Your first comment shows that you didn’t read the article, you didn’t even know the person involved was a sheriff. For someone who claims to not be a rwnj you sure as hell seem to have adopted their policy of lying, projecting, and childish name calling.
My first comment was in response to someone saying "but yea let's arm teachers...." and my response was "or train people not to put their guns in their waistbands like they are gangsters or living in the wild west?" Your response to that suggested you didn't read what I wrote. "everyone who’s authorized to drive must receive training that does not happen with guns, you right wingers bla bla bla" I suggested better gun training. You said right wingers like me don't understand that people who drive cars are trained, whereas people with guns are not. That was your response, again, after I suggested better firearms training. Did you not read where I suggested training people? I get it, you need to neatly fit me into a box. I'm left or right. I'm either with you or against you. And if I'm not with you, I'm a right winger, for sure! Buuuuut I'm not. I hate a lot of what Republicans stand for. I don't even 100% agree with their policy on guns. I hate the NRA. And I think Trump is a fucking moron. I don't vote for Republicans for President. I know your "well you sure do say some of the same things they do" is really solid evidence in your book, though. What is it you think makes someone right wing?? Disagreeing with you on gun policy? Is that the standard, we cut it right down the middle from there? If I agree with you I'm left wing, if not I'm right wing, and that's that?
JFC, no one is reading this nonsense where you lie about having read the article, you didn’t know the guy was a sheriff and you thought it happened in a school so it’s crystal clear that you didn’t read it at all, not even the headline. In the future don’t jump to spout the right wing talking points without at least reading the headline, take the advice or don’t, but if you continue commenting without reading you’ll continue to expose yourself.
You literally responded without reading/understanding what I wrote and are scolding me for responding without reading/understanding. That's very clever. And never addressing your error is.....interesting. So "spouting" right wing talking points makes someone right wing? Essentially agreeing with one point from the right, and articulating it? That's quite a precise definition of a right winger. I wonder if this will help, I just took this real quick for you. Look how right wing I am. Shocking.
So back to projecting? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you read the article and somehow missed that the guy was a sheriff and that it did not happen in school?
It's not that I missed it. I saw it in the article initially, but after going back and forth with you, and the comment that I responded to about not having guns in schools, I mistakenly said the incident took place in a school. Why do you think I missed that he was a Sheriff?? Asking you why you suggested I didn't understand that people who drive receive training whereas people with guns do not AFTER I suggested training for gun owners is not projecting. It's illustrating that you didn't read what I wrote or didn't understand it. Which was it? Did you not read what I wrote or did you not understand what I meant by "training"?
You claim you didn’t miss those major points but then go on to claim that the reason you missed it was my fault? Holy shit, post how many times you want projecting your ignorance on others but it’s obvious you didn’t read the article, you never read the articles so why would it be different now?
no, it was my fault that I mistakenly thought it happened in a school after we went back and forth, and with the school reference in the post I responded to. The sheriff part was never missed, I dunno where you are getting that from. Did you realize I had suggested firearm training in my original post??
Yes, I did. But you suggesting training would’ve prevented this senseless shooting seems odd considering the idiot with the gun is a sheriff, there’s one of major giveaway that you didn’t read the article.
The specific training I suggested was not to put your gun in your waistband like a gangster. Any "giveaways" from that, Sherlock? gun in waistband seems like an odd detail to add if I didn't read the headline or the article, doesn't it? er, der, well maybe you read part but not er drrrrr all of it. ehhhhhh keep trying. you're doing good!
So you believed that the sheriff has not received this training in the past? Oh that’s right you didn’t know that the person was a sheriff, shame that you didn’t read the article before commenting. The waistband part would be odd to include if it wasn’t posted in the tweet twice. So that’s your big gotcha? You knew the part of the story that was prominently mentioned in the tweet posted?
my big gotcha? you said I clearly did not read the article or the headline. I basically quoted part of the headline. Explain yourself.
LOL you nailed me by saying I clearly did not read the headline or the article, and gave me all of the evidence you had that proved it. However, I quoted part of the headline. This is silly. You can't admit when you're wrong. I made a mistake and thought it happened in a school. It was my mistake. Everything beyond that is you ramming a square peg in a round hole. I didn't know it was a sheriff, I never read the headline or the article, etc. It's odd man. Just say - ok, maybe you did read it and mistakenly thought it was in a school. Fine, let's move on. what makes someone "right wing", despite their political leanings being slightly right/libertarian?
Congratulations on skimming the tweet and picking out the major point in the tweet, but next time read the article before commenting.
ah, so now I did read the headline, but I just skimmed it? Apology accepted what makes someone "right wing", despite their political leanings being slightly right/libertarian?
I never said you didn’t read the tweet, you didn’t read the article, not even the headline of the article, you made that crystal clear. Next time at least read the article headline and byline then you would’ve known he was a sheriff.
You're struggling. So I read the tweet, which said "A sheriff tucks a gun into his waistband for a "Shop With A Sheriff" event at @Walmart. He fires the gun, shoots the floor, and injures a 15 year old boy with shrapnel. The sheriff's office states that the gun was "secured in the waistband."" I've made it "crystal clear" that I read that, but not the headline of the article, which would have given me what additional information exactly?? Go ahead and click on the article, and tell me what the headline says.
You’re right, I shouldn’t have said you read the tweet, actually you skimmed the tweet. This is why the only thing you picked up is that the gun was tucked in the waistband, you know the thing that was mentioned twice. But again next time read the article.
I see you’re back to projecting, but it’s always been the same, but I guess you didn’t bother reading my posts either and that’s not restricted to just articles. Had you read my post you would’ve seen that this post: Was written before this post: I know that there are post of yours that I don’t read, but I always make sure to let it be known, unlike you I don’t feel the need to lie about that.
So you should know what it says, perhaps in the future read it before commenting and don’t wait for someone to call you out.
Not sure if posted but cliffs are a 911 dispatch caller basically told a woman dying to go fuck herself and it’s her own fault she’s dying on the phone with her. I know the piece of shit dispatcher from high school. She is an absolute piece of shit human being and is proof there is no god. Of course nothing will happen because of it though. https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/kn...ource=facebook_KNWA_-_Northwest_Arkansas_News Edit: Her own brother has disavowed her on social media and I can only imagine text messages and calls over the ordeal.
I think that was already posted. Either way, unreal that they not only don’t listen to him and resort to force, but that they use so much force that he fucking dies.
What you’re not getting is that he somehow believes that this proves that blacks aren’t targeted by law enforcement and the cases of unarmed black men killed by cops are just coincidences that could’ve happened to anyone even though they rarely do and when they do there are consequences for it.
Pea brained moron can’t hold these two thoughts in his head at the same time: Police disproportionately terrorize black peoples Police are often too aggressive and resort to violent force across the board