Who knew the GOP would come down to two old white guys? Well, it always comes down to two old white guys so I guess everybody knew.
How to deflect the topic! Oh, and to inject race into an otherwise neutral discussion. You never fail to disappoint me.
Boy, aren't we two-faced today . . . Deny, if you dare, that you'd accuse the GOP of pandering if Trump chose a black male or a white female for a running mate, and worse if it had been a black female.
Lyin Joe is just doing what he does best. No matter the VP pick, Lyin Joe would troll away and badger away with far left radical talking points and next to zero substance. All the while defending the worst candidate ever nominated in the history of our nation. Get used to it. It's coming.
So you want me to deny a hypothetical? Sure, I'll deny it with the absolute certainty that you can't prove differently.
You seem to have no problem dishing it out but recoil in horror when it gets dished out on you. You kind of remind me of.....
Wow, is that going out on a limb . . . really show's your level of conviction, that does. Answer a question with a question . . . just another well-known deflection tactic.
You didn't ask a question. You called me two-faced for some reason and then dared me to deny a hypothetical.
Okay, you got me there Joe . . . I didn't ask a question . . . I remembered wrong. Still, while I don't know you well enough to call you a liar, you sure come across as one.
All I said was that the GOP again came down to two old white guys. When has that ever been wrong about the GOP. I even admit that Palin wasn't an old white guy but the rest of us thought that she was only a joke anyway.
So COKC, unhand your doll for a moment and show me where I was saying anything about taking away guns in this thread. You say I have, yet I don't recall doing so. Over the years, I've repeatedly stated that few people think it's something that should be done, and even fewer people believe it could be done. I've also stated that, if I wanted to, I could make a rudimentary gun in a very short time. So could a lot of people. The fact is, we use (or at least, used to use) guns for one general purpose: to kill easier than it would be without one. That would be for hunting, personal defense and military purposes. Can someone kill a deer with a bow? Sure, it just takes better hunting skills. Could someone kill a deer with a car? Sure, happens often where I live. But, when someone wants to kill one during hunting season, and their hunting skills are weak, or if they want one quicker, they use a gun. Our military uses guns. Why? Because they are economical and it's easy to train soldiers how to use guns to kill enemies. A gun is a soldiers primary weapon, though someone waxing poetic might say the brain is. So again, I'm not against guns. They have uses, primarily to make it easier to kill.
And by the way, so much for the right to free speech. COKC is so busy defending the 2nd Amendment from imaginary foes that he forgets the 1st one allows me to point out his fallacies.
Thanks Dick, for the retarded comment. Your 1st Amendment rights have been utilized. Now, If I was like COKC, I'd say you should shut it....but I'm NOT like your friend, meaning that you can say such idiotic things without me trying to suppress them. In other words, Dick, your comment is retarded.
Guns are manufactured to allow people to kill in an easier way than without guns. Now, 2nd Amendment "defenders"don't want to focus on it, but that's what guns are for: to kill. We buy them to protect ourselves, to hunt, and more lately, for sport. I consider those things to be both positive and negative in nature. Killing "bad guys" before they can cause harm is a good thing. Killing school children is a bad thing. Guns allow for both to occur more easily than without them. Again, I'm not against guns.
What a stupid comment. You will do exactly the same thing when Clinton announces. Does getting continually sauced give you amnesia or something?