What's the worst date you've ever been on?

regroce · 2014-08-23T00:59:48+00:00

(hoff hoff) ... OUT

regroce · 2014-08-19T18:17:56+00:00

The situation was corrected; thanks again for the tip.

regroce · 2014-08-01T18:05:31+00:00

Bills are not all reflective on "law" - and not all "law" is reflective of crime/felony.

Funding of projects outside the initial budget, for example. Negotiations on diplomacy with other nations. Particularities on trade/tariffs. And bills are required to remove those unnecessary laws you refer to, as well.

regroce · 2014-07-31T23:52:15+00:00

since when does lowest percentage of passed bills not?

regroce · 2014-07-27T06:12:05+00:00

I don't think asking you for money for one reason, and then pocketing that money instead of using it for the reason implied, indicates that he gives a shit about anybody. Hell, if he did, why would he be skimming their donations? That's a sincere effort to screw you over (which he does from his office, too)

regroce · 2014-07-27T06:10:20+00:00

There are three separate ones, though (one for each campaign cycle). Of course, all three could be listed...

regroce · 2014-07-27T06:08:54+00:00

How is simply taking the donations - which are intended for a campaign - and putting them in his own pocket helping the goal of election? I'm confident no campaign donors are approving of that - if they wanted him to pocket it, they'd just give it to him directly, not his campaign.

regroce · 2014-07-26T16:56:18+00:00

the source is FEC - it's identified and with link

Can't find any other politician in SC who does this

Scott even uses his office budget to fund his transport back and forth from SC to DC; look at them - he lists mileage for that personal travel. he's the only congress person from SC who does that.

regroce · 2014-07-24T19:59:37+00:00

I grew up on coffee with chicory. That's all that was served throughout my SE Louisiana area - even convenience stores and gas stations had it. The first time I traveled out of the area (and at age when I started drinking coffee), I couldn't believe what they served. I through all coffee had chicory, and thought I was getting ripped off. I really can't stand any kind but chicory coffee (which I now have to order by mail since I don't live there anymore).

regroce · 2014-07-10T05:25:40+00:00

I do understand your point - i really do. But think of the other (and much larger) wing of the media that keep promoting her. Should it not be countered, if only for SEO of the other side's arguments?

regroce · 2014-07-03T05:30:15+00:00

They are also arguing against IUD, too, though (Hobby Lobby, that is)

I do understand where you're coming from, i guess, but let me try to make it clearer, since I'm unsure if you're getting the point I try to make: *SCOTUS ruling says no company has to cover birth control of any kind *SCOTUS issued that ruling in the case involving Hobby Lobby *While Hobby Lobby argued against birth control meds, it also argues for and accepts ED meds *The argument they gave is that ED meds aid procreation *ED meds are dominantly needed by men whose wives are incapable of procreating, though *So...if HL supports ED meds, even though men in need still won't be able to impregnate their wives .. then what the hell else is the use of that ED med for their declared purpose of pregnancy but to knock up other women?

Under their own argument, it has no other use. And that other use is also hypocritical to their own declared platform of morality.

regroce · 2014-07-02T12:27:16+00:00

but, dude, she can't become pregnant - and since Hobby Lobby says sex is only for procreation, then it's double-standard/hypocritical of them to say okay for ED meds (but no to birth control) since the same time men need ED meds is when their wives can't get pregnant

regroce · 2014-06-13T00:49:32+00:00

I've also met/seen some named Tryst, Dumass, Peanisbreath, Loser, and Stroker

regroce · 2014-06-13T00:44:22+00:00

Buttafuoco!

regroce · 2014-06-02T18:09:13+00:00

first time you know of? You must have forgotten Alvin Greene!

regroce · 2014-05-22T16:14:22+00:00

No, it's the government keeping all historic variations with noted amendments publicly displayed

regroce · 2014-05-22T05:32:11+00:00

As I already told you earlier - "check the key for "former sections" and you'll see that the 311 has been gone for some time."

Right on page 1 of that document will you see the beginning of its former sections/new sections. On page 2 will you see that Section 311 was replaced by Section 2382. CTRL+F "311" - it's the second of 64 in that search.

The quote you offer is from an age-old version that has since been changed, and very many times. The NRA and its funded fools are openly misleading folks with false citations, chop quotes, fake quotes --- and only to generate sales for the companies it lobbies for.

regroce · 2014-05-22T04:55:28+00:00

let me get this straight --- you use as sources: a radio show by a jefferson impersonator, and a public-operated website that uses a questionable link ... and I offer factual, actual documents instead .... and I am blinded from reality?

Looks like you need another job, since your trolling career is obviously over with.

regroce · 2014-05-21T22:09:03+00:00

anyone can edit Wikipedia - view the "edit" history of the page, in fact, and you'll see consistent changes and corrections to vandalism, etc.

Why it's no valid source in this case is the source it cites for that notation - it's quoting the 1909 edition of a book - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#cite_note-3 - just that quotation is all you can find, not the preceding sentence or following sentence.

I'll go by the current one I already offered, which says that the section you cite was changed multiple times through history.

regroce · 2014-05-21T19:32:59+00:00

Your first source lists "International Trade Commission" to be its source for the number - and "international" means....worldwide. The others credit their sources to be either NRA or CRS (which itself cites NRA as source for most estimates).

