Considering the thirteen year olds swear more than I do out of their mother's earshot, I don't cede your justification. Not to mention the ten year olds, and some of the five year olds...
Of course they do. I just don't care to be seen as in any sense encouraging it.
I can drop an F bomb with the best of them; just ask some of my fellow ToE empire members. But I don't cheapen it by using it every reply. You can generally express the same thoughts and emotions without it.
If you're meaning more literal, why yes, yes I do. In fact, outside of these few politically charged discussions, forums account for minutes of my day. I just happen to find this as amusing as anything else there is to do at 2am.
Fair enough. I was really more searching for some motivation behind this apparent desire for argument. Yes, I know it amuses you, but why? Me, I get enough grief at work that I generally don't go around looking for more. What I meant by my question is that perhaps you need more argument in real life since that's what you seem to seek out here.
Since you're one of the anointed, you hardly need to find it though. The whole point of being a liberal do-gooder is to help people whether they want it or not, never mind deserve it.
Hmm ... I still don't recall making any claim to sainthood, nor any claim to absolute certainty on any particular issue. I've granted that there are those that deny global warming is an issue and don't go chasing every last one of them down in an attempt to convince them of the error of their ways. I acknowledge that on any issue you name there will be a wide range of opinion that reasonable people may hold and that someone that doesn't share my viewpoint isn't necessarily a moron or an idiot.
You on the other hand profess "So much inaccuracy, so little time" as if it's somehow your responsibility to correct all of it and it does appear, to me anyway, that there is no room in your philosophy for anyone that has any belief that you don't share. And yet you then intentionally seek out those that disagree with you apparently just so that you can call them morons because it amuses you.
I'll leave the judgment to the casual observer.
Slightly more seriously, when someone in favor of gun control started spouting nonsense like self defense is never an option, legally owned guns are used in crimes more often than illegal ones, police officers and innocent civilians get killed by conceal carry users on a daily basis, other insane drivel I'm relatively sure you don't believe. Would you, regardless of your stance on gun control, refute them? If they were in favor of your point and you wouldn't, is that not itself the same level of dishonesty as the liar spreading them?
I don't understand your question. My stance on gun control is that everyone of legal age that is minimally competent (i.e. not legally retarded) and of responsible character (i.e. non-felon) that wants to own a gun should be able to do so, in fact I encourage it. Carrying around a concealed weapon I find to be a little more problematic but I can understand the motivation in certain circumstances. Where I would draw the line is in allowing unsupervised 13 year olds to handle loaded automatic weapons at gun shows thereby killing themselves. I also might be a little concerned if my neighbor felt compelled to own an Abrams tank, but I haven't given it all that much thought precisely where I draw the line at a neighborhood arms race.
If someone invades your home or attempts a carjack then most certainly defense of self and more importantly defense of your family is unquestionably a right. Shooting someone in the back on the way *out* your window I have a little more difficulty with but wouldn't really quibble too much about only wounding someone in that circumstance.
Does this somehow answer your question and if so what in god's name does it have to do with my global warming stance?