• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

tryreading said:
(Above is a PM from texmaster)

I don't do the PM thing. Anything you need to say to me just do it on a thread.
Click to expand...

I already have.

And I'm not embarrassed. Don't know why you think I should be.
Click to expand...

Then take responsibility for your false accusation and stop behaving like a child. You were caught red handed making up a false allegation which was easily disproven. Now man up and admit you were wrong. If you had performed the slightest bit of research you never would have made that accusation. But your avoidance of my arguments proves you haven't the slightest interest in the truth.

Stop running from taking responsibility for your false accusations.

I don't expect you will respond since you've already ducked taking responsibility twice.

Next time if you want to make up allegations, go to the Dungeon. It has no purpose here.
 
Last edited:
tryreading said:
(Above is a PM from texmaster)

I don't do the PM thing. Anything you need to say to me just do it on a thread.

And I'm not embarrassed. Don't know why you think I should be.
Click to expand...

So he devolved from not only throwing his deranged rants around in thread, but to harassing you via PM. Typical.
 
Goobieman said:
Your avoidance of the question is noted.
Click to expand...

So you can't point to a place where this has actually been done. My point stands, no avoidance necessary since you failed to come through with proof of the fantasies you concocted.

Msrriage as a legal institution is a pivilege granted by the laws of a state.
Click to expand...

FALSE. A plethora of legal ruling states otherwise.

If a state repeals those laws, marriage, as a legal institution, ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

If this had ever happened, I would grant you the point. However, it has not and so your point is invalid.

This utterly negates the argument that marriage is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it does in your warped perception. However, the courts disagree with you. Yeah, think I am gonna go with their experienced judgment over yours. Thanks though.
 
texmaster said:
I already have.



Then take responsibility for your false accusation and stop behaving like a child. You were caught red handed making up a false allegation which was easily disproven. Now man up and admit you were wrong. If you had performed the slightest bit of research you never would have made that accusation. But your avoidance of my arguments proves you haven't the slightest interest in the truth.

Stop running from taking responsibility for your false accusations.

I don't expect you will respond since you've already ducked taking responsibility twice.

Next time if you want to make up allegations, go to the Dungeon. It has no purpose here.
Click to expand...


The slightest bit of research:


Calling Jallman a liar:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ew-handgun-restrictions-3.html#post1058834559


Moderator's Warning:
Basement material removed



Calling Toothpicvic a liar:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-heckled-grieving-family.html#post1058390180


Calling Redress a liar:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-theory-over-srebrenica-5.html#post1058631520


Calling Redress a liar again:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-health-care-plan-up-58-a.html#post1058684939


And Redress a third time:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...unding-pet-constituency-4.html#post1058467193


And... Redress a fourth:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-police-tell-military-8.html#post1058627353


Calling the President a liar:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-not-biggest-liar-year-11.html#post1058466649


And PogueMoran:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...sh-and-cheney-do-wrong-12.html#post1058563897


And YourStar:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...cial-studies-curriculum-7.html#post1058764703


And me:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...cial-studies-curriculum-7.html#post1058764787



texmaster said:
Don't make me embarrass you again.
Click to expand...

BwaaaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tryreading said:
The slightest bit of research:

BwaaaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
Click to expand...

You said every thread. I already proved that was a false claim.

My God how pathetic are you? You had to go back nearly a year for some of those statements and even went through the basement to get more LOL

I got news for you. There have been more than 10 threads I've participated in over a year's time :D

You said I claimed someone is a liar in every thread

Just in this first page alone of threads in this forum proved that to a complete fabrication.


Go to first new post Napolitano: ‘You’re Never Going to Totally Seal That Border’

Biden Claims a GOP 'Blitzkrieg'

Not So Neighborly Associations Foreclosing On Homes

Obama says politics to blame for immigration delay

Obama to invest $2 billion in solar power


You also ignored the fact that it was a lie. Typical cowardly tactic and it proved once again you have no interest in the truth or facts, just the 5 year old insults.

If you are going to make moronic and false accusations in the future I suggest you stay in the basement.

Its too easy to embarrass you with the facts.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
You said every thread. I already proved that was a false claim.

Enjoy your fail.

You also ignored the fact that it was a lie. Typical cowardly tactic by you.

If you are going to make moronic and false accusations in the future I suggest you stay in the basement.
Click to expand...

ouch-I heard that smack here in Cincinnati
 
jallman said:
If a state repeals those laws, marriage, as a legal institution, ceases to exist.
Click to expand...
If this had ever happened, I would grant you the point.
Click to expand...
Aha. You thusly admit that a state -can- eliminate marriage as a legal sintitution by simply repealing the laws that created same.
This, alone, negates the argument that marriage is a fundamental right, as a state, thru simply legislation, cannot eliminate any such thing.
Glad you agree with me.


I'm sure it does in your warped perception. However, the courts disagree with you. Yeah, think I am gonna go with their experienced judgment over yours. Thanks though.[/QUOTE]
 
Goobieman said:
Aha. You thusly admit that a state -can- eliminate marriage as a legal sintitution by simply repealing the laws that created same.
Click to expand...

Aha! You clearly can't read because I never stated any such thing.

This, alone, negates the argument that marriage is a fundamental right, as a state, thru simply legislation, cannot eliminate any such thing.
Click to expand...

It might if there were any threat of such a thing happening. However, this is just more of your fantasy life being related to us and nothing more.

Glad you agree with me.
Click to expand...

So tell me something, goob....how did you teach yourself to suspend reality at will? Is it an innate gift you were born with, a genetic disorder, or drugs? I really must know.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Time to talk more about the topic and not so much about each other and your opinions on their honesty or anything else.
 
