|
|
On October 27 2012 07:42 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 07:34 Lmui wrote:On October 27 2012 07:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:00 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 06:57 farvacola wrote:On October 27 2012 06:55 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 06:52 Doublemint wrote:
[quote]
This is a very special and sensitive topic in the states - we get it. But don't call everyone else calling for gun control a totalitarian.
And how would you describe what is happening in Libya - what is happening there regarding guns and what wording is necessary to not hurt "gun lover's" feelings?
Gun control is totalitarian anywhere it is implemented, not just in America. You've been raised in Europe, where the people have been stripped of this right (and many other rights as well). Your governments and your media have been trying to brainwash you into thinking that guns are evil and that people shouldn't have civil liberties. Just because your government says "you don't have any rights" doesn't mean that your government is correct. Our rights come from nature, not from governments. Nature gave me the right to violently murder those I disagree with. Who is the government to infringe upon such things? Right to Bear Arms /=/ Right to Violently Murder Those Who Disagree With You Who says so? nature? or we as human beings. How in the world does having the right to defend yourself equate with the right to violently murdering anyone who disagrees with you? If you kill someone unprovoked, you're violating their right to life and shall be tried for such an offense. Does Nature try me for that offense or does a human court do so? If its a Human court then it is a human right or one from nature? A human court. Humans are animals, we're part of nature and we, as natural beings, punish those who violate the rights of others. User was temp banned for this post. Sorta surprised it took this long, honestly though, I would've loved for it to have been a 11 day ban, until dec 7th after the election's over. Among all the silly things why did he get banned for that post?
From the first TL Commandment: "If we don't like you, we simply ban you." I think the post itself had little to do with it.
Edit: sorry for double post below.
|
On October 27 2012 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 07:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:00 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 06:57 farvacola wrote:On October 27 2012 06:55 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 06:52 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2012 06:48 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Please, just hear me out. By definition, supporting gun control is totalitarian, therefore advocating for it is advocating for totalitarianism. This is a very special and sensitive topic in the states - we get it. But don't call everyone else calling for gun control a totalitarian. And how would you describe what is happening in Libya - what is happening there regarding guns and what wording is necessary to not hurt "gun lover's" feelings? Gun control is totalitarian anywhere it is implemented, not just in America. You've been raised in Europe, where the people have been stripped of this right (and many other rights as well). Your governments and your media have been trying to brainwash you into thinking that guns are evil and that people shouldn't have civil liberties. Just because your government says "you don't have any rights" doesn't mean that your government is correct. Our rights come from nature, not from governments. Nature gave me the right to violently murder those I disagree with. Who is the government to infringe upon such things? Right to Bear Arms /=/ Right to Violently Murder Those Who Disagree With You Who says so? nature? or we as human beings. How in the world does having the right to defend yourself equate with the right to violently murdering anyone who disagrees with you? If you kill someone unprovoked, you're violating their right to life and shall be tried for such an offense. Does Nature try me for that offense or does a human court do so? If its a Human court then it is a human right or one from nature? A human court. Humans are animals, we're part of nature and we, as natural beings, punish those who violate the rights of others. If an Animal kills another for fun does he get tried in the Animal court?
I think you are confusing natural law here. Natural law does not mean law as in a court of law where people are punished. Natural law is simply an argument for a specific kind of morality derived from humans within nature, as Swazi stated.
Natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Therefore, Swazi's statement that humans as part of nature determine what natural law is, is correct.
Natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation. This is an extremely important distinction to make, and it's why you are getting caught up in the "judicial/court recognition" as an argument against natural law when in fact you are trying to compare legal power with a proposed moral system.
You are effectively advocating a "might makes right" sort of morality, which is certainly a viable perspective as well. But someone who adheres to the idea of natural law will of course view this philosophy as "totalitarian."
Hope that clarified things a bit. Note that I am not expressing my own views on the matter here, so don't attack me. 
|
On October 27 2012 07:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 07:42 Feartheguru wrote:On October 27 2012 07:34 Lmui wrote:On October 27 2012 07:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:00 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 06:57 farvacola wrote:On October 27 2012 06:55 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Gun control is totalitarian anywhere it is implemented, not just in America. You've been raised in Europe, where the people have been stripped of this right (and many other rights as well). Your governments and your media have been trying to brainwash you into thinking that guns are evil and that people shouldn't have civil liberties. Just because your government says "you don't have any rights" doesn't mean that your government is correct. Our rights come from nature, not from governments. Nature gave me the right to violently murder those I disagree with. Who is the government to infringe upon such things? Right to Bear Arms /=/ Right to Violently Murder Those Who Disagree With You Who says so? nature? or we as human beings. How in the world does having the right to defend yourself equate with the right to violently murdering anyone who disagrees with you? If you kill someone unprovoked, you're violating their right to life and shall be tried for such an offense. Does Nature try me for that offense or does a human court do so? If its a Human court then it is a human right or one from nature? A human court. Humans are animals, we're part of nature and we, as natural beings, punish those who violate the rights of others. User was temp banned for this post. Sorta surprised it took this long, honestly though, I would've loved for it to have been a 11 day ban, until dec 7th after the election's over. Among all the silly things why did he get banned for that post? From the first TL Commandment: "If we don't like you, we simply ban you." I think the post itself had little to do with it.
Dude actually didn't bother me. He might have had differing opinions but I don't remember him being a dick about them.
|
Saw this poster today. I'm happy to vote for Gary Johnson rather than waste my vote on two terrible major party candidates.
![[image loading]](http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/58792_10150932807624364_552850071_n.jpg)
|
On October 27 2012 07:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:00 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 06:57 farvacola wrote:On October 27 2012 06:55 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 06:52 Doublemint wrote:
[quote]
This is a very special and sensitive topic in the states - we get it. But don't call everyone else calling for gun control a totalitarian.
And how would you describe what is happening in Libya - what is happening there regarding guns and what wording is necessary to not hurt "gun lover's" feelings?
Gun control is totalitarian anywhere it is implemented, not just in America. You've been raised in Europe, where the people have been stripped of this right (and many other rights as well). Your governments and your media have been trying to brainwash you into thinking that guns are evil and that people shouldn't have civil liberties. Just because your government says "you don't have any rights" doesn't mean that your government is correct. Our rights come from nature, not from governments. Nature gave me the right to violently murder those I disagree with. Who is the government to infringe upon such things? Right to Bear Arms /=/ Right to Violently Murder Those Who Disagree With You Who says so? nature? or we as human beings. How in the world does having the right to defend yourself equate with the right to violently murdering anyone who disagrees with you? If you kill someone unprovoked, you're violating their right to life and shall be tried for such an offense. Does Nature try me for that offense or does a human court do so? If its a Human court then it is a human right or one from nature? A human court. Humans are animals, we're part of nature and we, as natural beings, punish those who violate the rights of others. If an Animal kills another for fun does he get tried in the Animal court? I think you are confusing natural law here. Natural law does not mean law as in a court of law where people are punished. Natural law is simply an argument for a specific kind of morality derived from humans within nature, as Swazi stated. Natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Therefore, Swazi's statement that humans as part of nature determine what natural law is, is correct. Natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation. This is an extremely important distinction to make, and it's why you are getting caught up in the "judicial/court recognition" as an argument against natural law when in fact it says nothing about nature. You are effectively advocating a "might makes right" sort of morality, which is certainly a viable perspective as well. But someone who adheres to the idea of natural law will of course view this philosophy as "totalitarian." Hope that clarified things a bit. Note that I am not expressing my own views on the matter here, so don't attack me.
