#24 Jan 28, 2013
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.
#25 Jan 28, 2013
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.
#27 Jan 28, 2013
#28 Jan 28, 2013
You truly are a nitwit.
#29 Jan 28, 2013
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?
#30 Jan 28, 2013
This is nothing more than a Snopes opinion. So what.
#31 Jan 28, 2013
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.
#32 Jan 29, 2013
You have completely missed the point. So Sad.
#33 Jan 29, 2013
And you truly sound like someone I could sell a bridge to if I were a rightwing.
#34 Jan 29, 2013
Then what's your point?
Let's not hear some crazy made up story.
#35 Jan 29, 2013
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?
#36 Jan 29, 2013
just like the video?
#37 Jan 29, 2013
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.
#38 Jan 29, 2013
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.
#39 Jan 29, 2013
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.
#40 Jan 29, 2013
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.
#41 Jan 29, 2013
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.
#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
#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
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.
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.
#44 Jan 31, 2013
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.
Add your comments below
|How many WOMEN use a vibrator (Apr '12)||1 hr||carebear||23|
|Quakertown Area Restaurant Review: McCoole's R... (Jul '08)||2 hr||Snowman||310|
|who are the stupid people who voted for obama (Sep '12)||2 hr||Gonz||74|
|public nuisance||13 hr||eleanor lance||3|
|Cold temperatures wreak havoc on Lehigh Valley||Feb '15||darwin||1|
|Raid nets alleged meth lab in Bethlehem home (May '09)||Feb '15||screw 3 diamond||71|
Find what you want!
Search Coopersburg Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC