Community > Posts By > Enkoodabaoo

 
no photo
Fri 02/08/13 09:06 AM

Did prohibition stop people from drinking?

No, all it did was get a lot of people killed.




Prohibition cost us our automatic weapons. If it hadn't been for all them Capone types killing people with them, we'd still be able to buy a Tommy gun from sears.

no photo
Fri 02/08/13 09:05 AM
I don't know, but I need to finish rebuilding my H&R 922 and get me that Ruger 10/22 I've been wanting. One way or the other, ain't going to be much longer before I'll need to start killing my own dinner.

no photo
Fri 02/08/13 08:57 AM


Hmm, some interesting responses.

Everything from indifference to condoning to blaming the victims.





There are no victims.



That ain't so. Them two people that were killed were victims. The shooter was the victim of a lesser crime. Just because you step in doggy poop, that doesn't give you the right to shoot somebody.

no photo
Fri 02/08/13 06:46 AM



Uh, they didn't deserve to be killed over dog poop.


Deserves got nothing to do with it.


What do you think it has to do with?


What kind of a damn fool question is that? It's not what I "think" it has to do with, it's accepting the world as it is. Sometimes bad things happen.

no photo
Wed 02/06/13 11:54 AM

the school system is FULL of power tripping liberals who fear anything now a days! Imagine if a kid snuck their pet hamster into a school these days!


Hamsters are fine, it's the home packed lunches and imaginary weapons we gotta worry about.

no photo
Wed 02/06/13 11:40 AM

Uh, they didn't deserve to be killed over dog poop.


Deserves got nothing to do with it.

no photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:44 AM

big government power seekers and Second Amendment bashers are out to steal one of our most precious Constitutional rights forever.


This really chaps my ***. The right to bear arms isn't granted in the Constitution. That right was given to us by God. The 2nd amendment is a negative right that applies to the government. They don't have the right to take from the people what was given to them by God.

no photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:11 AM
What we have here is two opposing view points. One is based in reality and one is based on hope. The hope that better laws will make better people. The way I see it, there is only one kind of people and they don't improve no matter how many laws you write.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 09:14 PM
A gay deer walks out of a bar and says "Wow, I can't believe I blew 50 bucks".

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 09:55 AM

Someone might be able to stop the average user by shutting down some major servers, if the servers cooperated with the demand, but unless the entire grid goes down, the real hackers will always connect.




That's like saying that in space, people who are really good at breathing will still be able to.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 09:26 AM



i thought it was already in play, but maybe not...


Maybe they have it, but don't want to admit it? Once people know it exists, the hackers will try to figure out how to access it.


No "kill switch" exists.

(as much as they would love to have one.)


"The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate"

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 09:15 AM

i thought it was already in play, but maybe not...


Maybe they have it, but don't want to admit it? Once people know it exists, the hackers will try to figure out how to access it.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 09:06 AM

Thanks, what is 42?


7 * 6.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 08:57 AM
Edited by Enkoodabaoo on Mon 02/04/13 08:58 AM

I never heard of such a thing. I don't think it would work.

Got a link?


You can't shut down every server on the internet, but you can shut down the routers that direct the flow of traffic.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 08:15 AM

Also I will mention that anonymous is not an organization and it does not specialize in hacking. (It is not a bunch of hackers)


They are and they do. Shows what you know.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 08:12 AM
This conspiracy theory turned out like all the other ones I've heard.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 07:31 AM
Edited by Enkoodabaoo on Mon 02/04/13 07:35 AM



:heart: Is saying, “I love you”, ever wrong? :heart:

yes, when you don't really mean it.


Thank you, manOfewwords... I understand this simply... if someone tells me they love me and I don't feel the same way for them, to keep from hurting their feelings I'll say it too... but only when I think it's really just a superficial statement on both our parts. I think this can cause problems ultimately though, if the other person's feelings get deeper and mine don't, then my already having said that I love them puts me in a tough position... anyway.. just saying..


That ain't right. Just like a rotten apple can spoil a barrel, a single lie can spoil a thousand truths. You'll make the other person question everything you ever said and did and leave them twisting in the wind for far longer than if you just told the truth. I think when people lie, it's mostly for their own good, rather than the other way around.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 05:37 AM



You can see how it could be interpreted that way too, right? If you care to expound on your meaning, I'd like to know more...


If someone wants to hear it too badly, I think you should be more cautious about saying it. Someone who wants it so badly is probably in what you call a vulnerable emotional state, it's a bad idea to say it before you are 110% sure.


Okay, I think I see it more clearly now. So, in the scenario that you speak, two people have become close enough that their feelings can border on love, but, if one of them is just relying on this deeper level of commitment to help ease emotional weakness, or as a means to latch on to a fresh connection, they both should wait to see if they are truly invested first?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I only want to understand. Because with wisdom comes strength..


Eh...close enough, I don't feel like talking about it all day.

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 05:29 AM

I was merely shining some light upon what will undoubtedly be a number of folk who've forgotten or chose to forget what the policies of the Reagan administration were, and will subsequently refuse or neglect to connect the dots. I'm hoping that some of our friendly neighborhood liberal members of the press will soon remember. However, I've not see that yet.


It's going to be a long wait, because your history isn't so. Governor Reagan cut mental health services, after the majority of the involuntarily committed people had been released. He closed hospitals, it's true, but he didn't kick out any patients. As president, he repealed a law passed by President Carter that would have nationalized mental healthcare. He felt it should be left up to the states. So what is there to blame President Reagan for? He didn't kick any patients out of beds and he was dead right about Washington DC not having the right to run national mental healthcare. Get over it friend and find someone alive to blame for the problem. If what Reagan did was such a tragedy, why didn't Obama take over mental healthcare when he pushed through Obamacare? Maybe it's because people don't think folks with autism, depression, homosexuals, conspiracy theorists and like shouldn't be locked up against their will?

no photo
Mon 02/04/13 05:19 AM

You can see how it could be interpreted that way too, right? If you care to expound on your meaning, I'd like to know more...


If someone wants to hear it too badly, I think you should be more cautious about saying it. Someone who wants it so badly is probably in what you call a vulnerable emotional state, it's a bad idea to say it before you are 110% sure.