___

Your comment is utterly without merit. I strongly support the right to sell such odious trash, but I will equally defend my right and the rights of others to criticize the oafish scum who create and market that kind of stuff.

And what YOU overlooked was that the obscene thing remained for sale; it was just kept behind the counter.

-------------------

My comment has more merit than yours. Your own statement shows you don't think they should have been able to sell it. IF you support their right, why your comment? Once more:

"And what YOU overlooked was that the obscene thing remained for sale; it was just kept behind the counter."

it certainly seems to me that you're complaining about them selling it. Why else would you point out that it remained for sale if you didn't think it shouldn't have been sold??

 

Bestworking

it certainly seems to me that you're complaining about them selling it. Why else would you point out that it remained for sale if you didn't think it shouldn't have been sold??

Set. Game. Match...................................

Man, that was like watching a one sided tennis match, I barely got sat down with my popcorn before she cleaned his clock.....haha

funny is watching the rt. wingnuts fall all over each other trying to declare someone a "winner" on an internet forum.

tell her what she won, johnny.... 

a big ole bag of wingnuts!

Right now it ain't a bag of wingnuts she is holding, at least I doubt they have wings on them.....especially after the way she ripped them puppies off....haha

Funny how a real world loser is concerned about Internet winners  

___

BECAUSE, you irremediable dim bulb, my entire point is that I firmly believe such crap should NOT be sold, but I also maintain that, despicable as it is, there is no legal reason that prevents it being sold.  The same constitution that protects MY rights to speak and do things that are legal, but objectionable to others., protects the rights of others to do the same thing. Can't you get that straight?

The NRA, as proprietor of the convention,  had the right to require the vendor to cease selling that absurd item, but they did not.  And that in no way contradicts what I have posted above, lest you should be tempted to look for some inconsistency where none exists.

Unless Contendah read the contract, he has no idea of the NRA's right to manage the items sold.  A few years ago, a vendor sold a bumper sticker stating, "I miss my ex, but my aim is improving."  Some didn't find it humorous, but they had the right to sell it.

You've got some nerve calling someone else a dim bulb when you can't even manage a flicker. Your whole point was to whine and cry foul, which you have no right to do, and I called you on it. What I got straight was your whining that even though they put the items away, which in my opinion they shouldn't have done, they still had them there for sale. You didn't say, "at least they put them away out of sight", you complained that they were still selling them.  Putting them out of sight wasn't enough for you, thus your complaint. 

"And what YOU overlooked was that the obscene thing remained for sale; it was just kept behind the counter."

We're supposed to buy that you think they have the right to sell them? How does that make sense? Double speak? "Oh, I think they have the right to sell them, but they only put them away and still sold them"?  

_______________________

don't be so hard on yourself, chuckles. everyone doesn't think you're a loser. your mom still likes you.

____

No, I did not read the contract, but as a matter of law and principle, the NRA, as the entity running the convention and authorizing the vendors to sell their goods is legally entitled to exercise control over the kinds of materials are offered for sale.  The NRA apparently had this authority to prohibit display of the offensive merchandise.  If they wished, they could have written contracts that specifically prohibited both display and sale of such rubbish. Whether in this instance the contracts were that specific has nothing to do with the constitutional issue we are discussing.

Gee tender, I read all your posts again and still can't find one place where you, as you claim, stated, or even hinted that you supported their right to sell the items-until you were called on it that is. Before that it was your whining about "so's yer old man".

__________________

you're a blooming idiot and the opposite of everything you play on the forums and one of the funniest jokes , in real life, i've ever seen.

I'm hard core leftie.  I do not blame the vendor for trying to sell those items, I blame the dummies who bought them.

come on down, tuffy. i'll call your bluff, everyday, all day! you are absolute trash and you show it, every time you post.

Bleeding Ex-Girlfriend Shooting Target At NRA Conference Promotes Violence Against Women

This is so offensive in so many ways, I don’t know where to begin. During Houston’s NRA Conference last week, a vendor was promoting shooting targets. One target looked so much like President Obama, it had to be taken off display. However the one ‘token’ female target called ‘Ex’, to represent an ex-girlfriend, that bleeds when you shoot her, was allowed to stay. It apparently met the NRA decency guidelines.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2...against-women-image/

if you know who i am.. you know where to find me, come on down. i'm there every day. once again, i call your bluff, tuffy.

Putting aside name calling, Crash, please provide proof of your statement. As yet, you've provided nothing but personal statements.  Insufficient!

______________

you can stop your simple minded bs, too. you insult every democrat on the forums and then go into your little "insults/personal statements are insufficient" rant. you're as sickening as ole idiot ronnie.

what exactly do you think i need to prove?

Checked my pm's. No-Show from you???

nor will you get one, idiot. get over yourself, you're just another simple minded fool who thinks you can intimidate someone on an internet forum.

________________

when you pass the 5th grade, come see me.

Just as I thought. Another winded Lib...

Bye bye...Internet Hero...

What? No keen answer?

Guess your ass is inflamed, hurting, YET still taking that Obama "POLL"?

KY Jelly should do the trick.

look moron, you threatened me. you said you know who i am.

come on by, feel free. if you threaten me, face to face, you won't leave happy.

other than that, leave me alone, idiot!

i'm trying to have a discussion with grown people, not idiots.

They keep winning because they promise to give stuff away to the low-information voters. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

___

 Whether I said it  in my initial post or later, I said it and it is my position and there is nothing in anything else I submitted that is inconsistent with it.  So your complaint is indeed without merit.

As for giving stuff away, the states that are the most solid republican voting get more  "free stuff" from Washington than the solid democratic states.

That is not true.  You are quoting from a left wing site that simply shows federal taxes per state vs. federal expenditures.  Ignored are number of retirees, elderly, numerous federal facilities in the state, and income levels in the states.  DC, the bluest of areas, is also the highest recipient for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Roland Pfalz:

He didn’t show up for me either.

In everyones zeal to congratulate Best in her supposed internet victory (she does need support, especially with all the inaccurate and downright false things she generally posts), they still overlook that Contendah never said they should not be able to sell it.   Wether or not he stated it was still for sale behind the counter, he still never said they should not be allowed to sale items.   These two thoughts are not mutually exclusive.   

So to pronounce Best the "winner" of an internet fracas based on a misrepresentation of the facts of the said fracas is somewhat short sighted.    I know plenty of people who do not wish to see alcohol on the shelves, in plain view, in large retailers like Wal*Mart, but they have no issue with these retailers selling it, just wish it were concealed out of the eyesight of children.   Obviously that makes no sense to me, is Walmart expected to implement a package store within its retail store that only allows 21+ to enter?   Regardless, that is another argument. 

Originally Posted by MonkeysUncleByMarriage:

Actually, he did:

BECAUSE, you irremediable dim bulb, my entire point is that I firmly believe such crap should NOT be sold.

No.   He stated he thought it should not be sold, as it was vile and disgusting.   Not that from a legal standpoint they should not be allowed to sell it.  There is a distinct difference.