poopfacetomatono se

Quakertown, PA

#24 Jan 28, 2013
Cripple...
This is an old question. When someone else brought you the fact that it is an old questions, you immediately went to how easily you though it would be for obama to ask it or how it was differently posed. you only posted it because you thought it was a new question and thought it was somehow groundbreaking. now that someone else has said something about it, you are grasping at straws to keep the same point of view.
CrippleCreek

Quakertown, PA

#25 Jan 28, 2013
Forever wrote:
<quoted text>If you realized you were actually defending things like freedom of speech, you wouldn't regret those 10 years.
He's working on taking that away from you too. That will come after the guns. He already owns the mainstream Press. If you haven't noticed.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#27 Jan 28, 2013
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#28 Jan 28, 2013
OMG wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHA Yeah, whatever! The guy is sitting in the newsroom.
What about the Obama, photoshop? Or can't you see that either?
You truly are a nitwit.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#29 Jan 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
The disturbing thing about this is it's labeled, "Probably" False.
I'd feel better about a less tentative statement from Snopes, wouldn't you?
CrippleCreek

Ypsilanti, MI

#30 Jan 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
This is nothing more than a Snopes opinion. So what.
Anonymous

Quakertown, PA

#31 Jan 28, 2013
Forever wrote:
<quoted text>If you realized you were actually defending things like freedom of speech, you wouldn't regret those 10 years.
Where was "freedom of speech" at Kent State in Ohio when the students were shot down dead for doing nothing more than expressing their free speech in protesting the war in Viet Nam? As another poster said, it's already been done on US soil. Kent State is just one example.
CrippleCreek

Green Bay, WI

#32 Jan 29, 2013
RomeoandJuliet wrote:
<quoted text>
Where was "freedom of speech" at Kent State in Ohio when the students were shot down dead for doing nothing more than expressing their free speech in protesting the war in Viet Nam? As another poster said, it's already been done on US soil. Kent State is just one example.
You have completely missed the point. So Sad.
OMG

Lansdale, PA

#33 Jan 29, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You truly are a nitwit.
And you truly sound like someone I could sell a bridge to if I were a rightwing.
OMG

Lansdale, PA

#34 Jan 29, 2013
CrippleCreek wrote:
<quoted text>
You have completely missed the point. So Sad.
Then what's your point?
Let's not hear some crazy made up story.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#35 Jan 29, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The disturbing thing about this is it's labeled, "Probably" False.
I'd feel better about a less tentative statement from Snopes, wouldn't you?
that is because the guy in the video(who should have a tin foil hat IMO)
does not name any source.
so anyone can say anything.
for example a senior source in a tea party group told a person i know
that the tea party is going to shoot all Democrats.
how would you view that without me giving you the source of that remark?
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#36 Jan 29, 2013
CrippleCreek wrote:
<quoted text>
This is nothing more than a Snopes opinion. So what.
just like the video?
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#37 Jan 29, 2013
OMG wrote:
<quoted text>And you truly sound like someone I could sell a bridge to if I were a rightwing.
Then you don't know me. I'm not buying what anyone's selling until I look into it first. Can you say the same? Do you take the time to look at both sides of an issue before you weigh in? I don't think so, your reactions are generally knee-jerk cheap shots and not points of discussion.

You remind me of someone who used to post under the moniker, "Notoorangemen." His lazy way of commenting embarrassed him enough that he quit posting or changed his moniker. Anytime you want to have a real discussion on issues, let me know. Otherwise, you're no different and will eventually embarrass yourself also.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#38 Jan 29, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
that is because the guy in the video(who should have a tin foil hat IMO)
does not name any source.
so anyone can say anything.
for example a senior source in a tea party group told a person i know
that the tea party is going to shoot all Democrats.
how would you view that without me giving you the source of that remark?
I think I would say it was "false" just on the face of it. I'm not commenting on the credibility of the guy in the video (which I have not yet seen, btw), I just think the words "probably false" leave some room for the possibility that what was said is true. It's safe to say that "The 'Tea Party' is going to shoot all Democrats" would be judged by Snopes to be categorically false.
OMG

