Sorry IB An Idiot and IFFY -- You Lose -- Again

Your lying ass said you were through discussing this issue, and yet your stupid, equivocating-ass starts a new thread on this issue, Speedy. You're a fucking stupid, lying moron, Speedy, and you cannot back-up your lying, accusing absolutes with facts.


So you're going for the reach-around from the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, Speedy?

BTW, Speedy, your thread title was very apropos:

+ 100 ... and your apology is accepted, Speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Back to the ridiculous name-calling again. Can't you come up with something new? Try growing up. Just a little. This new thread was started because conditions had changed -- SCOTUS decided to not review Drake v Jerejian.

Here's a fact:

You wanted SCOTUS to rule that the requirement for CHLS in any state was unconstitutional. Didn't happen. YOU LOST. Get over it. IDIOT.

Back to the ridiculous name-calling again. Can't you come up with something new? Try growing up. Just a little. This new thread was started because conditions had changed -- SCOTUS decided to not review Drake v Jerejian.

Here's a fact:

You wanted SCOTUS to rule that the requirement for CHLS in any state was unconstitutional. Didn't happen. YOU LOST. Get over it. IDIOT. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your "fact" is as bogus as you are stupid, Speedy! Your "fact" is as bogus as your assertion that you were *through with this issue*, Speedy!

BTW, Speedy, you're the stupid, asinine hypocrite that opened this thread with "ridiculous name calling"; thus, proving again, Speedy, the depth of your stupidity.

Your "fact" is as bogus as you are stupid, Speedy! Your "fact" is as bogus as your assertion that you were *through with this issue*, Speedy!

BTW, Speedy, you're the stupid, asinine hypocrite that opened this thread with "ridiculous name calling"; thus, proving again, Speedy, the depth of your stupidity.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't think calling someone "idiot" comes close to calling someone:

"You're a fucking stupid, lying moron" and

"So you're going for the reach-around from the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, Speedy?"

I was through with the ridiculous discussion going on in the previous thread since it was going nowhere. Do you deny the FACT that states still have the right to institute requirements for CHLs? That is the only FACT that I've stated in this thread? Is it bogus?

I don't think calling someone "idiot" comes close to calling someone:

"You're a fucking stupid, lying moron" and

"So you're going for the reach-around from the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, Speedy?"

I was through with the ridiculous discussion going on in the previous thread since it was going nowhere. Do you deny the FACT that states still have the right to institute requirements for CHLs? That is the only FACT that I've stated in this thread? Is it bogus? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You equivocate, Speedy, you set the insulting tone with your ignorant OP.
You're a stupid, fucking lying moron, Speedy.

You equivocate, Speedy, you set the insulting tone with your ignorant OP.
You're a stupid, fucking lying moron, Speedy.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ah, back to the 2nd grade name-calling. The whole point of this thread was to point out that despite your and IFFY's opinion that CHL requirements should be done away with, they will continue to be valid for the foreseeable future. Name-calling aside that FACT remains. If you think I started the name calling, fine. Still doesn't change that FACT.

Ah, back to the 2nd grade name-calling. The whole point of this thread was to point out that despite your and IFFY's opinion that CHL requirements should be done away with, they will continue to be valid for the foreseeable future. Name-calling aside that FACT remains. If you think I started the name calling, fine. Still doesn't change that FACT. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You set the "2nd grade tone" in the OP, Speedy, and now you want to whine, bitch and moan because it was never elevated!?!?! You're a moronic fucking hypocrite, Speedy, and no matter how many times you repeat your moronic absolute, it is still a blatant lie!

Hey dickwipe! Yeah, you! Corpy! The dude who can't write a single post without second grade insults, kicking kids in the balls and dipping girls' hair in the inkwells. Yeah, YOU!

This thread is yet ANOTHER example of how you hijack and derail this forum into shit that better suits your low level of intellect and comprehension. Please start debating topics based on the topics.

We ALL know you can spew, spit, scream and shriek. You're not doing anything to prove the lies you continually post here.

Are you stupid or just too fucking lazy to research them?

Either way, you have personified one of the greatest quotes of Blazing Saddles, which is now celebrating its 40th Anniversary: "YOU ARE THE LEADING ASSHOLE ON ECCIE!"

Chew on it, Buttman. And grow the fuck up!

Your lying ass said you were through discussing this issue, and yet your stupid, equivocating-ass starts a new thread on this issue, Speedy. You're a fucking stupid, lying moron, Speedy, and you cannot back-up your lying, accusing absolutes with facts.


So you're going for the reach-around from the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, Speedy?

BTW, Speedy, your thread title was very apropos:

+ 100 ... and your apology is accepted, Speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Please show us where he apologized to you, psycho!

