Donald Trump To Run For President in 2016!!!!!!!!

[chico2663]

Bush will be in ohio raising money for portman. He has a 47% favorable rating compared to 29% of trump.

[reigle9]

By the way brooks math was my business

hahhhHHhHAHAHAHHAHAAHA

Getting a 2yr degree from a CC doesn't classify you as having "math as your business".

[reigle9]

This isn't even some sort of revelation. Anyone that actually lived it and has an IQ over braindead knows all of this. Chico, is not one of these people.

[reigle9]

I'm not even all that pro-Trump, I'm just fading her.

Not even hating though, if I had the power, I'd do the same shit. But she sure as shit shouldn't be president. I'd be more confident with the Don of the Lucchese family.

[khicks26]

[brooks85]

well i pray tell that you don't. As someone that has fired many. for 6 years it was my living; there shouldn't be anyone who has never wore the colors own one. Reason for this is because when you are in the service you get a lot of training with this weapon. FIgure the biggest goof you have ever met in person .Then ask yourself " would you want that guy to have an assault weapon without training?"

only 6 years huh?

I do appreciate your service but I've been handling "assault" weapons far longer than that. Also, I see the same "goofs" you speak of EVERY year at Knob Creek gun range firing all kinds of "assault weapons" the military has used. So when I ask myself if the biggest goof I have ever met should have an assault rifle... I say yes as long as he or she isn't apart of the political class.


If you still can't deduce the OBVIOUS reason why civilians should be armed then open a history book.

[khicks26]

[brooks85]

^ looking good for trump, year into his campaign and this is the best they have lol just hilarious when compared to hillary's record.

[dante1]

only 6 years huh?

I do appreciate your service but I've been handling "assault" weapons far longer than that. Also, I see the same "goofs" you speak of EVERY year at Knob Creek gun range firing all kinds of "assault weapons" the military has used. So when I ask myself if the biggest goof I have ever met should have an assault rifle... I say yes as long as he or she isn't apart of the political class.


If you still can't deduce the OBVIOUS reason why civilians should be armed then open a history book.

open a history book, that is his defense of civilians having guns. so his premise is if civilians have guns they will be able to protect their civil liberties and keep all governments in check. here is the problem mr brooks, like everything you toss bs at you are incorrect again. history has taught us that a revolution without an army almost always fails. but you didn't know that did you? of course not because as I have been saying since I first read your nonsense you know nothing about everything. you and your brother are good with short pithy comments like...open a history book. but when asked what does this mean, or when somebody with the actual historical evidence corrects you well then you look like the ass that you truly are.

do some research my friend, successful revolutions almost always require an army. now that army does not need to be the home army of the country in distress but an army is needed otherwise the revolution is a failure. but do you know that, of course not because you like your brother know nothing and that has been proven whenever you step out on a limb and make comments like...open a history book. Now if you were smart (and you are not) you would not take my word for this but you would actually OPEN A HISTORY BOOK and tell us how many revolutions have succeeded without the help of some army.

again you are exposed for the true idiot that you are. readers we will get no intelligent answer from this idiot, he will not address this issue but he will respond (probably) with some true bs. watch, just watch.

[brooks85]

open a history book, that is his defense of civilians having guns. so his premise is if civilians have guns they will be able to protect their civil liberties and keep all governments in check. here is the problem mr brooks, like everything you toss bs at you are incorrect again. history has taught us that a revolution without an army almost always fails. but you didn't know that did you? of course not because as I have been saying since I first read your nonsense you know nothing about everything. you and your brother are good with short pity comments like...open a history book. but when asked what does this mean, or when somebody with the actual historical evidence corrects you well then you look like the ass that you truly are.

do some research my friend, successful revolutions almost always require an army. now that army does not need to be the home army of the country in distress but an army is needed otherwise the revolution is a failure. but do you know that, of course not because you like your brother know nothing and that has been proven whenever you step out on a limb and make comments like...open a history book. Now if you were smart (and you are not) you would not take my word for this but you would actually OPEN A HISTORY BOOK and tell us how many revolutions have succeeded without the help of some army.

again you are exposed for the true idiot that you are. readers we will get no intelligent answer from this idiot, he will not address this issue but he will respond (probably) with some true bs. watch, just watch.

lol dante doing what he does best. Completely changing the subject and showing he has NO idea what is being discussed. Even from retirement your habits are transparent. Like I said, it is always within the first 3-4 sentences for you. I'd honestly be surprised if you could read a page from a book and actually remember what was said instead of what you "think" was said. Not exaggerating at all. This is a habit you have shown for years now.