Lansdale, PA

#39 Jan 29, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you don't know me. I'm not buying what anyone's selling until I look into it first. Can you say the same? Do you take the time to look at both sides of an issue before you weigh in? I don't think so, your reactions are generally knee-jerk cheap shots and not points of discussion.
You remind me of someone who used to post under the moniker, "Notoorangemen." His lazy way of commenting embarrassed him enough that he quit posting or changed his moniker. Anytime you want to have a real discussion on issues, let me know. Otherwise, you're no different and will eventually embarrass yourself also.
Embarrass myself? Everyone on here should be embarrassed if that were the case. When Topix makes us use our real names then I will be worried about being embarrassed,and most likely not post and you will not either.
To take this and your opinions serious would be a joke. I'm sorry if I've offended you since you found it a reason to call names.(That apology shouldn't matter to you, because it means nothing).
Anonymous is the reason most post, whether it be knee jerk or not.
For Now

Hatfield, PA

#40 Jan 29, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I would say it was "false" just on the face of it. I'm not commenting on the credibility of the guy in the video (which I have not yet seen, btw), I just think the words "probably false" leave some room for the possibility that what was said is true. It's safe to say that "The 'Tea Party' is going to shoot all Democrats" would be judged by Snopes to be categorically false.
I think Snoops is being honest when they use the word “probably”. They went on to say:
1. The only supporting evidence for this claim is a second-hand account from an anonymous source.
2. Not a single reputable news outlet has reported any such story.
3. Not a single member of the U.S. government or the U.S. military has come forward to confirm the claim.
4. The claim fits a common model of conspiracy theory which has been repeatedly espoused many times over (but has never proved true).
5. The person spreading this warning is promulgating other discredited conspiracy theories, such as the claim that Adam Lanza did not use a version of an AR-15 rifle in the Sandy Hook shootings.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#41 Jan 29, 2013
OMG wrote:
<quoted text>Embarrass myself? Everyone on here should be embarrassed if that were the case. When Topix makes us use our real names then I will be worried about being embarrassed,and most likely not post and you will not either.
To take this and your opinions serious would be a joke. I'm sorry if I've offended you since you found it a reason to call names.(That apology shouldn't matter to you, because it means nothing).
Anonymous is the reason most post, whether it be knee jerk or not.
I don't call anyone a name unless they've disparaged me or someone else. What offends me are people (like you) who use this forum to snipe at people just for expressing an opinion. I can and do have lengthy debates with people who have different views than me without insults or name calling. Being anonymous is no reason to be rude or vile. But if that's how you want to represent yourself, so be it. Like I said, I'm willing to listen to your point of view if you're willing to take the time to listen to mine instead of using snarky one-liners that don't add anything to the discussion.
crackpot alert-

Quakertown, PA

#42 Jan 29, 2013
I watched this video and no sources for the crazy allegation were presented. Just some buffoon still pouting from the last election
OMG

Lansdale, PA

#43 Jan 31, 2013
Interesting slant on things AMERICA'S HUNTERS --- Pretty Amazing!

The world's largest army... America's hunters!
I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin.
Allow me to restate that number: 600,000
Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in
the world.
More men under arms than in Iran.
More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with
firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign (OR domestic) invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

**********
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...

What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

(I FEEL GOOD THAT WE HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)

For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

dbar

Perkasie, PA

#44 Jan 31, 2013
OMG wrote:
Interesting slant on things AMERICA'S HUNTERS --- Pretty Amazing!
The world's largest army... America's hunters!
I had never thought about this...
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin.
Allow me to restate that number: 600,000
Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in
the world.
More men under arms than in Iran.
More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with
firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.
The point?
America will forever be safe from foreign (OR domestic) invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
**********
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.
Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???
(I FEEL GOOD THAT WE HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)
For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.
yet

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Two-Hunte...

http://www.nbc26.com/news/179963801.html

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand...

and the rifles used must have a barrel length of 18 inches.
so a bushmaster assault rifle is not allowed.

but to your main point yep you got a lot of people so restricting assault rifles would have no effect on your army.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where is best place to get prom dress alterations? 9 hr Amy 1
The New Quakertown Park 22 hr HC Resident 10
Is God Real? (Mar '13) Tue Dave 276
local raw honey on 663 (May '14) Mon In the Know 36
Pot Holes & Road Conditions Mar 29 PA Gas Tax 12
Where's George from the Post Office? (Aug '13) Mar 28 Roscoe 137
Review: Milford Veterinary Clinic - Kathy L Jam... (Sep '09) Mar 27 Richland Resident 288
Coopersburg Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Coopersburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]