadn't gone through the opening like the friggen road runner. Hindsight I am sure pops would have got grief for leaving guns in the house with me when he was out of town. I can't even imagine the shit they would give him now he probably would have been charged with something like child endangerment or something lame like that. I actually thought about that back then and never called the cops I just cut up some broom handles and stuck them in the sliding glass doors we had. We got special locks put on them when the P's came back. I wasn't scared to go back but my friends P's wouldn't allow me back in the house without them being there after that.

If I were a criminal & I was serious about my profession, I'd get my hands on a silencer, and I would always kill my "marks".

With all of these law-abiding citizens carrying guns, why take any chances?

Nah, people like you should have to call 911 and hope for the best. That is if the criminal hasn't cut you phone line. Ever hear one of those call?

"Slow Down"



"What's your name"





"What's going on?"






"Where is he now?"






"Slow Down"






"What is your address?"







"Can You say that again?"








"Help is on it's way"





Hell I can make it south of the boarder before she has even notified anyone. Hopefully she doesn't tell me to quit playing on the phone.

99% of all criminals are dumb as hell, fortunately.

I still think the best deterent is a real dog. Almost every episode of Court TV I have ever seen I could say that wouldn't have happened had they had a good version of mans best friend.

Good loud barking not afraid to attack a stranger dog.

Even an alarm system monitored or not scares 'em.

Smith & Wesson Stickers on front/back/side entry doors.

put a loaded shotgun next the bed...

Congrats, you found the one source more inane and biased than Newsmax. ROFL

THe US Department of Justice?

If somebody takes your candy ass out one day and I see I thread on here looking for sympathy I am going to laugh my ass off. You obviously have zero ability to discuss anything objectively Mr. Pipebomb. You still have failed to address your pathetic run and snitch policy you endorsed when a student is assaulted with threat of being expelled. All you gave us was theat ridiculous school pipe bomb terrorist story about that guy you know Hamas. You continue to lose all forms of credibility on this BB. Maybe you can get Logical to help you out. He seems to be sympathetic all the lowest forms of life on this BB these days.

BIG_DADDY, I strongly support the right to carry. I have no use for a gun in MY house but believe in the right to and want you to have a gun if YOU want one. I have 2 VERY large dogs...and would NEVER want to shoot some one. I LIKE TO USE MY HANDS!!!! If they have a gun...in MY FRIGGIN HOUSE..I am gonna get shot. But that may just piss me off...so the better have a real big gun. And the odds are very slim for that.

Lets see...criminal breaks in.....dogs go off(usually sends em packing)...criminal either shoots dogs ....Dale calls 911. If criminal doesn't shoot dogs....262 pounds of pissed off Dale Mercer comming down the hallway.....bad situation. I hope he has a partner so I can get more blood out of them!!!!

For every time a gun is used in a "home" in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings. [Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267]
The presence of a gun in the "home" triples the risk of homicide in the "home". [Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.]
The presence of a gun in the "home" increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership." N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.]
"The great majority of the victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them. Homicides by a stranger accounted for only 15 cases (3.6 percent). The identity of the offender could not be established in 73 cases (17.4 percent). The remaining cases involved other offenders or police acting in the line of duty."[Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.]

Good, there is one more reason you should own one Hamas. We can only hope.

Yep, quoting the same person over and over substatiates a point.....and I may not be up to all current events....but I would be more prone to give credence to "U.S., Department of Justice" then Kellermann Rivara and Somes...x3....are you from the Department of Redundancey Department??

I have news for you dipstick. Criminals don't don't follow the law that's why their outlaws. People who want to commit suicide don't need a gun they can always jump off overpasses into oncoming cars or the like.

2.5 Million DGU's. There is nothing else left to say except maybe you should look at the rate violent crime has risen in Engand and Australia since they enacted their ridiculous gun laws. You passivist liberal panty waist POS even include cops shooting criminals is your statistics. What's next you going to disarm the police like they do over in Europe too?

BTW that passivist mentality saturates their military as well.

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.

Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Following the logic of liberals, we should all be warned: "Guns don't kill people. Doctors do."


So should we get rid of doctor's too?

We need to keep our guns to keep our country safe from people like Hamas getting into power. That's why he wants us to get rid of them. That
s the real reason for the 2nd amendment.

uhh, not all liberals agree with Hamas......and some liberals are absolutely NOT panty waists.....jfyi

Fixed your post for ya.....My boss said, "you're liberal and you DON"T support gun control???" I said....absolutely.

He reminds me of Diane Fineswine when she debated gun control out here on TV. She was practically in tears after they decimated her with government statistics. All she could say was "let's just try it" It was one of the most pathetic attempts I have ever seen a politician make at debating a subject. It doesn't hold water but they don't care. It doesn't make our nation safer on many levels but that doesn't matter they will preach that anyway.

