View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
TejanoLibre
01-09-13, 03:58
What should we do about these Gangs?
http://www.hbo.com/#/documentaries/witness-south-sudan
KONY! KONY! How do Feel?
Guns unlimited!
Kill! Kill that Mother Fu__ker! That is how I Feel!Hire me!
I will do these "on the house!"
TL
So you know me to certify that I am afraid of firearms right? I was in the army for two years, and among other things I learn.Okay, I got it. You're comfortable handling weapons.
Nevertheless, you don't believe that average citizens should possess weapons, including yourself, and thus I will repost my previous question to you...
Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they [your family] weren't "ok"?
28633
28634
28635
TejanoLibre
01-09-13, 13:06
So you know me to certify that I am afraid of firearms right? I was in the army for two years, and among other things I learn not to be afraid 'never' 'never' of the F. A. L's MAG's 45 Cal. Ak47. Bazookas, ballonets, and grenades we were handling. But 'yes' I recorded in my mind to be afraid (very afraid!) of the idiot who does not how to use them, respect them, or is totally nuts!
Of course you will give to a 14 year old a Ferrari because 'HE' asks for it, and feels capable of handling that car at 200 miles / hr. On the freeway.
That's responsibility!As a child I grew up going to "Gun Shows" in Texas every weekend and being able to buy, sell and trade for every type of weapon that you can imagine! My father was the curator of a Weapons and Wax museum so I hung-out with full sized wax figures of Adolph Hitler, Genghis Khan, Mussolini, Chris Columbus, etc, and 1000's of square feet of armoured soldiers! It was awesome. Even had a full sized and fully operational "Dungeon!" Iron Maiden, guillotine, stretcher, eye gouger, etc, etc. Very cool.
I had a G-3 (308) and a Styer (223) , a Mac and an Uzi, all fully automatic; along with an Israeli. 44 and. 50 caliber magnum pistols! The Shit! I had the right to bear and buy, sell and trade to ANYONE without a need for documentation. I had the opportunity to buy a L. A. W. S Rocket and a Flame Thrower but I passed because the rocket was a "one shot" toy and the flame thrower was a bit expensive at the time.
Anyway, I ended up giving some of my toys to a "pharmaceutical rep" and sending a bunch to Mexico on a "free trade" agreement through out the years.
No bazookas or grenades but lots of bayonets! So I would not trade that experience for anything!
"You can take my guns away when you can pry my cold dead fingers away from them!"
TL.
What a shame that I can't have any toys in BA!
P. S. I had a Ferrari too and I got a LOT of speeding tickets!
And guess what? The above experiences did not Warp me a bit did they?
Punter 127
01-09-13, 13:58
I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial. [snip]Really?
On January 4th Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act which provides funds for Guantánamo Bay prison.
NDAA 2013 also has a provision which allows for the indefinite imprisonment of USA citizens, Or as Obama calls it 'prolonged detention. ' Prolonged detention allows for the detention of an individual without a charge or trial.
So much for your ' Constitutional right of a fair trial', Obama and the Chicago boys view the Constitution as just another piece of paper.
Okay, I got it. You're comfortable handling weapons.
Nevertheless, you don't believe that average citizens should possess weapons, including yourself, and thus I will repost my previous question to you.
28633
28634
28635Sir, you changed the subject!
You were explaining how to get on the top of the roof of your home with your rifle and defend your family against couple of tanks and soldiers carrying more hardware (and eager to use them!) than you can find underground in Beijing!
Have you read about the 'dirty war' in Argentina? Only the headlines? Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!
Sure! You will said that had the citizens being armed to their teeth with rifles and guns (Tanks, airplanes, bazookas, and. Drones- in the modern era) would never had to go what 'we' went through.
You will probably say that the Argentinians didn't have 'balls', and what happened to us was just a lack of preparation, and again, lack of 'balls' the reason we didn't applied the Dirty Harry system!
You state that if people in Germany (and other places in the world) had been armed, could defend themselves (in Germany for instance) against the SS. (Suggestions please!)
(Personal defense against the bad guy breaking into your home). Lots of people, 'millions' have guns at home. The woman whose son killed the kids in Connecticut did! Was she nuts for not having them secure in a safe place? I don't know!
How about her son? These are the type of people you want to have arms without let say a mental evaluation or something else?
Do you want to go to the shopping mall with your loaded gun (Far West!) just in case?
The problem is that everyone will have one!
How about having the 'Chicas' at Newport carrying one? Let say. Here is Mr. Tourist. During negotiations with chica, he wants her to include her 'Cola' on his payment of ($ 200 'pesos! ' T. L. N.) She gets offended, (remember is a nut woman who is allow by law to carry a gun). Chica shuts Mr. Tourist. Now, Mr. Tourist was with his wingman who thinks he knows how to handle thing abroad, pulls a gun, kills the chica, meanwhile two more chicas friends of the first one star shooting the wingman (he is dead now) while the police just came to the scene, starts shouting everyone else because now chaos was created and nobody knows what is going on!
Solution: Let's arm the tourist with AK47 during their stay in Baires! I am a genius!
My parents never talk to me about being a good kid, and I love movies about violence, and I also learn by Superman and the Spiderman that I can be invincible!
Did I say that I love' to watch every night all the bad news that are so good for my brain instead doing my homework when I was young?
Can't wait to be an adult to be able to buy a gun. I prefer to think that way instead thinking in going across the street and telling my neighbor that I want to be his friend, because if I do that I won't show any "balls" and the other kids will make funny of me!
TejanoLibre
01-09-13, 17:32
Sir, you changed the subject!
You were explaining how to get on the top of the roof of your home with your rifle and defend your family against couple of tanks and soldiers carrying more hardware (and eager to use them!) than you can find underground in Beijing!
Have you read about the 'dirty war' in Argentina? Only the headlines? Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!
Sure! You will said that had the citizens being armed to their teeth with rifles and guns (Tanks, airplanes, bazookas, and. Drones- in the modern era) would never had to go what 'we' went through.
You will probably say that the Argentinians didn't have 'balls', and what happened to us was just a lack of preparation, and again, lack of 'balls' the reason we didn't applied the Dirty Harry system!
You state that if people in Germany (and other places in the world) had been armed, could defend themselves (in Germany for instance) against the SS. (Suggestions please!)
(Personal defense against the bad guy breaking into your home). Lots of people, 'millions' have guns at home. The woman whose son killed the kids in Connecticut did! Was she nuts for not having them secure in a safe place? I don't know!
How about her son? These are the type of people you want to have arms without let say a mental evaluation or something else?
Do you want to go to the shopping mall with your loaded gun (Far West!) just in case?
The problem is that everyone will have one!
How about having the 'Chicas' at Newport carrying one? Let say. Here is Mr. Tourist. During negotiations with chica, he wants her to include her 'Cola' on his payment of ($ 200 'pesos! ' T. L. N.) She gets offended, (remember is a nut woman who is allow by law to carry a gun). Chica shuts Mr. Tourist. Now, Mr. Tourist was with his wingman who thinks he knows how to handle thing abroad, pulls a gun, kills the chica, meanwhile two more chicas friends of the first one star shooting the wingman (he is dead now) while the police just came to the scene, starts shouting everyone else because now chaos was created and nobody knows what is going on!
Solution: Let's arm the tourist with AK47 during their stay in Baires! I am a genius!
My parents never talk to me about being a good kid, and I love movies about violence, and I also learn by Superman and the Spiderman that I can be invincible!
Did I say that I love' to watch every night all the bad news that are so good for my brain instead doing my homework when I was young?
Can't wait to be an adult to be able to buy a gun. I prefer to think that way instead thinking in going across the street and telling my neighbor that I want to be his friend, because if I do that I won't show any "balls" and the other kids will make funny of me!Very Funny and Very Interesting :
Although your post was not directed toward me, although I'm surprised considering what I posted; it's still very intersting and very funny!
I love all of your post! I'm truly convinced that you are really "BORAT" in disguise!
"Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!"
I think I know what you are trying to say but it could be a subtle insult albeit a funny one!
Now Teach us if I'm wrong but Hitler, Stalin, and Peron, etc, etc were able to exterminate "the people" because the governments had taken away their guns so the people could not defend themselves. Right? And there were a shitload of guns lying around after a little war and revolution, etc.
That is precisely why the American Constitution's Second Amendment was written! Shit, it's the second thing they came up with on a long list! They knew way back then that they would not be able to defend themselves in the near future. (1776 to 1810 plus)
Every fucking Liberal attorney is going to jump on the N. R. A's bandwagon to defend the "right to bear arms and to form armed militias."
The woman in Conn. Bought those guns legally and routinely took her son to the gun range to practice, I guess that's one of the reasons why he had such a high kill ratio; that and the fact that they were children and he used a. 223 while applying multiple shots per victim. I think he just played too many video games. Yes, she knew he was "ODD" and she could have kept the guns in a safe, they can prosecute her for allowing him to gain access to her guns. Oops, I guess not. That law only applies to juneniles gaining access to an adult's guns and he was an adult. A bit ironic because she taught him how to shoot !
"Being armed to go to the mall."
Hell Yes! Certain states have counties that have enacted "open carry permits" where a "citizen" has the right to carry a weapon but it must be exposed like a big old hogleg strapped on to your thigh like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western! It must be very cool! And guess what, very little or ZERO crime! Works does'nt it?
"Crazy Armed Chicas"
They are! With knives at times.
Case in point : ( no pun intended )
A brother monger of ours was trolling one night near Excedra and he pickep up a "Chica." When they arrived at his apartment the "Chica" said pay me now and he said I never pay up front so the "Chica" pulled out a knife and said you will pay me NOW and you can only fuck me in the ass!
So he got a BBBJ instead. Me thinks he actually picked up a "Chico!" YUK!
Anyway, always a pleasure to read your post and Thank You for reading mine!
TL.
Call me, let's grab a beer one day.
Sir, you changed the subject!
You were explaining how to get on the top of the roof of your home with your rifle and defend your family against couple of tanks and soldiers carrying more hardware (and eager to use them!) than you can find underground in Beijing!We need training on this. Sign me up ! Sounds like a skill I really need.
In fact now that I think about it, I'm amazed I got this far in life without knowing how to do this.
We need training on this. Sign me up! Sounds like a skill I really need.
In fact now that I think about it, I'm amazed I got this far in life without knowing how to do this.I am so sorry I did not meet you guys when I was in town, I am just on my way getting paid to train people how to do just to do that!
When I can log on next time we can link up and I give you a few lessons, unless you have lost the freedoms 90% of the worlds population would die to have (come to think of it, actually DO die for because they do not have small arms you useful morons try to take away from your own people!).
Wankers!
Stranger out
Very Funny and Very Interesting :
Although your post was not directed toward me, although I'm surprised considering what I posted; it's still very intersting and very funny!
I love all of your post! I'm truly convinced that you are really "BORAT" in disguise!
"Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!"
I think I know what you are trying to say but it could be a subtle insult albeit a funny one!
Now Teach us if I'm wrong but Hitler, Stalin, and Peron, etc, etc were able to exterminate "the people" because the governments had taken away their guns so the people could not defend themselves. Right? And there were a shitload of guns lying around after a little war and revolution, etc.
That is precisely why the American Constitution's Second Amendment was written! Shit, it's the second thing they came up with on a long list! They knew way back then that they would not be able to defend themselves in the near future. (1776 to 1810 plus)
Every fucking Liberal attorney is going to jump on the N. R. A's bandwagon to defend the "right to bear arms and to form armed militias."
The woman in Conn. Bought those guns legally and routinely took her son to the gun range to practice, I guess that's one of the reasons why he had such a high kill ratio; that and the fact that they were children and he used a. 223 while applying multiple shots per victim. I think he just played too many video games. Yes, she knew he was "ODD" and she could have kept the guns in a safe, they can prosecute her for allowing him to gain access to her guns. Oops, I guess not. That law only applies to juneniles gaining access to an adult's guns and he was an adult. A bit ironic because she taught him how to shoot!
"Being armed to go to the mall."
Hell Yes! Certain states have counties that have enacted "open carry permits" where a "citizen" has the right to carry a weapon but it must be exposed like a big old hogleg strapped on to your thigh like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western! It must be very cool! And guess what, very little or ZERO crime! Works does'nt it?
"Crazy Armed Chicas"
They are! With knives at times.
Case in point : (no pun intended)
A brother monger of ours was trolling one night near Excedra and he pickep up a "Chica." When they arrived at his apartment the "Chica" said pay me now and he said I never pay up front so the "Chica" pulled out a knife and said you will pay me NOW and you can only fuck me in the ass!
So he got a BBBJ instead. Me thinks he actually picked up a "Chico!" YUK!
Anyway, always a pleasure to read your post and Thank You for reading mine!
TL.
Call me, let's grab a beer one day.Well, your point is very clear to me. You agree having 'everyone' armed to their teeth because who knows, maybe someday perhaps a crazy mad man takes over and we find ourselves without any help.
That will be wonderful if we all are mentally OK! (Whatever that means!) , we are well trained on how to use those weapons in different conditions (psychology evaluation here!) because one thing is to go to a shooting range, and other using them in a moment of distress, and keeping them safe (I don't know what is out there for that) , just in case someone as the guy in Connecticut commits an atrocity.
I think the Swiss are doing, that, although they have their share of problems like keeping only certain amount ammunitions at home etc.
Your friend and the crazy chica with the knife in his apartment? What if she had a gun in her purse because 'she had the rights' to carry one as soon as she arrived to 'Estacion Retiro' from Paraguay?
About the beer? How about a good glass of Malbec from Mendoza? Is on me of course!
On January 4th Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act which provides funds for Guantánamo Bay prison.
NDAA 2013 also has a provision which allows for the indefinite imprisonment of USA citizens, Or as Obama calls it 'prolonged detention. ' Prolonged detention allows for the detention of an individual without a charge or trial.
So much for your ' Constitutional right of a fair trial', Obama and the Chicago boys view the Constitution as just another piece of paper.Instead of your knee-jerk reaction to always blame Obama, did it ever occur to you to ask, Why didn't Congress send Obama a better bill?
In the bill it passed, the Republican-led House didn't bother to address the indefinite detention issue at all. The Democrat-led Senate did. In November, the Senate passed Amendment #3018 by a wide margin of 67-29. Known as the Feinstein-Lee Amendment, it provided protection against indefinite detention. However, in December a House-Senate conference committee led by Senator John McCain stripped Amendment #3018 from the new draft of the NDAA bill. This committee was tasked with merging the House and Senate versions of the 2013 NDAA. Here's what Sen. Rand Paul said about it:
"The decision by the NDAA conference committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of the amendment that protects American citizens against indefinite detention now renders the entire NDAA unconstitutional," Sen. Paul warned.
'When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury, ' Paul further elaborated.Congress had much more to do with the 2013 NDAA than the President. And if Congressional Republicans had been more concerned about the indefinite detention issue, this would have played out differently.
TejanoLibre
01-10-13, 04:49
You Go Girl!
A 30 Round Clip Would Have Helped!
http://news.yahoo.com/mom-shot-intruder-inspires-gun-control-foes-003753089.html
TL
Keep Shooting Baby !
Punter 127
01-10-13, 18:23
Instead of your knee-jerk reaction to always blame Obama, did it ever occur to you to ask, Why didn't Congress send Obama a better bill?
In the bill it passed, the Republican-led House didn't bother to address the indefinite detention issue at all. The Democrat-led Senate did. In November, the Senate passed Amendment #3018 by a wide margin of 67-29. Known as the Feinstein-Lee Amendment, it provided protection against indefinite detention. However, in December a House-Senate conference committee led by Senator John McCain stripped Amendment #3018 from the new draft of the NDAA bill. This committee was tasked with merging the House and Senate versions of the 2013 NDAA. Here's what Sen. Rand Paul said about it:
Congress had much more to do with the 2013 NDAA than the President. And if Congressional Republicans had been more concerned about the indefinite detention issue, this would have played out differently..
The bottom line is Obama signed the bill into law, he had the power to veto, but like a good lefty he pissed and moaned an whined about how much he didn't like the bill, then he signed it anyway. I suspect if the truth be known he waited for NDAA with baited breath. But regardless of why he signed it Americans can be held in indefinite detention without being charged and without a trial.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Great job Mr. President!
BTW why didn't he just ignore Congress and issue more executive orders? After all that's how he plans to deal with gun control isn't it? If he does try to take guns away by means of executive order he may well unleash more civil unrest than this country has seen since the Civil war.
Notice the weasel move by Punter. It's Republicans that are supposed to be strong about defending the Constitution. But they weren't when it came to the indefinite detention issue in the 2013 NDAA. And Punter just blames Obama.
That's like me blaming a Republican president for signing a bill to weaken Medicaid, when Congressional Democrats had the power to prevent it but did nothing. I wouldn't blame the President, I would blame Democrats for not fighting for a core Democrat position.
Constitutionalists were let down by their own party, even Sen. Rand Paul recognized this.
Anyone blaming only Obama here is blatantly ignoring where the real problem lies. I suspect folks like Punter aren't genuinely upset about the indefinite detention issue, but rather just looking for another excuse to piss and moan about Obama.
More gun violence and personal injury.
This time at a school in Taft, California. One teacher and a 16-year-old student were shot, the latter in critical condition.
The school normally has an armed guard, but he didn't make it to work today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/taft-high-school-armed-guard_n_2450710.html
Punter 127
01-11-13, 03:43
Notice the weasel move by Punter. It's Republicans that are supposed to be strong about defending the Constitution. But they weren't when it came to the indefinite detention issue in the 2013 NDAA. And Punter just blames Obama.ROFLMAO Who signed the bill into law? Obama is the President isn't he? WTF do you think this guy is made of teflon and nothing will stick to him?
Didn't the President take an oath promising to defend the Consitution? I think it went something like this; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's like me blaming a Republican president for signing a bill to weaken Medicaid, when Congressional Democrats had the power to prevent it but did nothing. I wouldn't blame the President, I would blame Democrats for not fighting for a core Democrat position.Really, I doubt it, but we'll just put this statement in the bank for future reference.
Constitutionalists were let down by their own party, even Sen. Rand Paul recognized this.I don't disagree that Republicans may have let "Constitutionalists" down, but what did Obama do to Civil liberties? The last time I checked two wrongs do not equal a right.
Rand Paul and Esten, WOW desperation sure makes for strange bedfellows.
Anyone blaming only Obama here is blatantly ignoring where the real problem lies. I suspect folks like Punter aren't genuinely upset about the indefinite detention issue, but rather just looking for another excuse to piss and moan about Obama.You can 'suspect' anything you want, but you are dead wrong! I would never support detaining American citizens without 'due process'. If you go back and look you will see that I spoke out against the patriot act and TSA a long time ago (before Obama). And just for the record I'm also against assassinating American citizens just because some government agency labels them a "terrorist". (Are you?)
All American citizens are entitled to their Consitutional rights and protections, and I've got a big problem with people like you that want to walk on the Constitution in order to further a political agenda.
Obama is POTUS he signed the bill into law and he gets the credit for it, goes with the job. If You can't take the heat get the fuck out of the kitchen.
BTW your personal attack on me just reveals your desperation, the weakness of your argument, and your lack of credibility. (which we already knew from you previous actions) It's very easy to call people names from the safety of a keyboard, I wonder how tough you'd be in person?
Sir, you changed the subject!
You were explaining how to get on the top of the roof of your home with your rifle and defend your family against couple of tanks and soldiers carrying more hardware (and eager to use them!) than you can find underground in Beijing!
Have you read about the 'dirty war' in Argentina? Only the headlines? Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!
Sure! You will said that had the citizens being armed to their teeth with rifles and guns (Tanks, airplanes, bazookas, and. Drones- in the modern era) would never had to go what 'we' went through.
You will probably say that the Argentinians didn't have 'balls', and what happened to us was just a lack of preparation, and again, lack of 'balls' the reason we didn't applied the Dirty Harry system!
You state that if people in Germany (and other places in the world) had been armed, could defend themselves (in Germany for instance) against the SS. (Suggestions please!) Caricoso,
Please pay attention here, because this is the 3rd time I've said this to you, and yet it continues to fly right over your head.
I did not say anything about using firearms to defend your family against government troops.
What I clearly said was.
...the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.However, you suggested that instead of getting personally involved in a resistance movement, you would instead need to go home "to protect my family". Given our mutual assumption that individuals cannot prevail in a direct confrontation with government troops, I assumed that you were talking about "protecting" them from criminals, which led me ask how exactly you were going to protect your family [against criminals] when you are unarmed.
To summarize:
- Armed citizen in direct confrontation with tyrannical government troops = NO Good.
- Armed citizen in guerrilla action against tyrannical government troops = Good!
- Unarmed citizen protecting family against criminals = NO Good.
- Armed citizen protecting family against criminals = Good!
My point being that even if you accept the argument that citizens do not need to be armed to resist government tyranny, they most certainly need to be armed to protect themselves [and their families] against criminals.
Get it?
I doubt it, because you obviously have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears.
Thanks,
Jackson
Caricoso,
Please pay attention here, because this is the 3rd time I've said this to you, and yet it continues to fly right over your head.
I did not say anything about using firearms to defend your family against government troops.
What I clearly said was.
However, you suggested that instead of getting personally involved in a resistance movement, you would instead need to go home "to protect my family". Given our mutual assumption that individuals cannot prevail in a direct confrontation with government troops, I assumed that you were talking about "protecting" them from criminals, which led me ask how exactly you were going to protect your family [against criminals] when you are unarmed.
To summarize:
- Armed citizen in direct confrontation with tyrannical government troops = NO Good.
- Armed citizen in guerrilla action against tyrannical government troops = Good!
- Unarmed citizen protecting family against criminals = NO Good.
- Armed citizen protecting family against criminals = Good!
My point being that even if you accept the argument that citizens do not need to be armed to resist government tyranny, they most certainly need to be armed to protect themselves [and their families] against criminals.
Get it?
I doubt it, because you obviously have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears.
Thanks,
JacksonI guess my 'Shakespearian English' is not sufficient to explain what I am trying to say about this guns thing!
Ok, this is my point of view:
I've read the 2nd amendment. I try to transport myself to the times where it was written, and it makes perfect sense to me.
Now, would you 'please' explain to me how you keep these nuts for killing innocent people? One of my family members could be the next victim. My son or my daughter at the school? At the movie theater? Shopping mall?
Who say that I don't have the tools necessary to protect my family at home? But, should I go to the street with them? Not much if a nut carries a semi-auto Pum! Pum! While I am in the shopping mall. Should I give my kids a Chinese ak47? 'Just in case' to protect themselves at the school? But wait, what if another kid brings a grenade and wants to immolate himself and bring some companions to heaven?
The above was about "personal protection!"
Next: you said. 'I doubt it, because you obviously have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears'
I say. Were you with my in the seventies as an army soldier in Cordoba, and Buenos Aires and see and feel the 'real scene' of what happened when some people play hero in real life because they are experts in video games?
Were you with me as a civilian three years after in class at the university 'UBA' in Baires, and a platoon of army soldiers interrupt the classes carrying F. A. L. 's while the police was interrogating us?
Fortunately a friend of mine and me, because we were in the military, knew the codes of how to talk to them and 'what not to do! The others? Were shiting on their pants!
