What annoys the ***** outta you/pisses you off...

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Snowflake - an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.

Could go sledding in here.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Snowflake - an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.

Could go sledding in here.

The rest of the quote lol

Democrat
noun [ C ]
us
/ˈdem.ə.kræt/ uk

Snowflake - an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

The rest of the quote lol

Democrat
noun [ C ]
us
/ˈdem.ə.kræt/ uk

Snowflake - an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.

You realize the definition describes the most recent Republican president to a “t”, don’t you?

That fvcker literally fired people simply for not support his lies or speaking against him.
The only president to ever have texting wars with Hollywood stars who dared to say they didn’t like him.
Christ, he wanted SNL to get in trouble for making fun of him.
Overly emotional, easily offended, entitled, and unable to deal with opposing opinion.
And his followers do the same.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I have noticed that the most difficult people to talk to are most Democrats because they refuse to have a two-way conversation and want to only respond with arguments or explanations as to why YOU are wrong along with saying the same phrases and quotes as other Democrats. Rob, you say you are not with a political party but you do exactly what Democrats do in conversations.

Just an observation.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I have noticed that the most difficult people to talk to are most Democrats because they refuse to have a two-way conversation and want to only respond with arguments or explanations as to why YOU are wrong along with saying the same phrases and quotes as other Democrats. Rob, you say you are not with a political party but you do exactly what Democrats do in conversations.

Just an observation.

This is legitimate questioning, not trying to battle you:

Your post is interesting. Do you have a suggestion for how to respond to people in an argument or debate when you have the opposing side?
Are you supposed to just accept what the other person says, or argue your point?

In my opinion, when someone makes a post that is obviously meant to stir or inflame debate, why would that person get upset that they are “fired upon”? Go to the gun range and blurt out “Sig Sauer Sucks”. You’re likely to get pushback and not a bunch of high fives. You said something controversial. Only a moron could think they can say something controversial without getting at least one retort.

I really think it would be odd if the only thing that happened in “Thunderdome” was someone posting an assinine meme or conspiracy theory, or whatever, and everyone just hit their “like” button and moved on.
Maybe there’s another Thunderdome that I’m not aware of where it IS just backslapping. I thought the name of this group referenced the one in Mad Max, and that people acted as such.
But maybe that’s what Republicans want: To have whatever they say accepted as truth and never be questioned. That sure makes it easy to gain dangerous amounts of power.

When I see someone posting a complete fabrication about this administration, do I just assume they are Republican because “that’s what Republicans do”? Plenty of people have said “Just because I don’t support Biden, doesn’t mean I’m a Republican”, and it is wholly accepted. I say I think Trump is a farking idiot, but in this group, that GUARANTEES I am a Democrat. See the incongruity there?

If the rule of Thunderdome is to give a participation trophy to every post, whether right or wrong, inflammatory or not, then so be it. Not my kind of place and I’ll leave.
If you’ll notice, I DO treat my posts outside of TD as conversational, even if some aholes feel the entire forum is TDome and want to start shlt there based on their opinion of my posts here.
Probably the same guys who post anger here that I do not post outside of here (basically, they are angry no matter what happens).
But •I• am the problem…

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

This is legitimate questioning, not trying to battle you:

Your post is interesting. Do you have a suggestion for how to respond to people in an argument or debate when you have the opposing side?
Are you supposed to just accept what the other person says, or argue your point?

In my opinion, when someone makes a post that is obviously meant to stir or inflame debate, why would that person get upset that they are “fired upon”? Go to the gun range and blurt out “Sig Sauer *****”. You’re likely to get pushback and not a bunch of high fives. You said something controversial. Only a moron could think they can say something controversial without getting at least one retort.

I really think it would be odd if the only thing that happened in “Thunderdome” was someone posting an assinine meme or conspiracy theory, or whatever, and everyone just hit their “like” button and moved on.
Maybe there’s another Thunderdome that I’m not aware of where it IS just backslapping. I thought the name of this group referenced the one in Mad Max, and that people acted as such.
But maybe that’s what Republicans want: To have whatever they say accepted as truth and never be questioned. That sure makes it easy to gain dangerous amounts of power.