[khicks26]

[dante1]

lol dante doing what he does best. Completely changing the subject. Even from retirement your habits are transparent.

a response in a minute, which means he didn't even read my response. well he knew right from the get go that he would be embarrassed and exposed as the idiot that he is.

my brooks I did not change the subject, I spoke about your comment concerning civilians with guns. but how would you know because like your brother you simply didn't read it.

no mr brooks I addressed the issue and the issue is two fold, one revolutions almost never succeed without the aid of an army, and two as usual you don't know what the fck you are talking about.

[brooks85]

only 6 years huh?

I do appreciate your service but I've been handling "assault" weapons far longer than that. Also, I see the same "goofs" you speak of EVERY year at Knob Creek gun range firing all kinds of "assault weapons" the military has used. So when I ask myself if the biggest goof I have ever met should have an assault rifle... I say yes as long as he or she isn't apart of the political class.





If you still can't deduce the OBVIOUS reason why civilians should be armed then open a history book.

open a history book, that is his defense of civilians having guns. so his premise is if civilians have guns they will be able to protect their civil liberties and keep all governments in check. here is the problem mr brooks, like everything you toss bs at you are incorrect again. history has taught us that a revolution without an army almost always fails. but you didn't know that did you? of course not because as I have been saying since I first read your nonsense you know nothing about everything. you and your brother are good with short pity comments like...open a history book. but when asked what does this mean, or when somebody with the actual historical evidence corrects you well then you look like the ass that you truly are.

do some research my friend, successful revolutions almost always require an army. now that army does not need to be the home army of the country in distress but an army is needed otherwise the revolution is a failure. but do you know that, of course not because you like your brother know nothing and that has been proven whenever you step out on a limb and make comments like...open a history book. Now if you were smart (and you are not) you would not take my word for this but you would actually OPEN A HISTORY BOOK and tell us how many revolutions have succeeded without the help of some army.

again you are exposed for the true idiot that you are. readers we will get no intelligent answer from this idiot, he will not address this issue but he will respond (probably) with some true bs. watch, just watch.

a response in a minute, which means he didn't even read my response. well he knew right from the get go that he would be embarrassed and exposed as the idiot that he is.

my brooks I did not change the subject, I spoke about your comment concerning civilians with guns. but how would you know because like your brother you simply didn't read it.

no mr brooks I addressed the issue and the issue is two fold, one revolutions almost never succeed without the aid of an army, and two as usual you don't know what the fck you are talking about.

as usual dante your own post history proves what desperate fool you are. Again, when something is longer than 3 or 4 sentences you are completely lost. That brain of yours just takes off on some tangent that you "think" you read... lol

[dante1]

could you imagine that these two idiots, the brothers dwightie and brooks actually respond to posts without reading them. it is almost impossible to believe nevertheless it is true. here is a guy that has no knowledge of world history but has the balls to tell another poster to open up a history book. and even with the odds being even that his conclusion would be correct, he again is not correct.

I realize I should write down all the times that any individual exposes these two idiots but I do not. Well maybe I will start with this one, and label it 1A. No mr brooks civilians with guns cannot compete with an army. You can arm them with all the latest weapons and they will still lose but you, the idiot that you are, use that defense to validate civilians with guns. there are so many valid defenses but you naturally select the very worst example. why? because as the majority of people have noted you are a true idiot, uneducated, stupid and dishonest.
What a trifecta?

[brooks85]

could you imagine that these two idiots, the brothers dwightie and brooks actually respond to posts without reading them. it is almost impossible to believe nevertheless it is true. here is a guy that has no knowledge of world history but has the ball to tell another poster to open up a history book. and even with the odds being even that his conclusion would be correct, he again is not correct.

I realize I should write down all the times that any individual exposes these two idiots but I do not. Well maybe I will start with this one, and label it 1A. No mr brooks civilians with guns cannot compete with an army. You can arm them with all the latest weapons and they will still lose but you, the idiot that you are, use that defense to validate civilians with guns. there are so many valid defenses but you naturally select the very worst example. why? because as the majority of people have noted you are a true idiot, uneducated, stupid and dishonest.
What a trifecta?

^classic dante ad hominem response. Clockwork lol

200+ word reply of NOTHING

[dante1]

as usual dante your own post history proves what desperate fool you are. Again, when something is longer than 3 or 4 sentences you are completely lost. That brain of yours just takes off on some tangent that you "think" you read... lol

readers, did I mention that he would in no way address the issue. he is talking about fools, and brains and tangents but does he address the issue concerning civilians with guns. and mind you it was the issue that he introduced with his...open a history book. Nope, he does not. This is his mo and his brothers mo, they never and I mean NEVER address the issue in which somebody exposed them with.

does his defense tactics remind you of any person in particular. he and his brother argue exactly like the same individual he supports. exactly. hey mr brooks for once in our many conversations, get back to the issue, explain and defend your premise.

no chance my friends, none.

[brooks85]

readers, did I mention that he would in no way address the issue. he is talking about fools, and brains and tangents but does he address the issue concerning civilians with guns. and mind you it was the issue that he introduced with his...open a history book. Nope, he does not. This is his mo and his brothers mo, they never and I mean NEVER address the issue in which somebody exposed them with.

does his defense tactics remind you of any person in particular. he and his brother argue exactly like the same individual he supports. exactly. hey mr brooks for once in our many conversations, get back to the issue, explain and defend your premise.

no chance my friends, none.

lol yes the issue that have been proven over and over throughout history.



200+ word response of some narrative dante made up in his head incoming...

[dante1]

and he has a degree in "science," or wait what was it again. I forget was it some type of "chemistry" degree now. His exact words escape me but just some more bs. I can't wait until my brother visits again so I can ask brooks some questions concerning chemistry. But, what is the purpose he will not answer them anyway. lol

I often wonder why idiots often just pretend they are something they are not. This guy is probably some type of political hack working for what state? Who knows? Is it by any chance Mississippi, that would be most appropriate.

[DwightShrute]

dishonest dante ending yet another week of insults and lies on sbr

no shame

[brooks85]

and he has a degree in "science," or wait what was it again. I forget was it some type of "chemistry" degree now. His exact words escape me but just some more bs. I can't wait until my brother visits again so I can ask brooks some questions concerning chemistry. But, what is the purpose he will not answer them anyway. lol

I often wonder why idiots often just pretend they are something they are not. This guy is probably some type of political hack working for what state? Who knows? Is it by any chance Mississippi, that would be most appropriate.

lol another defeat for dante. The clockwork of your desperation is comical. Now get back into retirement you coward.

[dante1]

and today is a weekday correct, so here he is again stealing time from his state. that is the dishonest part, they have no shame, they get destroyed every single day in discussions but they keep returning. and this asshole blatantly steals and he has no shame whatsoever.

okay I am done with him for now, but note it again readers. he was completely destroyed with facts and has no return answer except bs.

[brooks85]

and today is a weekday correct, so here he is again stealing time from his state. that is the dishonest part, they have no shame, they get destroyed every single day in discussions but they keep returning. and this asshole blatantly steals and he has no shame whatsoever.

okay I am done with him for now, but note it again readers. he was completely destroyed with facts and has no return answer except bs.

lol that brain of yours. See ya next time forrest gump.

[khicks26]

lol yes the issue that have been proven over and over throughout history.



200+ word response of some narrative dante made up in his head incoming...

I get what dante is saying. But you not so much, please explain why you think history shows that ordinary citizens need assault rifles. If not for revolution, then what?

Are you planning on taking over the government to enforce your right wing views?

This happened in Russia a while back with the communist. As apposed to socialist who think you should take over by public opinion & the vote.

Are you a communist Brooks? LOL Well if anything you now know one of the differences between communist & socialist.

[brooks85]

I'd honestly be surprised if you could even correctly list communist and socialist countries after that one time you embarrassed yourself by trying lol

I get what dante is saying. But you not so much, please explain why you think history shows that ordinary citizens need assault rifles. If not for revolution, then what?

They also need them for any possible conflict that could arise. The country doesn't need to be in a "revolution" for you to need an AR-15. Try some race war and civil unrest while protecting yourself with a hunting rifle. Oh are you just going to wait for the national guard to come check on you? Good luck with that.


A revolution would be the most obvious reason and as the Revolutionary war and Civil war shows dante is full of shit again. People with guns are effective even without an "army" as revolutionary war and civil war proves, to argue otherwise is just stupid. Whether you think they will win or not versus the government is irrelevant. They will have a FAR better chance with one than without one. If there was ever an appropriate time for a "duh" this would be it.

[brooks85]

knowing how to use logic is just too much fun



here is dante's logic since he thinks an Army would be too much for civilians;

He is in a car racing towards a cliff, the car goes over so dante takes off his seat belt. Why?

Well, because the car obviously isn't going to beat gravity so why give yourself any chance to survive?


dante logic

[khicks26]

I'd honestly be surprised if you could even correctly list communist and socialist countries after that one time you embarrassed yourself by trying lol

When was this? How many can you name?

They also need them for any possible conflict that could arise. The country doesn't need to be in a "revolution" for you to need an AR-15. Try some race war and civil unrest while protecting yourself with a hunting rifle. Oh are you just going to wait for the national guard to come check on you? Good luck with that.

I think you would be fuked either way. In fact more than likely you will be the one killed first.

A revolution would be the most obvious reason and as the Revolutionary war and Civil war shows dante is full of shit again. People with guns are effective even without an "army" as revolutionary war and civil war proves, to argue otherwise is just stupid. Whether you think they will win or not versus the government is irrelevant. They will have a FAR better chance with one than without one. If there was ever an appropriate time for a "duh" this would be it.

Both those wars had armies. One had help from the French Army. Soldiers went unpaid & almost gave up the fight or revolted.

Besides doesn't this prove dante's point?

[brooks85]

Both those wars had armies. One had help from the French Army. Soldiers went unpaid & almost gave up the fight or revolted.

Besides doesn't this prove dante's point?

no it doesn't because we are not talking about the odds of victory... You have to read what I said if you want to keep things straight. Dante has a habit of forming a narrative in his head.


Both of those wars had army-less guerrilla fighters who were very effective. They were going to be effective no matter what for one reason. They had comparative weapons. Guerrilla-like warfare would have been worthless without them just like it would be in the future.



Also, if you want to go back even further to prove dante wrong you can look up the Picts vs Romans.

[khicks26]

Washington's troops tried to kill him some 14 times also.

[khicks26]

no it doesn't because we are not talking about the odds of victory... You have to read what I said if you want to keep things straight. Dante has a habit of forming a narrative in his head.


Both of those wars had army-less guerrilla fighters who were very effective. They were going to be effective no matter what for one reason. They had comparative weapons. Guerrilla-like warfare would have been worthless without it.

militia with inscription into the army. Or part of the army.

[khicks26]

Same as the French under ground, or Russia partisans.

[brooks85]

militia with inscription into the army. Or part of the army.

No, they were not apart of the army which is why they were operating completely separate from the Army.

[khicks26]

No, they were not apart of the army which is why they were operating completely separate from the Army.

fighting the same enemy in the woods & in major battles.

[brooks85]

fighting the same enemy in the woods & in major battles.

but not fighting together all the time


details are important khicks.


Again, if there was ever a time for a "duh" this would be it. Yet you're still digging that hole lol

[brooks85]

knowing how to use logic is just too much fun



here is dante's logic since he thinks an Army would be too much for civilians;

He is in a car racing towards a cliff, the car goes over so dante takes off his seat belt. Why?

Well, because the car obviously isn't going to beat gravity so why give yourself any chance to survive?


dante logic

looks like this is khicks logic also

[khicks26]

but not fighting together all the time


details are important khicks.

yes they are, fighting for the same cause & in major battles with the army. Which is what he said, no revolution is won without an army.