Ironic, I remember patrolling some of the street in Recoleta (Junin included). Now I stroll with the chicas from Black, Hippo, Madahos etc.
'Mr. Jackson', I understand and I respect your point of view, but I wish I have someone that will tell me how to avoid the killing of innocent people and not just tell me that the killer is the person and not the gun. What do they use to kill 20 inocent kids in 45 seconds? It's my simple question!
Thank you!
Obama is the President isn't he? WTF do you think this guy is made of teflon and nothing will stick to him?Yes, so long as he continues to use to use the country's credit card to give free money to 51% of the voters.
Member #4112
01-11-13, 19:34
Jackson, you know you are wasting your time arguing with folks who believe guns kill people and pencils misspell words.
The only shocking thing I see is how the left wing news media never reports on the times firearms stop violence. Most recently the mother in Georgia and the young girl in Wisconsin who either killed or wounded the criminals invading their homes. In one case the deceased criminal had in his possession a Model 1911 taken from a previous home invasion in which the 70 year old home owner was murdered.
I own many firearms: pistols, rifles, shotguns and the dreaded assault rifle (Colt AR 15, AK97, SL8, and a Styer Aug). I have never in more than 50 years of gun ownership observed one of these weapons jump up, run out and kill anyone of its own volition.
Obama's Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation but they still had over 500 homicides – that's an average of more than one a day.
Automobile accidents kill more people annually than firearms, but since everyone depends on vehicles this 'uncontrolled violence' is tolerated.
While you are at it the attached articles are worth a read.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-it-time-to-call-for-hammer-control/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
TejanoLibre
01-11-13, 21:00
Jackson, you know you are wasting your time arguing with folks who believe guns kill people and pencils misspell words.
The only shocking thing I see is how the left wing news media never reports on the times firearms stop violence. Most recently the mother in Georgia and the young girl in Wisconsin who either killed or wounded the criminals invading their homes. In one case the deceased criminal had in his possession a Model 1911 taken from a previous home invasion in which the 70 year old home owner was murdered.
I own many firearms: pistols, rifles, shotguns and the dreaded assault rifle (Colt AR 15, AK97, SL8, and a Styer Aug). I have never in more than 50 years of gun ownership observed one of these weapons jump up, run out and kill anyone of its own volition.
Obama's Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation but they still had over 500 homicides – that's an average of more than one a day.
Automobile accidents kill more people annually than firearms, but since everyone depends on vehicles this 'uncontrolled violence' is tolerated.
While you are at it the attached articles are worth a read.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-it-time-to-call-for-hammer-control/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-RiflesI really miss my toys!
I had a Steyr Aug, an HK 91 with a G3 Fully Automatic Trigger Group, folding bi-pod, sniper scope and an adujtable stock; both very nice and when the importation was banned by Clinton it had a magical effect on these weapons. The values sky-rocketed! From about $900. 00 to $5000. 00 plus! That will happen again if they go through with the proposed ban. Nice for some people!
I guess my ball and pin hammer collection along with my sledge hammers will go up too!
TL
I read that 1 in 4 Americans have criminal records, the same for mental illness. Americans are dropping in their educational standards, Americans have hugh credit card debts. Why? How?
It seems ethics, morality, discipline are going by the wayside. Self destruction started down the slippery slope many decades ago, but it is almost full bloom now. All this hate talk about tyranny, liberty & freedom is part of the self destruction. I saw a guy who sounded like Russ Limbaugh, but he turn out to be Alex Jones. Where they find him? Should I fear him or should I fear the government. Oklahoma City revisited.
Happy New Year
Punter 127
01-12-13, 13:57
I read that 1 in 4 Americans have criminal records, the same for mental illness. Americans are dropping in their educational standards, Americans have hugh credit card debts. Why? How?
It seems ethics, morality, discipline are going by the wayside. Self destruction started down the slippery slope many decades ago, but it is almost full bloom now. All this hate talk about tyranny, liberty & freedom is part of the self destruction. I saw a guy who sounded like Russ Limbaugh, but he turn out to be Alex Jones. Where they find him? Should I fear him or should I fear the government. Oklahoma City revisited.
Happy New YearPerhaps you should fear both.
The Oklahoma City bombers claimed the bombing was motivated by the federal governments mishandling of the Waco Siege (1993) and the Ruby Ridge incident (1992). The bombing claimed 168 lives, 19 were children, More than 680 people were injured.
Number of shots fired zero.
Punter thou dost protest too much. Name calling and personal attacks? I called out your clear evasiveness to place any blame on your own party. If you take every critique of your words and actions as a personal attack, you'll go through life being easily offended and angered.
You finally admitted that Republicans shared the blame. Which was my singular point. Conceding my point is inconsistent with your claim I was desperate and my argument was weak. You're not making any sense, but we've seen this type of reaction from you before.
Guess what. I hadn't stated my personal opinion on the indefinite detention issue. In fact, I agree with you. There is a potential for abuse here and Americans should have the right to due process. I believe this because this is the opinion I've formulated myself, not because the Constitution said so. I'm happy to blame both Obama and Congress for failing to strip this power from the NDAA. But I'm not too worked up about it, as I really haven't seen the power being abused and doubt it would be.
I've got a big problem with people like you that want to walk on the Constitution in order to further a political agenda.Understand this. People like me aren't motivated to "walk on" the Constitution, for an agenda or any other reason. We are motivated to examine problems and take action to address them. We do this by critical thinking, not blind adherence to a document. If there is something in the Constitution that may be contributing to an important problem, you bet it's up for discussion.
I never saw a bottle of cyanide jump up, run out and kill anyone.
I read that 1 in 4 Americans have criminal records, the same for mental illness. Americans are dropping in their educational standards, Americans have hugh credit card debts. Why? How?
It seems ethics, morality, discipline are going by the wayside. Self destruction started down the slippery slope many decades ago, but it is almost full bloom now. All this hate talk about tyranny, liberty & freedom is part of the self destruction. I saw a guy who sounded like Russ Limbaugh, but he turn out to be Alex Jones. Where they find him? Should I fear him or should I fear the government. Oklahoma City revisited.
Happy New YearBlack Shirt-I share your many concerns about the USA's self destructive path. I also feel the pain of the gun enthusiasts who fear that the tide is turning against them. As you know, President Obama and I are quite close. He has surreptitiously attended many of my lavish barbecues thrown in my back yard in Lat Phrao. I explained some of my concerns to him recently. Being the gracious fellow he is, he agreed with my suggestion that the government provide FREE firearms and ammo to those gun owners who may be forced to relinquish their more hazardous firearms. I offer an example of these firearms and ammo, to be given FREE, in photographs below.
28636
28637
Punter 127
01-13-13, 09:30
Punter thou dost protest too much. Name calling and personal attacks? I called out your clear evasiveness to place any blame on your own party. If you take every critique of your words and actions as a personal attack, you'll go through life being easily offended and angered.Wrong in so many ways, first of all I have stated many times that I am NOT a member of the GOP and never have been, I was once however a member of the Democrat party, but I grew up, wised up, and figured out I didn't want to be a socialist.
You can crawfish all you want but I think everyone who saw your post understood what you were implying. But I am really touched by your concern for my well being, but you needn't bother yourself I'll be just fine without your help, especially considering how busy you are trashing the Constitution.
As long as you continue to spread left-wing propaganda I will continue to protest.
You finally admitted that Republicans shared the blame. Which was my singular point. Conceding my point is inconsistent with your claim I was desperate and my argument was weak. You're not making any sense, but we've seen this type of reaction from you before.I never denied Republican involvement but it's a secondary point. What part of the fact that a bill doesn't become law until the President signs it don't you understand? Except in a override situation the buck stops with the president. In the future it will be remembered that NDAA 2013 became law under Obama, it won't be known as having become law under the 112th congress. How can I make it simpler for you?
Guess what. I hadn't stated my personal opinion on the indefinite detention issue. In fact, I agree with you. There is a potential for abuse here and Americans should have the right to due process. I believe this because this is the opinion I've formulated myself, not because the Constitution said so. I'm happy to blame both Obama and Congress for failing to strip this power from the NDAA. But I'm not too worked up about it, as I really haven't seen the power being abused and doubt it would be.I'm glad to hear that you at least support some individual rights, even if your reasoning is a bit askew. I caution you against being insouciant about this, anytime you give government a power sooner or later they will use it.
I noticed you didn't bother to give your 'personal opinion' about assassinating American citizens just because some government agency labels them a "terrorist". Why?
Understand this. People like me aren't motivated to "walk on" the Constitution, for an agenda or any other reason. We are motivated to examine problems and take action to address them. We do this by critical thinking, not blind adherence to a document. If there is something in the Constitution that may be contributing to an important problem, you bet it's up for discussion.Understand this. The Constitution of the United States Of America is NOT just a 'document'! Your 'critical thinking' is irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution. You don't have to like it and there is a procedure (doesn't include executive order) to change it, but you can not circumvent or ignore it, and you are required to obey it. Like it or not the Constitution IS the supreme law of our land.
I read that 1 in 4 Americans have criminal records.That number includes every person who has ever been arrested, regardless of the eventual disposition of the originating charge. It does NOT reflect of the number of citizens who have been convicted of felonies or even misdemeanors.
The percentage of Americans who have been convicted of a felony is about 2.5% of the entire population of the country. That's 1 in 40.
Thanks,
Jackson
That number includes every person who has ever been arrested, regardless of the eventual disposition of the originating charge. It does NOT reflect of the number of citizens who have been convicted of felonies or even misdemeanors.
The percentage of Americans who have been convicted of a felony is about 2. 5% of the entire population of the country. That's 1 in 40.
Thanks,
JacksonHis quote regarding what he read is solely a statement on what he wants to believe, and / or what sources he selects to read. Just standard bash the Yankee rubbish. To be taken with a grain of salt. Monger on all. Toymann
His quote regarding what he read is solely a statement on what he wants to believe, and / or what sources he selects to read. Just standard bash the Yankee rubbish. To be taken with a grain of salt. Monger on all. ToymannGlad to know that everything is cool & humming, cash in the pockets, people warm, smiling and happy. Nothing that can't be solve with a handshake. Looking forward to my arrival in Los Angeles in about 6 weeks. Wall Street has been kind to me.
Punter, if you're not a member of the GOP or don't otherwise support them, let's just rephrase it that you evaded assigning responsibility to anyone except Obama. Same point. Anyways, I hope you don't give Congress a free pass. They are elected representatives and have power and responsibilities. Yes people and the media tend to focus on the President under which a law was passed. But that doesn't mean we don't or shouldn't hold Congress accountable as well. Congress has tremendous influence on what happens. Sometimes, a President is forced to sign legislation he does not entirely approve, as it may be the best deal he can get, and the consequences of not signing it may be worse.
I noticed you didn't bother to give your 'personal opinion' about assassinating American citizens just because some government agency labels them a "terrorist". Why?Another issue I'm not too concerned with. But since you asked I gave it some thought. Consistent with my opinion on indefinite detention and right to due process, in principle I am against assassinating American citizens just on the basis of government labelling them a "terrorist". HOWEVER, I will concede an exception. Which is if the person is abroad and cannot be detained, and the government has evidence or probable cause the person is involved in terrorism. If an American is plotting a terrorist attack on the US, and we cannot detain him, do we do nothing? These are the tough questions in the war on terror. In this case I will give our government and it's intelligence operations (which have a pretty good record) the benefit of the doubt and allow them to take the guy out, rather than risk a terrorist attack on other Americans. Again, I arrive at my position through critical thinking, not blindly following an ideology or principle. If I see abuse of such power, I would then re-evaluate my position.
I never saw a bottle of cyanide jump up, run out and kill anyone.Also, I never saw a person shoot bullets without a gun.
Also, I never saw a person shoot bullets without a gun.I have. Not very effective though.
I took some money out of Wall Street just in case the Teabaggers decide on self immolation tactics over spending cuts. Unlike our Buddhist and Muslim brethren, I just don't see that kind of commitment by our evangelical friends extending to real physical acts. Figuratively speaking, they could get self immolated themselves in 2014 House elections if they do not want to be part of the process. Then, maybe, they will emigrate to Siberia. The writing is on the wall, the bush is burning, yet, they are acting out like the blind jihadists that we so dispised. Blind Faith.
Not saying spending cuts should not be top priority, but it's like putting on the condom before sticking your dick in some hole, There are priorities, and there is PRIORITY.
I took some money out of Wall Street just in case the Teabaggers decide on self immolation tactics over spending cuts. Unlike our Buddhist and Muslim brethren, I just don't see that kind of commitment by our evangelical friends extending to real physical acts. Figuratively speaking, they could get self immolated themselves in 2014 House elections if they do not want to be part of the process. Then, maybe, they will emigrate to Siberia. The writing is on the wall, the Bush is burning, yet, they are acting out like the blind jihadists that we so dispised. Blind Faith.
Not saying spending cuts should not be top priority, but it's like putting on the condom before sticking your dick in some hole, There are priorities, and there is PRIORITY.What happened to your lectures about excessive debt and a culture that spends, spends, spends? I agreed with that.
You're right about one thing, the 'teabaggers' may get immolated in the 2014 House elections, for trying to do the right thing. That's because many Americans are spoiled and stupid, and believe government can continue to spend money wildly and inefficiently. And they won't have to pay for it – if people making over $200, 000 or $300, 000 a year will just pay a little more, there will be plenty to cover the deficits in the federal government and Medicare and Social Security. What a joke!
The 'teabaggers' are all that stands between the USA as it is now and a situation like Greece. All Democrats and the majority of Republicans would spend us into oblivion.
What happened to your lectures about excessive debt and a culture that spends, spends, spends? I agreed with that.
You're right about one thing, the 'teabaggers' may get immolated in the 2014 House elections, for trying to do the right thing. That's because many Americans are spoiled and stupid, and believe government can continue to spend money wildly and inefficiently. And they won't have to pay for it – if people making over $200, 000 or $300, 000 a year will just pay a little more, there will be plenty to cover the deficits in the federal government and Medicare and Social Security. What a joke!
The 'teabaggers' are all that stands between the USA as it is now and a situation like Greece. All Democrats and the majority of Republicans would spend us into oblivion.I think we can make a deal and be very happy about it. But the politics of trying to ruin Obama the last 4 years has been destructive to America. So, if you cannot take the blame for that, forget it! Obama is taking shit from his own party's extremists, in case you didn't realize it. He already caved in twice to Bush's tax cuts. But the stone throwing never ceases. Guess who's coming to dinner? This time, he's here to stay. Better have a pep talk with your inner self!
Nothing can be done overnight. Short term job recovery and long term deficit reduction, tatoo that on your forehead and we will be able to craft something that is going to work out. Are you and I better off than 4 years ago? You bet we are! 2012 was a year that you could have made money investing in just about anything that you threw your money at blindfolded. So stop all the propaganda about socialism and communism. Just to let you know where I am at, they should make everybody that makes $50, 000+ pay taxes. If they don't like it, they can emigrate somewhere else. And that is not government tyranny. I could go on but I should quit before Toyman gets a hard on for me.
Just to let you know where I am at, they should make everybody that makes $50, 000+ pay taxes. If they don't like it, they can emigrate somewhere else. And that is not government tyranny. I could go on but I should quit before Toyman gets a hard on for me.Now we are talking! Always knew you had it in a BS. In my past socialist life only two things were a given! Everybody paid taxes but HeLL, healthcare was free. How the US ever got to the point where nearly half the population doesn't pay income tax, sure as hell beats me. As much as the Esten types just love this program, it will absolutely be the end of us! Just look north of the US border for a prime example. Canada has never done better and appears to be built to last! Everybody that earns a paycheck PAYS income tax, there are virtually NO tax exemptions, and an energy and geologically wealthy nation exploits its natural resources, to the sha-grin of the tree huggers!
Never really thought you were a hater, just threw that out to see if it stuck. Happy mongering BS. Toymann
Ps. You have to admit the 1 in 4 Americans with a criminal record was a tad over the top! LMAO
I think we can make a deal and be very happy about it. But the politics of trying to ruin Obama the last 4 years has been destructive to America. So, if you cannot take the blame for that, forget it! Obama is taking shit from his own party's extremists, in case you didn't realize it. He already caved in twice to Bush's tax cuts. But the stone throwing never ceases.You're re-writing history. Obama is in favor of the Bush tax cuts for all but the 2% of taxpayers that make over $250,000 per year. What's been destructive to America over the last 4 years has been $1 trillion+ budget deficits. How that's going to end if you raise taxes on the top 2% and raise $100 billion per year, if you leave spending untouched, especially given the increases in Medicare spending coming down the pike? Obama apparently doesn't give a rat's ass about future generations or the shape the country's in after he leaves office.
You're re-writing history. Obama is in favor of the Bush tax cuts for all but the 2% of taxpayers that make over $250,000 per year. What's been destructive to America over the last 4 years has been $1 trillion+ budget deficits. How that's going to end if you raise taxes on the top 2% and raise $100 billion per year, if you leave spending untouched, especially given the increases in Medicare spending coming down the pike? Obama apparently doesn't give a rat's ass about future generations or the shape the country's in after he leaves office.I see your mind is already in the set mode. Outside the Kremlin, there are still some diehards marching for the good old days of the USSR. And here you are, saying you are willing to plunge down the fiscal cliff? And I thought you were a reasonable guy. Business leaders have already conceded that they can still make alot of money despite higher income rates. As for spending cuts, are you sure it is zero or is it up for negotiations?
Punter 127
01-16-13, 13:46
Punter, if you're not a member of the GOP or don't otherwise support them, let's just rephrase it that you evaded assigning responsibility to anyone except Obama. Same point. Anyways, I hope you don't give Congress a free pass. They are elected representatives and have power and responsibilities. Yes people and the media tend to focus on the President under which a law was passed. But that doesn't mean we don't or shouldn't hold Congress accountable as well. Congress has tremendous influence on what happens. Sometimes, a President is forced to sign legislation he does not entirely approve, as it may be the best deal he can get, and the consequences of not signing it may be worse.Esten you can phrase it anyway you want, thanks to our 'blindly following an ideology or principle' better known as the Constitution you have freedom of speech. The primary purpose of my original post was to show that Members 2041 was incorrect.
FYI I don't even vote in primary elections because I refuse to declare a political party. In my eyes the words politician and criminal pretty much go hand and hand and I want them all held accountable. But be forewarned when you start attacking the Constitution it's time for the gloves to come off.
Another issue I'm not too concerned with. But since you asked I gave it some thought. Consistent with my opinion on indefinite detention and right to due process, in principle I am against assassinating American citizens just on the basis of government labelling them a "terrorist". HOWEVER, I will concede an exception. Which is if the person is abroad and cannot be detained, and the government has evidence or probable cause the person is involved in terrorism. If an American is plotting a terrorist attack on the US, and we cannot detain him, do we do nothing? These are the tough questions in the war on terror. In this case I will give our government and it's intelligence operations (which have a pretty good record) the benefit of the doubt and allow them to take the guy out, rather than risk a terrorist attack on other Americans. Again, I arrive at my position through critical thinking, not blindly following an ideology or principle. If I see abuse of such power, I would then re-evaluate my position.That's a lot of "if", however I don't believe the Bill of Rights has any "if" in it.
Would you feel the same way if Bush was POTUS?
How do we know if there's any abuse of power, who does the government present its evidence to? Once you allow the Government to become Judge, Jury, and Executioner at their own discretion you are on a very slippery slope. That type of power is very hard to take back.
You and WT69 really should take the time to read the Constitution, it is after all the supreme law of our land. Like it or not.
Having seen & read todays news I'm a little concerned about Stranger garding those Oil Fields.
Does anybody know anything?
Exon
Having seen & read todays news I'm a little concerned about Stranger garding those Oil Fields.
Does anybody know anything?
ExonI just got an email from him and he is OK. I was nervous.
TejanoLibre
01-17-13, 04:07
I just got an email from him and he is OK. I was nervous.The Strange One can take care of himself and leave no prisoners!
We all wish him the best in that awful place!
TL
That's a lot of "if", however I don't believe the Bill of Rights has any "if" in it.OK, we won't go after an American who joins Al-Qaida and isn't easily detained. We'll just let him continue his plan to attack us. Hundreds or thousands of Americans may die, but we'll feel good knowing we didn't violate the Bill of Rights.
Would you feel the same way if Bush was POTUS?Absolutely, 100%.
How do we know if there's any abuse of power, who does the government present its evidence to? Once you allow the Government to become Judge, Jury, and Executioner at their own discretion you are on a very slippery slope. That type of power is very hard to take back.We may not always know. But if the names are public, the media will cover it, and we can have an open discussion and assessment. I believe such decisions are not made lightly, and are made in the interests of national security, which is a role of the federal government. This was the case with Al-awaki, and no one is crying over him. Of course, if you think the government is your enemy, you may not share this view. You can trade the risk of one innocent American being killed, for the risk of hundreds or thousands being killed. That's exactly what you'll be doing.
Also, I never saw a person shoot bullets without a gun.I think I figured it out:
It's the combination of guns + people that results in gun violence.
Yeah, that's it.
So when someone says "Guns don't kill people, people do", you are dealing with someone who does not have a grasp on reality.
I see your mind is already in the set mode. Outside the Kremlin, there are still some diehards marching for the good old days of the USSR. And here you are, saying you are willing to plunge down the fiscal cliff? And I thought you were a reasonable guy. Business leaders have already conceded that they can still make alot of money despite higher income rates. As for spending cuts, are you sure it is zero or is it up for negotiations?Black Shirt, for every $1. 00 that the federal government takes in, it spends $1. 40. I don't care if it's heroin or debt owed by a family or a business or a government, it's all the same thing, an addiction. The federal government is addicted to debt, and it appears that you, Obama, most Democrats and many Republicans don't give a crap. Obama and other politicians don't care because they'll be out of office before this catches up with them. I don't know about your reasons. Either you're old enough that you'll be dead before the USA goes bankrupt, or maybe you're a pollyanna. Anyway, the "teabaggers" are the only ones out there actually trying to do something about the problem. They do it at great political risk, because their position isn't popular, even though it's right. They don't deserve to be demonized. I'm as close as you can get to a card carrying member BTW, and contrary to your beliefs am not an evangelical nor do I believe in self immolation. And yes, spending cuts are up for negotiations, but as long as Obama is president and Democrats control the Senate there will be no progress.
Black Shirt, for every $1. 00 that the federal government takes in, it spends $1. 40. I don't care if it's heroin or debt owed by a family or a business or a government, it's all the same thing, an addiction. The federal government is addicted to debt, and it appears that you, Obama, most Democrats and many Republicans don't give a crap. Obama and other politicians don't care because they'll be out of office before this catches up with them. I don't know about your reasons. Either you're old enough that you'll be dead before the USA goes bankrupt, or maybe you're a pollyanna. Anyway, the "teabaggers" are the only ones out there actually trying to do something about the problem. They do it at great political risk, because their position isn't popular, even though it's right. They don't deserve to be demonized. I'm as close as you can get to a card carrying member BTW, and contrary to your beliefs am not an evangelical nor do I believe in self immolation. And yes, spending cuts are up for negotiations, but as long as Obama is president and Democrats control the Senate there will be no progress.With any addiction, I believe we have to admit to a problem, then find out the underlying causes and then prepare a plan for rehabilation. And of course, I think you know that we cannot conquer the addiction overnight or in one session. Addiction can often be a lifetime challenge.
