User Profile: PubliusPencilman

Member Since: August 31, 2010

CommentsDisplaying PubliusPencilman's 10 most recent comments.

  • RangerSkippy.

    And where is your source for this statistic? As CNN reports,
    “The Defense Department data from 2010 to 2012 found that the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact increased for active duty women and remained unchanged for active duty men, and men and women in the reserves.”

  • I know all about the AP, but apparently you don’t know any more about basic writing skills than The Blaze. Even if a story is clearly attributed to a source, journalists must paraphrase in their own words unless quoting.

  • Haha. You all talk a big game about revolution and uprising. I suppose that’s easy to do when you hang out on conservative message boards and act all tough in the company of people who already agree with you. It’s quite funny to see.

  • DMerwin,

    “President Jefferson is pretty clear on the meaning of the second amendment”

    Haha! It would seem that way, except there is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever said either of those quotations. I’d say it’s a bit disrespectful of you to deliberately misquote Jefferson just to make your own point.

  • Brother_Ed,

    “They have no concept of free will.
    They don’t understand that the principle if free will.”

    That’s funny, because I would say free will doesn’t apply when you get gunned down at a movie theater or a school. Interestingly, you are only thinking about “free will” from the perspective of the gunman. The thing about guns is that they can be used to take away the free will of others.

    You’re not for free will. You are for the ability of one person to have power over other people at take away their free will.

  • “When a person picks up that gun, loads it, points it at someone and pulls the trigger, it becomes the persons fault not the gun.”

    Exactly, so why would it be unreasonable to insist on a background check before that person can purchase a gun?

  • Bubba,

    First of all, regarding the first amendment, no one is outlawing or criminalizing speech in any way. Nothing in the first amendment protects people from criticism from others, so your idea that this is somehow a first amendment issue is complete nonsense.

    Second, and related to the first, is that there is a very obvious difference between disagreeing or being offended by ideas and actively insisting that said words/ideas should be illegal. There is a difference between personally disliking gay marriage, and insisting that because you dislike gay marriage, it has to be illegal for everyone. This is a really obvious distinction that Conservatives never seem to understand.

  • “That is not an ‘insult’ to members of the Native American tribes and those that choose to see it that way are forcing themselves into a victim role and THAT discredits their ancestors as far as I can tell.”

    Haha. Yes, it was Native Americans that forced themselves into victimhood! Like they forced themselves into small and infertile reservation lands, or into reservation schools that deliberately tried to stamp out native culture, or forced themselves to appear in Westerns as the evil enemy of the virtuous white settlers and cowboys!

    Yes, Native Americans chose to be victimized by persistent legal and cultural discrimination. Obviously the real victims here are Conservatives who are not allowed to casually use offensive and derogatory terms! Poor, poor Conservatives!

  • “I think it’s telling that you equate the naming of a sports team with the issue of same sex marriage.”

    I think it’s telling that you either misread my post or don’t understand what “equate” means.

  • “publius, that’s the best you got? “Waaaaa, you do it too, waaaaa” (paraphrasing of course). wow……”

    You mistake me. I am not arguing that Conservatives “do it too” (the “it” here being tyranny). I’m arguing that that there is nothing tyrannical about wanting the Redskins to change their name–after all, we are all consumers of professional sports, and it is natural for a business to respond to its consumers.

    What IS tyrannical is for Conservatives to assert their personal/religious beliefs on others in the name of “values.”

    So no, I am not arguing that Conservatives “do it too.” I’m arguing that Conservatives are quick to falsely accuse their opponents of tyranny while trying to force their beliefs on others.