Otherwise, quit doctoring others' quotes. Maybe ECCIE management has something to say about the way you turn posts into lies. Maybe it sets a dangerous precedent for those of us who DO see whookers and DO post reviews, unlike you, you pasty-faced, spotty-backed cellar dweller.

I think people here expect honesty. That's why this board is successful. Not because you've found ways to insult every fucking person on God's green earth. (And I'm talking about OUR God, not the one against who you constantly blasheme!)

You set the "2nd grade tone" in the OP, Speedy, and now you want to whine, bitch and moan because it was never elevated!?!?! You're a moronic fucking hypocrite, Speedy, and no matter how many times you repeat your moronic absolute, it is still a blatant lie! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Still stuck on the name-calling? You still haven't told us what you consider to be a "blatant lie". IDIOT. FACT --

You wanted SCOTUS to rule that the requirement for CHLS in any state was unconstitutional. Didn't happen. YOU LOST. Get over it. IDIOT.

IFFY -- still waiting for a response to my very simple question posed to you. Does your interpretation of 2nd Amendment rights support 5-year olds walking down the street with concealed handguns? How about walking into my home, which I consider to be a gun-free zone, with a handgun? How about people walking onto a commercial airplane flight with handguns?

Still stuck on the name-calling? You still haven't told us what you consider to be a "blatant lie". IDIOT. FACT --

You wanted SCOTUS to rule that the requirement for CHLS in any state was unconstitutional. Didn't happen. YOU LOST. Get over it. IDIOT.

IFFY -- still waiting for a response to my very simple question posed to you. Does your interpretation of 2nd Amendment rights support 5-year olds walking down the street with concealed handguns? How about walking into my home, which I consider to be a gun-free zone, with a handgun? How about people walking onto a commercial airplane flight with handguns?
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're the moronic fucking hypocrite that set the "2nd grade tone" in the OP, Speedy, so STFU! You cannot support your asinine assertion with a legitimate citation, Speedy, because no matter how many times you repeat your moronic absolute, it is still a blatant lie!

Either way, you have personified one of the greatest quotes of Blazing Saddles, which is now celebrating its 40th Anniversary: "YOU ARE THE LEADING ASSHOLE ON ECCIE!"

Chew on it, Buttman. And grow the fuck up![/SIZE] Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your memory is shorter than your puny prick, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, check the signature line below to correct your flawed POV:

Talking about my dick again?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, you sexual predator.

Sick creepy bastard!

IFFY -- still waiting for a response to my very simple question posed to you. Does your interpretation of 2nd Amendment rights support 5-year olds walking down the street with concealed handguns? How about walking into my home, which I consider to be a gun-free zone, with a handgun? How about people walking onto a commercial airplane flight with handguns?
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

1- why of course, with adult supervision.

2- I don't walk into peoples homes. I would hope you have a gun and would blow away anyone who does.

3- Now you are just being silly... terrorists DIE with extreme prejudice...

Now carry on with your anti-2nd amendment rant.

1- why of course, with adult supervision.

2- I don't walk into peoples homes. I would hope you have a gun and would blow away anyone who does.

3- Now you are just being silly... terrorists DIE with extreme prejudice...

Now carry on with your anti-2nd amendment rant. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You don't walk into people's homes?? I know you are not very well-liked but to not visit other people in their homes? Using your logic, we are having family over for Mother's Day today. Should I go buy a gun and blow them all away when they come in?

Sorry to disagree with you on point 1, but I prefer age limits on who should be allowed to carry handguns, regardless of adult supervision or not. At a shooting range, fine. Not on a public street. Doubt you will find much support on this issue.

Point 3 -- where did terrorists come from?. I'm talking about normal folk like you getting on a plane with handguns. Doubt you will find much support on this issue.

Now feel free to carry on with your ridiculous support of 2nd Amendment rights at all cost.

You don't walk into people's homes?? I know you are not very well-liked but to not visit other people in their homes? Using your logic, we are having family over for Mother's Day today. Should I go buy a gun and blow them all away when they come in?

Sorry to disagree with you on point 1, but I prefer age limits on who should be allowed to carry handguns, regardless of adult supervision or not. At a shooting range, fine. Not on a public street. Doubt you will find much support on this issue.

Point 3 -- where did terrorists come from?. I'm talking about normal folk like you getting on a plane with handguns. Doubt you will find much support on this issue.

Now feel free to carry on with your ridiculous support of 2nd Amendment rights at all cost. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What part of "unalienable" ... do you not understand? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ienable-Rights

Slobbrin really doesn't understand what the Amendment amends. It's like punching a sack of fertilizer. He really can't fight back, but everything stinks when you're done.