So, where is the rot? The story of Lance Armstrong is the story of America today. I know, I know! I don't know shit! But just pause before you get enraged here. All I am trying to say is that when fame, power & wealth are your compass points, then an artificial wasteland awaits you. Just ask the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians or even the Chinese. Even as your garages & stomachs are full, the degneration has already started.
And then we have the politics of self destruction. Smearing & yelling, parroting talking points has taken over debate & discussion. So many con-men, talking on tv, making big bucks, saying things they do not believe in. They have sold they souls for the Almighty Dollar. The gun issue is a perfect example of a dysfunctional politics and society. Its not about public or private safety, or the 2nd Amendment, or hunting sports. If you really take a deep look, it's all about money. As the Indians remarked, the White Man (power) speaks with forked tongue. Self-Interests and their dildos (lobby) creates confusion and tap deep-seated prejuices. You are being controlled by Corporate America even as you are shouting against Big Government.
Take a break here, this is quite exhaustive.
Take a break here, this is quite exhaustive.Good advice, after reading your last post I got a sudden urge to find a sword and then fall on it! Pretty dark place you live BS. Why so dark BS? Inquiring minds want to know. Happy mongering all. Toymann
Good advice, after reading your last post I got a sudden urge to find a sword and then fall on it! Pretty dark place you live BS. Why so dark BS? Inquiring minds want to know. Happy mongering all. ToymannIt is a dark time in America today when compared to America in the 60s & 70s. But I am very optimistic guy, and enjoying being alive, and like to think the best of people that I meet. Nothing wrong with making lots of money as long as you can live and enjoy a healthy and productive life at the same time.
It is a dark time in America today when compared to America in the 60s & 70s. But I am very optimistic guy, and enjoying being alive, and like to think the best of people that I meet. Nothing wrong with making lots of money as long as you can live and enjoy a healthy and productive life at the same time.Ok. Starting to see where you might be coming from. Really can't share your experience as I was only a child in the 60s. LOL. Didn't immigrate to the US till early 90s and its wasn't that far a relocation. I live in an area that most likely hasn't changed that much from the times you lament have passed. Guess for me, the US is still a killer place to live. Have always marinated US was best country in the world to live in as long as you don't have to live in a big US city. Just my dos centavos BS. Toymann
With any addiction, I believe we have to admit to a problem, then find out the underlying causes and then prepare a plan for rehabilation. And of course, I think you know that we cannot conquer the addiction overnight or in one session. Addiction can often be a lifetime challenge.
So, where is the rot? The story of Lance Armstrong is the story of America today. I know, I know! I don't know shit! But just pause before you get enraged here. All I am trying to say is that when fame, power & wealth are your compass points, then an artificial wasteland awaits you. Just ask the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians or even the Chinese. Even as your garages & stomachs are full, the degneration has already started.
And then we have the politics of self destruction. Smearing & yelling, parroting talking points has taken over debate & discussion. So many con-men, talking on tv, making big bucks, saying things they do not believe in. They have sold they souls for the Almighty Dollar. The gun issue is a perfect example of a dysfunctional politics and society. Its not about public or private safety, or the 2nd Amendment, or hunting sports. If you really take a deep look, it's all about money. As the Indians remarked, the White Man (power) speaks with forked tongue. Self-Interests and their dildos (lobby) creates confusion and tap deep-seated prejuices. You are being controlled by Corporate America even as you are shouting against Big Government.
Take a break here, this is quite exhaustive.I agree with most of your post. And believe you've been taken in by the "con-men, talking on tv, making big bucks, saying things they do not believe in." You want to blame it on the "teabaggers" while absolving Obama and Democrats of responsibity. I don't know if you can read this without an account:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578216583921471560.html?KEYWORDS=senate+finance+committee+wind+fiscal+cliff.
But the Senate Finance Committee slipped favors for Nascar, distillers, StarKist Tuna, Hollywood, wind and biofuels companies into the year-end tax bill. Ten of ten Democrats voted for this pork, and 6 of 11 Republicans did so too. Obama signed the bill, and this crap wouldn't have gotten into it without his support. It's business as usual in Washington.
The "teabaggers" who you demonize are the only ones watching the till. They have been largely powerless. The "Power" is held by establishment politicians, like your esteemed President. Please note from his example that being white is not a prerequisite for wielding power or lying.
Punter 127
01-19-13, 03:57
OK, we won't go after an American who joins Al-Qaida and isn't easily detained. We'll just let him continue his plan to attack us. Hundreds or thousands of Americans may die, but we'll feel good knowing we didn't violate the Bill of Rights.Key words 'easily detained, may die' Really? OK then lets just kill the cocksuckers and to hell with due process. The ACLU called they want your membership card back.
Absolutely, 100%.Sure ok, I believe you. (cough cough)
We may not always know. But if the names are public, the media will cover it, and we can have an open discussion and assessment. I believe such decisions are not made lightly, and are made in the interests of national security, which is a role of the federal government. This was the case with Al-awaki, and no one is crying over him. Of course, if you think the government is your enemy, you may not share this view. You can trade the risk of one innocent American being killed, for the risk of hundreds or thousands being killed. That's exactly what you'll be doing.The media, are you kidding me? We don't have a news media anymore we have propaganda pushers that report what they want to report. Will 'open discussion and assessment' bring dead people back?
When governments start killing and detaining their own people without due process they always have some type of justification. In the interests of national security, is an excuse the federal government has been using for a long time, it goes way back. They use it for things like (but not limited to) putting Indians on reservation, the interment of German, Italian, and Japanese, Americans during WWII, Guantanamo Bay 'indefinite detention' camp, invasion of Iraq (WMD's) , the Patriot act, TSA, and for killing Americans they claim are terrorist. The problem with you 'critical thinkers' is you only look at right now, you never seem to consider problems you may be creating down the road by setting a precedent. I'm certainly not concerned about Al-awaki per se, but the killing of many citizens starts with the killing of one citizen and that gives me cause for concern.
The government is not my enemy but I don't trust them and I don't applaud everything they do like some clapping pinniped with a beach ball on his nose. People in positions of power need to be monitored and held accountable for their actions.
I will agree with you that it's the role of the federal government to protect us, as a matter of fact it was intended to be their primary role. We are a Constitutional Republic and our leaders have taken an oath to preserve and protect that Constitution.
This is my last word on this subject at least for awhile as I will be preparing for and executing my escape from sex prison in the next few days, Sex Paradise here I come. Whoo–hoo
Key words 'easily detained, may die' Really? OK then lets just kill the cocksuckers and to hell with due process. The ACLU called they want your membership card back.
Sure ok, I believe you. (cough cough)
The media, are you kidding me? We don't have a news media anymore we have propaganda pushers that report what they want to report. Will 'open discussion and assessment' bring dead people back?
When governments start killing and detaining their own people without due process they always have some type of justification. In the interests of national security, is an excuse the federal government has been using for a long time, it goes way back. They use it for things like (but not limited to) putting Indians on reservation, the interment of German, Italian, and Japanese, Americans during WWII, Guantanamo Bay 'indefinite detention' camp, invasion of Iraq (WMD's) , the Patriot act, TSA, and for killing Americans they claim are terrorist. The problem with you 'critical thinkers' is you only look at right now, you never seem to consider problems you may be creating down the road by setting a precedent. I'm certainly not concerned about Al-awaki per se, but the killing of many citizens starts with the killing of one citizen and that gives me cause for concern.
The government is not my enemy but I don't trust them and I don't applaud everything they do like some clapping pinniped with a beach ball on his nose. People in positions of power need to be monitored and held accountable for their actions.
I will agree with you that it's the role of the federal government to protect us, as a matter of fact it was intended to be their primary role. We are a Constitutional Republic and our leaders have taken an oath to preserve and protect that Constitution.
This is my last word on this subject at least for awhile as I will be preparing for and executing my escape from sex prison in the next few days, Sex Paradise here I come. Whoo–hooPunter,
I have sent a message to Edgar Hoover to detain you for an indefinite period for you to simmer and contemplate your weiner and it's devastating effect on women. Sex Paradise was finally able to get it's equilibrium back only a few days ago. And we cannot afford to have you come in and whiplash the girls into a frenzy stage again. I had a girl on her knees and drilling her like roto-rooter, but all she did was repeat the mantra,"Punter, more, Punter, more, Punter", endlessly. I think they are going to name the new typhoon after you.
I agree with most of your post. And believe you've been taken in by the "con-men, talking on tv, making big bucks, saying things they do not believe in." You want to blame it on the "teabaggers" while absolving Obama and Democrats of responsibity. I don't know if you can read this without an account:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578216583921471560.html?KEYWORDS=senate
+finance+committee+wind+fiscal+cliff.
But the Senate Finance Committee slipped favors for Nascar, distillers, StarKist Tuna, Hollywood, wind and biofuels companies into the year-end tax bill. Ten of ten Democrats voted for this pork, and 6 of 11 Republicans did so too. Obama signed the bill, and this crap wouldn't have gotten into it without his support. It's business as usual in Washington.
The "teabaggers" who you demonize are the only ones watching the till. They have been largely powerless. The "Power" is held by establishment politicians, like your esteemed President. Please note from his example that being white is not a prerequisite for wielding power or lying.First, just to be very clear, my referece to "white man" was not intended to make it a racial issue. I included "power" in brackets to refer to any powerful and established entity.
You may think me an ardent Obama supporter. For me, he is just the better alternative. On top of that, I think he has been unfairly villified right from the start. I believe in fair play, and giving a person a certain timeframe to hang himself. And this I did not see in the political arena or in AP. From the beginning, you would have thought that we had been invaded by Al Queda for all the vicious opposition that he was given. And the nitpicking, from the color of his toenails to his friends! As you just did about the Bill. Nothing is going to change overnight. There are favors to be paid in the old boys network. Pelosi & Reid are very powerful people. Like Texas hold-them poker, you can get killed with a pair of Aces. Don't be so naive! Ahh! Need I go on.
So, I salute your determination to curtain spending. But let's be pragmatic about this. Also as a country, we have more going for us than Greece, we have far more to room & resources to manouever and recover. More troublesome is our moral decay, for which there is zero chance of recovery.
NRA Fundraising Email Steps Up Anti-Obama Rhetoric
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/nra-fundraising-email_n_2499853.html
So the NRA sent out a fundraising email a few days ago. You can read the text in the link above. It's clearly designed to alarm and anger their members. They must have had their top psychologists work on this one. I especially like this part:
President Barack Obama recently pledged to raise $20 million to ram his gun ban agenda through Congress. And Obama's got plenty of rich, gun-hating friends in Hollywood, along with anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who will shower him with the money he needs to strip you of your gun rights.
LMAO ! Also there's no evidence of Obama's $20 million pledge. Did they just make that up ?
The email also says the main goal of the "gun banners" is to "reduce your freedom to ashes". The email is just a pure play on emotion. There's no intelligent arguments about gun control measures, no genuine concern about addressing the huge amount of death and violence involving guns. Just an effort to rile up their members. Just like their tasteless television ad mentioning Obama's kids, which called him an "elitist hypocrite".
I sincerely hope that the "gun banners" are able to take this vile organization down a notch or ten.
WorldTravel69
01-22-13, 12:36
Killed with guns since Sandy Hook.
WorldTravel69
01-22-13, 20:39
That is the cost of fixing Bush's Bullshit.
Unpaid for Wars and his Banking Buddies.
Come On!
You can blame about 20% of it on Bush and the other 80% on Obama and the Democrats.There's a glimmer of hope coming from some Republican politicians,who favor policies promoting growth and reducing the budget deficit. Meanwhile Obama and and Democrats seem hell bent on fucking the private sector and bankrupting the country.
I respect you more than most liberals. You see the merits of a flat tax and you like Gary Johnson. And your positions make perfect sense from your perspective, that of someone over 65. Your party is more likely to preserve the quality of your retirement and health care. It's what's going to be left after you're gone that's frightening.
It's ironic, looking just at their own self interest, the youth should have voted for Romney/Ryan and senior citizens for Obama/Biden. But people are stupid.
WorldTravel69
01-27-13, 03:26
Sarah.
http://news.yahoo.com/why-fox-news-dropped-sarah-palin-164000188.html
"Killed with cars" since Sandy Hook.
When are we finally going to ban cars and stop this madness!
1100+
Killed with guns since Sandy Hook.
Member #4112
01-27-13, 19:21
WT69 just where did you get a stat like that? Even Chicago which has some of the strictist gun laws on the books added only 5 in one day,but still what credible source is keeping it by the day nation wide.The authorative source I know is the FBI national stats and they are usually a year behind.
Say,did Obama come from Chicago? How could they being having such a hard time?
WorldTravel69
01-28-13, 00:15
I will have to find the article I saw, but here is one to January 15.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/
Here is another, still not the one I saw.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3004943/latest-deadliest-gun-and-weaponry-innovations-brought-you-newtown-ct-trade-group
P.S.Yes Jackson that many people have been killed with cars,but how many were Murdered with Cars?
WT69 just where did you get a stat like that? Even Chicago which has some of the strictist gun laws on the books added only 5 in one day, but still what credible source is keeping it by the day nation wide. The authorative source I know is the FBI national stats and they are usually a year behind.
Say, did Obama come from Chicago? How could they being having such a hard time?
TejanoLibre
01-28-13, 00:23
I will have to find the article I saw, but here is one to January 15.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/
P. S. Yes Jackson that many people have been killed with cars, but how many were Murdered with Cars?I love my guns,but it would be better off to invent guns that will only operate with a fingerprint signature.
No match,no shot!
TL.
WT69 just where did you get a stat like that? Even Chicago which has some of the strictist gun laws on the books added only 5 in one day, but still what credible source is keeping it by the day nation wide. The authorative source I know is the FBI national stats and they are usually a year behind.
Say, did Obama come from Chicago? How could they being having such a hard time?Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important.
Punter 127
01-28-13, 02:01
Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important. Absolutely ' just a pure play on emotion', no concern for freedom. There's no intelligent arguments about the Second Amendment, no genuine concern about addressing the problem, just an agenda that focuses on infringing on the rights of peaceable citizens, not violent criminals.
The following are 37 statistics which show how four years of Obama have wrecked the USA economy.
1. During Obama's first term, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11, 000 per day.
2. At the beginning of the Obama era. 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.
4. The number of Americans receiving money directly from the federal government each month has grown from 94 million in the year 2000 tomore than 128 million today.
9. During Obama's first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance rose by more than 18 percent.
29. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
30. The total amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has grown by 32 percent since Barack Obama became president.You're not seeing this correctly.
To liberals, these are all "social justice" successes in that they represent methods by which Obama has wrestled money from the evil rich people and spread it out amongst the more deserving.
Thanks,
Jackson
WorldTravel69
01-28-13, 13:33
You are talking about pennies.
Especially when they still have the Tax Loopholes.
How about France.
95% tax on the rich.
You're not seeing this correctly.
To liberals, these are all "social justice" successes in that they represent methods by which Obama has wrestled money from the evil rich people and spread it out amongst the more deserving.
Thanks,
Jackson
Member #4112
01-28-13, 14:26
Yes France HAD and 95% tax on the rich, but their courts struck it down. I am sure they are busy little beavers re-writing the law to pass muster.
In the meantime those 'evil rich' people are fleeing the country to Belgium and even Mother Russia to avoid the new draconian tax laws, not to mention all the corporations also fleeing the country to protect their earnings. What a sterling success.
Why must liberals always repeat the same mistakes? As I recall either New Jersey or New York passed a similar steep increase on 'evil rich' people through some sort of 'surcharge' for millionaires, they touted how much money the new tax would bring in. End of the day the tax was a total failure, not only did it not bring in anywhere near the projected revenue it actually decreased revenues as those 'evil rich' people simply left the state, most going to Florida.
WT69, even in a progressive tax system, NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO 95% OF WHAT SOMEONE EARNS!
WorldTravel69
01-29-13, 01:29
CNN reports, since Sandy Hook.
Check out "End Of Watch".
As I said before the State with the most Gun Deaths is California.
http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/watch/End-of-Watch/6149958805326260112/movies?iq_id=52798118&mid=12967610#episode=Video-2296499880&filter=online.
Drug Gangs are taking over.
Bring Your Guns to California and Help your Brothers.
At 2:30 pm an 8 year old girl was shot standing with her friends and as a car came by and opened fired at her, they shot her in the leg, in Oakland.
The City says they need more cops, which they do. They have around 600 now. They cut a few hundred in the last few years.
Chicago has 1000.
What they really need is the National Guard.
In July, Whites in California will be the Minority.
Texas will follow.
I don't care about that, but it is the gangs that are taking over.
So, come on you Gun Loving Vigilantes, we need your Help.
Punter 127
01-29-13, 01:34
'Obama claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks get 2 Pinocchios from Washington Post'
'Despite claims from President Obama and Vice President Biden that 40% of all gun sales aren't subject to a background check, a Washington Post analysis has found that to be incorrect and awarded the president's claim Two Pinocchios. '
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html
That goes hand and hand with the 'gun-show loophole' lie, federal law for gun purchases at gun shows is the same as the law for gun sales at any other place.
In 2007, candidate Barack Obama said, "We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books." He also alluded to cracking down on straw man purchasers and "unscrupulous gun dealers." He continued to reiterate this view on the campaign trail in 2008, including calls for stronger background checks.”Prosecute people who falsify background check information?
The Obama Administration Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.What good is a new gun law if we can't or won't enforce current laws?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gun-laws-would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced
Is there a link between Psychiatric medications and mass shootings? I think we need to take a look at everything involved before we destroy the Second Amendment, unless of course your goal is a political agenda.
http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/is-there-a-link-between-psychiatric-medication-and-mass-shootings
Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important.
Absolutely ' just a pure play on emotion', no concern for freedom. There's no intelligent arguments about the Second Amendment, no genuine concern about addressing the problem, just an agenda that focuses on infringing on the rights of peaceable citizens, not violent criminals.Oh lookee... Punter flips my statement, off a quote from Jackson ("Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important") who flips another of my statements. Double Trouble ! I see references to the imaginary "evil rich" have also re-surfaced (BTW, it was a 75% tax in France, not 95%).
This is all rather amusing, but juvenile. It's no wonder the Republican party is now engaged in some introspection and soul-searching, assessing why they lost the election and what they can do better next time. They are where they are because they have a credibility problem.
The NRA email speaks for itself. False claims about Obama's fundraising, about Obama's friends hating guns and wanting to reduce your freedom to ashes. Lies aren't facts, folks. It's obvious the NRA email appeals to emotion, not reason. And why is that ? Because the people who run the NRA, like those who run the Republican party, are well-versed in the psychology of their supporters.
Punter 127
01-29-13, 02:07
Oh lookee. Punter flips my statement, off a quote from Jackson ("Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important") who flips another of my statements. Double Trouble !ROFLMAO, That's a trick we picked up from you.
"4, 050+
Killed with cars" since Sandy Hook.
When are we finally going to ban cars and stop this madness!We only need ask ourselves 2 questions:
What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of cars?
What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of guns?
We regulate a freedom according to the necessity, and the positive vs. negative impacts of each freedom. In the case of cars vs. guns, there is simply no comparison.
WorldTravel69
01-29-13, 03:09
My half brother had a gun.
But, he is so dumb, that after I kicked him out of my house, bringing a drunk, a few of his friends let him stay at one of there rentals. But it was in a Black Neighborhood in Richmond.
He was afraid when two kids 14 years Old came to his door, that he had his pistol in hand and told them that if they came back he would blow them away. Of course he had been drinking.
The kids came back after he had left a few days laterand stole his gun.
He is so fucked up, that he did not report it. Two days later they came back for his TV, etc.
They caught the kids and when the police asked about the gun, they said What Gun.
So, lock your Guns up!
The Second Amendment talks about a well armed Militia, not individuals.
Punter 127
01-29-13, 08:18
The Second Amendment talks about a well armed Militia, not individuals.[snip]Really?
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller. 554 USA 570 (2008) , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago. 561 USA 3025 (2010) , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionWho to believe?
Punter 127
01-29-13, 10:53
We only need ask ourselves 2 questions:
What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of cars?
What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of guns?
[snip]IMHO both would be devastating. Remember driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right, apples and oranges.
We regulate a freedom according to the necessity, and the positive vs. negative impacts of each freedom. In the case of cars vs. guns, there is simply no comparison.[snip]When 'regulating' becomes 'banning' (you speak of both) we are no longer talking about freedom. BTW who is 'we', are you speaking of we the people or we the government?
The way I read the definition of freedom once you start regulating it it's no longer freedom. But perhaps you could tell us which of the following definition would apply to 'regulated freedom'?
Free·dom [free-duhm]
1. The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. The power to determine action without restraint.
4. Political or national independence.
5. Personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery.
"The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect."
WorldTravel69
01-29-13, 13:10
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html
Really?
Who to believe?
Punter 127
01-29-13, 22:54
The Second Amendment talks about a well armed Militia, not individuals.[snip]
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.htmlI don't have an ax to grind if you say the Second Amendment speaks of Militia, the rub comes when you say 'not individuals'. Read your own link, here are some snips from your Link.
However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.[snip]Seems clear to me.
In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.[snip]Isn't this ruling going to make it hard to ban all guns or groups of guns 'chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense'?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.[snip]Should we have the same concerns today, should we trust the federal government? WT69 do you trust them, and did you trust them under Bush?
The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given thatself-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.[snip]Which do you prefer 'regulated freedom' dictated by some elitist hypocrites 'critical thinking' or 'ordered liberty'? I'm willing to fight for liberty, how about you?
Peter Sideburn
01-30-13, 01:42
The militia issue is silly. Historically, at the time the US Constitution was written, a militia was nothing more than a group from the community that came together in order to protect their families, their freedoms and their way of life. This concept started the National Guard, but was not replaced by the National Guard. Throughout history during times of war and unrest the US civilian population has formed small organized militias to aid the people of their community. In many areas, these groups were funded by the wealthy in the community, and they were often awarded titles, etc. The Civil Air Patrol, neighborhood watch groups, and historically even aspects of the Boy Scouts would meet the definition of a well-regulated militia. Our founding fathers would have supported the individual's right to own arms, because if it weren't for this very thing the US would not exist and all of the signatories of the Bill of Rights would have been executed.
BTW Sweden gives real assault rifles to all males of age and females who want them. Training is required. They even supply ammo. Their gun-related death rate is very low. The US death rate due to pseudo-assault rifles is extraordinarily low as well, but our criminal on criminal and criminal on citizen pistol killing absolute numbers top the numbers of soldiers killed in hostile lands every year. We need criminal and nut control not more gun control in the US, in my opinion. Furthermore, the argument that a pseudo-assault rifle allows the killing of more people than a pistol just shows that the people talking have no experience in close quarter combat. A large caliber hand gun at close range (45 or 40) is just as deadly as a 223 but more easily manageable. If this were really the issue, then we should outlaw shotguns which at close range are far more deadly than semi-automatic rifles. Put another way, if you walked in a room with a 223 to harm its inhabitants, a reasonably good shot with a concealed carry permit and a 45 could drop you before you even got the scope to your eye. These nut jobs aren't shooting people at 200 yds but rather at 1-2 yds. The arguments being made, at the expense of the poor victims of our societal meltdown and PC bullshit-fest, are just foolish. If more laws make us so safe, then why does Chicago have the highest per-capita death rate due to guns and more gun laws than just about any other municipality? I say put a retired special forces operator in every school with a few select weapons and you could stop a lot of drugs and nearly every nut job with a weapon from harming the lawful inhabitants, or you could stick with the current Plan A which is put up a sign saying no weapons allowed as an advertisement to the cowardly criminals who commit these crimes: Feel free to come in without risk.