I thought this thread was about Chicago gun laws? :shrug:
 
jallman said:
Aha! You clearly can't read because I never stated any such thing.
Click to expand...
On the contrary - you agreed that If a state repeals those laws, marriage, as a legal institution, ceases to exist, you would grant me that point.

A state cannot repeal a fundamental right; that a state CAN repeal its marriage laws and eliminate the institution of marriage makes you wrong.

So no, you are still verifiably wrong. That's on you, pal. What do you want me to do?
You're still wrong. Learn to live with it or change.
Look, I didn't make you wrong. You made yourself be wrong. And you keep being committed to being wrong.
Don't worry - I'm not the slightest bit put off by pointing out how wrong you are.
Now note how wrong you are and work to fix it. Be the change you hope for
You're just wrong. So wrong. But it seems you like it that way.
I don't know what you want me to do about you being wrong. If you figure out a plan for remedying the situation, let me know, but until then, you just have to learn to live with being wrong
I admitted that you were wrong, I demonstrated that you were wrong, and offered to help alleviate your affliction. But you must help yourself first.
There's nothing else I can do for you until you want to be right. You have to want it. Right now, you seem content with being wrong. That's your choice

And finally...No need to get all butthurt about it.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
I thought this thread was about Chicago gun laws? :shrug:
Click to expand...
It was... but none of the usual anti-gun loons have any argument to support their like of said laws, so the conversation has moved on.
 
Goobieman said:
On the contrary - you agreed that If a state repeals those laws, marriage, as a legal institution, ceases to exist, you would grant me that point.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I stated that if tha had ever actually happened, you might have a point. Do try to read instead of projecting your warped perceptions onto other's posts.
 
jallman said:
On the contrary, I stated that if tha had ever actually happened, you might have a point. Do try to read instead of projecting your warped perceptions onto other's posts.
Click to expand...

I wish I had something to say so I could start it off with "Ah! On the contrary" and just keep adding to it the more we repeat each other :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
So, let me get this straight.

Arizona is trying to enforce a law that is already on the books, and liberals are up in arms. And Illinois is trying to violate the Constitution and ignore a Supreme Court ruling supporting the Constitution, but that's perfectly cool.

Got it.
 
Erod said:
So, let me get this straight.

Arizona is trying to enforce a law that is already on the books, and liberals are up in arms. And Illinois is trying to violate the Constitution and ignore a Supreme Court ruling supporting the Constitution, but that's perfectly cool.

Got it.
Click to expand...

Pun intended?
 
jallman said:
On the contrary, I stated that if tha had ever actually happened, you might have a point.
Click to expand...
Ah - False premise, that it has to actually happened for my point to be valid.

Fact is, marriage, as a legal institution, exists only becauyse the state created it.
This necessarily means that marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilge. not a right, as rights are not granted by government.

Right now, you seem content with being wrong. That's your choice
No need to get all butthurt about it.
 
Goobieman said:
Per the article:


According to the SCotUS, the right to arms is a fundamental right, proctected by the Constitution.

As such, restrictions on fundamental rights are subjected to a strict scrutiny test to determine of they violate the constitution. Under this test, the restriction is assumned to be unconstitutional until proven otherwise.

For those that support this new law or the things included in it:
Under the terms of strict scrunity, show that these things do not violate the constitution.
Click to expand...


Chicago is going to lose this fight. They need to accept that they are trumped by the 2nd amendment.
 
Goobieman said:
Ah - False premise, that it has to actually happened for my point to be valid.
Click to expand...

No, you are creating a bunch of crap that's never actually going to happen. The premise that's faulty is yours, all your bravado about other's being wrong aside.

Look, goobie, you create these false assertions and then croon and strut like you've accomplished something. Why don't you try actually debating a topic sometime instead of posturing and acting foolish? You might actually learn something.
 
jallman said:
No, you are creating a bunch of crap that's never actually going to happen.
Click to expand...
This is an irrelevant, meaningless dodge.

Fact is, marriage, as a legal institution, exists only because the state created it.
This necessarily means that marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilge. not a right, as rights are not granted by government.

Look, goobie, you create these false assertions
Click to expand...
Show that this is "false assertion".

then croon and strut like you've accomplished something
Click to expand...
Right now, all you're doing is whatever you think you can do to avoid having to admit you're wrong.
As you say - don't get all butthurt about it. Man up, admit you're wrong, and move on.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
This is an irrelevant, meaningless dodge.
Click to expand...

"Blah blah blah <insert random spewing of more bull****> blah blah blah <mindlessly stick to the same failed argument you couldn't prove the first time> blah blah blah <strut and preen about winning the internetz>"

Yep, same goober I keep on ignore for months at a time. One day I will learn not to reverse that decision. :lol:
 
Vader said:
Chicago is going to lose this fight. They need to accept that they are trumped by the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

I wish losing would have more severe consequences-such as Mayor Daley and his goons being tried for treason
 
jallman said:
"Blah blah blah <insert random spewing of more bull****> blah blah blah <mindlessly stick to the same failed argument you couldn't prove the first time> blah blah blah <strut and preen about winning the internetz>"
Click to expand...
I'm sorry...

You said:
Look, goobie, you create these false assertions
Click to expand...

My assertion:
Fact is, marriage, as a legal institution, exists only because the state created it.
This necessarily means that marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilge. not a right, as rights are not granted by government.
Click to expand...
Now, don't scamper away like you usually do, tears flowing down your face and snot running from your nose - man up show that my assertion is false.

Not than you can...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom