possible the putz was being pedantic. 'heh heh 500ft heh heh'
kvetching about the details is missing the point; the gun was meant for combat - not killing school children. his knowledge of the weapon was adequate.

as an example: beto didn't know the guy's actual name - but he called him what everyone else would. i.e. close enough

but the people w/abbott signs? what is so powerful about protesting a peaceful meeting? wouldn't sitting, listening, and asking tough questions make more of an impression than holding up signs that people read as: "oh, lord. a dimwit."


in short: beto took the feathers out of that peacock.

Not toxic, Just intolerant of pedantic people like Newtboy.

If you best idea is Obama marrying Biden clearly Dems are screwed.


OK @newtboy show me yet another of your pointless pedantic response on why Biden is so great. Enlighten me.

No, but I like him. A British brother from another mother? Quite the loquacious perspicacity without a hint of my usual pedantic sesquipedalianism. ;-)

Disappointed that, when he brought up the "no true supporter of mine would ever resort to violence." he didn't remind us of Trump promising to pay the legal fees for anyone that would beat up reporters or liberal protesters at his rallies 5 years ago and never stopped supporting and calling for violence from his supporters.

So what? Get off your high horse, buddy, the clip you were specifically whining about is American media....and we are the undisputed leader in partisan media and get honorable mention for bat shit insanity.

Yes, you are making those comparisons.
"The left and mainstream media do more to divide us than anyone else."
Even being exceedingly pedantic, when you take anyone, divide and remove the left and mainstream media, then compare them to what's left, "anyone else", you've made a comparison with anyone not left or mainstream media, including all right wing media. Any normal reader would assume you are making a direct comparison with only right wing media. You're coming off as dishonest as JJ or Trump here.

LOL....I've seen the right wing media nonsense outside America too, Murdoch isn't American and didn't start here, the big three have international fame and fans, and in Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia right wing media is quite often even more dishonest and bat shit crazy than in America (see Russian or some African state run tv) so my argument would still apply...but you were complaining about an American television show, so maybe first take your own head out of your own ass, then blow all that backed up shit out....I think you're totally full.

*sigh....passive aggressiveness from someone who keeps changing the argument is tiresome, ask your friends.

Your original statement ....""American wealth inequality is staggering. "
???? Stated as if that is a bad thing......."

Clearly indicating staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing.

Now..."I totally agree that EXCESSIVE wealth inequality is a bad thing",
so unless you misspoke, you must be parsing the difference between staggering (acceptable) and excessive (unacceptable)....but staggering >= excessive.

Wealth/income inequality are tied....and now who's being pedantic?

Well, I'm glad you aren't running the economy then, sadly the one most in control thinks the same, that one person making (not earning) >10000 times what another makes for < 1/10000 the work isn't inequitable, and neither is one person owning more than 10,000,000 average fully employed countrymen thanks to an accident of birth and/or criminal/dishonest business practices.

It was a chimpanzee, not a monkey, and the chimp took a selfie itself with the photographers camera.

Unless there is some other monkey/photography-based copyright claim that I am unaware of.

I know. I'm a pedant.

Not to be pedantic, but I know enough people who've claimed money has "nothing to do with happiness" literally that I have to counter it.

If you lack the money to keep you, or even more your children nourished or protected from the elements, you will discover there are many reasons for unhappiness that money can aid with. Money in no way grants or guarantees happiness, but there are a lot of things that make you miserable and sad that money can overcome, hungry and homeless children being the most obvious.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

Is it really origami if you use adhesive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origami

Just being pedantic. Obviously takes skill to do these.

Pardon me, I did not.
I didn't throw out ridiculous claims, then ignore rational replies to move on to more irrational and factually incorrect claims.

1)People who ignore reality are insane.
2)see 1
3)I'm pedantic? Did you learn something then?

I didn't address why people voted for Trump, that's your tangent to run down. I just mentioned that many who had have now seen their errors in trusting him (about whatever they believed) and no longer support him.

I see now why I ignored you before, you really are insufferable and not worth discussion with. Enjoy patting yourself on the back in smug self congratulations for such a witty insult.

BK33 stood me up on the date he arranged after promising me steak and dancing. Fuck him. Turned out he's a Russian troll, not a real person.

Alrighty, so when challenged with an obvious flaw in your original post (ie. posting in a video about how the alt right trolls while using the exact same methodology), you change up the terms on engagement rather than answer the original criticism...

1. Short quip about how said boxed people are insane.
2. Go on about why said boxed people are mentally deficient, then crap on about Trump.
3. Get in to a pedantic explanation about the 50% figure and whether or not it was entirely accurate.

None of which addresses my original criticism and further goes to show that you are doing exactly what this video is talking about.

I don't give a fuck about Trump or his supporters, and while I do agree there are likely some racists/crazy people in the mix, I theorise that they mostly voted for him because he was different. Which is neither here nor there, the video is a smug left winger pointing out what a bunch of pointy headed gits alt right trolls are and you prove that the left is equally capable of being smug, pointy headed and trollish gits... = \

I don't disagree with your discontent re: the parlous state of affairs in the US at the moment, and I have a great deal of sympathy for American's who don't want that orangutan representing them. But if you (collective left, not you personally) want to try and occupy a high ground and dismiss the alt right, you need to actually live up to the standards you use to castigate people like Bk33.

The human species measures elevation relative to sea level, as they are both a terrestrial and a single-planet species. So to adopt the common parlance of this species one must accept that Mount Everest is indeed the tallest mountain on Earth. To vocally argue against this point amongst the humans would either clue these clothed-primates to your extraterrestrial origins, or may otherwise cause them to view you as the most haughty of pedants, and cast aspersions on you who revels in the intentional abstrusity of abstract technicality.