News:
SMF - Just Installed!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
Posted by Anonymous
- May 05, 2016, 07:26:48 PMWhy is this thread in the reject pile?Quote from: "Renee"
The choice (by the original poster) turned out to be prescient.
Posted by easter bunny
- May 05, 2016, 02:26:32 AMI don't even know wtf a Breitbart is...Quote from: "cc la femme"
Well,
Posted by RW
- May 05, 2016, 02:22:15 AMMic drop for cc!
Posted by cc
- May 05, 2016, 02:09:03 AMYET AGAIN,
I don't even know wtf a Breitbart is because I've never seen one ... so how the fuck could I credit it? ... then I already stated that above
And I should not need to say it all twice ... and never will again
cc out!!!
Posted by RW
- May 05, 2016, 01:24:13 AMPeachy: Wrong AGAIN.Quote from: "cc la femme"
You have fucked up on this very thing so many times before, this may be the last time I will bother to reply to such silliness.
YET AGAIN,I will NOT credit sites that I feel likely did not write the ORIGINAL
Suck it up. Get used to it. Grow up
Whatever a Breitbart is, it ain't my source (see attachment) .. .Now IS IT?...
Yet Again, you are so obsessed that you missed the windmill and got smacked by it. ... If you wish to keep tilting imaginary meaningless windmills on your own, be my guest
Peaches has a valid point here cc. The start of your original post does not come from the Huff Post link, nor the author in said link. It comes from Thomas Williams. What was your source of his words? He writes a very decent rebuttal found on Breitbart.
Posted by The Donald
- May 05, 2016, 12:40:08 AMPosted by Anonymous
- May 04, 2016, 11:07:42 PMPeachy: Wrong AGAIN.Quote from: "cc la femme"
...
Yet Again, you are so obsessed that you missed the windmill and got smacked by it. ... If you wish to keep tilting imaginary windmills on your own, be my guest
I haven't missed anything, you goose. Nor have I been smacked.
This is the third or fourth time I've busted your chops for posting someone else's words as though they were your own. My first week here I had three or four posters, including you, up my ass for supposedly doing the same thing. I include your pal Herman in that list.
You are perfectly at liberty to keep doing it, and indeed it appears to be a life style for you. And I'm at liberty to point it out every time. In this case, I even told you whose words you had swiped.
And you have the nerve to claim they aren't his words because you don't trust the site and you saw the words elsewhere? You can argue with me about where, and I'll be happy to deconstruct the matter for you. But unless you credit an actual source, or at the very least make it clear you copied and pasted...you're a thief.
It is classic lib illogicQuote from: "cc la femme"
So you say, yet no other person I know of has ever attempted to make such a stupid argument (other than this dyslexic kid.) I won't bother to explain what sort of illogic you've shown.
Posted by cc
- May 04, 2016, 09:41:03 PMIt is classic lib illogic
Posted by Renee
- May 04, 2016, 09:35:10 PMPosted by cc
- May 04, 2016, 09:33:18 PMYou have fucked up on this very thing so many times before, this may be the last time I will bother to reply to such silliness.
YET AGAIN,
Suck it up. Get used to it. Grow up
Whatever a Breitbart is, it ain't my source (see attachment) .. .
Yet Again, you are so obsessed that you missed the windmill and got smacked by it. ... If you wish to keep tilting imaginary meaningless windmills on your own, be my guest
Posted by Anonymous
- May 04, 2016, 09:10:31 PMIn a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.Quote from: "cc la femme"
From the article .........The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.Quote
Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights
.........http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html"> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html Sorry - I just thought this was funny - If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that's because it is
It is for sure.
Posted by Twenty Dollars
- May 04, 2016, 07:41:24 PM
Posted by Anonymous
- May 04, 2016, 06:47:52 PMIn a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.Quote from: "cc la femme"
From the article .........The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.Quote
Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights
.........http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html"> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html Sorry - I just thought this was funny - If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that's because it is
Well, it IS funny. It's goofy, in fact.
But wait...from HuffPo's site:
Justin Curmi is a graduate from Baruch College in Manhattan, New York. He received his Bachelor's degree in Philosophy and Political Science. His college career was a battle due to personal battles with dyslexia. These battles have forced him to learn how to teach himself difficult subject matters without help. Through anguish and painful moments, he has overcome major hurdles that dyslexical presented to him. Now, he is looking towards unorthodox thoughts and methods to analyze political matters. His thoughts can be viewed on his blog, My Head Hurts,Quote
Evidently his presence on the HuffPo staff is either a joke or some sort of ridiculous "inclusiveness" gesture.
But also....check this quote:
In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.Quote
No, ceec...I'm not quoting YOU. I'm quoting Thomas Williams, who writes for Breitbart and from whom you STOLE the front end of your OP without giving the poor guy any credit.
For shame.
Posted by RW
- May 04, 2016, 05:15:13 PMIn a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.Quote from: "cc la femme"
From the article .........The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.Quote
Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights
.........http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html"> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html Sorry - I just thought this was funny - If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that's because it is
Interesting point in the realm of philosophy of law.
What was the purpose of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment? It was for militia purposes to secure a free state.
There is point to be made about the delivery of justice.
Posted by cc
- May 04, 2016, 02:15:40 PMFrom the article ...
......The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.Quote
Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights
.........