If I were grading you, I might ask that you alter the syntax a bit the next time you use wikipedia as source material
|
On October 27 2012 07:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 07:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 27 2012 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 07:00 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 06:57 farvacola wrote:On October 27 2012 06:55 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Gun control is totalitarian anywhere it is implemented, not just in America. You've been raised in Europe, where the people have been stripped of this right (and many other rights as well). Your governments and your media have been trying to brainwash you into thinking that guns are evil and that people shouldn't have civil liberties. Just because your government says "you don't have any rights" doesn't mean that your government is correct. Our rights come from nature, not from governments. Nature gave me the right to violently murder those I disagree with. Who is the government to infringe upon such things? Right to Bear Arms /=/ Right to Violently Murder Those Who Disagree With You Who says so? nature? or we as human beings. How in the world does having the right to defend yourself equate with the right to violently murdering anyone who disagrees with you? If you kill someone unprovoked, you're violating their right to life and shall be tried for such an offense. Does Nature try me for that offense or does a human court do so? If its a Human court then it is a human right or one from nature? A human court. Humans are animals, we're part of nature and we, as natural beings, punish those who violate the rights of others. If an Animal kills another for fun does he get tried in the Animal court? I think you are confusing natural law here. Natural law does not mean law as in a court of law where people are punished. Natural law is simply an argument for a specific kind of morality derived from humans within nature, as Swazi stated. Natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Therefore, Swazi's statement that humans as part of nature determine what natural law is, is correct. Natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation. This is an extremely important distinction to make, and it's why you are getting caught up in the "judicial/court recognition" as an argument against natural law when in fact it says nothing about nature. You are effectively advocating a "might makes right" sort of morality, which is certainly a viable perspective as well. But someone who adheres to the idea of natural law will of course view this philosophy as "totalitarian." Hope that clarified things a bit. Note that I am not expressing my own views on the matter here, so don't attack me. If I were grading you, I might ask that you alter the syntax a bit the next time you use wikipedia as source material
Why? To try and hide that I referenced wikipedia? I don't care if people know, I obviously just copy-pasted a couple sentences. It's not like I'm publishing this or taking credit somehow, I'm explaining ideas.
|
![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2012/10/blogs/free-exchange/20121103_woc355.png)
Article here.
Just found this so I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. We discuss what the federal government should / shouldn't do yet we sometimes ignore that different regions have different needs.
|
United States24761 Posts
On October 27 2012 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Article here.Just found this so I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. We discuss what the federal government should / shouldn't do yet we sometimes ignore that different regions have different needs.
This is rather misleading... the pictures show the % change. That's not useless information... but wouldn't it make more sense, for stand alone pictures, to show the actual median incomes instead of changes? What point exactly are you trying to make with those graphics?
|
On October 27 2012 08:37 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Article here.Just found this so I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. We discuss what the federal government should / shouldn't do yet we sometimes ignore that different regions have different needs. This is rather misleading... the pictures show the % change. That's not useless information... but wouldn't it make more sense, for stand alone pictures, to show the actual median incomes instead of changes? What point exactly are you trying to make with those graphics?
I found it pretty interesting that some states have gotten hammered in terms of income while some have seen big gains. If you don't think there's enough info there, just read the article.
As for what would be most useful, that depends on what you are interested in. For example, if someone lives in Michigan the idea that the economy has been on the wrong track for a long time probably resonates very strongly.
|
Hmm, I wonder what characteristics the states that did well/bad share... far I see, its not political affiliation.
|
On October 27 2012 08:37 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Article here.Just found this so I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. We discuss what the federal government should / shouldn't do yet we sometimes ignore that different regions have different needs. This is rather misleading... the pictures show the % change. That's not useless information... but wouldn't it make more sense, for stand alone pictures, to show the actual median incomes instead of changes? What point exactly are you trying to make with those graphics?
I think % change is actually a pretty powerful number for this instance. Prices and wages are sticky, more or less. When you have a high % change in either direction, you're likely to feel it just as much regardless of living expenses. If we showed median income, we'd have to also factor in cost of living adjustments and taxes, which is hard to do and really muddies the numbers overall.
As for the tables themselves, there is a little bit of misleading data. North Dakota went from agriculture to oil and gas virtually overnight. It kind of makes them an outlier.
|
On October 27 2012 09:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
Hmm, I wonder what characteristics the states that did well/bad share... far I see, its not political affiliation.
I'd guess a lot of it comes down to what industries happened to be in those states, and how those industries performed relative to the overall economy. North Dakota had very little for a long time, then they found oil there. Oklahoma and Wyoming also have oil/natural gas.
|
Did not see a thread for this, but I guess it could also fit here:
This is regarding the multiple requests for help during the benghazi attack. 3 Requests for help were sent and all were denied by US-Officials. US citizens were tortured in front of a live cam for hours on end, Chris Stevens and his team went in against orders to save them and were killed 7 hours later by a mortar shell. CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/?intcmp=trending
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/father-seal-killed-in-libya-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/
The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack "are murderers of my son."
Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.
"They refused to pull the trigger," Woods said. "Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son."
Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to "stand up."
Sources also said Tyrone Woods and others, who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate, ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and not go to the consulate to help. Woods went to the consulate, and hours later he was killed back at the annex.
|
On October 27 2012 10:50 DanceSC wrote:Did not see a thread for this, but I guess it could also fit here: This is regarding the multiple requests for help during the benghazi attack. 3 Requests for help were sent and all were denied by US-Officials. US citizens were tortured in front of a live cam for hours on end, Chris Stevens and his team went in against orders to save them and were killed 7 hours later by a mortar shell. CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/?intcmp=trendingShow nested quote +
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/father-seal-killed-in-libya-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/Show nested quote +The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack "are murderers of my son."
Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.
"They refused to pull the trigger," Woods said. "Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son."
Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to "stand up."
Sources also said Tyrone Woods and others, who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate, ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and not go to the consulate to help. Woods went to the consulate, and hours later he was killed back at the annex.
A spectre gunship would level a city block...
|
On October 27 2012 07:58 Voltaire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Saw this poster today. I'm happy to vote for Gary Johnson rather than waste my vote on two terrible major party candidates.
I have that exact same tie. My mom bought it for me one Christmas from Mens Warehouse. Literally the exact tie. Not to be judgemental or anything.
|
On October 27 2012 10:50 DanceSC wrote:Did not see a thread for this, but I guess it could also fit here: This is regarding the multiple requests for help during the benghazi attack. 3 Requests for help were sent and all were denied by US-Officials. US citizens were tortured in front of a live cam for hours on end, Chris Stevens and his team went in against orders to save them and were killed 7 hours later by a mortar shell. CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/?intcmp=trendingShow nested quote +
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/father-seal-killed-in-libya-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/Show nested quote +The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack "are murderers of my son."
Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.
"They refused to pull the trigger," Woods said. "Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son."
Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to "stand up."
Sources also said Tyrone Woods and others, who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate, ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and not go to the consulate to help. Woods went to the consulate, and hours later he was killed back at the annex.
Someone at the white house knew, but Obama & Biden will continue to claim it wasn't them. You can betcha Hillary will tow the line too.
It's old news now. If someone's opinion was gonna be swayed by a poor coverup/response/communication/minor-flub-down-the-line, it's already a part of the polls and imho that's over. For those that don't know about the distraught father and the emails, the only way they'll hear about it would be if Romney runs ads with em.
|
United States24761 Posts
On October 27 2012 12:49 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 07:58 Voltaire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Saw this poster today. I'm happy to vote for Gary Johnson rather than waste my vote on two terrible major party candidates. I have that exact same tie. My mom bought it for me one Christmas from Mens Warehouse. Literally the exact tie. Not to be judgemental or anything.
There's nothing wrong with a candidate wearing something that's sold at Men's Warehouse, in my opinion.
|
On October 27 2012 13:25 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 12:49 Probe1 wrote:On October 27 2012 07:58 Voltaire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Saw this poster today. I'm happy to vote for Gary Johnson rather than waste my vote on two terrible major party candidates. I have that exact same tie. My mom bought it for me one Christmas from Mens Warehouse. Literally the exact tie. Not to be judgemental or anything. There's nothing wrong with a candidate wearing something that's sold at Men's Warehouse, in my opinion.
I mean, he can at least be assured that he'll like the way he looks. They guarantee it.
|
On October 27 2012 13:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 13:25 micronesia wrote:On October 27 2012 12:49 Probe1 wrote:On October 27 2012 07:58 Voltaire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Saw this poster today. I'm happy to vote for Gary Johnson rather than waste my vote on two terrible major party candidates. I have that exact same tie. My mom bought it for me one Christmas from Mens Warehouse. Literally the exact tie. Not to be judgemental or anything. There's nothing wrong with a candidate wearing something that's sold at Men's Warehouse, in my opinion. I mean, he can at least be assured that he'll like the way he looks. They guarantee it.
well done, made me laugh. your post should be read in a raspy stereotypical jewish mans voice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
