King Kashue

From the quality of Mrs. Thrustin's posts I have to say: Thrustin must be remarkably (and I mean diametrically) different in real life than he is here for him to be able to sustain Her attention and affection

Unless you think every time I've said "I no longer take you seriously" is somehow a specific reference to Honduras, I can't imagine what you think is... In any case, this conversation is coming dangerously close to me treating you like you have any intention other than wasting time, so I'm done...

Interesting that my reference is stale, yet you keep reminding people no only on HCBF, but also that other place. I haven't brought up Honduras since that discussion. The only times I've even mentioned it has been when you have (and you've mentioned it more than once).

You should go spend some time reading up on Honduras, Prince Peanuts. A stale reference to a discussion from months ago, completely and totally unrelated to either the topic of this thread or to my comment, and a discussion in which you maintained a position despite multiple people pointing out issues with your claim (and thus something that belies the very point you're trying to make, i.e., that you do indeed seek serious discussion). Man, every time I think you can't exceed yourself in re-inforcing the caricature you've chosen to become, you surprise me.

And you were blaming Kindness for the current poor state of HCBF. Oh, were you expecting me to take you seriously? Fool me once, shame on me...Fool me forty seven times...uh, won't get fooled again. Why don't you go post a youtube there, Thrustmaker.

Thanks. What do you expect to see different in the fall elections from the 2008 cycle? Different candidates. We also won't be voting for president either, so that's a big difference.

What ramifications do you think this will have? That McCain-Feingold will no longer restrict 1st amendment rights.

By the way, isn't it about time when you accuse me of insulting you, and then when asked to quote the insult, you stop posting? Judging by previous iterations of this nonsense, it seems like we're right around that point...

PhilthyGeezer has more intellectual honesty in his pinky than you'll ever know, though your education and perhaps IQ is superior. You would do well to learn from his example. Interesting, since he and I made the exact same points about gun restrictions in Canada, making mention of the exact same laws, and the exact same reasoning for why your comments weren't applicable.. Yet, in your perception, while we said the same things, he was honest, and I wasn't... Again, not surprising...

My cousin killed himself 15 years ago. Shotgun to the face. I've been there dude, and it wasn't the gun's fault, nor the fact that his dad lived on a farm, had guns to kill coyotes, and is a hunter. He was depressed and didn't want to live. If there hadn't been a gun he'd have found another way. If someone wants to die, they will. If someone wants to kill, they will. Just as a wife who stands up for herself doesn't turn her otherwise good husband into an abuser, a gun doesn't turn someone suicidal.

There were three whole pages of assumptions and conclusions reached with no data cited whatsoever. Yes, they were your posts. Where were you then? With Geezer, quoting Canadian law to rebut your unsubstantiated claims.

Dissenting opinion should be treated more respectfully. Opinions deserve the respect their evidence demands. You've provided none, and when challenged, you evade. You also have not addressed the points made by others. Why should people treat your opinions with respect when you do not do the same for them? George has provided no rebuttals, yet he claims to have "shot me down" so many times. C'mon mr. intellect - if you're so honest, why won't you call that out? Is it my job to police George for you? If his claim is false, demonstrate it to be false. If your claim is true, demonstrate it to be true. It's not my job to keep George from "being mean to you"... Oh - that's right - because his position agrees with your own. No, it's because I don't take anything he says seriously. His behavior is generally little better than yours (and sometimes worse). And no, his position does not agree with mine. You sir are intellectually dishonest and biased. Everyone is biased. It's the person who claims they're not who's being dishonest. And "disagreeing with Wade" is not tantamount to "Intellectual dishonesty", especially when you're going on one of your polemical rants. You've made numerous claims that I've personally insulted you, yet have never actually pointed out the insult...And I'm dishonest? You've misrepresented the content of our discussions, and when the actual posts are quoted, you abandon your claims without any statement of apology...And I'm dishonest? Even in this thread you can't maintain one version of your own posts, flitting between two positions...and I'm dishonest? You evidently are unclear as to the meaning of the word.

Well, consider that one month ago my sister in law had her head blown off by her nutjob ex husband. Consider that my cousin blew his head off due to easy access to his father's gun. Consider that my old man was killed by a gunshot to the head. Consider that there are people out there GRIEVING, suffering terrible loss, at the hands of some asshole who had easy access to a weapon. Why don't you go to one of those funerals and preach your rah rah rah ideology - see how that goes over. No offense, but all of that just proves you're not the one being rational here. You're the one obviously influenced by emotionally traumatic experiences. It's fine to base your opinions on such events, many people would given similar circumstances. But to hold yourself up as a paragon of dispassionate and unbiased reason, and then to declaim everyone else as emotionally-driven troglodytes, when that's obviously not the case is going to get you exactly where you currently are...dismissed by nearly everyone...

Look man, we can {censored}ing have a respectful discussion or this goddamn thread should be locked. Seems like everyone else is conversing with each other without issue. And yet everyone seems to have a problem with your posts. The problem must be everyone else, right?

What is your point? That the city of LA is representative of other cities? My point is what I explicitly said: That you claim there is no smuggling of weapons and that illegal weapons come from legal owners is demonstrably and dramatically false. For someone who seems to champion intellectual honesty, you sure do resort to some sleight of hand to try and make your point. Yeah, all that direct rebuttal sure is confusing...not for most folks, of course...but yeah... I'm the only mutha {censored}er on this board that doesn't give a {censored} about social acceptance it seems - when the circle jerk starts you fall right in line with the populist opinion. A little intellectual honesty, giving equal consideration to opposing viewpoints would be a refreshing change of pace and quite frankly educational; yet you seem to prefer the relative saftey of the reigning majority. Once again, you make your points without a single shred of evidence in support, then you either misunderstand or misrepresent other people's arguments, then you proceed in polemic against points that were never made, while ignoring those that were... And, as usual, you have the gall to accuse others of poor argumentation and intellectual dishonesty... At least it's no longer surprising.