At least you got closer to almost being correct than the AC above, who claimed it was Fox News. Unfortunately, you are still wrong on the main aspect of your post.
The graphic you are trying to refer to did not advocate for shooting anyone. The 'gun targets' people refer to weren't gun targets. Anyone who isn't a biased moron could see what the graphic actually was.
Here's a fun idea: Print out the graphic (it isn't hard to find) and bring it to a liberal doctor. Ask them what they see in it, not just what they think it means.
I guess we've forgotten that it wasn't Fox News, and the graphic wasn't suggesting anyone be shot, and that the person who fired the gun was a left wing nut job who didn't watch political/news shows anyway so never saw the graphic you are attempting to refer to.
You obviously don't listen to the talk radio hosts. You hear what liberal sites claim the talk radio hosts say. There isn't a single one who would support killing political opponents, whether they are democrats or republicans.
According to that, you would have been happy if Barrack Obama had been assassinated before he took office, since he was also against same sex marriage.
Come to think of it, so was Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton. Most Democrats were against it, so why not wish death on them as well?
I think you might be wandering into the realm of hyperbole here. I mean sure, his character could be cruel sometimes, but not always. Often, it was done in good fun. And it was obvious that in his heart, he believed that he was doing what he thought was best for everyone, in the long run.
And besides, how evil is it, really, to trick people into saying the magic word? And it isn't like his chair was actually eating anyone.
Wait, which one were we talking about again?
OK, you got me with that one. I started to think maybe I should have watched The Apprentice, it seems really more interesting than I thought.
P.S. You might want to read the new testament again. And this time, pay attention.
Like most people, he wants to focus on the soundbites.
Do you realize the Pee Wee Herman is just a character? That Paul Reubens made up the character to entertain people? That Paul Reubens is actually acting a part when playing Pee Wee Herman?
These seem obvious questions, but your focusing on the persona of a host of a TV show, rather than the guy playing the part, says that you don't get that distinction.
It's funny you mention the welfare queen states of the south. They got that way when the democrats were in charge. Those states' representatives and senators were in power so long in Congress, they sent as much pork as they could back home. So now there are many federal facilities, military bases, and so on that funnel that federal money to the states liberals hate the most. Blame it all on the democrats.
I always love seeing a line like that. As if Trump is only famous because he was on a TV show for a season or two. That's all we know him from, so what a loser he must be. He's practically a Kardasian.
You guys are so cute when you're blitheringly angry.
I didn't even vote for him and I'm sick of the left's raving obsession with him!
I'm just curious why the Democrats are so upset that a lifelong Democrat got elected instead of someone whose career highlight is "kicked off of Watergate prosecution team for extreme dishonesty."
Don't forget, she also slept with Monica's boyfriend. Or claims to have, anyway.
People lived on the edge of the desert thousands of years ago[38] since the last ice age. The Sahara was then a much wetter place than it is today. Over 30,000 petroglyphs of river animals such as crocodiles[39] survive, with half found in the Tassili n'Ajjer in southeast Algeria. Fossils of dinosaurs, including Afrovenator, Jobaria and Ouranosaurus, have also been found here. The modern Sahara, though, is not lush in vegetation, except in the Nile Valley, at a few oases, and in the northern highlands, where Mediterranean plants such as the olive tree are found to grow. It was long believed that the region had been this way since about 1600 BCE, after shifts in the Earth's axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, which led to the abrupt desertification of North Africa about 5,400 years ago.[40] However, this theory has recently been called into dispute, when samples taken from several 7 million year old sand deposits led scientists to reconsider the timeline for desertification.[41]
I took it to mean that some areas may have been desert for quite some time, but those were low-precipitation areas in a large region that had adequate rainfall to sustain those plants and creatures. That certainly seems to be what it claims, but I of course can't verify those claims. It's entirely possible the whole region was desert for millions of years, as the last quoted sentence alludes.
Why on earth would you put countries in quotes except to be a condescending prick?
How about to draw attention to the fact that is what the poster he responded to said. As opposed to just using the word as part of his thought without it having been used, as he did with "capitalists" and "battery".
That is the usual reason you quote someone else's exact wording in a response.
Because the document is really nothing more than all the bogus stories that have been printed and reported since the election. There is no actual evidence of the claims they make, other than a possible IP address. Everything else is supposition based on "We know the Ruskies were in on it, somehow.".
Slashdot Mirror
At least you got closer to almost being correct than the AC above, who claimed it was Fox News. Unfortunately, you are still wrong on the main aspect of your post.
The graphic you are trying to refer to did not advocate for shooting anyone. The 'gun targets' people refer to weren't gun targets. Anyone who isn't a biased moron could see what the graphic actually was.
Here's a fun idea: Print out the graphic (it isn't hard to find) and bring it to a liberal doctor. Ask them what they see in it, not just what they think it means.
