Originally posted by Blindside12
Coming from the guy who deflects more then Surtur, thats rich Rob. I literally made a thread about Mark Cuban and you decided to talk about Trump, ffs.
My post was actually about Cuban and the topic, your Trumperbrain just assumed I was attacking Trump when I wasn't. That's not my fault; that's on you.
Originally posted by Blindside12
Rob still refuses to answer if Bill Clinton a rapist.I said something about Joe Biden touching girls, he immediately deflected to Trump.
Lol that reminds me, did the weasels ever acknowledge that the whole "people only care when Trump goes after Sessions cuz of the immaturity" thing was nonsense?
Originally posted by Robtard
My post was actually about Cuban and the topic, your Trumperbrain just assumed I was attacking Trump when I wasn't. That's not my fault; that's on you.
Sorry No
Originally posted by Blindside12
Mark has had a bad week, on the same day the NBA fined him $600,000 for being recorded telling his players to lose games. And SI did a article on the rampant toxic workplace at the Mavs corporate office detailing workplace harassment, and sexual harassment and a toxic place for women. So is his 2020 shot gone with the wind?https://www.si.com/nba/2018/02/21/mark-cuban-fined-dallas-mavericks-tanking-comments
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't want Cuban either, but this is hardly a scandal that sinks people. Trump had/has far worse and he won. Trump U were Trump legitimately weaseled thousands of Americans out of money is worse than this.If Cuban is serious about running, this is a minor stain on his name at best.
Originally posted by Surtur
Is Trump the best benchmark to use? Seems like he's an anomaly when it comes to what can be endured when it comes to scandals.
It's in regards to a billionaire with scandals who is considering running; so it's a proper example to show in comparison that a far lesser scandal likely won't sink Cuban's chances.
I don't expect you to accept this, because you're a Trumper and knee-jerk at every conceived slight against the tangerine dream.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's in regards to a billionaire with scandals who is considering running; so it's a proper example to show in comparison that a far lesser scandal likely won't sink Cuban's chances.I don't expect you to accept this, because you're a Trumper and knee-jerk at every conceived slight against the tangerine dream.
^^Love seeing you get triggered. But now I'm wondering if you feel that the reason Trump was able to endure these scandals is because he is a billionaire.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
And yet, banning or regulating anything bar combat knives is nonsensical because many actual legit businesses depend on them. ONLY the military and law enforcement actually NEEDS access to assault weapons for the purposes of their job, and they can obtain government exception for that.What reason does the ordinary civilian have that absolutely requires the use of a fully automatic 7.62mm assault weapon? Are they hunting tanks in the wilderness?
I know why ordinary people need access to steak knives and cleavers. They are used in food preparation, but ASSAULT WEAPONS?! Come on, give me a decent reason Surt. Self defense does not require a 30 round mag you can empty into people in 5 seconds from 200 yards away. That kind of firepower is more likely to be used by the crazies than by people looking to protect themselves.
What mass shootings have been done with a fully automatic weapon?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I'm going to tell you something right now Surt. All I can see in your responses is enough deflection and excuses to fill a landfill. You are NOT addressing a single point directly, and immediately deflect to "but what about this that or another device? Why take our rifles first! Why are you so mean to my rifles!" This is the general characterization of your entire debating style. You need to correct that.
It's not really deflecting to point out what is basically a hypocrisy. What's more, precedent plays a large role in the American legal system. So before anything is ever banned or restricted, it's definitely worth discussing the ways in which the arguments being put forth can apply to other things.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Why does any civilian need an AK-47?
Originally posted by darthgoober
We don't ban things just because we don't feel someone else [b]needs them. No one needs 5 cars, but it's not against the law. No one needs to jump of a perfectly good airplane, but it's not against the law. No one needs 6 kids, but it's not against the law. [/B]
He knows that he can't make a valid argument to get rid of semi-auto rifles, so he's trying to shift the burden to the other side.
Originally posted by darthgooberYeah but a car has a constructive purpose, it transports you to places. For what purpose do people need an AK-47? Do they need to slaughter a platoon of house burgers or what? I genuinely don’t understand
We don't ban things just because we don't feel someone else [b]needs them. No one needs 5 cars, but it's not against the law. No one needs to jump of a perfectly good airplane, but it's not against the law. No one needs 6 kids, but it's not against the law. [/B]
Originally posted by Firefly218
Yeah but a car has a constructive purpose, it transports you to places. For what purpose do people need an AK-47? Do they need to slaughter a platoon of house burgers or what? I genuinely don’t understand