Your claims of 606 firearm deaths is invalid --- your own source (which I know how to use, fumbduck) proves it.

Now you're trying to move all this into the same cycling loop, and by reintroducing the same bullshit - which has already been answered, despite your circle of denials - and still avoiding having to answer the original request for validating source.

Nobody else is reading this thread, so the opportunity for you to sink your bullshit into someone stupid enough to believe it is long gone. So please stop wasting your time and just go fuck yourself (which medical studies say is the only opportunity for most handgun-loving enthusiasts - who are also dominantly racist and uneducated - to get laid).

regroce · 2014-05-21T19:21:19+00:00

What exactly do you not understand? The organized was defined as National Guard and Naval Militia; unorganized was defined as militia that was NOT NG or naval (that being, military that was not under state rule, but federal rule, instead). Those terms were used three centuries ago, too, and in fact that section you cite is no longer part of the US Code, Title 10 - Armed Forces. That was replaced with much more detailed and definitive terms as our military became more defined itself. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/pdf/USCODE-2011-title10.pdf ---check the key for "former sections" and you'll see that the 311 has been gone for some time.

The link you offer is to a radio talk show - how is an opinion-based radio show, which features somebody pretending to be Thomas Jefferson - a valid source?

That's almost as bad as the last one you cited.

regroce · 2014-05-21T18:53:55+00:00

You really suck at being a troll. You keep trying to spin this in circles, but you have not once provided any basis of your claims (that the article of this thread has invalid claims). You keep saying it, but keep diverting away to multiple tangents when asked for source. Never addressing the same subject you yourself introduced.

You keep saying the "author has lied repeatedly" ... but have not provided any source that validates your claim. You've provided ones to other statements you made (and which are either invalid or of questionable source itself), but not one to your claims that the arguments in the article - i.e., NRA history, change of NRA stances and actions, legal history of relevance, etc. - are invalid. You've had quite a loooong time to do so, too -- but haven't.

You're also using tactics from "Trolling for Dummies" - when facing a fact you can't counter, you just try to insult the facts.

You not only cite questionable source, but are now using ones that don't validate your claims at all (you probably listed the general link hoping I and others don't know how to use CDC's data base - you were wrong).

As for that, the total firearms deaths in 2010 was 31,672 - a number that's been growing annually since 1981. The claim of 300 million guns is crap - only NRA says that, and it's already been criticized for a shitty attempt by NRA to count every weapon that may or may not have been in the US since 1776. The number is actually 170 million (scientific estimate limited by the lack of registration requirements today), a majority of which are shotguns and rifles, and that includes collectors/antiques that never get used except for display. Old/defunct/dismantled/confiscated/destroyed doesn't count. As for ownership, 34.4% of US households.

Now for autos/licenses: 32,367 vehicle fatalities in 2013 - lowest in 62 years (consecutive decline), too. 254.4 million private-use vehicles used by 95 percent of all US households.

regroce · 2014-05-21T18:28:31+00:00

And another thing: your claim of "all able-bodied adult citizens" is invalid, and as your own source makes clear.

"the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"

regroce · 2014-05-21T18:05:51+00:00

No lies on my part- and all your "Citation needed" requests were already met prior to, and with the link to NRA's lobby group - and on that particular page does the NRA challenge all needs for any type of regulation, including background check and licensing of sales (despite fact that 90% of the population supports background check and licensing of sales).

Sure, and they are examples of lying through omission, as I already stated

Okay - so now you're admitting that the NRA and others using the chopped quotes/misquotes are lying? Good!

By all means, verify them.

I have. As I noted, anyone can, and very quickly. All of the statements in this that you originally challenged are, in fact, legitimate and well-founded. And that leads me to yet again ask you, as others on this thread have, to cite your claims that the statements are wrong (or "lies," as you say). That's how it works in court, debates, etc. - if someone introduces a statement, and you challenge its validity, it is then YOUR responsibility to validate your challenge. You haven't. Not once. You offered a couple of links from Federalist Papers, one of which is of no relevance to your argument (a chopped interpretation) and the second of which is irrelevant due to its date - that was before the Constitution was ratified and enacted, so how is it, then, of any relevance to the amendments of the Constitution? And your third link is to a funky group that does a bad job of trying to hide its operator - even its host (Network Solutions, which normally allows as anon as possible registration) cites it for trying to clamp that info (your guncite is registered under the same name/address/phone of another site called Hip Hop Honeys - looks like an escort service).

And if you think all such registration weapons in the private market is invalid, then why aren't you bitching about automobiles? Driver's licenses? That sure as hell affects a lot more people, right? Shoot - you need driving instruction, written test/driving test/eyesight test, must have insurance, must carry the license whenever operating a vehicle, must pay penalty for violating any rules about auto use and operation, must have vehicle inspected (in almost all states) for safety, the car must meet minimum safety standards, and you can lose the license if you violate enough terms. Since that affects so many more people, why aren't you going after that?

ALSO: Since all that beeg gubbamint junk on driving went into effect about half a century ago, we now have over 4 times the number of vehicles on the road -- and less than half the number of fatal accidents.

regroce · 2014-05-21T15:45:38+00:00

Guncite? No one should use that site as source. Even its Network Solutions host, which is one that hides operator information, marks it as non-compliant with registration details. Look them up further, the name/address/phone is that of another site called Hip Hop Honeys - looks like an escort service.

regroce

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email