I guess we've forgotten that it wasn't Fox News, and the graphic wasn't suggesting anyone be shot, and that the person who fired the gun was a left wing nut job who didn't watch political/news shows anyway so never saw the graphic you are attempting to refer to.
Other than that, you are spot on.
You obviously don't listen to the talk radio hosts. You hear what liberal sites claim the talk radio hosts say. There isn't a single one who would support killing political opponents, whether they are democrats or republicans.
According to that, you would have been happy if Barrack Obama had been assassinated before he took office, since he was also against same sex marriage.
Come to think of it, so was Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton. Most Democrats were against it, so why not wish death on them as well?
I think you might be wandering into the realm of hyperbole here. I mean sure, his character could be cruel sometimes, but not always. Often, it was done in good fun. And it was obvious that in his heart, he believed that he was doing what he thought was best for everyone, in the long run.
And besides, how evil is it, really, to trick people into saying the magic word? And it isn't like his chair was actually eating anyone.
Wait, which one were we talking about again?
OK, you got me with that one. I started to think maybe I should have watched The Apprentice, it seems really more interesting than I thought.
P.S. You might want to read the new testament again. And this time, pay attention.
Like most people, he wants to focus on the soundbites.
Do you realize the Pee Wee Herman is just a character? That Paul Reubens made up the character to entertain people? That Paul Reubens is actually acting a part when playing Pee Wee Herman?
These seem obvious questions, but your focusing on the persona of a host of a TV show, rather than the guy playing the part, says that you don't get that distinction.
What? You're claiming Hillary is a Republican now? Tell me it isn't so.
By the way - correctly describing history isn't pointing a finger.
It's funny you mention the welfare queen states of the south. They got that way when the democrats were in charge. Those states' representatives and senators were in power so long in Congress, they sent as much pork as they could back home. So now there are many federal facilities, military bases, and so on that funnel that federal money to the states liberals hate the most. Blame it all on the democrats.
Good. Cram all the democrat politicians into one or two small areas, and leave the rest of the country for the adults who have work to do.
The guy that let Obama get everything he ever asked for?
Thank you for reiterating my point.
Like the new kids remember Clippy.
Trump is a b-list celebrity...
I always love seeing a line like that. As if Trump is only famous because he was on a TV show for a season or two. That's all we know him from, so what a loser he must be. He's practically a Kardasian.
You guys are so cute when you're blitheringly angry.
I didn't even vote for him and I'm sick of the left's raving obsession with him!
I'm just curious why the Democrats are so upset that a lifelong Democrat got elected instead of someone whose career highlight is "kicked off of Watergate prosecution team for extreme dishonesty."
Don't forget, she also slept with Monica's boyfriend. Or claims to have, anyway.
Does that recur to the third degree?
Hey, I just replaced a computer/media player at a Nordstrom last month. Is that close enough?
I was basing my comment on the Wikipedia entry:
People lived on the edge of the desert thousands of years ago[38] since the last ice age. The Sahara was then a much wetter place than it is today. Over 30,000 petroglyphs of river animals such as crocodiles[39] survive, with half found in the Tassili n'Ajjer in southeast Algeria. Fossils of dinosaurs, including Afrovenator, Jobaria and Ouranosaurus, have also been found here. The modern Sahara, though, is not lush in vegetation, except in the Nile Valley, at a few oases, and in the northern highlands, where Mediterranean plants such as the olive tree are found to grow. It was long believed that the region had been this way since about 1600 BCE, after shifts in the Earth's axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, which led to the abrupt desertification of North Africa about 5,400 years ago.[40] However, this theory has recently been called into dispute, when samples taken from several 7 million year old sand deposits led scientists to reconsider the timeline for desertification.[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I took it to mean that some areas may have been desert for quite some time, but those were low-precipitation areas in a large region that had adequate rainfall to sustain those plants and creatures. That certainly seems to be what it claims, but I of course can't verify those claims. It's entirely possible the whole region was desert for millions of years, as the last quoted sentence alludes.
Thank you for the link.
How else would they be able to buy Teslas in those countries?
It was his money, until you stole it.
Why on earth would you put countries in quotes except to be a condescending prick?
How about to draw attention to the fact that is what the poster he responded to said. As opposed to just using the word as part of his thought without it having been used, as he did with "capitalists" and "battery".
That is the usual reason you quote someone else's exact wording in a response.
He didn't say he was a young child watching it.
Because the document is really nothing more than all the bogus stories that have been printed and reported since the election. There is no actual evidence of the claims they make, other than a possible IP address. Everything else is supposition based on "We know the Ruskies were in on it, somehow.".
Thank you! I will print it out right now and put it on my favorite suit. :^P
Go ahead. Mod a pointless post down to oblivion. As I said, it keeps the idiots from modding the important topics.
As for being a "dickhead", I'm not the one wasting mod points over a post that basically says "I don't use Apple products, and ignore Apple stories."
Ha Ha Ha Ha. Great joke.
Oh, you were serious?