Pete
Punter I thought you were in paradise, steeped in pussy?
ROFLMAO, That's a trick we picked up from you.Anyways, not that I remember every single thing I've posted, but I really don't recall ever doing that. Taking someone's statement or argument, and just switching a word or two to turn it around. I've paid enough attention to know Jackson is the resident master at this. But I can't imagine I did it myself, because it's just so completely devoid of critical thinking. It's what you do when you've run out of arguments. Like when you were a child, and you said "I know you are but what am I".
So why don't you go ahead and show everyone where I did this. Just one example. I'll give you one week.
IMHO both would be devastating. Remember driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right, apples and oranges.Devastating LOL! Only to those who equate freedom with gun ownership, perhaps. Most people wouldn't even notice if guns were banned, and some would likely see a positive impact over time. You needn't worry about an outright ban on all guns, however. Anyone following the debate knows this won't happen. But there is plenty of room for stricter regulation.
I have little interest in getting caught up in semantics, over the difference between privileges and rights, on the definition of freedom. This misses the point entirely. The issue at hand is the huge amount of violence and death that guns contribute to every day, every week and every year. Let's focus on what we can do about it.
Those who just continuously argue that their gun rights are protected come across as self-absorbed, just out for their own interests. Just like the second amendment activists shouting out at the father of a Sandy Hook victim yesterday, while he was testifying about his child's death. Just amazing! There is little to accomplish by attempting intelligent discussion with such people. They have dug in their heels, driven by ideology, just like those who refused to budge on taxes. Compromise and collaboration are not in their vocabulary. We must work to move our country forward, in spite of them.
Peter Sideburn
01-30-13, 05:50
Here is the point. It is my right to be able to protect my home, my family and my country. The word inalienable was used for a purpose as was the term self-evident in our founding father's writings. Not second amendment but even earlier. They wanted to get away from an imperial tyrant. How pleased they would be to know we just elected one to a second term.
In today's world this requires a firearm to level the playing field a bit. The vast majority of murders with guns in the US are by criminals, nearly always with a prior violent crimal record, and crazy people who 30 years ago would have been in state hospitals but who now for reasons of political correctness walk our streets and endanger others and themselves. Remember most of these people kill themselves as soon as there is the slightest confrontation with someone with a weapon. Note I am not talking about all mentally ill people, only those who are psychopaths. If you want to save lives stop drunk driving, stop smoking, decrease alcohol use, and put violent criminals (including child molesters and rapists) away for life without parole on the very first offense. This would cut the murder rate by 90+. A person is far more likely to be killed by a random car on the street, lightning, or even my car on the street than they are from my gun, unless they threaten my Family or country in which case the metric shifts. So we should spend time changing things that really matter instead of taking polls to see who we can disenfranchise this week to gain some political points with our base.
One other question to ponder. If they make guns illegal, do you think owners will just turn them in to be melted down? No, they will either sell them in which case they will likely eventually fall into criminal's hands or hide them. Reminds me a bit about history in the late 1930s.
Pete
Here is the point. It is my right to be able to protect my home, my family and my country. The word inalienable was used for a purpose as was the term self-evident in our founding father's writings. Not second amendment but even earlier. They wanted to get away from an imperial tyrant. How pleased they would be to know we just elected one to a second term.You have the right to have a gun only because the gun movement got lucky in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision (with a very conservative-leaning court). The second amendment clearly makes reference to a militia. The right to bear arms was in the context of a regulated militia. If it had been intended as a broad right, independent of a militia, there would have been no reason to mention a militia. There was clear purpose here, which even the Supreme Court acknowledged. But the court ignored the purpose and only put weight on the part describing the right, which they called the operative clause. You have to admit that's slick.
The founding fathers seem like they were smart guys. If they were here today, they would probably tell us the times have changed. They would ask us to think critically about whether the same need still exists for a regulated militia, especially since we haven't had them for a very long time. And they would encourage us to deal with our present issues, just like they did 200 years ago, rather than live in the past.
Just some of the stories today.
Phoenix, AZ. A 70 year-old man entered an office building and got into a dispute with someone, a conflict that escalated to the point where he drew a gun and shot three people. One dead, two wounded. The shooter got away. In addition to criminals and crazy people, maybe senility and loose tempers need to be looked at as well? That should be easy. Maybe if there was a guard at the local school, this could have been prevented.
Chicago, IL. Hadiya Pendleton, a student who performed with her school's marching band at the Obama inauguration, was shot dead in Chicago. Hadiya was hanging out with members of her volleyball team at Harsh Park on the south side of Chicago on Tuesday afternoon when a male jumped a fence in the park, ran towards them and started shooting, according to CBS News. Hadiya was shot in the back, dying in the hospital less than an hour later, and a boy was shot in the leg. The shooter jumped into a car and fled the scene. Maybe if there was a militia in that park at that time, right next to the volleyball team, this could have been prevented.
Peter Sideburn
01-31-13, 01:53
With due respect, your view does not fit with US history or specifically, the history of our founding father's life experience. The regulated militia in the sense that you believe existed was their intent was held by the British, not the common subjects living on the land. It was the very tyranny of these military and police forces under the name of the King, that led to the creation of bands of common people who wanted to be citizens instead of subjects. In fact, in this era, the term militia referred to a group of men who could be called into service if needed for the reasons I noted previously. They did not and typically were not in service at all times, even during the revolutionary war. They came and went with harvest, etc. In some cases. These were common folks such as myself who would respond if our country or community was threatened. After WWII there was just such an occurrence in TN, I believe, where WWII vets armed themselves with National Guard weapons and rooted out the mayor and police chief who were cooking the books and elections. They gathered and became well regulated under the highest ranking officer and then relinquished their "borrowed" and cleaned weapons to the armory as soon as the state police and State National Guard Troops arrived. They could not have done this without weapons.
Take a look at Article 1 Section 8 where it even defines when the Federal Govt. Can call forth the militia. Now with time our country realized it could not afford to keep a massive standing army but the educational needs of the troops in tactics, etc. Demanded some training. Hence the "Minute Men" or the current National Guard was created. It was not the model upon which the Second amendment was created. In fact, much the converse is true.
You also confuse the meaning of "Well Regulated" which actually meant trained and under guidance when called to duty and under the proper authority when acting on behalf of the government. In fact, private militias which would not come under the fold of a local, state, or federal government would have been viewed as subversive or pirate-like. This is still the case today. If you don't believe this, and you think the liberals understand the ideas of our forefathers better than the historical facts demonstrate then take the time to read in its entirety Pennsylvania's 1776 Declarations of Rights, from which the founding father's relied. Article thirteen, for example."That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." You see, much like now people could not always rely upon the police or the military to come to their aid in time. When threatened or under attack, the individual has an inalienable right to the pursuit of life even if that means taking an agressor's life to protect their right. It is unfortunate that we don't spend our time putting criminals away forever instead of worrying about what kind of rifle Johnny Citizen wants to shoot varmints with. Would you agree that all convicted felons found with a gun should be put away for life? Currently, there are thousands of gun laws and a few things are clear. Violent criminals don't respect human life or the law. Violent criminals get three strikes but their victims only get one: why? Mental health is an oxymoron in the US and anyone who is a direct threat to others, in my opinion, should be removed from society until they are no longer a threat to society. Like the socialists of the 30s our current administration believes and has even bragged about the fact that if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it. Most of what is said on TV now about "Gun Control" is non-sense. We have laws against crack, yet people keep using it and killing for it and dying from it. Do we need more laws against crack or do we need to enforce the ones we have and stop the revolving door to our prisons? Far more people die due to crack than "assault rifles" yet where is the outcry? In fact, more people die from stabbings and beatings related to crack than from all rifle-related injuries combined.
It makes good press but is stupid from the standpoint of changing societal life expectancy.
Pete
WorldTravel69
01-31-13, 02:16
Did you watch Mrs. Giffords Speach.
I hope you did, because this is how she talks now and before she was shot.
Today's Speach:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-senate-gun-control-hearing-report-article-1.1251013
Before she was shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFEtqV8WnXY
Maybe the NRA should be shot in the Head.
NRA (aka GUN MAKERS). Follow the Money!
You also confuse the meaning of "Well Regulated" which actually meant trained and under guidance when called to duty and under the proper authority when acting on behalf of the government.I didn't confuse anything, because I simply stated these words were in the second amendment. Regardless, this clearly doesn't refer to broad gun ownership then, independent of such training, guidance and authority. You've just bolstered my argument.
If you don't believe this, and you think the liberals understand the ideas of our forefathers better than the historical facts demonstrate then take the time to read in its entirety Pennsylvania's 1776 Declarations of Rights, from which the founding father's relied. Article thirteen, for example."That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state."Interesting. So why didn't the authors of the second amendment just use the same wording? Why did they feel the need to add the language about the regulated militia? It appears they applied some critical thinking, and deliberately specified the scope of the right. Once again, you've just bolstered my argument.
Peter Sideburn
02-02-13, 02:24
Esten,
I am sorry I can't cover all this from time perspective, but there are many reasons why they didn't copy verbatim. Back then the leaders of our country weren't trying to just get elected, they were trying to break free from tyranny and start a new land with freedom for its inhabitants, not more laws. The weren't flipping their views and moral positions every time the latest poll returned either. The Constitution is not a document of oppression for the populus but rather one specifically designed to limit federal government to a few tasks and areas of responsibility. It was written to prevent a monarchy and cast system. The fathers would not support what it has become or is becoming, might I add. Regarding the terms, it is important to understand the meaning of the words and not just the fact that letters were combined into words, most of which have a number of definitions. Please do a little research or at least take a look at some of the research that is easily available from groups that disagree with your point of view like the NRA and gunsite. Org which have their own bias but do a pretty reasonable job of showing that well regulated militia was not to inhibit private ownership but only to limit the manner with which groups could joing together as a unit in times of the government's needs to defend itself. The only thing worse than no military is one that has no command and control. They wanted to assure that people could own weapons and clearly would never have wanted to disarm the citizens or most would have died from starvation, but rather to assure that when called to arms for the purpose of defending the republic that they would be orderly and under the direction of those who knew the tactics and skills of leadership necessary to stand a chance against highly trained soldiers from other lands such as England at the time. Do you really believe they were trying to limit which citizen could own a rifle? Shotgun? Pistol? They would have been tarred and feathered for even suggesting such a stupid idea. With over 2 million defensive uses of weapons by the US citizenry estimated each year how can one seriously argue that the choice to have a weapon should not be available to those without a criminal record or mental health disorder? Do you think the number of home invasions would go down if only the criminals had weapons? Really? How do you think the non-gang communities of Somalia feel about the fact that they are controlled by bands of thugs with AK47s and a few 50 cal machine guns and they are defenseless unless they want to bring a knife to a gun fight? Why does an NRA sticker on your door lower the risk of your house being invaded? Do you think the criminals fear verbal confrontation on hand gun issues or being on the receiving end of a 44 mag with as much warning as they gave the homeowner that they were going to break in. If a woman you love is attacked would you want her to be at the typical disadvantage in physical strength etc. Or possibly be able equalize the playing field and drop the fool where he stands? If you don't want a weapon in your home then I support your decision. Unless you have some proof, which doesn't exist, that you are at more risk because I may own a weapon, then you should support my decision to own a lawful firearm. Why don't we address the real major causes of unnecessary loss of life in our World and country before we spend billions trying to take lawfullly purchased weapons from law abiding citizens?
Pete
They wanted to assure that people could own weapons and clearly would never have wanted to disarm the citizens or most would have died from starvation,The authors of the second amendment did not specify any purpose for gun ownership other than to support a regulated militia. Any other purpose or intent they may have had is speculation, and irrelevant as it was not articulated in the Constitution.
but rather to assure that when called to arms for the purpose of defending the republic that they would be orderly and under the direction of those who knew the tactics and skills of leadership necessary to stand a chance against highly trained soldiers from other lands such as England at the time.
Exactly! You keep supporting my argument. It was all in the context of a militia to defend the state. Since we no longer have militias, the Second Amendment is outdated.
There is no point in debating this Constitutional point further; it's obvious the language was scoped to the very different circumstances that existed 200 years ago. We can agree to disagree.
What may be a more persuasive and meaningful argument is whether the good outweighs the bad. I mentioned this earlier, and you also bring this up at least in noting the valid defensive purposes of guns. But that statistic of 2 million defensive uses of weapons really warrants closer scrutiny. On the surface, it sounds completely ridiculous. I am certain it is loaded with bad data and faulty assumptions, and a preliminary check on Google shows it to be hotly debated. If I could be convinced that the good truly outweighs the bad, I'd be more supportive of gun ownership (which BTW I'm not 100% entirely against). But I still think there needs to be stricter regulation.
Murders per 100, 000 citizens.
Honduras 91.6
El Salvador 69.2
Cote the'lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
.
.
.
The United States 4.2A list full of first and second world countries, very interesting. For completeness you should include a few developed countries with strict gun regulation:
Germany: 0.21
United Kingdom: 0.07
Punter 127
02-04-13, 07:43
28662
I wonder if they did a background check on this guy, or if he got that gun via straw purchase?
28662
I wonder if they did a background check on this guy, or if he got that gun via straw purchase?I think he's aiming at you! (smile)
I think he's aiming at you! (smile)I know he has me and my kind in his sights. We will survive me thinks. LOL. Monger on BS. Toymann
I went skeet shooting last year. It was all right, though I sucked.
BTW, I told Obama about all you guys, so you better be careful.
A list full of first and second world countries, very interesting. For completeness you should include a few developed countries with strict gun regulation:
Germany: 0. 21.
United Kingdom: 0. 07Esten, your numbers are low. In the case of the U. K. the homicide rate is about 20X higher.
I'm pretty much an agnostic on this issue. I used to lean a little towards your side, although what Jackson pointed out about Hitler and Stalin and their confiscation of guns was enough to sway me in the other direction.
What I know about Mexico causes me to question what would happen if serious gun control were instituted in the USA. You've got so many weapons out there now that the argument that the bad guys would end up with all the guns is compelling.
Esten, your numbers are low. In the case of the U. K. the homicide rate is about 20X higher.The numbers are for homicide by firearms, not total homicides (per 100, 000 population) :
England and Wales: 0.07 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
United Kingdom: 0.04 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I'm pretty much an agnostic on this issue. I used to lean a little towards your side, although what Jackson pointed out about Hitler and Stalin and their confiscation of guns was enough to sway me in the other direction.Modern democracies in developed countries are far stronger than they used to be, making a repeat of such histories far more unlikely. Are Germany or the UK on the verge of becoming dictatorships today because of their strict gun laws?
What I know about Mexico causes me to question what would happen if serious gun control were instituted in the USA. You've got so many weapons out there now that the argument that the bad guys would end up with all the guns is compelling.Valid point. That's why there is no single magic bullet (pardon the pun). Reducing gun violence must be a multi-pronged approach.
I don't get the opposition to an assault weapons ban. Sure, they are only involved in a small fraction of gun deaths, but if it's even a part of the equation why not address it? The only purpose I've seen articulated is to kill more people, faster. Some say if you let them ban these guns, they'll be banning all guns next. Apparently, enough people buy this untrue and fear-based "argument" to influence decisions in DC. Many polls show majorities support an assault-weapons ban. It may be a small number of states that are tilting the decision to oppose. That is unfortunate.
Silver Star
02-06-13, 02:56
I don't get the opposition to an assault weapons ban. Sure, they are only involved in a small fraction of gun deaths, but if it's even a part of the equation why not address it? The only purpose I've seen articulated is to kill more people, faster. Some say if you let them ban these guns, they'll be banning all guns next. Apparently, enough people buy this untrue and fear-based "argument" to influence decisions in DC. Many polls show majorities support an assault-weapons ban. It may be a small number of states that are tilting the decision to oppose. That is unfortunate.They are for self defense too. Sometimes the best defense is a good offence. When a mob attacks one person. An AK47 beats a pistol. (conclusion=don't put more limits on gun rights) Isn't self defence a basic human right that should not be abridged?
It's not an Assault Weapon Ban. It is a ban on Self Defence under the guise of "protecting" us from rampage shootings.
They are for self defense too. Sometimes the best defense is a good offence. When a mob attacks one person. An AK47 beats a pistol. (conclusion=don't put more limits on gun rights) Isn't self defence a basic human right that should not be abridged?
It's not an Assault Weapon Ban. It is a ban on Self Defence under the guise of "protecting" us from rampage shootings.Is your assault weapon always within reach? Are you always dressed in para-military outfits? Are you always under threats? Where are the threats coming from? Looks like a case of too much video games & steroids. As in the case of porno overload, and you have all these wannabee porno stars. Young studs taking viagra by the mouthfuls. Yea, America, the Beautiful.
Punter 127
02-06-13, 04:37
I think he's aiming at you! (smile)Considering the way he's shouldering that thing I'm not too concerned. Now if it was a drone aimed at me, well then I would be a bit worried because he's pretty good at killing Americans with drones. (Smile back)
Punter 127
02-06-13, 05:26
I don't get the opposition to an assault weapons ban. Sure, they are only involved in a small fraction of gun deaths, but if it's even a part of the equation why not address it? [snip]Please define 'Assault weapons'.
Military automatic 'Assault weapons' were put out of the reach of the unwashed masses that you fear so much by the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986 today only the Elitist Hypocrites can afford them.
Fully automatic firearms are taxed and regulated, they cannot be imported from outside the United States, and you can no longer manufacture and or register new existing full auto weapons with the federal government.
Supporters of the above laws claimed they would stop crime and not lead to further gun bans.
I remember when the gun grabbers only want to do away with the “Saturday night special”, that's all they wanted, and no more, before that the catch-phrase was "gangster weapons".
Some say if you let them ban these guns, they'll be banning all guns next. Apparently, enough people buy this untrue and fear-based "argument" to influence decisions in DC.[snip]Really, are you the same guy that said:
So ultimately, a broad ban on guns may be needed, and I would strongly support it. Which Esten should we believe?
BTW, why is it you only want to look at "homicide by firearms", and not total homicides? Why are you obsessed with guns, I thought the goal was safety?
Considering the way he's shouldering that thing I'm not too concerned. Now if it was a drone aimed at me, well then I would be a bit worried because he's pretty good at killing Americans with drones. (Smile back)Punter, just in case this is causing stress in your life, he doesn't really want to kill you. He just wants to take everything you've got and redistribute it to the people who voted for him.
They are for self defense too. Sometimes the best defense is a good offence. When a mob attacks one person. An AK47 beats a pistol. (conclusion=don't put more limits on gun rights) Isn't self defence a basic human right that should not be abridged?
It's not an Assault Weapon Ban. It is a ban on Self Defence under the guise of "protecting" us from rampage shootings.Sure, they can be for self-defense. And given the lower incidence of gun deaths by assault weapons, perhaps this is an area where the bad doesn't outweigh the good enough to make a strong argument for a ban.
I'd argue though that most "mob" violence occurs outside a home, so you'd have to be carrying your assault weapon, which seems entirely unrealistic. Not to mention you may be robbed for your weapon, and it falls into the hands of a bad guy. So the "good" of owning an assault weapon really seems largely theoretical.
Sorry to see you repeating the NRA talking points about a "ban on Self Defense". What, you can't defend yourself if you don't have an assault weapon? Puhleease! There are many, many things you can do to avoid harm and to defend yourself, without the need for such a weapon. Just google self-defense without a gun.
In fact, you can increase your odds of getting hurt or killed, if you are seen reaching for a gun.
I question the need for any weapon that allows you to kill many people very quickly, whether it meets some definition of "assault weapon" or not.
There is no inconsistency in what I said. In your selective quoting Punter, you missed that I said I was willing to give increased regulation a try first. Further, in the national discussion, there is absolutely no broad ban on the table, or even on the horizon. Nobody's waiting to push a bill for a broad ban right after a ban on assault weapons. But down the road, if new measures don't work, and it could be reasonably demonstrated that a broad ban - properly implemented - would work, I would support it.
BTW Punter, it appears you have a credibility issue. You posted awhile back that you learned from me the technique of word substitution to flip arguments around. But you couldn't back it up when I challenged you. Looks like you were just spouting misinformation. Why should anyone believe anything you post ?
Why should anyone believe anything you post ?What a statement Esten. You are a good guy to monger with BUT your posts are hilarious, even for an ex-socialist like myself. You sadly demonstrate ignorance based on a total lack of real life experience based on your extreme political views. Take it from someone who has been there, done that, and has the tee shirt. Be careful what you ask for Esten, YOU JUST MIGHT GET iT! Your total lack of life experiences betray you and your extreme political beliefs. Get out there dude and expand your horizons. Just look deeper, north of your border and you might not be so confident in your recent political bravado! Enjoy your trip dude. Toymann
Punter 127
02-07-13, 20:02
"Congressman Jose Serrano (D-N. Y.) has introduced a bill that advocates letting USA presidents stay in office, well, forever. Also known as H. J. Res 15, the bill proposes amending the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which bars a president from serving more than two terms in office."
What insanity, I guess some folks just want to live under a dictator. We have been warned as far back as George Washington about the need for term limits.
"Congressman Jose Serrano (D-N. Y.) has introduced a bill that advocates letting USA presidents stay in office, well, forever. Also known as H. J. Res 15, the bill proposes amending the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which bars a president from serving more than two terms in office."
What insanity, I guess some folks just want to live under a dictator. We have been warned as far back as George Washington about the need for term limits.While I agree that the 22nd amendment should not be repealed, I hardly consider Obama to be a dictator!
Punter 127
02-07-13, 22:24
While I agree that the 22nd amendment should not be repealed, I hardly consider Obama to be a dictator!Nor did I say he was, at least not yet, however I believe if the uber-left gets it's way he will be, and the repeal of the 22nd Amendment would be a good start. It should also be pointed out that Congressman Serrano has introduced similar legislation in the past.
Though I strongly disagree with Congressman Serrano I give him credit for following proper procedure in his attempt to change the Constitution.
What a statement Esten. You are a good guy to monger with BUT your posts are hilarious, even for an ex-socialist like myself. You sadly demonstrate ignorance based on a total lack of real life experience based on your extreme political views. Take it from someone who has been there, done that, and has the tee shirt. Be careful what you ask for Esten, YOU JUST MIGHT GET iT! Your total lack of life experiences betray you and your extreme political beliefs. Get out there dude and expand your horizons. Just look deeper, north of your border and you might not be so confident in your recent political bravado! Enjoy your trip dude. ToymannHey man. We didn't get much reporting from you on your last trip, hope it was a good one.
I'm pretty sure I have some life experiences, they're just different than yours. Why don't you tell us about the evils of socialism north of the border. Is it their lower unemployment rate, their more stable financial system, their universal healthcare, their lower rate of gun homicides, or their broader acceptance of prostitution? LOL Don't be cryptic, tell us what you're referring to!
Question for you. Let's say someone posted that you did something. And you were pretty sure you never did it. So you asked the poster to back their claim up. And all you got back was silence - CRICKETS. The poster had a chance to prove their claim, or come clean, but did neither. Would you believe everything else that person posted? What would you think of that person's character?
Peter Sideburn
02-08-13, 01:17
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp
This claim of fraud is fraudulent. I am not a fan of Obama, but the facts do not support this claim of fraud. Please take a look at the above site if you are interested. The real fraud is in our media which allowed the economy and obamacare's real status and effects to go unchecked not to mention the Libia debacle. If we had media that would remain non-partisan and just do their damn job our government would be better off in many ways and our citizens could make informed decisions.
Pete
A sad day, Dick Morris was shown the door by Fox News.
Remember this guy? He used to be a regular on O'Reilly. He played the role of the savvy political analyst, with the inside track on what was happening and what was going to happen. And in newsmax style he was always dissing Obama and Democrats, predicting their demise. Some people might say he was an arrogant clown. But he helped drive the right-wing narrative, and made O'Reilly appear more balanced and reasoned than he actually is.
The reason Dick Morris is gone is because he predicted a Romney landslide victory, right up until the final moments. He predicted Romney would win by 325 – 213, and the popular vote by 55% to 45%. And then Obama won by 332 - 206, and the popular vote by 53% to 47%. This is like the guy who sells his house to buy lottery tickets, and loses everything. But worse, because he just didn't get it wrong, it was completely backwards !
Dick Morris was always a joke, and this is a fitting end to his antics.
Dick Morris was always a joke, and this is a fitting end to his antics.Does that include his time being praised by democrats, advising Cinton since 1978, and helping Clinton win election in 92 and re-election in 96 with specific acknowledgement by both Clinton and Stephanopoulos it was his triangulation policy advise that helped Clinton secure re-election?
Before Clinton he was a repub strategist and post Clinton shifted back towards GOP. Seems like whatever you think of him, at least one side thought he was great until shifting to other side.
Being wrong in one occasion, like his rather epic wrong Romney prediction doesn't make the measure of a man in my opinion. It's the sum total and how they bounce back from epic failures. Will be interesting to see how he recovers from this.
Punter 127
02-08-13, 02:17
Let's say someone posted that you did something. And you were pretty sure you never did it. So you asked the poster to back their claim up. And all you got back was silence - CRICKETS. The poster had a chance to prove their claim, or come clean, but did neither. Would you believe everything else that person posted? What would you think of that person's character?[snip]Let me be very clear here, I general try to respond in a positive way to request, but I respond to demands with resistance, and I have a tendency to respond aggressively to threatening demands. I took your post as something between a demand and a threatening demand, it certainly was not a request or a challenge from my view. You demanded I do something and you gave me a limited amount of time to comply, as if I would be punished if I failed to comply. I decided it was in everyones best interest to ignore you, just as you have refused to address certain question and refused to discuss some things in the past. Now however if you want to push the issue I will reply, but only in person face to face. You got the balls to talk about it face to face or do you need to grow a pair first?
Peter Sideburn
02-08-13, 02:53
He got gitmo, the surge, the effect of cash for clunkers, the effect of Obamacare, the idea of where to prosecute terrorists, the expanded roll of the President in fighting terrorists, the whole wire tapping thing, the cost of Obamacare, the economy, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, North Korea's ability to deliver nuclear weapons, simplifying the tax code, stopping pork in bills, being against raising the debt ceiling, the number of "shovel ready programs" to waste our money on, ending income tax on seniors making <50k, ending no-bid contracts of 25K, keeping gas prices low, improving Egypt's view of the US, that a democratic non-Islamic fundamentalist government would take over Egypt, etc. Etc. Etc. Backwards? How is talking to and engaging the terrorists working out. Libya and Africa might give you a clue.
If getting something completely backwards classifies one as a clown, then Obama is the Clown in Chief as he spins his story like a French braid, but those who actually pay attention realize that he has reversed himself so many times I am surprised even he is not dizzy. Oh and don't forget his sudden change in personal ethics on the issues of immigration, government sponsored abortion and gay marriage. Where there is a voting block, their is a new deeply seated long held belief in Obama's psyche. He doesn't have skin, but rather scales.
I'm not saying all his decisions on these issues are out of line with my personal views, because in fact in many cases, his original views were stupid, but he came to see the light. Unfortunately, he lacks the ability, unlike Dick Morris, to say,"I was wrong." Has he appologized to Bush for all the evil lies he told? Has he said,"Bush had most this terrorism stuff correct?" Of course, not. All it takes is a few polls and Obama has another epiphany: he changes his mind for votes and political expediency and not for reasons of deep insight and reflection.
Pete
Dick Morris was always a joke, and this is a fitting end to his antics.Absolutely. He's been a whoare for years, and would sell his soul and his asshole for another dollar. He has no political ideology. His ideology revolves around money. He would say whatever is necessary to get his face on TV, and thus help his book sales. His next metamorphosis will probably be as a bisexual Christian activist.
About which he will write another book.
Let me be very clear here, I general try to respond in a positive way to request, but I respond to demands with resistance, and I have a tendency to respond aggressively to threatening demands. I took your post as something between a demand and a threatening demand, it certainly was not a request or a challenge from my view. You demanded I do something and you gave me a limited amount of time to comply, as if I would be punished if I failed to comply. I decided it was in everyones best interest to ignore you, just as you have refused to address certain question and refused to discuss some things in the past. Now however if you want to push the issue I will reply, but only in person face to face. You got the balls to talk about it face to face or do you need to grow a pair first?Punter, it's too bad you can't just address my point of contention. It is true we don't always respond to each and every point the other makes. But you made a false claim about my actions, which might seem trivial to some, but the action was something I would find beneath me to do. I explained this, and challenged you to provide one example within a week. To suggest there was some threat in my challenge is absurd. Now when I call out your failure to back up your claim, do you finally address it? Nope. You respond with a challenge of physical aggression.
There is absolutely no chance I would descend to your level. Such aggression is a pure admission of failure in my book. A failed argument, and a failure to prevent emotion overiding reason. Further, IMO you've crossed a line of decorum on discussion boards.
You're not worthy of my respect or my time any further. I'm putting you on "ignore".
Does that include his time being praised by democrats, advising Cinton since 1978, and helping Clinton win election in 92 and re-election in 96 with specific acknowledgement by both Clinton and Stephanopoulos it was his triangulation policy advise that helped Clinton secure re-election?No, just his time at Fox News. Thank you for prompting this clarification. I have no comment on Dick Morris' prior career, but if he demonstrated astute judgement in the past, you'd never know it from watching him on Fox News. It's also remarkable how strongly he turned against the party he used to work for. But the explanation is simple, and Doggboy nailed it to a "T".
Unfortunately, he lacks the ability, unlike Dick Morris, to say,"I was wrong."Truly amazing how the Obama haters find ever-new ways to defend their kind, and put down Obama. Dick Morris more a man than Obama because he fessed up to his mistake? That's a good one! Don't ever say the Obama haters aren't creative.
Perhaps, Dick Morris had no choice, because it was just glaringly obvious that he made a huge mistake. Unlike the long list of dubious and debatable "mistakes" that Obama allegedly made per Peter's list. What's Morris going to do, say he was right? LOL.
I'm not sure you guys are familiar with Dick Morris' tenure at Fox News. Wrong in one occasion? No, it was much more than his 2012 Election mistake, although that was his crowning moment. Over the years he gladly played the role of Fox News attack dog, dishing up a steady stream of doubt, distrust and fear of Obama. To many people what he said was laughable, but no doubt he had some effect on the Fox News viewership. That was his job. He said Bill Clinton wanted Obama to lose in 2012, but couldn't say it because Hillary was a hostage. He predicted Obama would face a primary challenge because of the 2010 midterms. He attributed the market crash in 2008 to fear of Obama's agenda. The list goes on and on, not always far out, but often wrong, and almost always anti-Obama. He now joins the Fox News trash heap along with Sarah Palin, another former paid attack dog.
WorldTravel69
02-09-13, 04:24
The Republicans don't give a Shit about us in the USA.
Where did the X-Pats say they will Help those that needed Help?
http://www.weather.com/weather/today/New+York+NY+USNY0996? X=2&lswe=USA&lswa=WeatherLocalUndeclared&GO=GO&whatprefs=&why=10
WorldTravel69
02-09-13, 04:32
Cartoons of your Life.
Hey man. We didn't get much reporting from you on your last trip, hope it was a good one.It was a dandy dude. Thought October was so good I just had to do a surprise January trip! I no longer post many Chica experiences as after 8 years coming to Argentina and over a year in country I have learned that posting chica jems on the board just ends up biting me in the ass. Sadly, if you post Chica reviews it appears that many times the "self professed local residents" just screw it up by polluting the girls with "gringo money". For example, I banged a now AP popular Chica prior to the stripper party and had an ok experience before the Chica tried to up charge me for more cash as she had spent more than an hour with me. She eventually thought better of it and let sleeping dogs lie. I told her no way, end of story. Later that night the same Chica extorted 1500 pesos from a well known monger because the taxi cab meter ran close to 3 hours. Although this type of clock watching Chica is not my style, and certainly not a repeat for me. It's all good for some. I routinely get 1200 to 1300 pesos for TLN and pay 500 to 600 pesos for a great experience separate from how long it lasts, usually 1 to 2 hours on the first meeting. This is just my experience so please just accept it as my experience and the anti-price police can just ignore my comments. I usually post a few gems but the board has really changed over the years and it just isn't worth it anymore as even through private referral I have had good chicas polluted by goofy mongers. Enough said on this topic. Go get them tiger! You will do fine of course!
I'm pretty sure I have some life experiences, they're just different than yours. Why don't you tell us about the evils of socialism north of the border. Is it their lower unemployment rate, their more stable financial system, their universal healthcare, their lower rate of gun homicides, or their broader acceptance of prostitution? LOL Don't be cryptic, tell us what you're referring to!Let me summarize for you about socialism.
Everyone pays taxes that has a job. There are NO deductions. Even if you flip burgers at Burger King you pay taxes. In 1990 I graduated after a decade of university education and made 33k per year. I paid the equivalent of 17k in federal and state taxes. But hell, health care was free. LMAO! The hybrid health system you so covet will never work and will just drive up costs. In socialist countries you don't get deductions so everyone pays taxes and has some skin in the game. Sorry to burst your bubble. It's just the way it is. Ooops. Oh well. Now You understand why I find most of your political posts nonsense and lacking in real life experience. As far as Your Canadian stats goes, suggest you research Canada in the 90s after Mulrooney signed the North Americam free trade agreement. Led to a decade of crazy unemployment and really hard times for Canada while the US was rolling in good times! Oooooops. Sorry the facts don't fit your model. My bad! Finally, I could go on all day about socialist medicine of which I have had substantial experience. Here's just one example. In Canada, if you need a simple Disc resection (back operation) , the clinical protocol is 10 years of OxyContin and then you line up for the surgery! Really Toymann. You serious! Yes I am buddy. I have said over and over that liberals like yourself better be careful what you ask for, as you just might get it. I could go on forever with other examples. Just take my word for it! Imagine going to a US surgeon needing a simple operation and finding out you are 10 years away from the OR. LMAO. Hope we get a chance to discuss this in person. I have made several posts eluding to these issues over the years, just check back. It's all good dude! My dos centavos!
Question for you. Let's say someone posted that you did something. And you were pretty sure you never did it. So you asked the poster to back their claim up. And all you got back was silence - CRICKETS. The poster had a chance to prove their claim, or come clean, but did neither. Would you believe everything else that person posted? What would you think of that person's character?Sorry dude. Have really no idea what you are talking about? As far as delineating character evaluations based on posts from mongers on an Internet chat board? You are kidding Right? LMAO! Maybe you should discuss these issues with some of the toothless idiots that post on this board professing that they are both experts on Argentina mongering and character evaluation! It's just a fun Internet chat board at the end of the day anyhow! Have a killer trip Esten. I have no doubt you will Turca your way into the monger hall of fame. LOL. Let me know how it goes. Toymann
Action in Los Angeles. LAPD needs help in manhunt bigtime. But don't end up shooting old ladies or newspaper delivery boys.
I 'm due for arrival in LAX in a month. Try to take care of the problem, AP possee!
WorldTravel69
02-10-13, 05:06
I hope some of you can get the rest of the News.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/
This is what Toymann Posted and Deleted.
This will be my last post following you WT69. I am more than aware of the location and political environment you come from buddy. It truely saddens me that you continue to humiliate yourself with this idiocy. All from a guy that not long ago wanted this thread shut down. I truely hope that I head off into my golden years not sounding like an idiot moron like yourself. Too be so completely disconnected from reality it truely a shame. Please stop your ultra crazy liberal San Francisco spamming of this board. As best as I know you haven't been to Argentina in years. Your posts just border on idiocy and I can no longer just write you off as a true believer. So sad, you head into your final years so (forgive my French) screwed up. In the past you have exalted yourself as such a world traveler, which you feel gives you an intelligence and worldly knowledge far beyond the norm. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stupid only knows stupid dude. In your quest to be the anti-ugly.
American sadly you have done exactly the opposite. So sad really! It appears that in spite of your self proclaimed visa stamped bursting passport you have learned nothing from your travels. You are sadly a pathetic example of bullshit in bullshit out experience. Your anger at your age betrays you WT69. Such a shame really. Good luck dude. Really suggest you stop making yourself a fool with all this San fransico idiocy. Say howdy to Nancy on Monday. Toymann.
The Cartoon was printed in the NEW YORK TIMES.
I guess that you can only get FOX TV in your Midwestern Television NETWORKS.
I am so sorry that you can not get the rest of the World News.
That makes all your Educational reports very Limited.
You asked for it, now you get it! You are a pitiful sad mess fella. Poor, angry union boy with little education and world experience bragging about the stamps in your passport like it is some substitute for intelligence and wordly experience. I specifically deleted my post after the fact as, after I reread it, I felt it was like kicking a retarded person. LOL. Hate to tell ya, I am not from the Midwest idiot! Reread my posts and you'll see I grew up in Canada and have lived all over the USA, now I am fortunate enough, and successfull enough to live anywhere I please. You represent everything most successfull immigrants to this country despise and laugh at buddy. Couldn't make it in America despite you were born here. Entitled, stupid, and just pain lazy. Some of us came here with nothing and worked our ass off and guess what, lived the Amercan Dream! Sorry you ended up a welfare case however it didn't need to be that way. If you just had applied yourself and worked hard you might be ME right now! Instead you just recite socialist liberal banter howling at the moon, advertising on a monger website that you are a loser. Sorry for the blunt commentary, but as they say, you asked for it now you get it. Sucks to be you buddy, but after your last post you truely deserve this dressing down. Stupid, ignorant and entitled is sadly no way for a man your age to behave. Toymann out.
SnakeOilSales
02-10-13, 10:01
You asked for it, now you get it! You are a pitiful sad mess fella. Poor, angry union boy with little education and world experience bragging about the stamps in your passport like it is some substitute for intelligence and wordly experience. I specifically deleted my post after the fact as, after I reread it, I felt it was like kicking a retarded person. LOL. Hate to tell ya, I am not from the Midwest idiot! Reread my posts and you'll see I grew up in Canada and have lived all over the USA, now I am fortunate enough, and successfull enough to live anywhere I please. You represent everything most successfull immigrants to this country despise and laugh at buddy. Couldn't make it in America despite you were born here. Entitled, stupid, and just pain lazy. Some of us came here with nothing and worked our ass off and guess what, lived the Amercan Dream! Sorry you ended up a welfare case however it didn't need to be that way. If you just had applied yourself and worked hard you might be ME right now! Instead you just recite socialist liberal banter howling at the moon, advertising on a monger website that you are a loser. Sorry for the blunt commentary, but as they say, you asked for it now you get it. Sucks to be you buddy, but after your last post you truely deserve this dressing down. Stupid, ignorant and entitled is sadly no way for a man your age to behave. Toymann out.Wasn't Toymann banned from "howling at the moon" in the American Politics thread after he was proven to be a blabbering idiot based on his never-ending railing about how Obama was going to get slaughtered in the November 2012 election? How ironic and hypocritical that Toymann rips into WT69 for allegedly being "socialist' and on "welfare" when everybody knows that Toymann made his money by leeching off Medicare / Medicaid in plying his wares almost exclusively to welfare and Medicare / Medicaid dependent minorities.
How ironic and hypocritical that Toymann rips into WT69 for allegedly being "socialist' and on "welfare" when everybody knows that Toymann made his money by leeching off Medicare / Medicaid in plying his wares almost exclusively to welfare and Medicare / Medicaid dependent minorities.And I thought WT69 was way out there! LMAO! You are funny coming up with that one. Don't forget the minority single mothers that work illegally for sweat shop wages in my front offices. With unemployment so high I have lowered my minimum salary for my non-union illegal aliens to 3 bucks an hour and moved all my fulltime employees to job share part timers to avoid providing any benefits to my employees what so ever. ThAnks to Obama and his policies this may be the best year for plumping my bottom line ever! I have to admit that another four years might not be such a bad thing? Who knew that after I paid my fair share I would do so well, at my employees' expense. My bad. Go Obama Go. High five to you too SnakeBoy. I have an opening for a night-time janitor if you are interested? I know you are most likely under-qualified for this position but I am feeling benelovant this morning.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. If you read my last post you will see that my reaction to WT69 was based on WT69 reposting a post I intentionally deleted. It was only up on the board a very short time before I decided to delete it. Maybe I am wrong but in all my years on the board I don't think that has ever happened. Another first for looney WT69. LMAO
Perhaps, Dick Morris had no choice, because it was just glaringly obvious that he made a huge mistake.I agree with your opinion of Dick Morris. The guy belongs in the Mongers Hall of Infamy. He way overpaid for an ugly hooker. And the idiot let her know where he worked, even letting her listen in on conversations with his boss (President Clinton).
Seriously, he may have been guilty of exaggeration, but no more so than some of the loonies on MSNBC that still have their jobs. In the bedroom he's apparently one strange dude. The prostitute he was seeing said he liked dancing in his underwear while singing the theme song from Popeye the Sailor Man. And he enjoyed being dominated and had a foot fetish. Apologies in advance to any AP/ISG brethren that are into similar perversions.
I'm Popeye the sailor man
I'm Popeye the sailor man
I'm strong to the fin-ich
Cause I eats me spin-ach
I'm Popeye the sailor man.
Punter 127
02-11-13, 07:36
Punter, it's too bad you can't just address my point of contention. It is true we don't always respond to each and every point the other makes. But you made a false claim about my actions, which might seem trivial to some, but the action was something I would find beneath me to do. I explained this, and challenged you to provide one example within a week. To suggest there was some threat in my challenge is absurd. Now when I call out your failure to back up your claim, do you finally address it? Nope. You respond with a challenge of physical aggression.In most places if you call someone out with threatening demands you had better be able to back it up. However when did talking face to face become 'physical aggression'? Although if estens demeanor is the same in real life as it is on this board I suspect he's had many challenges of physical aggression.
There is absolutely no chance I would descend to your level. Such aggression is a pure admission of failure in my book. A failed argument, and a failure to prevent emotion overiding reason. Further, IMO you've crossed a line of decorum on discussion boards.
You're not worthy of my respect or my time any further. I'm putting you on "ignore".Someone tell Esteena to relax, come out from under the bed and change his soiled panties, I have no desire to harm him. I don't beat around the bush, if I wanted to harm him I would show up on his door step or track him down in BA, he's pretty well known so I don't think it would be very had to find him. He also might want to consider testosterone supplements to help with testicle development. LOL.
I suspect being unworthy of his highness' respect and being on his 'ignore list' will prove to be more advantageous to me than him, all it really does is keep him from seeing my post, does anyone really think he's not going to read my post? He just won't be able to respond without exposing himself as a liar.
Had he ask in a respectful manner instead of entering into a demanding diatribe against me which threatened repercussion if I failed to comply within a specified time period I would have explained myself. But I refuse to succumb to such demands and threats.
IMHO the 'decorum' of this forum is Jacksons call not Estens, and if Esten doesn't like the way Jackson runs things he doesn't have to post here.
What Essen originally accused me of in the world of academia and journalism (we are in neither) would be Plagiarism which is defined as 'an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author. ' But is it still Plagiarism if the same words are applied to a different topic? A gray area at best.
There was a time when Esten would post quotes from the news as if they were his own words in order to lure people in so he could make fun of them, he hopes we have forgotten, but I and perhaps others haven't forgotten. When I suggested to Esten that he should use quotation marks he replied with something along the lines of; it's more fun this way. Esten has more than eleven hundred post and the quotes I'm talking about are to far back to find without Jacksons help, a search only brings up his last 199 post, Gee do you think Esten knew that when he made his demands? I assure you they're there. So much for Plagiarism being 'beneath' him.
Had Esten approached this issue in a respectful manner I would have reminded him of his own past Plagiarism and explained that in my statement which he professes to be so upset about I was actually referring to his side or group (the left), not him as a individual when I used the word 'you'. But I don't respond to demands and I'm only offering this explanation now to the other members because now I'm on Estens ignore list and he can't see it. (or can he?)
Character assassination is a ploy often used by the uber-left, George Bush, Talk radio, Fox News, the NRA, to name a few, and now you can add Punter 127, I'm flattered.
If Esten would like to do the honorable thing and apologize for his failed character assassination ploy, I will graciously accept his apology.
Punter 127
02-11-13, 17:33
'Second Amendment: Alleged killer Christopher Dorner has provided the country with a vital lesson as the gun-control debate rages: The government's officially sanctioned gun owners can slaughter innocents too.
The fired Los Angeles Police officer and ex-USA Navy reservist terrorizing Southern California, allegedly killing three and wounding three, is no Adam Lanza of the unspeakable Newtown infamy, no Jared Lee Loughner, who allegedly murdered a judge and maimed a congresswoman in Arizona, no James Eagan Holmes, whom officials say murdered 12 and injured another 58 moviegoers in Colorado.
In the gun-control fanatics' fantasy world, Dorner is one of the Good Guys: the controlled, heavily trained few within federal, state and local governments who are entitled to own and handle high-performance firearms as Americans' protectors.
To the predictable response from the left that the government fired Dorner — in the form of the Los Angeles Police Department sacking him for issuing false statements — it should be pointed out that someone capable of Dorner's apparent crimes could well have done so while still wearing a law enforcement or military uniform, and for rationales other than those he chose.
Armed police officers turning into serial killers might be rare, but the Dorner nightmare is further proof that the problem is not guns, but criminality; not the tools of crime but its perpetrators. '
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020813-643818-gun-control-only-disarms-targets-of-california-gunman-christopher-dorner.htm
Action in Los Angeles. LAPD needs help in manhunt bigtime. But don't end up shooting old ladies or newspaper delivery boys.
I 'm due for arrival in LAX in a month. Try to take care of the problem, AP possee!Have a nice trip and if you have trouble just call 911. No need to protect yourself 'When Seconds Count, Cops Are Minutes Away. '
WorldTravel69
02-20-13, 16:50
The Thirteenth Amendment. The abolition of Slavery.
Mississippi signed it on March 16, 1995 after having rejected it on December 5, 1865.
Mississippi's 1995 ratification was not formally filed with the Archivist of the United States for unknown reasons. The ratification was forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register on January 30, 2013, and on February 7, 2013, the director of the Register certified that he had received the ratification and that it was official.
Those Bad Bad White Republicans.
The Thirteenth Amendment. The abolition of Slavery.
Mississippi signed it on March 16, 1995 after having rejected it on December 5, 1865.
Mississippi's 1995 ratification was not formally filed with the Archivist of the United States for unknown reasons. The ratification was forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register on January 30, 2013, and on February 7, 2013, the director of the Register certified that he had received the ratification and that it was official.
Those Bad Bad White Republicans.What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
WorldTravel69
02-20-13, 19:15
The Thread says American Politics during the Obama Presidency.
It started under Lincoln and ended under Obama.
I hope you saw the latest movie about Lincoln?
Need I say more?
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?Okay, I'll tell you what it means: It means that you're a racist by perpetuating false racist stereotypes with your suggestion that all Republicans are "Bad Bad White Republican" racists.
Of course you completely overlook the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans over the objections of the Democrats, but liberals don't care about facts because only emotions are important.
Here's not thanking you for your racist comments.
Jackson.
WorldTravel69
02-21-13, 01:56
You mean the State is not a Red State?
I was not part of the racist party that did not sign the amendment.
They are the racists that they waited Over a Hundred Years to sign it.
I am just reporting history as it is.
Why did you need an additional Civil Rights Act, wasn't the 13th amendment was supposed end slavery and give them Civil Rights?
Oh yes, what the Civil Rights Act Have to do with "American Politics during the Obama Presidency".
Okay, I'll tell you what it means: It means that you're a racist by perpetuating false racist stereotypes with your suggestion that all Republicans are "Bad Bad White Republican" racists.
Of course you completely overlook the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans over the objections of the Democrats, but liberals don't care about facts because only emotions are important.
Here's not thanking you for your racist comments.
Jackson.
TejanoLibre
02-21-13, 02:42
You mean the State is not a Red State?
I was not part of the racist party that did not sign the amendment.
They are the racists that they waited Over a Hundred Years to sign it.
I am just reporting history as it is.
Why did you need an additional Civil Rights Act, wasn't the 13th amendment was supposed end slavery and give them Civil Rights?
Oh yes, what the Civil Rights Act Have to do with "American Politics during the Obama Presidency".The 13th. Amendment ONLY abolished slavery in most terms but did not address Civil Rights untill the 14th. And 15th. Amendments.
TL.
WorldTravel69
02-21-13, 13:41
That did not get through to the losing states then either.
They had to remind them with the Civil Rights Act after the KKK, Governor George Wallace and the rest of his Good Old Whites Boys did not understand they had lost.
Same as today. The Republicans lost and still refuse to believe it.
In the sixties my sister, her husband and I drove from California to Florida. On the way we stopped at cities in the South and could not believe that almost 80 years after the 13th 14th and 15th amendments; we saw signs that said Whites only on bathrooms, water fountains and that Colored people had to go to the back of the bus. What a Shock! We had never seen anything like that in the West.
It looks like Marco Rubio is too colored for some of his party, that he had to move North.
The 13th. Amendment ONLY abolished slavery in most terms but did not address Civil Rights untill the 14th. And 15th. Amendments.
TL.
It looks like Marco Rubio is too colored for some of his party, that he had to move North.There it is. The true agenda. The politics of personal destruction rearing its ugly head. Let's continue to paint the narritave that all conversatives are evil racists and all liberals are as pure as the driven snow.
The 13th. Amendment ONLY abolished slavery in most terms but did not address Civil Rights untill the 14th. And 15th. Amendments.
TL.Facts are not important to liberals. Only emotions are important.
Gato Hunter
02-21-13, 14:39
Then why are most Jews, blacks, Latinos voting dem?
I won't even start on the anti gay marriage stance from the right.
That's the fact.
Now I'm going fishing.
Member #4112
02-21-13, 20:34
WT69, all the folks you named are Democrats not Republicans. Unless you are trying to rewrite history, the Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans because Democrats in the South refused to abide by the Amendments you named. One of the great Democratic Senators was a leader of the KKK who fought against integration and the Civil Rights Act!
Regarding Latino's, Blacks and Jews voting Democratic:
Blacks like the image of being victims and the hand outs.
Latino's want immigration laws changed so their illegal relatives can stay and receive handouts.
For the life of me I don't know why Jewish folks vote for these bone heads.
Everyone knows Bill Cosby. Years ago he was down on white people's treatment of blacks, buying into the victim ideology and the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al cheered him on. Today Cosby has done a 180 blaming blacks for their status and failure to progress earning the condemnation of the NAACP, Jackson and Sharpton.
Now WT69 why would a highly successful black man make such a change?
In the end, most people are resistant to change, as in the Civil Rights Act. They have be dragged, screaming & crying to the new order. America is going through new population & social mores, and the people who used to hold the power & status are desparately fighting against the inevitable. And so, as in ObamaCare & Immigration, we are now seeing a slow crumbling surrender. And so history marches on, regardless if you are in the way & getting stepped on. So, if you can find comfort in stubborness & righteousness, so be it.
Ha ! This thread can't go long without some new debate popping up. Politics is like our soap opera.
Regarding my recent brouhaha with another poster, it's unfortunate as I do value the camaraderie and good will between mongers. I'm sure that person is of fine character. Instead of making possibly elitist-sounding comments about worthiness, I should have just said "I'm not going to be bothered with this anymore." Which I'm not.
Facts are not important to liberals. Only emotions are important.Long-time readers will know that this statement, which Jackson has repeated lately, is the complete reverse of what I've said several times in the past. Only the above statement is more definitive; while I used words like "Conservatives tend to be more influenced by emotion.", there is no such qualifier here. Jackson is surely just posting for fun. And the irony of making such an absolute statement, after scolding WT69 for making a sweeping statement about Republicans, is not lost here. LOL !! Good stuff.
WT69's post was indeed sweeping concerning Republicans. But it was fairly accurate concerning Mississippi. There is plenty of information documenting racism in the South, and Mississippi is often cited. Interestingly, an analysis of immediate post-2012-election Twitter "tweets" showed Mississippi and Alabama had the highest ratio of racist tweets. Per the link below, "They were followed by Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, forming a "fairly distinctive cluster in the southeast" of online hate speech, the research finds."
Map lays out racist election tweets, most originated from southeast
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/map-pinpoints-election-online-hate-tweets-article-1.1199402
Racism isn't a big issue for me, but this finding isn't surprising. And here's some facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It wasn't just passed by Republicans, as Jackson implies. It was passed by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. The real story was the opposition in the South vs. the support in the North. And at the time, in the South, there were more congressional Democrats than Republicans. It was a regional difference not a party difference. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, the Act had a bit more support from Democrats than Republicans in both the North and the South. In fact, the Act had exactly zero (0) support from Republicans in the South. Yes, facts are important to liberals.
Peter Sideburn
02-22-13, 04:41
This is an insult to those who live in the South and to people of all races. Esten would you please put your brain before your ideology. Even if you don't' believe the analysis, this chart, at best, shows, an association, but it does not in any way prove racism. Here are just a few of the reasons why. First, there are no methods. Second it seems it would count every tweet, every return tweet again, etc Third it is not population based. If you look at the source website the idiots who did this analysis have a pie chart that includes multiple categories subdividing the same data repeatedly but counting it each time (I.e. The same aged person is counted multiple times because they create categorical variables and then treat them like numbers. The data that makes up a pie chart must =100% The pieces can't overlap each other and add up to greater than 100% They also appear to have not realized Vermont is a state, and DC is not. Furthermore, African Americans likely use the two trigger words more often than do White Americans, and this chart does nothing to differentiate a racial slur from an idiot using trash terms within his or her own race. This is especially important because the South has a far higher relative percentage of African Americans. So what makes you think that all of these tweets were racism? Maybe they were all Democratic strategists tweeting each other and trying to stir up votes by making up yet another race issue.
Now let me go geek for a minute. If you combine the raw data with population statistics, you find that actually, by far, the highest % racist tweet per white person occurred in. Yes you guessed it Washington DC: a 48% Democratic area, right now, which also has a 49% black racial makeup. Do you believe DC is the bastion of racism? The next four highest states are North Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, and Delaware (which is 52% Democrat) . This racial warfare crap is not useful to anyone or any race so why don't we stop stirring stupid flames based on crap data. BTW even in DC, which was more than 7 times greater than 42 other states, the number was 7.2%MILLION white people, or 0.000000072 of the tweets as a ratio. I really don't think you can say that something that occurred at a lower incidence than lightning strikes constitutes racism. All the data used for this analysis was taken from 2010 census data available at the US. Gov, Rasmussen, Gallop, Pugh, and CDC sites.
Pete.
Long-time readers will know that this statement, which Jackson has repeated lately, is the complete reverse of what I've said several times in the past. Only the above statement is more definitive; while I used words like "Conservatives tend to be more influenced by emotion.", there is no such qualifier here. Jackson is surely just posting for fun. And the irony of making such an absolute statement, after scolding WT69 for making a sweeping statement about Republicans, is not lost here. LOL !! Good stuff.
WT69's post was indeed sweeping concerning Republicans. But it was fairly accurate concerning Mississippi. There is plenty of information documenting racism in the South, and Mississippi is often cited. Interestingly, an analysis of immediate post-2012-election Twitter "tweets" showed Mississippi and Alabama had the highest ratio of racist tweets. Per the link below, "They were followed by Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, forming a "fairly distinctive cluster in the southeast" of online hate speech, the research finds."
Map lays out racist election tweets, most originated from southeast
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/map-pinpoints-election-online-hate-tweets-article-1.1199402
Racism isn't a big issue for me, but this finding isn't surprising. And here's some facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It wasn't just passed by Republicans, as Jackson implies. It was passed by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. The real story was the opposition in the South vs. the support in the North. And at the time, in the South, there were more congressional Democrats than Republicans. It was a regional difference not a party difference. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, the Act had a bit more support from Democrats than Republicans in both the North and the South. In fact, the Act had exactly zero (0) support from Republicans in the South. Yes, facts are important to liberals.
WorldTravel69
02-22-13, 06:06
WT69, all the folks you named are Democrats not Republicans. Unless you are trying to rewrite history, the Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans because Democrats in the South refused to abide by the Amendments you named. One of the great Democratic Senators was a leader of the KKK who fought against integration and the Civil Rights Act!
Regarding Latino's, Blacks and Jews voting Democratic:
Blacks like the image of being victims and the hand outs.
Latino's want immigration laws changed so their illegal relatives can stay and receive handouts.
For the life of me I don't know why Jewish folks vote for these bone heads.
Everyone knows Bill Cosby. Years ago he was down on white people's treatment of blacks, buying into the victim ideology and the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al cheered him on. Today Cosby has done a 180 blaming blacks for their status and failure to progress earning the condemnation of the NAACP, Jackson and Sharpton.
Now WT69 why would a highly successful black man make such a change?People learn more as they get Older.
Yes a lot of the South Were Democrats in the Old Days, but there true Hearts and money were Southern Republicans. Check out Our History.
The lines are not that clear, same as now.
WorldTravel69
02-22-13, 06:23
Peter maybe you are One in the South that Believe in what you say.
And also you did not see the same Signs as I Did.
Maybe you were too young to see what the South was and Some of the Old Timers Are?
Most of Us only want freedom for All.
I always wanted No Passports.
But now that reason, could be a problem.
Mainly because of Gangs, aka Politicians, and the Rich that what more than the Need. Cheap Labor, aka Greed etc!
This is an insult to those who live in the South and to people of all races. Esten would you please put your brain before your ideology. Even if you don't' believe the analysis, this chart, at best, shows, an association, but it does not in any way prove racism. Here are just a few of the reasons why. First, there are no methods. Second it seems it would count every tweet, every return tweet again, etc Third it is not population based. If you look at the source website the idiots who did this analysis have a pie chart that includes multiple categories subdividing the same data repeatedly but counting it each time (I.e. The same aged person is counted multiple times because they create categorical variables and then treat them like numbers. The data that makes up a pie chart must =100% The pieces can't overlap each other and add up to greater than 100% They also appear to have not realized Vermont is a state, and DC is not. Furthermore, African Americans likely use the two trigger words more often than do White Americans, and this chart does nothing to differentiate a racial slur from an idiot using trash terms within his or her own race. This is especially important because the South has a far higher relative percentage of African Americans. So what makes you think that all of these tweets were racism? Maybe they were all Democratic strategists tweeting each other and trying to stir up votes by making up yet another race issue.
Now let me go geek for a minute. If you combine the raw data with population statistics, you find that actually, by far, the highest % racist tweet per white person occurred in. Yes you guessed it Washington DC: a 48% Democratic area, right now, which also has a 49% black racial makeup. Do you believe DC is the bastion of racism? The next four highest states are North Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, and Delaware (which is 52% Democrat) . This racial warfare crap is not useful to anyone or any race so why don't we stop stirring stupid flames based on crap data. BTW even in DC, which was more than 7 times greater than 42 other states, the number was 7.2%MILLION white people, or 0.000000072 of the tweets as a ratio. I really don't think you can say that something that occurred at a lower incidence than lightning strikes constitutes racism. All the data used for this analysis was taken from 2010 census data available at the US. Gov, Rasmussen, Gallop, Pugh, and CDC sites.
Pete.
Member #4112
02-22-13, 16:22
Obama's team came up with sequestration but now it's a baby no one wants to claim. While it was Obama's idea there is plenty of blame to go around for both parties who voted for it in the 2011 debt ceiling vote.
That said, don't you find it a little strange the Obama administration's way of dealing with the cuts is to penalize government employees who are working and paying taxes with layoffs and reduced pay and curtailing services to the public which paid the taxes with threats of longer lines at TSA check points, slower Customs inspections, fewer air controllers, closing parks ect. Ect. To punish the public they should be serving but not a word about cutting their cherished entitlements?
If Obama deems it necessary to delete federal workers, I suggest he abolish the Department of Energy (a hold over from Carter) and eliminate most of the EPA. Those are folks who could go! How about we cut the White House staff, Congressional staff, make everyone fly commerical coach when they travel, no more private jets from the Air Force, no more franking privilidges from the government (cut down on all that pesky mail) and printing all our forms in only one language - ENGLISH!
Yea, Obama seems to be saying "let's screw the people who work and pay taxes but continue to coddle the totally unproductive with food stamps, welfare, ect. Obama seems to be saying "FU*K the productive people" and UP with the unproductive!
Go figure. OK Esten, WT69 lets hear all about the helping out the unfortunate.
Wild Walleye
02-22-13, 17:28
Obama's team came up with sequestration but now it's a baby no one wants to claim. While it was Obama's idea there is plenty of blame to go around for both parties who voted for it in the 2011 debt ceiling vote.
That said, don't you find it a little strange the Obama administration's way of dealing with the cuts is to penalize government employees who are working and paying taxes with layoffs and reduced pay and curtailing services to the public which paid the taxes with threats of longer lines at TSA check points, slower Customs inspections, fewer air controllers, closing parks ect. Ect. To punish the public they should be serving but not a word about cutting their cherished entitlements?They just talk about it. It will never happen. Sequestration doesn't involve any real cuts. They only reduce the rate of growth.
The "sky is falling" tripe is complete BS.
For example, Peneta stated that the DOD might have to lay off 800 K civilian employees. Gee, as of May 2012, the Pentagon estimated that they had 801,000 total civilian employees. How did they decide on which 1,000 get to stay?
Only about 50% of the sequestration is to be implemented in FY2014 and only about half is to come out of defense. Therefore, there would be a max of $20 B to come out of the DOD. If they fired 800 k employees, making an average of $25 k / year it would hit all $20 B of DOD's sequestration. So, if they do that, I guess the military won't have to make any more cuts for the first year.
No one in the government will lose their jobs (unless they are conservatives) No one is being fired from DOD. The truth is that if the DOD does anything, it will furlough some civilian employees. However, the furloughed people get back pay when they are reinstated. Therefore, it is impossible for Peneta's plan to reduce spending by any amount.
In the private sector, all of this BS is known as lying and fraud.
Yea, Obama seems to be saying "let's screw the people who work and pay taxes but continue to coddle the totally unproductive with food stamps, welfare, ect. Obama seems to be saying "FU*K the productive people" and UP with the unproductive!That is because the only people that can oppose their power are people who have their own means. If you eliminate all means that are independent of the government you eliminate all but the most ardent opposition.
Go figure. OK Esten, WT69 lets hear all about the helping out the unfortunate.It helps the unfortunate by making all of us equal in our mud huts.
It helps the unfortunate by making all of us equal in our mud huts.The only way we can all be equal is if we're all equally poor.
Member #4112
02-23-13, 18:36
WW, while the "cuts" maybe only reductions in growth you can bet your bottom dollar Obama and friends will make cuts that will cause the most pain for the working folks then try to blame everything on those mean old Republicians.
WW, while the "cuts" maybe only reductions in growth you can bet your bottom dollar Obama and friends will make cuts that will cause the most pain for the working folks then try to blame everything on those mean old Republicians.You should have seen the look on virtually all of my employees faces after their first paycheck in January. All my support staff (democrats) could not believe the shrinkage in their take home pay as it was raided by Obamanation and his liberal buddies like Esten, GH, WT69, etc. No more payroll tax holiday, obamacare surcharge, etc. Etc. "But we are the middle class they whined and the Savior said they would be protected! Call Obamanation and your liberal representatives I calmly explained as I clearly outlined what had happened to their paychecks. Boo hoo, privately I could not help but chuckle as I watched their disbelief in the outcome of their political decision! Proactively, I told them that they had better save their pennies this year preparing for the health exchanges coming on line in 2014. I showed them our companies healthcare bill that had increased 27% in 2013 over 2012 and explained that this is why their employee contribution had now increased from 10 to 30% of the cost (depending on their age) to now 50% in 2013 (the max allowed by united and kaiser for enrollment) Boo hoo, they said "the savior told them that obomocare would have no impact on their current plans (I believe that was also one of dickheads last orations on the subject). LMAO, of course mandating that private insurance companies cover things that were not covered before was supposed to be free! Obamanation told them so. Just wait till 2014 when the exchanges come out as bloated expensive costly programs and the private insurance companies increase their rates to be just slightly less expensive! Its called competition don't ya know. I expect another north of 20% increase next year when the exchanges come on line.
As I said all last year on this thread to the true believers such as Esten (the others like GH, WT69 and Snakeboy and his ilk are just retards howling at the moon) BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR AS YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.
As my brother once said, "life can be hard but it is especially hard when you are stupid" Monger on fellas. Toymann.
P.S. I guess we will call tonight's GH stripper party the Obomanation Party. So much was promised, he berated those that came before him, but in the end, nothing was actually delivered! IALOTFLMAO! Monger on Rockstar.
Maybe I don't know what I am talking. But I thought the payroll tax holiday was to help working people weather the recession and to stimulate the economy. Of course, people got used to eating all the candy they want and now it is no longer there, they have to resort to sucking on their thumbs.
But wasn't this provision demanded by the Republicans or at least, did not oppose it's demise? Fiscal discipline is badly needed in American households. So why so much nailing on the cross?
WorldTravel69
02-23-13, 23:12
You Cheap SOB.
You should have seen the look on virtually all of my employees faces after their first paycheck in January. All my support staff (democrats) could not believe the shrinkage in their take home pay as it was raided by Obamanation and his liberal buddies like Esten, GH, WT69, etc. No more payroll tax holiday, obamacare surcharge, etc. Etc. "But we are the middle class they whined and the Savior said they would be protected! Call Obamanation and your liberal representatives I calmly explained as I clearly outlined what had happened to their paychecks. Boo hoo, privately I could not help but chuckle as I watched their disbelief in the outcome of their political decision! Proactively, I told them that they had better save their pennies this year preparing for the health exchanges coming on line in 2014. I showed them our companies healthcare bill that had increased 27% in 2013 over 2012 and explained that this is why their employee contribution had now increased from 10 to 30% of the cost (depending on their age) to now 50% in 2013 (the max allowed by united and kaiser for enrollment) Boo hoo, they said "the savior told them that obomocare would have no impact on their current plans (I believe that was also one of dickheads last orations on the subject). LMAO, of course mandating that private insurance companies cover things that were not covered before was supposed to be free! Obamanation told them so. Just wait till 2014 when the exchanges come out as bloated expensive costly programs and the private insurance companies increase their rates to be just slightly less expensive! Its called competition don't ya know. I expect another north of 20% increase next year when the exchanges come on line.
As I said all last year on this thread to the true believers such as Esten (the others like GH, WT69 and Snakeboy and his ilk are just retards howling at the moon) BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR AS YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.
As my brother once said, "life can be hard but it is especially hard when you are stupid" Monger on fellas. Toymann.
P.S. I guess we will call tonight's GH stripper party the Obomanation Party. So much was promised, he berated those that came before him, but in the end, nothing was actually delivered! IALOTFLMAO! Monger on Rockstar.
WorldTravel69
02-23-13, 23:14
Do YOU Mean the do nothing Congress?
WW, while the "cuts" maybe only reductions in growth you can bet your bottom dollar Obama and friends will make cuts that will cause the most pain for the working folks then try to blame everything on those mean old Republicians.
Maybe I don't know what I am talking. But I thought the payroll tax holiday was to help working people weather the recession and to stimulate the economy. Of course, people got used to eating all the candy they want and now it is no longer there, they have to resort to sucking on their thumbs.
But wasn't this provision demanded by the Republicans or at least, did not oppose it's demise? Fiscal discipline is badly needed in American households. So why so much nailing on the cross?
You are wandering in the wilderness Black Shirt. Best not to offer facts, creative insights or, God forbid, reasoned argument. Get thyself to a monastery, or a Wat !;)
Member #4112
02-24-13, 14:59
WT, the House has passed many bills which Reid declared dead upon arrival in the Senate. Who has done nothing here?
As I recall the Democrats insisted on raising taxes and the "holiday" was just one that was included. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't it take a MAJORITY in both the House and Senate to pass the bill? Since the Democrats control the Senate are they not just as responsible as the Republicans in the House?
Now my liberal friends, tell me again how reducing tax payments to Social Security was going to help a financially failing program stay afloat? Show me the wonderful affects of lifiting the economy and helping the Middle Class this little holiday had!
Esten, you're a fine one to talk about American households getting their financial affairs in order. American households did not borrow $16+ trillion dollars – Washington did. Obama and the Democrats have added $5+ Trillion to the debt in 4 years. As I see it, Washington needs to get it's Fiscal house in order FIRST.
Toyman, I experienced a similar increase in healthcare costs but I did not hear any gasps from my employees. Being an accounting and management consulting firm they knew what was coming and the three Democrats I employ are seeing the light and have move to independents. 2014 is going to be UGLY when people wake up to all the new costs and new bloated insurance exchanges for all the new FREE services.
