Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:31 PM
That would never happen, Joker. You're being paranoid. LOLberal mental utopia. If you close your eyes tight enough, you can almost see it!
Rioters? Not in America! We have police and big government!
A gang? We dont have gangs in America!
The government? They have your best interest at heart!
I'm quickly becoming intolerant to LOLberal thinking.
Yes we can!
Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:40 PM
I question statism meme as the largest religion.
There are 2.3 billion Christians and 1.6 Billion Islam.
Source
http://en.wikipedia....ous_populations
Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:44 PM
Hmmmmm.... Sounds like Andy's point of you being averse to anyone's views who don't agree with your own is not so far off base as you have claimed.
I ain't TASB, but events of the day have me thinking...I have great respect for views which are drawn from looking at all of the facts, even if the conclusion made is different than mine.
But I'm getting less and less tolerant of outright nonsense. Stuff like, "it'll be legal to keep your ten round magazines, but if you put more than 7 rounds in them, you'll be a criminal."
Edited to add: I mean, I know it's only January 15th, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard all year...
Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:45 PM
Hmmmmm.... Sounds like Andy's point of you being averse to anyone's views who don't agree with your own is not so far off base as you have claimed.
Actually, I was perfectly fine with differing thoughts/views on subjects. If the LOLberals can start making sense and stop being despotic Statists, we can share some common ground. Unfortunately, we're not results oriented here. We're knee jerk emotion driven. So, yeah. I find very little tolerance of it.
Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:47 PM
I ain't TASB, but events of the day have me thinking...I have great respect for views which are drawn from looking at all of the facts, even if the conclusion made is different than mine.
But I'm getting less and less tolerant of outright nonsense. Stuff like, "it'll be legal to keep your ten round magazines, but if you put more than 7 rounds in them, you'll be a criminal."
Edited to add: I mean, I know it's only January 15th, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard all year...
Exactly.
This shit is too far over the line of uneducated, political posturing nonsense that solves nothing. There is absolutely no way to work with that. So Im intolerant of it.
Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:55 PM
I ain't TASB, but events of the day have me thinking...I have great respect for views which are drawn from looking at all of the facts, even if the conclusion made is different than mine.
But I'm getting less and less tolerant of outright nonsense. Stuff like, "it'll be legal to keep your ten round magazines, but if you put more than 7 rounds in them, you'll be a criminal."
Edited to add: I mean, I know it's only January 15th, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard all year...
I totally agree.
Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:05 PM
I don't think all liberals think that way and that throwing around labels like lolberal or the contard/libtard shit is no different than labeling any other group with a derogatory name. It's not really going to help further any discussion.
That said, there are times* where someone can be a lolberal and that's the only time when the term is acceptable to be used.
* 
Naturally I will be the only Deciderer of when those times are
Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:17 PM
I don't think all liberals think that way and that throwing around labels like lolberal or the contard/libtard shit is no different than labeling any other group with a derogatory name. It's not really going to help further any discussion.
That said, there are times* where someone can be a lolberal and that's the only time when the term is acceptable to be used.
*
Naturally I will be the only Deciderer of when those times are
What is different in what you say above about labeling groups and by saying go team or yes we can?
Aren't you also labeling this subgroup of the US population?
Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:28 PM
anyone want to bid on a cave man assault rock? only a little more than $5Gs
http://www.ebay.com/...=item257996c534
Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:53 PM
I believe TASB described his usage of "lolberal" as applying to both sides of the aisle.More a term used for those of us who vote and are part of the system he so loathes.
We're all part of this system whether you want to be or not. Participation in the extrajudicial, or taxation, etc is not optional. So while I loathe it, I don''t loathe all participants. And there is plenty of room for liberals and conservatives alike that aren't LOLberals. I've put it clearly enough plenty of times.
Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:30 PM
What is different in what you say above about labeling groups and by saying go team or yes we can?
Aren't you also labeling this subgroup of the US population?
I don't see either as labeling anyone as anything derogatory
I'd say go team or go group could be interchangeable, what's derogatory about either? I've always used it as just a "my side rocks, your side sucks," "Go Red Sox" home team rooting kind of thing.
As for "yes we can" I don't get what exactly that label or negative connotation would be (other than being an Obama supporter 
)
Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:39 PM
We're all part of this system whether you want to be or not. Participation in the extrajudicial, or taxation, etc is not optional. So while I loathe it, I don''t loathe all participants. And there is plenty of room for liberals and conservatives alike that aren't LOLberals. I've put it clearly enough plenty of times.
Yeah, the lolberals just "looks" more anti-liberal than anti-con, lord knows there's more than enough lolcons out there
Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:22 PM
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:04 PM
Well I'm glad we got that settled.
What is striking about folks like cheese is that they call someone like me paranoid, then turn around and use a paranoid type fear base in debate. Such as people owning tanks and missiles and grenades. It's a projection of the highest order. Being paranoid about people with items like these, and passing people like me off as the paranoid ones.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:06 PM
the ego demands that it own a gun for self-preservation.
If you got rid of all ego, you would remove all need for defensive weapons. So, those who demand the right to own a gun, are completely subserviant to their ego, and are lower-evolved creatures operating on a low vibrating frequency. The fear is strong in them...
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:08 PM
the ego demands that it own a gun for self-preservation.
If you got rid of all ego, you would remove all need for defensive weapons. So, those who demand the right to own a gun, are completely subserviant to their ego, and are lower-evolved creatures operating on a low vibrating frequency. The fear is strong in them...
this takes the troll post prize of the year.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:11 PM
you cant argue with the truth, bro. Any arguement that begins with "I have the right to PROTECT myself with a weapon" shows the fear they harbor inside, which comes directly from the ego. This person has not accepted that we are all one, and that the self s an illusion. The need for weaponry shows how desperate and important self-preservation is, even at the cost of killing and taking another life. It is selfish, and egotistical on the most basic level.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:13 PM
the ego demands that it own a gun for self-preservation.
If you got rid of all ego, you would remove all need for defensive weapons. So, those who demand the right to own a gun, are completely subserviant to their ego, and are lower-evolved creatures operating on a low vibrating frequency. The fear is strong in them...
I like you dude...but I feel compelled to point out that someone who is this focused on "other," might do a little more looking inward before he calls other people on ego stuff...
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:16 PM
I like you dude...but I'm compelled to point out that someone who is this focused on "other," might do a little more looking inward before he calls other people on ego stuff...
Just postulating a reason for the overwhelming desire for individuals to possess high-powered instant kill weapons, not "calling" anyone out, persay.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:20 PM
What is striking about folks like cheese is that they call someone like me paranoid, then turn around and use a paranoid type fear base in debate. Such as people owning tanks and missiles and grenades. It's a projection of the highest order. Being paranoid about people with items like these, and passing people like me off as the paranoid ones.
I detect a bit of paranoia coming from both sides of the issue.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:45 PM
hey,if you dont want to listen to morals, that is on you./
The reason Jedi carry lightsabers is because blasters (or guns) are clumsy inaccurate weapons compared to a blade, and the need to carry a clumsy anaccurate weapon points to an inherent fear. That is why Luke ended up confronting Vader in the tree on Dagoba, because he took w=hiis weapoins in with him....because he was afraid.
People who are afraid of something will want to protect themselves from it and feel secure....
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:46 PM
Why don't Jedi carry blasters?
Why do they carry light sabers?
Edit - I see you answered this, but carrying a weapon is carrying a weapon...
I'm not willing to count on my Jedi powers to protect myself, and, more importantly, the people I love.
And, just cuz, you know, without X-wing fighters and a missle, the whole game woulda been lost...
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:54 PM
Why do they carry light sabers?
Edit - I see you answered this, but carrying a weapon is carrying a weapon...
I'm not willing to count on my Jedi powers to protect myself, and, more importantly, the people I love.
And, just cuz, you know, without X-wing fighters and a missle, the whole game woulda been lost...
The weapon of a jedi. It is an extention of the Jedi. You must weild it in close combat, melee style, as opposed to firing a blaster bolt from the reletive safety of cover. It is also a shield, and one skilled can reflect blaster fire back at an attacker, using opposing forces against their attacker, and remaining at peace. It is also a tool that can get a Jedi thru heavy blast doors, shielding, etc. It is a symbol of status....not everyone can use a lightsaber. ANYONE can wield a blaster or gun.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:57 PM
The weapon of a jedi. It is an extention of the Jedi. You must weild it in close combat, melee style, as opposed to firing a blaster bolt from the reletive safety of cover. It is also a shield, and one skilled can reflect blaster fire back at an attacker, using opposing forces against their attacker, and remaining at peace. It is also a tool that can get a Jedi thru heavy blast doors, shielding, etc. It is a symbol of status....not everyone can use a lightsaber. ANYONE can wield a blaster or gun.
What about people who don't have hands?
WTF?