To bring this full circle of all the things I have exposed about Hamas in this thread from guns to his support of the run and snitch mentality nothing is funnier than his own hypocracy. He doesn't like the religious right using our school system to promote their moral agenda but he has no problem using to push his own.

Actually I am libertarian and have many liberal ideals. It's this element I am talking about within the democratic party that is killing it. It is the Hamas, meme element that continues to push everyone to the right of them giving the right wingers WAY too much power.

If I were going to support my position with statistics....I wouldn't quote the same people repeatedly....kinda stupid.

But MY opinion is mostly that...opinion. I don't like guns around my kids....I wanna hurt someone threatening my family, with my hands...and I like big dogs..... But I also want YOU to have a gun.... It's a constitutional right....and the constitution is what makes this the best country in the world....don't believe it? Drive through Mexico.

BTW...I also believe if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns...is an irrefutable statement.

John Lott - Much of his work has been questioned, and a major review by NAS rejected his thesis on concealed carry. [31] (A minority report disputed this view.) Significant ethical questions have also been raised about his work, but no external professional review has been done

I'm the same way. I feel it's still a right though. I won't have one...I'm scared of how I'll use it, not being trained plus being Sicilian and all. :p

I actually was brassknuckled once in the lobby of my apartment in Boston and I would a never had time to get to a gun even if it was on me. Luckily, I was able to outthink the guy and got away. I went into the heightened state of awareness was very clear thinking and calm for some reason. I was injured but I coulda been dead.

So let me get this straight, he quotes the same source 4 times in a row and it's ok, but I have 3 citations from the same source and that is a damnable offense.

I should also mention that your 2.5 Million DGU's is highly disputed, and widely regarded as trash among all those except gun nuts.

You should also know that I am not for taking away people's guns, because I see them as serving as a de facto method of natural selection. If you have a gun in your home you are far more likely to be killed in a home invasion than someone who is unarmed. That much is clear. If you think that someone with no real self defense training (as most Americans do not) are able to rationally operate a firearm in a moment of extreme stress then you know very very little about the fragility of the human psyche. If you want to own a gun, that's fine with me. I see it as no different than riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

David Hemenway, PhD, Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, has co-released a study on gun use in the United States in the journal Injury Prevention. Hemenway and his colleagues studied reports of self-defense uses of guns and concluded that guns "are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense."

In two surveys over a three year period, Hemenway and his colleagues found 152 respondents who reported using a weapon in self defense. The respondents were asked to describe their use of a weapon in self defense. Five criminal court judges, when asked to review these anonymous verbatim descriptions, found that over half were probably illegal. The descriptions included examples of shooting at unarmed strangers who happened to be near a business or property at night, and threatening to shoot someone as a result of a verbal dispute while intoxicated. In addition, one 18 year old male reported six cases, including a "self-defense" use in the course of an argument at a high school.

Hemenway and colleagues also question the accuracy of the rates of self-reported self-defense gun use, because over two thirds (68%) of the self defense gun use incidents from the two surveys were reported by only six respondents.

Hemenway's study calls into question research that is often cited by those who advocate for legalizing concealed carry in Kansas. Concealed-carry advocates often cite a study by Dr. Gary Kleck that argues that guns are used over 2.5 million times per year in self defense. Hemenway's study shows that gun use is often misclassified as defensive and virtuous when objectively it is offensive and illegal. Hemenway's study also pointes out an apparent inflation of the frequency of defensive gun use by a small minority of those surveyed. These two factors contribute significantly to the argument that Kleck's figures are significantly overestimated.


Sorry, but I'll take the Harvard research over the jabroni from Florida State every day of the week.

Of course, since every argument on this site has nothing to do with the merits of the information and everything to do with a referendum on the popularity of the poster, I'll just assume that I got "fucking pwned!! OMFG!!!"

I am glad my dad exposed me as a kid, may have saved my life. Then again I fully respect your right to not expose them.

Defending oneself is a basic human right that eveyone should have and no government should be able to take away. Women are the one's most empowered by this right.

You got owned on many different subjects you refused to address. I posted information from many sources including the Department of Justice all of which you conveniently overlooked and only chose to compare Florida State information to a Harvard guy. I'l spare you the ridiculous jabroni comment.

In your defense the side of the subject you chose in this case is indefensible as are the rest of your positions you chose in this thread.

Just keep ignoring the elephant in the room:

Hemenway's study shows that gun use is often misclassified as defensive and virtuous when objectively it is offensive and illegal. Hemenway's study also pointes out an apparent inflation of the frequency of defensive gun use by a small minority of those surveyed. These two factors contribute significantly to the argument that Kleck's figures are significantly overestimated.

Support of a run and snitch mentality like telling the schools administration that there is a bomb in building which you then laugh off as though it was a Black Cat. You suffer from a serious dose of moral relativism, dude.

Many sources including the DOJ...of which you cited four consecutive times not only from the same source, but from the same PAGE!!. That is anything but a variety. Funny that now that your 2.5 million number which you have used as a crutch through this whole argument is shown to be bullshit, you have nothing to say in defense of it.

An elephant in your eyes. The real Elephant is you ignoring 95% of what I have posted and it's source. Your elephant is all subjective and there is nothing of substance given to back it up at all. All you have to do is look at England or Australia to see what happens when you take them away.

here are some quotes I am sure you will ignore as well

--Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938 This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!
- Adolph Hitler,


“ Those who trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”
-Benjamin Franklin

And the real reason we will fall eventually and have legislation passed irregardless of the fact that it is not good or popular. This applies on many levels.

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe
the people with their own money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

I have pointed out you are misleading people on this many times, why do you ignore it? This has nothing to do with your BS pipe bomb story. It has everything to do with you supporting expelling students for defending themself. Keep ranting about irrelevant BS though. You lose more credibility with every post if that's even possible at this point.

You conveniently missed the liberal SF Chronical using the same stats. You also fail to acknowlege the Department of Justice. You only have one one persons opinion your running your program off of and that makes everything else BS? Is it even possible for you to be anymore bias?

I am done with the gun thing with you at this point it is a waste of my time. Unless you want to discuss your endorsement of run and snitch policy when a student is assaulted without bringing up that ridiculous pipe bomb story again or want to address your hypocrytical stance on not wanting the church to promote their moral agenda in schools but you see no problem having them pushing yours I think we are done.

I'm sorry, I see a big difference between acceptance of people (acknowledging that there are difference and being ok with that) and instilling that in children (which will go a long way towards avoiding ignorant hate crimes), and the teachings of myopic zealots who claim to be advocating the 'love' of the good book, but in reality are spreading hate.

You know this as well as I do..

You say "Run and Snitch" because you want to place the policy in the pejorative, derailing it before a debate can ever take place. How is this different from someone in the 60's saying that the Civil Rights Act is the N*gger love act?? The answer is that there is no difference.

Here is a question for you: Your kid is punched by someone at school. In the past he could defend himself, and if he did, he'd probably serve some ISS (as was the case in my school). On the contrary, your kid is punched, and his assailant is gone for the year. Don't you think that this policy would go a long way towards abating school violence. If kids know they are going to essentially flunk if they start a fight, you can damn sure know that they aren't going to be starting shit. Don't be naive. Furthermore, how often are kids unsupervised at school? I find it hard to believe that there isn't an authority figure within a few seconds, but maybe I am just being naive. Furthermore, if it worries you that much, teach your kid effective methods on how to block punches. Then if someone tries to punch him, he can still defend himself without harming the other person. Conflict avoided. But I'm sure that this never crossed your mind, since you automatically assume that violence is the only resolution to any conflict.

Just because the SF Chronicle used the stats, that doesn't mean they are correct. How do I know the reporter wasn't just being lazy and went to the first stats he could find? Maybe his editor is a gun nut. Am I suddenly the harbinger for all liberal outlets of media?? Some of them are woefully wrong. Quite often, liberal media outlets make stupid decisions--The CBS Memo is probably a prime example of that very case. Am I saying that all those who espouse the liberal perspective are inherently inerrant?? No, but that is how you wish to categorize me so that your vantage point seems more reasonable. You are attempting to take the reporting of one paper (the Chronicle) to undermine the efforts of a thoroughly researched, and peer-edited study that clearly refutes and negates the major crutch of your argument. It doesn't work that way. You deride Michael Moore for playing fast and loose with facts--where is your sense of outrage at Kleck's preposterous assertions??

Quit acting like a kneejerk talking head, it doesn't suit you. Hell, it doesn't even suit a pit bull.

Why? Are you foretelling what they will bring us in the future?

[/sarcasm]

meter functioning?? Maybe you should kick that around with your "futbol"

I'll bite, what's [sarcastic] about inquiring whether you are "one that indicates or foreshadows what is to come" from the liberal media, when it looks like you MEANT to ask if your were supposed to be their 'standard bearer,' or 'spokesman?'
Or does the composition professor not know what 'harbinger' means? :shrug:

Since I seem to be indicative of everyone's hatred of the ivory tower, and most liberal movements stem from academia, why don't you tell me? Perhaps you could get your shriveled dick out of your Piven blow up doll long enough to type a response, no??

Although we are all quite aware that Mr. Law & Order knows what a complete sentence.

Care to revisit that one in between your viewings of everything trendy on television, lambs??

Did you mean 'the epitome of?'