This is an insult to those who live in the South and to people of all races. Esten would you please put your brain before your ideology. Even if you don't' believe the analysis, this chart, at best, shows, an association, but it does not in any way prove racism. Here are just a few of the reasons why.
Good reasons, but the twitter article is not being presented as "proof". It is anecdotal, not evidential. Of course the article by itself doesn't "prove" anything. But, it is consistent with the considerable amount of information that already exists about racism in the South. I thought it was pretty interesting that it matched up so well.
This reminds me of when Republicans refer to liberals as lazy freeloaders, who just want free stuff. I wonder what is more common in the US: Racist Republicans or Lazy Liberals ?
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR AS YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.
Amen !
Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Where did they get us ? A major contributor to record deficits. Less regulation ? A major contributor to the financial meltdown and great recession. Ideological rigidity ? The thwarting of a grand bargain in the 2011 debt ceiling talks, missing the opportunity for greater deficit reduction, and triggering a credit downgrade.
Now looming spending cuts ? Time will tell.
It's funny to hear Republicans try to exploit the payroll tax holiday as an "I told you so" moment. It was in fact an idea that had bipartisan support. Like the Stimulus, it was a temporary measure to stimulate economic activity. As they say, "put more money back in people's pockets". It served it's purpose, and it was time to end it. I love the stories Republicans pass on of Democrats who were surprised and upset by their lower paychecks. These are isolated and anecdotal. I'm perfectly fine with it, and in fact I still have a net take-home increase because I got a good raise this year. Most people upset with the expiration are likely to be happy that SS and Medicare will be strengthened as a result. And BTW, I don't have any "Obamacare surcharge" either. My health insurance rate increases haven't been significantly more than in past years.
You're going to hear a lot of hot air and negativity from Republicans, as they vent from their election losses, and stubbornly cling to their delusions that things are really bad and it's all Obama's fault. Meanwhile, take note that business owners on this board are still in business and apparently doing well, as judged from their ongoing, multiple trips to Argentina.
I wonder what is more common in the US: Racist Republicans or Lazy Liberals ?Lazy Liberals are more common. Contrary to the belief of most Democrats, not voting for Obama does not mean a person is a racist.
And BTW, I don't have any "Obamacare surcharge" either. My health insurance rate increases haven't been significantly more than in past years.
Meanwhile, take note that business owners on this board are still in business and apparently doing well, as judged from their ongoing, multiple trips to Argentina.
Just wait. Much of Obamacare hasn't taken effect yet. Higher taxes only started on January 1.
This country has the highest healthcare costs as a % of GDP in the world, by far. The marginal income tax rate on an unincorporated, successful business in California is now 56.7%. The future is bleak.
WorldTravel69
03-01-13, 04:20
This Photo is Perfect for Some Of You.
Check Again on California.
More like 80% Growth.
You Guys still have your finger Up YOUR, Guess What!!
Lazy Liberals are more common. Contrary to the belief of most Democrats, not voting for Obama does not mean a person is a racist.
Just wait. Much of Obamacare hasn't taken effect yet. Higher taxes only started on January 1.
This country has the highest healthcare costs as a % of GDP in the world, by far. The marginal income tax rate on an unincorporated, successful business in California is now 56.7%. The future is bleak.
WorldTravel69
03-01-13, 04:41
It Hard to Believe that the Republican's Voted to Get Rid Of Slavery and The Democrats were Against it...
Oh How The Times Have Changed...
Now A Black President, and the republicans say Screw What The People Want, Let the Needy Starve.
What ever Happen to Send us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses?
The Thread says American Politics during the Obama Presidency.
It started under Lincoln and ended under Obama.
I hope you saw the latest movie about Lincoln?
Need I say more?
This Photo is Perfect for Some Of You.
Check Again on California.
More like 80% Growth.
You Guys still have your finger Up YOUR, Guess What!!Hey WT,
Your cartoon is completely erroneous.
I know this will come a a surprise to you, but there are lots of people in the country who do not want ObamaCare.
This is from an ABC News article lauding that the percentage of American citizens who are against ObamaCare has dropped to only ONE THIRD of everyone in the country:
"But only 33 percent of Americans now want to see the law repealed. Romney had pledged to repeal the law and replace it with new policy. 43 percent of Americans view the law favorably and 39 percent view it unfavorably, according to the poll.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/poll-fewer-support-obamacare-repeal/
Now let me do the math: 300 million citizens in the USA means that approximately 120 million view ObamaCare unfavorabily, and a 100 million of them want to see it repealed.
That hardly sounds like the two men on a fragment of an island holding out against ObamaCare as your cartoon depicts.
Of course I understand: Facts aren't important to liberals, only emotions are important.
Thanks,
Jackson.
This Photo is Perfect for Some Of You.
Check Again on California.
More like 80% Growth.
You Guys still have your finger Up YOUR, Guess What!!What do you mean WT69? Over 40% in California voted against Obamanation in 2012 elections.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/President /2012/ CA.
This was a high water mark since the Reagan years. I know you find yourself, an aging hippy, totally disconnected with reality but it really is time to sober up! Your state is going bankrupt! Big time. Your agenda in California has totally failed. As a result of idiots like YOU I now hire employees at 30 to 40% of what I paid 5 years ago! Viva the free market. Small business will adapt. You might be one of the stupidest folks I have ever met. How did you go through life so totally disconnected from reality.
Keep howling at the moon. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
P.S. Please stop talking about privados when you haven't been to Argentina in (how long? Like any buddy cares?
WorldTravel69
03-01-13, 13:30
Isn't it a B I T C H, How democracy works? Where the Majority Rules.
California is growing.
http://goldenstateoutlook.wordpress.com/
Now that you cut your employees wages, I guess they will not be able to go to Argentina to site see or hunt like you do?
2011 was the last time I was there. Send me the money.
It is going to be really hard to get there if the Republicans get their way and cut my Earned Social Security; it's not an entitlement like the Republicans say it is.
What do you mean WT69? Over 40% in California voted against Obamanation in 2012 elections.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/President /2012/ CA.
This was a high water mark since the Reagan years. I know you find yourself, an aging hippy, totally disconnected with reality but it really is time to sober up! Your state is going bankrupt! Big time. Your agenda in California has totally failed. As a result of idiots like YOU I now hire employees at 30 to 40% of what I paid 5 years ago! Viva the free market. Small business will adapt. You might be one of the stupidest folks I have ever met. How did you go through life so totally disconnected from reality.
Keep howling at the moon. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
P.S. Please stop talking about privados when you haven't been to Argentina in (how long? Like any buddy cares?
It sure is, I don't know way any rational person would want to live in one. We have what is left of a representative republic. Democracy is a nice word for mob rule.
Oh and about Social Security, I was forced into the system about 1941 and the looters have been sucking from me ever since. Last year I was hard pressed to make my annual trip to Argentina, so far this year the issue is in doubt.
Don.
Your state is going bankrupt! Big time. Your agenda in California has totally failed.The last thing I want to do is get into a political discussion with you. Or with anyone discussing politics (instead of mongering / eating / drinking); it's totally nauseating to me. And since you know me, you know I'm not a democrat. But your statement about California is inaccurate.
During the Schwarzenegger administration, our deficit ballooned up to $25 billion. Though, thanks to Grey Davis and an incompetent state legislature, he didn't have a whole lot to work with.
However, we finally have a governor in office who's willing to roll up his sleeves and do some heavy lifting; work that's making him very unpopular with his democratic colleagues in Sacramento. But it is turning the state around. For the fiscal year 2012, Brown got the deficit down to $9 Billion. And for this year's budget, according to the CA State Legislative Analyst's Office, California will be operating at a deficit of only $1.9 billion with an expected operating SURPLUS of $1 billion by 2014. How? A combination of voter approved sales and income tax increases AND budget cuts. Yes, budget cuts. Massive budget cuts. In California. Yep, he found a way to get lawmakers to the table and fucking compromise. That was one of the things I admired about Clinton. He always found a way to reach across the table and make things happen, even when those same hypocritical cocksuckers were trying to impeach him.
You and I share a common disdain for the Peoples Republic of Berkeley and the world hippy HQ of Santa Cruz. But California is on the road to prosperity again, thanks in large part to governor Moonbeam (you remember that nickname, right? He was also banging Linda Ronstadt back when she was hot). And by the way, I am not at all questioning your clearly superior political knowledge, business acumen or overall braininess. I actually enjoyed meeting you last month; you're really NOT an asshole after all...at least not to me :-) But you're just wrong about California, that's all.
Now that you cut your employees wages, I guess they will not be able to go to Argentina to site see or hunt like you do?
.You need to read my posts more carefully. No employee has had their pay cut WT69. As I have mentioned before their take home pay has shrunk due to increased taxes in 2013, plus increased employee contribution for those electing healthcare.
Due to north of 20% unemployment in the bankrupt state of California the amount I have to pay for qualified medical billing / front office help has dropped from 19-20 $/ hour five years ago to 14-15 $/ hour in 2013. It's called "market conditions" dude. I recently put an ad in Craigslist looking for a couple of front office people. Got over 200 resumes in just a few hours. Ended up with two excellent candidates, hired one for 15 $/ hour and the other for 12 $/ hour. As your savior Obomanation over regulates and taxes my small business YOU would suggest I pay new employees more than market? Are you nuts? LMAO!
In this economy many folks are just happy to have a job. Your general lack of understanding of small business is very similar to your savior. Both of you are clueless. If Obomanation continues harassing my business he will force me to move all my support staff to part time job shares thus saving me the cost of benefits, such as holiday pay, sick pay, and of course healthcare. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction buddy. But here is some news you will be happy to hear. Just finished my 2012 taxes and my rate rose to 35% federally last year, but I was able (through payroll contributions versus k1 profit distributions) to keep my California taxable income under 250 k, so that son of a ***** California governor actually got less than he did the year before.
I would never have done this in the past, but after he passed the retroactive Robinhood state tax for 2012, I had just enough time to move more of my distributions through my payroll system functionally reducing my k1 California taxable income. I was most likely not the only one to make this move thus minimizing their California state tax exposure (you must reside outside of california of course). Just one more example of how when greedy democrats try to steal hard earned profits from those that rightfully made these funds, that many times they end up with less than they would have if they had just left small business alone! But I am very pleased that our president now feels that I have paid my fair share! LMAO. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
The last thing I want to do is get into a political discussion with you. Or with anyone discussing politics (instead of mongering / eating / drinking); it's totally nauseating to me. And since you know me, you know I'm not a democrat. But your statement about California is inaccurate.
During the Schwarzenegger, our deficit ballooned up to $25 billion. Though, thanks to Grey Davis and an incompetent state legislature, he didn't have a whole lot to work with.
However, we finally have a governor in office who's willing to roll up his sleeves and do some heavy lifting; work that's making him very unpopular with his democratic colleagues in Sacramento. But it is turning the state around. For the fiscal year 2012, Brown got the deficit down to $9 Billion. And for this year's budget, according to the CA State Legislative Analyst's Office, California will be operating at a deficit of only $1.9 billion with an expected operating SURPLUS of $1 billion by 2014. How? A combination of voter approved sales and income tax increases AND budget cuts. Yes, budget cuts. Massive budget cuts. In California. Yep, he found a way to get lawmakers to the table and fucking compromise. That was one of the things I admired about Clinton. He always found a way to reach across the table and make things happen, even when those same hypocritical cocksuckers were trying to impeach him.
You and I share a common disdain for the Peoples Republic of Berkeley and the world hippy HQ of Santa Cruz. But California is on the road to prosperity again, thanks in large part to governor Moonbeam (you remember that nickname, right? He was also banging Linda Ronstadt back when she was hot). And by the way, I am not at all questioning your clearly superior political knowledge, business acumen or overall braininess. I actually enjoyed meeting you last month; you're really NOT an asshole after all...at least not to me :-) But you're just wrong about California, that's all.I actually hope you are correct my brother. My only issue with your analysis, is that as long as the unemployed rate remains so very high, it will be very difficult for California to bounce back. Are they still going forward with that crazy train? We will see if what the Governor is projecting actually comes to fruition. I hope so, but I see no end to high unemployment in California in the near future. Businesses continue to leave California by the droves to republican states like Texas and South Carolina. California needs to become more business friendly or a recovery is just not posible IMHO. Time will tell. I will be coming to northern cal in early April. Maybe we can get together for dinner if you are still Around. Monger on buddy. Toymann.
TejanoLibre
03-01-13, 18:11
Taxes? We Don't Need No Stinking Taxes!
I thoroughly enjoyed NOT paying taxes for many, many years in the USAA. Seems that most of my income producing "Hobbies" were tax free, hell I don't know; but if they asked I would have gladly paid my taxes.
Actually, I did pay taxes for about 15 years. No choice. Maybe filed every 7 years as a joke. Can I travel freely? Not sure, maybe the Tax Man is waiting for me at the airport!
TM, can't you move your manufacturing facilities to Mexico and farm out your front office people to India?
Save a bunch of cash for the Chicas!
Have Fun,
TL.
P.S. I hate March 1st. It's Justin Bieber's birthday! What a no talent Pussy! To think he could have been born on my Birthday!
WorldTravel69
03-01-13, 19:08
I know it was taxes, just getting your goat up.
You need to read my posts more carefully. No employee has had their pay cut WT69. As I have mentioned before their take home pay has shrunk due to increased taxes in 2013, plus increased employee contribution for those electing healthcare.
Due to north of 20% unemployment in the bankrupt state of California the amount I have to pay for qualified medical billing / front office help has dropped from 19-20 $/ hour five years ago to 14-15 $/ hour in 2013. It's called "market conditions" dude. I recently put an ad in Craigslist looking for a couple of front office people. Got over 200 resumes in just a few hours. Ended up with two excellent candidates, hired one for 15 $/ hour and the other for 12 $/ hour. As your savior Obomanation over regulates and taxes my small business YOU would suggest I pay new employees more than market? Are you nuts? LMAO!
In this economy many folks are just happy to have a job. Your general lack of understanding of small business is very similar to your savior. Both of you are clueless. If Obomanation continues harassing my business he will force me to move all my support staff to part time job shares thus saving me the cost of benefits, such as holiday pay, sick pay, and of course healthcare. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction buddy. But here is some news you will be happy to hear. Just finished my 2012 taxes and my rate rose to 35% federally last year, but I was able (through payroll contributions versus k1 profit distributions) to keep my California taxable income under 250 k, so that son of a ***** California governor actually got less than he did the year before.
I would never have done this in the past, but after he passed the retroactive Robinhood state tax for 2012, I had just enough time to move more of my distributions through my payroll system functionally reducing my k1 California taxable income. I was most likely not the only one to make this move thus minimizing their California state tax exposure (you must reside outside of california of course). Just one more example of how when greedy democrats try to steal hard earned profits from those that rightfully made these funds, that many times they end up with less than they would have if they had just left small business alone! But I am very pleased that our president now feels that I have paid my fair share! LMAO. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
I actually hope you are correct my brother. My only issue with your analysis, is that as long as the unemployed rate remains so very high, it will be very difficult for California to bounce back. Are they still going forward with that crazy train? We will see if what the Governor is projecting actually comes to fruition. I hope so, but I see no end to high unemployment in California in the near future. Businesses continue to leave California by the droves to republican states like Texas and South Carolina. California needs to become more business friendly or a recovery is just not posible IMHO. Time will tell. I will be coming to northern cal in early April. Maybe we can get together for dinner if you are still Around. Monger on buddy. Toymann.I'm glad we can have a civil conversation regarding this. But frankly speaking, while I'm not bullish on Obama's fiscal policies, California, on the other-hand is a different matter. And regarding their unemployment rate, it's not 20%, but 9.8% as of November, and currently going down at a rather steep rate. However, California still lags behind the US as a whole and specifically NY and Texas by a long margin. Fucking Texas is at 6.6% Those shit-kicking bastards are working their asses off. California, while not the most business-friendly environment (don't get me started on the restrictions and mind-boggling laws regulating milk production, as an example), most everybody I talk to sees it in the beginning of a fairly nice bull run. I know you don't see it, but it is happening.
You won't find me in California...not for a long time. We'll talk offline about that...I'd rather keep my 20 on the DL. Take care.
What disappoints me about California is the law LA County recently passed... MANDATING condoms in porn. What the @$#% !!!
Now, the government is not really to blame here. It's the people who voted for Measure B, the 'Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act'. It was on the ballot in November. How could this happen in California? I always thought they were ahead of the curve in personal freedoms. Some "Aids Healthcare Foundation" lobbied for it, and I'm guessing the porn industry did not counter-lobby aggressively enough.
I read there are efforts to expand the law beyond LA County. It is truly ridiculous. The industry already has strong protections in place. And nobody is forcing anybody to be in porn. Condoms just aren't hot, and go against the grain of what porn is about. I hope the industry wins it's legal challenge, and if not, moves production elsewhere.
As if Sex Prison wasn't bad enough. Men need a champion in this country !
Its the age of Social Engineering. People who know more about what is good for you and me than you and I do. Bloomberg in NYC could be the most obvious prime example, but California maybe has more of a history of this behavior. Not to say that some of the legislation in NYC won't be helpful, but again, its the slippery slope that worries me. Once this kind of movement gains speed its hard to slow it down. I mean come on, they're only trying to "help".
BTW, if you want to take a look see into social engineering and govt. intrusiveness at its worst, then do some research into this current phenomenon in the UK. Very scary stuff indeed. Orwell knew his countrymen well.
But yeah, the condom thing is scary because-the porn industry now, you and me down the road. If you haven't purchased your required allotment of condoms for the month, then you get an inquiring email or knock on the door. Possibly you'll have your drivers license suspended if you're not using condoms. Sounds ludicrous, but many things would have sounded ludicrous 100 years ago that are reality now.
You never know what the assholes will come up with. But remember, its for your own good.
What disappoints me about California is the law LA County recently passed... MANDATING condoms in porn. What the @$#% !!!
Now, the government is not really to blame here. It's the people who voted for Measure B, the 'Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act'. It was on the ballot in November. How could this happen in California? I always thought they were ahead of the curve in personal freedoms. Some "Aids Healthcare Foundation" lobbied for it, and I'm guessing the porn industry did not counter-lobby aggressively enough.
I read there are efforts to expand the law beyond LA County. It is truly ridiculous. The industry already has strong protections in place. And nobody is forcing anybody to be in porn. Condoms just aren't hot, and go against the grain of what porn is about. I hope the industry wins it's legal challenge, and if not, moves production elsewhere.
As if Sex Prison wasn't bad enough. Men need a champion in this country !
What disappoints me about California is the law LA County recently passed... MANDATING condoms in porn. What the @$#% !!!
Now, the government is not really to blame here. It's the people who voted for Measure B, the 'Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act'. It was on the ballot in November. How could this happen in California? I always thought they were ahead of the curve in personal freedoms. Some "Aids Healthcare Foundation" lobbied for it, and I'm guessing the porn industry did not counter-lobby aggressively enough.
I read there are efforts to expand the law beyond LA County. It is truly ridiculous. The industry already has strong protections in place. And nobody is forcing anybody to be in porn. Condoms just aren't hot, and go against the grain of what porn is about. I hope the industry wins it's legal challenge, and if not, moves production elsewhere.
As if Sex Prison wasn't bad enough. Men need a champion in this country !The truth is, the porn industry just will move. Go some where else. So who looses then?
The truth is, the porn industry just will move. Go some where else. So who looses then?Perhaps that's why the initiative was introduced in the first place. Think about it. Perhaps there are lots of people living in LA who do not like that it's the center of the porn industry and this is their way of shutting it down.
Perhaps that's why the initiative was introduced in the first place. Think about it. Perhaps there are lots of people living in LA who do not like that it's the center of the porn industry and this is their way of shutting it down.LA is mostly mexican now a days. Do you really think that they care? Its just another example of a stupid law enacted by stupid people.
TejanoLibre
03-03-13, 00:59
LA is mostly mexican now a days. Do you really think that they care? Its just another example of a stupid law enacted by stupid people.Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
The article below is very interesting. HUGE MONEY involved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-585049.html
Jenna Jamison must have had to Fuck everybody to make a million bucks!
TL.
Big Boss Man
03-03-13, 02:25
Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
No, Chatsworth is part of the the City of Los Angeles as is most of the San Fernando Valley. About ten years ago, the San Fernando Valley voted to succeed from The City but the vote lost 66% to 33%. Burbank and Glendale are the largest cities in the Valley that are not City of Los Angeles.
TejanoLibre
03-03-13, 02:32
No, Chatsworth is part of the the City of Los Angeles as is most of the San Fernando Valley. About ten years ago, the San Fernando Valley voted to succeed from The City but the vote lost 66% to 33%. Burbank and Glendale are the largest cities in the Valley that are not City of Los Angeles.So I guess that's how LA beat them?
Thanks,
TL.
Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
The article below is very interesting. HUGE MONEY involved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-585049.html
Jenna Jamison must have had to Fuck everybody to make a million bucks!
TL.I remember Chatsworth and most of the "Valley" as being almost all residential. They must be filming in their back yards!
I remember Chatsworth and most of the "Valley" as being almost all residential. They must be filming in their back yards!Now that I think about it, that was a stupid post. It seems most porn is filmed in a living room, deck / patio, pool, or bedroom. I guess that would be what they call a "cottage" industry? .
Punter 127
03-06-13, 03:06
The following editorial raises some very serious questions which the mainstream media propagandist seem to be ignoring. I apologize for the length of the quote.
Why Is Obama's Growing DHS Army Buying Armored Vehicles?
Security: In addition to stockpiling over a billion bullets and thousands of semiautomatic weapons the feds would deny U.S. citizens, the vehicle of choice for fighting the counterinsurgency war in Iraq is appearing on U.S. streets.
The sequestration question du jour is why the Department of Homeland Security, busy releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of deportable and detained illegal aliens due to budget constraints, is buying several thousand Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles?
And just who are they intended to be used against?
This acquisition comes on top of the recent news of the stockpiling by DHS of more than 1.6 billion (with a 'b') bullets of various calibers, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War, and the ordering of some 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO "personal defense weapons" (PDW) — also known as "assault weapons" when owned by civilians.
Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that "have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds."
The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq.
These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small-arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as a .223 Remington. Does DHS expect a counterinsurgency here?
After IEDs began to take a toll on U.S. military forces in Iraq, the Pentagon ordered a large supply of MRAPs.
"They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.
A DHS officer, Robert Whitaker, stationed in El Paso, Texas, recently proudly described the agency's new armored toy as "Mine-resistant ... we use to deliver our team to high-risk warrant services ... (with) gun ports so we can actually shoot from within the vehicle; you may think it's pretty loud but actually it's not too bad ... we have gun ports there in the back and two on the sides as well. They are designed for .50-caliber weapons."
This is needed to serve warrants? Perhaps it might have been useful at Waco.
So the question is what does DHS need 1.6 billion bullets, 7,000 Ar-15s and 2,700 armored vehicles for?
What are they anticipating or planning for, and why are few in the media and Congress asking about it, particularly in the light of daily apocalyptic bleats from the administration about sequestration cuts?
We have asked if this has anything to do with then-candidate Obama's proposal for a national security force as powerful as the U.S. Army.
