Well, I did, but I seem to have left it on your mother’s nightstand. Remember me to her when next you speak, won’t you?
Missed it behind her dentures again, huh, RNATB? Tsk, tsk.
She’s been trying to convince me she’d been visited by a dark stranger with no penis—and here I thought it was just dementia!
I’m trying to save lives, you are politically ambivalent.
I say the first step is to repeal the draconian concealed carry policy that has infected this country with fear, terrorism, and lawlessness. Your concealed carry policy has done nothing but escalate violence and terrorize society by infringing upon the common liberty and safety of the people and intrinsically making a native, unsafe and deadly, handgun rich, environment.
MY concealed carry policy? So are you advocating a “open carry only” policy, or a “no carry at all” policy, or what?
How do you cope with the numbers that, while not as statistically rigorous as we’d like, imply that concealed-carry permit holders are at most equally likely to be felons as the general populace (including children, I might add, who aren’t routinely committing felonies).
You should be able to provide documentation for that particular anal nugget simply by citing the relevant crime statistics. Hint: what you’ll need to show us is an increase in gun-related crime in areas that legalized concealed carry.
I won’t bother waiting around for you to do that since I know in advance that the figures show exactly the opposite. I suspect you knew that too; but you have decided that your cause has the moral high ground and that lying in its service is no sin.
I suspect that you don’t “know” that too confidently or you would have provided the documentation to cap off your zinger.
FO. He’s the guy making the claims, he’s the one needs to back them up. I am simply stating in advance that I happen to know his claim is spurious. The data in question has been cited in just about every gun control thread this board has ever had. I’m too lazy to look but it wouldn’t surprise me if it has already been cited in this thread. In any case, he’s a lying sack of shit and he knows it.
No, you made a claim too, that studies show “exactly the opposite” of what he’s saying. I won’t wait around for you to prove it as I know in advance that the figures show mostly ambiguity.
Well, the dementia screws up her word order. She meant to say “dark penis attached to a stranger”.
Ambiguitiy, in this case, being defined as: They don’t show what I want them to show, so I will claim they show nothing.
Your continuing failure to back up your own assertion is somewhat curious.
Raise your hand if you buy what Scumpup’s saying about why he won’t provide a cite.
Indeed. Also, I don’t “want” them to show anything, I was just struck by how confident ScumPup is without actually showing us. Sure “he knows for a fact” but we all have to wait on the other guy he called “cite” on.
You’re Michael Jackson?
Dark, not mottled.
Well, if the penis itself is being distinguished as dark, that seems to suggest that there’s some color variation.
But the real question is, “did it ensue?”
Not that it isn’t a fascinating subject in its own right, but I wonder if the thematic drift from “rootin’ tootin’ soccer mom plugged between the eyes with hubby’s hot lead” into speculation over the late Mr. Jackson’s chiaroscuro genitalia might not indicate that this thread has outlived its usefulness.
I submit that no thread could possibly offer as much utility as one in which the subject of Michael Jackson’s Amazing Technicolor Penis is discussed.
May they both rest in peace.