ROFL ROFL

Jesus Christ Jenkins why don't you quit while you still have enough strength to tap out?

This thread is covered in the blood that flies from your face every time one of these guys absolutely bitch slaps you.

You'll live to fight another day.

For someone who has such endless hatred of me, you seem to spend quite a bit of time on here trying to 'educate me', going as far as dictionary.com to try and back yourself up. Is your life *that* devoid of meaning?? Aren't you supposed to be at work right now?? At least I have an excuse. I'm off for the summer and it is raining outside, but you, who has 'no desire to converse with me' continually interjects your opinions on everything that I have to say. Why don't you just electronically hate fuck me and get it over with, or sit down, STFU and continue the blessed tour through mediocrity that your life has no doubt been so far.

Here's one for you, ass

Serving to indicate: symptoms indicative of anemia; an insignia indicative of high rank.
Grammar. Of, relating to, or being the mood of the verb used in ordinary objective statements.

Durr gee, what might that be pertaining to?

You're no liberal....that's theft. Most prof's are Marxists not true liberals in the classical liberal tradition. They are an insult to America's heritage of liberty.

Pick apart 453 all you want. I'm waiting.

http://www.laughmachine.com/images/B...en_colbert.jpg
I accept your apology.

ROFL ROFL

Of course you would split hairs to this degree to try and undermine my stance rather than analyzing what I'm actually saying.

Liberal--------------------------------------Conservative/Authoritarian

Where might an anarcho-socialist go there???

Still waiting on your dissemination of indicative. Perhaps you would like to try "the" next??

Good God man, your anger issues and self-hatred....are jaw-dropping. Do you even have a sense of humor? They may be on "blue-light" special over at K-Mart. :shake:

Give it up kid, the fight was over a while ago and you lost. Now they are taking turns pissing on you while you are down.

Be the kind of man you advocate in 453: don't put up fight just walk away. Feel the silky smoothness as your vagina starts to grow.

No, everyone picking on you would be "indicative of everyone's hatred of the ivory tower."
You would epitomize, ie, represent the epitome, of the parts of it people hate.
Did you see that little term 'adj' when you looked up 'indicative?'
There are rules about what is modified by an adjective, and what is modified by a noun.

Okay, I agree..I dissed you for redundancy in quoted material....I didn't diss him. And yes that is because I tend to like him and most of what he represents. i apologize.

That said...you are being naive. I am well versed in self defense...but a large part of self defense is harming an attacker. Simply blocking an attack only worked for Bruce Lee....for a while....

Oh, and the threat of flunking out will temper school violence....sure, like the death penalty tempers crime!!!! ROFL ROFL

Of course, I am never, never a 'noun' (since I is not a PERSON, place or thing). Furthermore, my status as being in academia is never brought up here in the pejorative. :rolleyes: You are trying to define a word completely outside of its context, which is a big, big no no (but I'm sure that it serves you well when you are suing someone for asbestos contamination) Get real.

[QUOTE='Hamas' Jenkins]Since I seem to be indicative of everyone's hatred of the ivory tower, and most liberal movements stem from academia, why don't you tell me? Perhaps you could get your shriveled dick out of your Piven blow up doll long enough to type a response, no??

Although we are all quite aware that Mr. Law & Order knows what a complete sentence.



Care to revisit that one in between your viewings of everything trendy on television, lambs??[/QUOTE]


Maybe, just maybe, the hatred stems from the fact that you post offensive stuff.....do ya think?????

Good luck trying to throw a kid out of school because he deflected an attacker's punch and tied up his arms to protect himself...of course BD wants to present the supporters of this argument as being that dumb...

Your "status in academia"?
Aren't you a TA?
LMMFAO!
When I was a freshman my AP Lit. TA used to have me over after class to get me high and suck my *&$#.

Status in academia my ass. Your insecurity makes me sad.

Good luck trying to stop me from beating your ass by tying up my arms.
It is hit or be hit boy. Your way would only get kids hurt.

No, I doubt it. That's not at all necessary.....

I feel like I need a cigarette after reading all this.

Try this:
Original Forumla was the center.
True Conservatives are closer to that.
Your position requires a socialist dictatorship first which then withers away to anarchy. That's pure communism.
http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/6...pectrum5mc.gif



http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/3397/scenter3tn.gif

I did these for something else....might as well use it here.

Read the above....and just wonder why some people do not like you.....I am sure a man of you advanced intellect can understand that when a person is being offensive...it tends to make people look for reasons to disagree. Oh, and you are offensive. Think about that....and is that the way you want to be thought of??? Is that the way you want to be portrayed through this electronic media?? If it is...maybe you should consider a career change....because you'd then be too stupid to teach our nations youth.

Is that a 'relieve the stress' cigarette, Or a post-coital cigarette?