Go to hell whitlock.

[A Salt Weapon]

Yes I am a noob here, but after hearing that whitlock just blamed Belcher and his girlfriends death on lack of more restrictive gun laws.
You are a true classless piece of shit, using this incident to push your anti-bill of rights agenda, **** you.
Posted via Mobile Device

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Im too young to remember the Post's editorializing about Nixon, I do apologize. What I do know is the NY Times is not the 'premiere' newspaper in the world. It follows a left leaning narrative and steadfastly remains committed to it. All of their coverage comes from one point of view. If that's your point of view, well then, bully for you.

No.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

And yet, so few are.

Because we live in a culture that recoils at common sense and acting like adults.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

What newspaper do you like?

Well, none of them, frankly. They're all dinosaurs looking for a ****ing tar pit to die in. One the rare occasion that I buy one, it's generally the Chicago Sun Times. Not quite as filled with liberal idiocy as the Tribune, and a couple of their columnists are actually sane.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Nah. I think it just comes natural to you.

Don't know what me and my kind are trying to destroy, but hey.

Nor will you, until it's too late.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Because we live in a culture that recoils at common sense and acting like adults.

I think it's because whatever you believe, there is an American citizen who believes the opposite, and his/her opinion holds just as much validity. I think arguing over the philosophical, ethical, and logistical merits of a constitutional law is very adult. Doing what you're told simply because you're told to is not.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by frazod

Nor will you, until it's too late.

Ah, the requisite "America was better before ______." argument.

[mlyonsd]

Whitlock, Costas, Lupica. Did they all email each other and get on the same message?

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

In all honesty... probably not. I'm no expert on gun control laws, as I'm sure most of you are more than ready to tell me.

I would love to find a solution and frankly I don't think anything I've offered up really counts. But I do think that the first step towards finding one is admitting we need one. And here we have a log jam, as gun...I don't know...enthusiasts?...refuse to acknowledge that handguns and gun violence are a real thing and an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

They aren't the most important topic, it's not the most pressing topic, but the way it is now I just don't think is conducive to the safest, healthiest society possible. How do we get there? I have no idea, which is why I don't fight for gun control laws. But I do believe that some measure of gun control is necessary.

Does that seem reasonable at all?

At the expense of seeming unreasonable when you are at least trying to be; no, it does not seem reasonable at all. Gun laws ONLY affect those who obey laws. I'm sorry but, there is NOTHING reasonable about gun control.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by frazod

Well, none of them, frankly. They're all dinosaurs looking for a ****ing tar pit to die in. One the rare occasion that I buy one, it's generally the Chicago Sun Times. Not quite as filled with liberal idiocy as the Tribune, and a couple of their columnists are actually sane.

From where do you get your news?

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

At the expense of seeming unreasonable when you are at least trying to be; no, it does not seem reasonable at all. Gun laws ONLY affect those who obey laws. I'm sorry but, there is NOTHING reasonable about gun control.

I actually meant, "does it seem reasonable for me to feel that way, even though I'm not sure we can do anything about it?"

Not, "does that level of gun control seem reasonable."

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

I think it's because whatever you believe, there is an American citizen who believes the opposite, and his/her opinion holds just as much validity. I think arguing over the philosophical, ethical, and logistical merits of a constitutional law is very adult. Doing what you're told simply because you're told to is not.

Maybe we have a differing understanding of common sense...common sense does not allow for two diametrically opposing views. One is correct and one is not.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Im too young to remember the Post's editorializing about Nixon, I do apologize. What I do know is the NY Times is not the 'premiere' newspaper in the world. It follows a left leaning narrative and steadfastly remains committed to it. All of their coverage comes from one point of view. If that's your point of view, well then, bully for you.

I just saw this word.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

I have been nothing but cordial and respectful while offering my opinions here, save one wisecrack about Alaska, and you jumped on it like a fat chick on the last slice of pizza.

You are right I did jump on your post... but in all fairness it was an awful, misleading lie. Misrepresenting "facts" in this way is a major major pet peeve of mine. Which as I have stated, happens far too often in the media these days (both sides).

I am still at a loss for why you thought it justified or appropriate to call me a liar for telling you that I had already read the articles in question and many more asserting the same garbage talking points.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by frazod

Nor will you, until it's too late.

Not trying to destroy anything to my knowledge.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

I just saw this word.

You dont think NYT editorializes, then I give you same...