When I see someone posting a complete fabrication about this administration, do I just assume they are Republican because “that’s what Republicans do”? Plenty of people have said “Just because I don’t support Biden, doesn’t mean I’m a Republican”, and it is wholly accepted. I say I think Trump is a farking idiot, but in this group, that GUARANTEES I am a Democrat. See the incongruity there?

If the rule of Thunderdome is to give a participation trophy to every post, whether right or wrong, inflammatory or not, then so be it. Not my kind of place and I’ll leave.
If you’ll notice, I DO treat my posts outside of TD as conversational, even if some aholes feel the entire forum is TDome and want to start shlt there based on their opinion of my posts here.
Probably the same guys who post anger here that I do not post outside of here (basically, they are angry no matter what happens).
But •I• am the problem…

To respond... Not going at every post in opposition as if it needs to be argued or disproved would be a start. Views and opinions will vary. If your view is different then voice it. It's none of our jobs to disprove what people are saying but without giving anyone crap for their views one can just post their view. Then anyone can view two views on the subject and decide how they want to proceed. Don't get me wrong, I see and respect some of your views and points. I don't always agree though and that's ok. I'm not mad that you have an opinion and I wouldn't try to prove how you feel to be wrong.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

It's annoying that people post their opinions as facts. Then somebody actually posts real World facts and people just call them names, call it "Fake News", or just deny the truth outright. Then they post some Twitter, IG, or some conspiracy theorist as their news source. It's a pathetic World that we live in currently.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

It's annoying that people post their opinions as facts. Then somebody actually posts real World facts and people just call them names, call it "Fake News", or just deny the truth outright. Then they post some Twitter, IG, or some conspiracy theorist as their news source. It's a pathetic World that we live in currently.

It’s freedom of speech, but definitely gets annoying when they do stuff like the namecalling in place of a real argument, yet complain about being called out on for posting bullshlt.
My father called it a “do as I say, not as I do” mentality, and it really pissed him off. He said the military was probably the worst instances of it he’d ever seen.
I think organized religion is a really strong contender.

 

[SlugButter]

Showing up to work early morning and every one of my employees is late,, and the person unlocking the building.... also late. Super irritated. Ready to shut down my business and just get a damn job. Fvck.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Showing up to work early morning and every one of my employees is late,, and the person unlocking the building.... also late. Super irritated. Ready to shut down my business and just get a damn job. Fvck.

What kind of business? I might be looking for work.

 

[SlugButter]

What kind of business? I might be looking for work.

I run a niche cleaning business. I clean buildings after construction before the building owner takes over. It’s basically a mix of construction labor and cleaning. I make good money if I’m on site myself doing the actual work. I got hurt in a fall and had to start hiring high rise window cleaning companies to do my rope work above the 3rd floor, so that cut a ton of my money. Having to give away my high dollar work to a contractor is killing the money I make. I might stop bidding the big jobs altogether honestly. The high rise dormitory buildings they just built down here at UofA was a shit show anyway.

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Just wanted to drop in real quick and remind you losers of how stupid you are. The one charge y'all swore up and down that he would be found guilty of has been completely thrown out. Like I said it's not illegal for a minor to own a rifle. You know, the one y'all tried to argue with me about even though none of you had the slightest idea of what you where talking about. I genuinely can't imagine what it must be like to not only be incredibly stupid but to insist on running your mouth. I've almost lost count of my list... Let's see. Things this forum knows nothing about. Sports, automobiles, politics, legal issues, general knowledge, etc. Hell even car audio. Toodles

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Don't worry I don't expect you to take my word for it tho. Read it. Read what the judge said. Read it. I was dead *** right the entire time. Just like I always am. See stupid people run their mouth non stop. Intelligent people speak when they know what they are talking about. This forum is an embarrassment.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna5584

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

I don't run my mouth boy. I sit here and correct you idiots all day. I'm the only one on this forum that post facts. Period

.

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Except his age made it illegal. He was under 18 at the time (I think he's 18 now) and none of the exemptions that would allow him to be carrying applied to him.
He was not taking a gun class.
He was not target shooting with adult supervision.
He was not hunting.
He is not law enforcement, or F/T military or guard/reserves.
He was not employed as armed security.

Maybe he can claim he misunderstood the law, but ignorance is rarely a good defense. He claimed he was doing his "job", but the car lot owner never hired him.

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Even tho I already said this please tell me how you know more than the judge. Please do bro. I can't wait to hear it.