In a July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs, Colo., candidate Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
As Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, recently opined in the Washington Times, "The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us."
No, we are not scanning the sky for black helicopters.
But we are concerned about an administration pushing for ever stricter gun control and de facto gun registration in the form of allegedly universal background checks to which criminals and gangbangers won't comply is arming itself to the teeth.
If weapons of war don't belong on the street, Mr. President, explain these purchases.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030513-646857-dhs-buys-special-armored-fighting-vehicles.htm#ixzz2MjNvsvDr
Yes, please explain!
What is the hullabaloo going on about drones? Has there been a domestic assassination on domestic soil yet? Would there have been a cheer or boo if Osaman bin Laden been hit by a drone. Why don't we check with Cheney about drones? Maybe, the future armed domestic insurgents / guerillas / seccessonists on American soil are getting worried?
WorldTravel69
03-09-13, 17:08
Use people to fly the planes, not unmanned.
This filibuster guy wants to be the one.
What is the hullabaloo going on about drones? Has there been a domestic assassination on domestic soil yet? Would there have been a cheer or boo if Osaman bin Laden been hit by a drone. Why don't we check with Cheney about drones? Maybe, the future armed domestic insurgents / guerillas / seccessonists on American soil are getting worried?
WorldTravel69
03-09-13, 17:11
No profit.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/why-the-gop-is-killing-post-office/Content?oid=3480985
Though Bloomberg is confident the judge's ruling will be overturned on appeal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/bloomberg-soda-ban-ruling_n_2855769.html
I like Bloomberg, more or less, but can agree he may have overstepped on this one. However I do believe "social engineering" isn't all bad, and has a place. On the soda issue, social engineering could be accomplished by other means, for example educating kids in school, running ads on TV, etc. You can influence society without denying a freedom.
The distinction to make is: Does a freedom negatively impact other people ?
If you drink an extra large soda, you take a risk of your own free will and only affect yourself. If you sign up to be in a condom-less porn movie, you take a risk of your own free will; you may affect someone else, which may warrant some level of protection (e.g., blood testing), but the impact is limited to a small number of other people who are taking the same risk of their own free will.
BUT, there are other issues where a freedom clearly has a negative impact on other people, who have not accepted the risk of their own free will. The gun debate is a clear example to me. There are many examples where certain freedoms are disallowed, or have strong regulation. For good reason.
Though Bloomberg is confident the judge's ruling will be overturned on appeal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/bloomberg-soda-ban-ruling_n_2855769.html
I like Bloomberg, more or less, but can agree he may have overstepped on this one. However I do believe "social engineering" isn't all bad, and has a place. On the soda issue, social engineering could be accomplished by other means, for example educating kids in school, running ads on TV, etc. You can influence society without denying a freedom.
The distinction to make is: Does a freedom negatively impact other people ?
If you drink an extra large soda, you take a risk of your own free will and only affect yourself. If you sign up to be in a condom-less porn movie, you take a risk of your own free will; you may affect someone else, which may warrant some level of protection (e.g., blood testing), but the impact is limited to a small number of other people who are taking the same risk of their own free will.
BUT, there are other issues where a freedom clearly has a negative impact on other people, who have not accepted the risk of their own free will. The gun debate is a clear example to me. There are many examples where certain freedoms are disallowed, or have strong regulation. For good reason.Even you have to admit this was the stupidest thing a wild-ass liberal ever came up with. Totally ridiculas! Hang you head in shame! LMAO. Like it was a surprise it was slapped down, even in wild-ass New York! IALOTFLMAO! [Deleted by Admin]
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were largely antagonistic. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!
Delete by Toymann, duplicate post
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were largely antagonistic. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!
My last post was redacted based not on what I said to the poster. I was informed by several member friends the moderator was changed from Jackson, to someone who has been bragging I was on his ignore list. I always figured this was inaccurate information, but I just couldn't help myself to test my theory. I am not the only one that feels some trepidation regarding the identity of the new moderator. In the past I have maintained a tongue and cheek relationship with the previous moderator. Obviously that won't be hapenning going forward. No need to assess any more infractions new dude (my first ever I might add). Never forget that ultimate power corrupts ultimately. I now have my answer. Enough said. Toymann out.
Ps. I certainly hope the new moderator does not find this post antagonistic. Lol
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were largely antagonistic. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!
If you take the time to read this thread you will find that one requires a sense of humor AND a thick skin to hang here. If you can't handle the heat I suggest you get out of the kitchen or just remain quite. Otherwise you will ruin the fun we all enjoy here. Jax historically has shown excellent temperment regarding the color that exudes this thread. I know you recently exposed YOUR feelings regarding talking politics on the Excedra thread. That may be your opinion, but again, ONLY YOURS. If you want to be a successful moderator I suggest you show a more open mind to both what is said here on this thread but also grow a thicker skin. If ya can't run with the big dogs get off of the porch. Monger on all. Toymann
Ps. Many have used colorful dialog with the moderator on this thread in the past. He could alwAys handle himself. Grow a pair or get off the thread. Lol
How do I get 2 separate infraction points for just 1 post? Is this like when Obamanation talks about doubling down? Just curious. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
P.S. Kind of fees like when I now end up paying my fair share. IALOTFLMAO. Oooooops, guessing the new moderator has never been forced to pay his fair share. Sucks to be me, must be awesome to be him!
I always figured this was inaccurate information, but I just couldn't help myself to test my theory.
So now you're claiming your flame to Esten, which apparently was bad enough Jax admin redacted it, was just to "test [your] theory"?
Lol.
So now you're claiming your flame to Esten, which apparently was bad enough Jax admin redacted it, was just to "test [your] theory"?
Lol.
Jackson it's even awake. You never post here shill. I know, just supporting your wingman. So obvious. Toymann
Ps. You obviosly didn't read the original post. No flaming of Esten in the slightest. Get back to your anti-price police threads. Your appearance here betrays your obvious agenda. Get off the porch.
Pps. Just in case you didn't know when Jackson is logged in it shows on the front page. Too funny
Ps. You obviosly didn't read the original post. No flaming of Esten in the slightest.Round hole, meet square. How does one read the original reply when redacted with Jax admin note saying that it was removed beyond the first paragraph?
You obviously don't understand what redacted means to rest of board ability to "read the original post".
You also obviously believe Jax is not the admin that redacted you. I am soooo happy 'monger-dude'. Can't wait for the train meet canyon crash.
Daddy Rulz
03-12-13, 05:08
Toyman, Mpexy told me what was happening here and I just can't help myself, I had to unblock you so I could see it for myself.
Seriously Dude, regardless of what anybody has told you I've had you blocked for months. This obsession you have with me is really fucking weird.
Not only do I not moderate this forum, I never, ever, even read this thread. I detest the endless arguments here.
Regardless of what you think you know, or the "proof" you think you have, I didn't redact your posts.
I'm just wondering how el Jeffe is going to react when he reads.
This;
If you take the time to read this thread you will find that one requires a sense of humor AND a thick skin to hang here. If you can't handle the heat I suggest you get out of the kitchen or just remain quite. Otherwise you will ruin the fun we all enjoy here. Jax historically has shown excellent temperment regarding the color that exudes this thread. I know you recently exposed YOUR feelings regarding talking politics on the Excedra thread. That may be your opinion, but again, ONLY YOURS. If you want to be a successful moderator I suggest you show a more open mind to both what is said here on this thread but also grow a thicker skin. If ya can't run with the big dogs get off of the porch. Monger on all. Toymann
Ps. Many have used colorful dialog with the moderator on this thread in the past. He could alwAys handle himself. Grow a pair or get off the thread. LolAnd this;.
How do I get 2 separate infraction points for just 1 post? Is this like when Obamanation talks about doubling down? Just curious. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
P.S. Kind of fees like when I now end up paying my fair share. IALOTFLMAO. Oooooops, guessing the new moderator has never been forced to pay his fair share. Sucks to be me, must be awesome to be him! And realizes that while it may have been aimed at me because of your delusions it actually hit him. You actually told him to grow a pair of balls or stop moderating his own forum. It's right here in blue and white, I can't FUCKING wait until he reads this shit.
I am now, going to put you back on my ignore list. But rest assured I will be reading this thread tomorrow.
Jax I'm not asking that you take a side, I've been telling you for months this guy is a waste, you know my position. The only thing I'm asking is that you tell him who redacted the posts. If you do, I'm looking forward to him accusing me of hacking your account and then you will know how seriously unbalanced he is.
DR
How do I get 2 separate infraction points for just 1 post? Is this like when Obamanation talks about doubling down? Just curious. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
P.S. Kind of fees like when I now end up paying my fair share. IALOTFLMAO. Oooooops, guessing the new moderator has never been forced to pay his fair share. Sucks to be me, must be awesome to be him!
If you take the time to read this thread you will find that one requires a sense of humor AND a thick skin to hang here. If you can't handle the heat I suggest you get out of the kitchen or just remain quite. Otherwise you will ruin the fun we all enjoy here. Jax historically has shown excellent temperment regarding the color that exudes this thread. I know you recently exposed YOUR feelings regarding talking politics on the Excedra thread. That may be your opinion, but again, ONLY YOURS. If you want to be a successful moderator I suggest you show a more open mind to both what is said here on this thread but also grow a thicker skin. If ya can't run with the big dogs get off of the porch. Monger on all. Toymann
Ps. Many have used colorful dialog with the moderator on this thread in the past. He could alwAys handle himself. Grow a pair or get off the thread. Lol
My last post was redacted based not on what I said to the poster. I was informed by several member friends the moderator was changed from Jackson, to someone who has been bragging I was on his ignore list. I always figured this was inaccurate information, but I just couldn't help myself to test my theory. I am not the only one that feels some trepidation regarding the identity of the new moderator. In the past I have maintained a tongue and cheek relationship with the previous moderator. Obviously that won't be hapenning going forward. No need to assess any more infractions new dude (my first ever I might add). Never forget that ultimate power corrupts ultimately. I now have my answer. Enough said. Toymann out.
Ps. I certainly hope the new moderator does not find this post antagonistic. LolToymann,
I am the only moderator of this forum, and it was I who redacted your initial comment that started all of this.
Now please stop embarassing yourself.
Thanks,
Jackson
Greeting everyone,
This was the text I redacted from Toymann's initial post:
Ooops, hope the dumb-ass new AP moderator isn't reading this. Wouldn't want to offend his sensibilities. LMAO. Toymann. P.S. How can you be the moderator when bad Toymann is blocked. Woo-hoo, guess I am on a no control lease at this point. Viva the new moderator! Dumb shit! LOL.I didn't know if these comments were directed towards me or Daddy Rulz, but either way I certainly found them to be "antagonistic".
In addition, as the comments were not related to politics, I also found that they did not enjoy the latitude normally accorded to commentary in the political thread.
Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my findings.
- Did you find Toymann's comments "antagonistic"?
- Should the comments have been spared because this is the politics thread?
- Would you have redacted them yourself?
Thanks,
Jackson
this guy is a waste
DRSomeone finally came up with the correct word to describe Toymann!
WASTE.
Tres3.
Daddy Rulz
03-12-13, 17:27
Seriously boss, I appreciate it.
DR.
Toymann-not such a horrible guy at times, but at other times way, way beyond the pale. You done good Jackson.
WorldTravel69
03-18-13, 12:15
It is fun to make jokes about the Republicans, because they are so true.
It is fun to make jokes about the Republicans, because they are so true.Yeah, The Republicans have been disappointing me since I first voted in 1952.
However the Democrats disgust me and I'd rather be disappointed.
Don B
Silver Star
03-18-13, 17:17
Yeah, The Republicans have been disappointing me since I first voted in 1952.
However the Democrats disgust me and I'd rather be disappointed.
Don be.Time to vote and support Libertarians then!
Time to vote and support Libertarians then!No way!
Don B.
Punter 127
03-19-13, 00:11
"The debate over the federal budget and even the battle over the Federal Reserve are ultimately arguments over symptoms rather than the cause. The root of the fiscal crisis is the belief that the federal government is qualified to manage the economy, provide for the people's needs, and spread democracy throughout the world through either by foreign aid or by force of arms. Neither party in Washington questions the welfare-warfare state.
Until Congress begins debating questions such as whether or not we really need thousands of military facilities around the world, whether or not we should shut down the Education Department and return control to local communities and parents, and whether we should allow young people to completely op-out of the entitlement programs, the so-called debates in Washington, D.C. Will continue to amount to nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing."
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39528.html
As long as we continue to send trash to Washington we will continue to get trash back. Garbage in, garbage out!
Kudos to Bloomberg. Finally, we are going to see some real lobbying on the pro-gun control side of the debate.
Check out the ads called "Responsible" and "Family":
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/03/24/nra_bloomberg_get_ready_for_gun_control_showdown.html
Some guy with a beard and a rifle says he'll fight for his second amendment rights, but he'll support background checks to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Sounds like common sense, right? Background checks have huge support, even within the NRA. Bloomberg strategically pitches for what's possible. But NRA president Wayne LaPierre is vowing to fight back. He'll accuse Bloomberg of reckless comments, while making wild statements like Bloomberg is trying to buy America, and trying to take away people's guns.
Bloomberg comes across as a class act here. LaPierre, just a self-serving lobbyist. Can't wait to see the NRA ads, no doubt they will be dishonest and misleading, that's all you got when fighting against 90% public opinion.
Punter 127
03-25-13, 01:57
Bloomberg is a man ahead of his time, he gives us a preview of the "Nanny State" the left wants to shove down our throats, but at the end of the day he's just another leftwing-nut totalitarian.
The NRA will do more for gun safety in one day than Bloomberg and propagandist like Esten will do in a lifetime.
Here's some excellent Pro Constitution testimony.
"The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety. It Guaranteed Liberty".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ledhyTAE2zo&feature=player_embedded
TejanoLibre
03-25-13, 03:20
Growing Up in Texas:
Growing up in Texas as a child I attended "Gun Shows" almost every weekend. My father would rent a table in a convention center for $30.00 dollars and we bought, sold and traded weapons as a HOBBY. Without a dealer's license or a background check. I can remember taking 4 Nazi Lugers to a gun show and the guy that sold tickets bought them from me before I even entered the gun show. Sure, I lost money but we were always able to buy, sell and trade to anyone without a check.
I bought every kind of weapon that you can imagine, I collected Nazi daggers as a Hobby and it paid off in Spades when I sold my collection. I wish I still had them!
Point is that the non registered dealers were and are able to buy and sell and trade weapons without a backround check.
You could buy a flame thrower, and machine gun receivers to convert my semi auto into a full-auto toy of dreams for a 12 year old kid.
Sure, I can remember that some dumb ass shot himself at the gun show because the seller did not check the gun.
So now what happens?
The bond between a father and his son going fishing or hunting or sharing a HOBBY is going to be contaminated by the Yanks! (Gloomberg!).
Bad Boys don't register guns, they just buy them on the street. Or at gun shows!
May they come to Texas where the Texas Prison System removes the life of 25 innocent criminals per year!
Nobody is innocent in prison.
No way that a background check will determine if a loon is a loon!
TL.
Silver Star
03-25-13, 10:38
Growing Up in Texas:
Growing up in Texas as a child I attended "Gun Shows" almost every weekend. My father would rent a table in a convention center for $30.00 dollars and we bought, sold and traded weapons as a HOBBY. Without a dealer's license or a background check. I can remember taking 4 Nazi Lugers to a gun show and the guy that sold tickets bought them from me before I even entered the gun show. Sure, I lost money but we were always able to buy, sell and trade to anyone without a check.
I bought every kind of weapon that you can imagine, I collected Nazi daggers as a Hobby and it paid off in Spades when I sold my collection. I wish I still had them!
Point is that the non registered dealers were and are able to buy and sell and trade weapons without a backround check.
You could buy a flame thrower, and machine gun receivers to convert my semi auto into a full-auto toy of dreams for a 12 year old kid.
Sure, I can remember that some dumb ass shot himself at the gun show because the seller did not check the gun.
So now what happens?
The bond between a father and his son going fishing or hunting or sharing a HOBBY is going to be contaminated by the Yanks! (Gloomberg!).
Bad Boys don't register guns, they just buy them on the street. Or at gun shows!
May they come to Texas where the Texas Prison System removes the life of 25 innocent criminals per year!
Nobody is innocent in prison.
No way that a background check will determine if a loon is a loon!
TL.Bloomberg needs a background check himself for trying to tell us we can't order a 2 Liter Coke and large pizza for a family of 4. He's a looney for trying to ban 1/2 liter bottle of soda. Give me a break!
AllIWantIsLove
03-26-13, 04:10
"We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I'm not taking any position, I just thought that some actual words from the Consititution might be helpful.
Bob.
Bloomberg is a man ahead of his time, he gives us a preview of the "Nanny State" the left wants to shove down our throats, but at the end of the day he's just another leftwing-nut totalitarian.
The NRA will do more for gun safety in one day than Bloomberg and propagandist like Esten will do in a lifetime.
Here's some excellent Pro Constitution testimony.
"The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety. It Guaranteed Liberty".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ledhyTAE2zo&feature=player_embedded
Maybe look at the homicides by gun:
Gun Murders per 100,000 (2010)
Texas 3.2%
Illinois 2.8%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
insure domestic TranquilitySounds like Constitutional support for responsible gun control.
Punter 127
03-28-13, 03:13
"We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I'm not taking any position, I just thought that some actual words from the Consititution might be helpful.
Bob.Hi Bob, welcome to the conversation, I'm always happy to see people actually read the constitution, I wish more people had respect for it.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make (if any) posting the preamble to the constitution, but I will point out that it does not and can not guarantee public safety, just like we can't guarantee highway safety or any other type of safety.
When you get right down to it the only person really responsible for your safety is you.
The Preamble to the Constitution is just a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and it speaks in general terms.
The Constitution does however guarantee liberty and the Second Amendment of the Constitution does guarantee that our right to keep and bear arms will not be in fringed.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Silver Star
03-28-13, 04:42
Hi Bob, welcome to the conversation, I'm always happy to see people actually read the constitution, I wish more people had respect for it.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make (if any) posting the preamble to the constitution, but I will point out that it does not and can not guarantee public safety, just like we can't guarantee highway safety or any other type of safety.
When you get right down to it the only person really responsible for your safety is you.
The Preamble to the Constitution is just a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and it speaks in general terms.
The Constitution does however guarantee liberty and the Second Amendment of the Constitution does guarantee that our right to keep and bear arms will not be in fringed.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Wow, above quote about bearing arms was in plain English and very clear, to the point and easy to understand. The President and Congress are sworn by oath to uphold this (and every) tenet of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
I recently found an interesting quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote".
"We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I'm not taking any position, I just thought that some actual words from the Consititution might be helpful.
Bob.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Wow, above quote about bearing arms was in plain English and very clear, to the point and easy to understand. The President and Congress are sworn by oath to uphold this (and every) tenet of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.So if we deny a criminal a gun, is that unconstitutional?
Silver Star
03-29-13, 00:24
So if we deny a criminal a gun, is that unconstitutional?How can a criminal have a gun when he is in jail?
Member #4112
03-29-13, 00:27
Esten, it is no more unconstitutional to deny a criminal a firearm than to deny him the right to vote. For certain conduct you lose rights granted under the constitution, two of those rights are the right to own firearms and the right to vote. I would think a person as educated as you would not raise such an absurd question which has been settled by the Supreme Court years ago.
How can a criminal have a gun when he is in jail?He had one before he went to jail!
First, he didn't have a gun. (He was ok). Then, he purchase one. (No problem, but is he ok?) Then, he misused it. (Went to jail).
Punter 127
03-29-13, 22:10
Sounds like Constitutional support for responsible gun control.Yes and we already have "responsible gun control". We do however need to prosecute people who violate the law.
So if we deny a criminal a gun, is that unconstitutional?"The FBI said it conducted 16.5 million background checks for gun purchases in 2011. Of those, 78,211 ended in denials of eligibility because of a past conviction, a warrant for an arrest, drug abuse or other reason. Forty-four attempted buyers faced prosecution in 2010." Forty-four out of 78,211, unbelievable!
Maybe look at the homicides by gun:
Gun Murders per 100,000 (2010)
Texas 3.2%
Illinois 2.8%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_stateIs the goal public safety or a political agenda? Why just homicide by gun, why not all murders?
Could it be because the murder rate is historically low and is already trending downward? In fact, the murder rate in 2011 was the lowest since 1961:4.7 murders per 100,000 people. In only 5 years since 1910 has it been lower: 1955-59, when it was only slightly lower at 4.5 or 4.6.
28736
Data source: The Federal Bureau of Investigation. For years 1900-1991 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/ hmrttab. Cfm. For years 1992-2011: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1.
"Today's murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911. Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7. ".
Surely Esten wouldn't be trying to mislead us by only wanting us to look at gun murders, or would he, remember when he didn't want us to look at the U6 unemployment numbers? I think I see a trend here.
Here are some possible reason why the murder rate is down, I'm sure Esten and the gun grabbers don't want you to consider.
"From 1980 to 2000 our prison population more than quadrupled."
"From the 1980's to 2000, the number of prisoner executions more than quadrupled."
And here's the one I'm sure they really don't want to talk about.
"From 1986 to 2006, the number of states adopting "shall issue" Concealed Carry permits nearly quadrupled."
I think it's time we started enforcing the laws we have and stop demonizing law abiding gun owners.
Much of the above data came from the American Thinker which I much prefer over so called "critical thinkers".
Esten, it is no more unconstitutional to deny a criminal a firearm than to deny him the right to vote. For certain conduct you lose rights granted under the constitution, two of those rights are the right to own firearms and the right to vote. I would think a person as educated as you would not raise such an absurd question which has been settled by the Supreme Court years ago.It doesn't matter what kind of reasoned argument you have, the Constitution states very clearly:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Member #4112
03-30-13, 12:43
Esten it's not an argument, its the law. So if you have a problem with that you need to go argue with the Supreme Court, who upheld the right to own firearms recently while letting stand past rulings which affirmed certain conduct can result in the loss of constitutional rights.
What I love about liberals is one minute the Constitution and Bill of Rights are "living documents" and the next they are the 10 Commandments carve in stone.
Regarding the new "universal background check" proposed by the Democrats, Canada tried the same thing a few years ago. After spending millions of dollars trying to implement it and finding it impossible they quietly terminated the program last year. As an additional note we don't need more laws we just need to enforce the laws we have. According the ATF, there were over 80,000 violations of the laws on the books regarding purchasing a firearm but less than 100 prosecutions. So what is ATF's problem? I guess they are too busy smuggling arms to Mexico to enforce our laws.
Doppel, what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand? Are you saying there is more to the gun debate than simply quoting the second amendment? This is what the gun lovers repeat over and over, like it's supposed to end all discussion.
For the sarcasm-impaired:
Crackpot anti-gun control argument #1: Quoting the second amendment.
Member #4112
04-01-13, 15:51
Quite frankly Esten, I am a bit disappointed that an educated person such as yourself falling back on name calling again.
Of course the 2nd Amendment is quoted first and foremost in the argument against the knee jerk reaction the liberals have to gun violence, but it is not the only argument.
What is being proposed now has already been attempted in Canada and was a dismal failure, being abandoned last year by the Canadian government.
Look at Mexico, which has stringent gun laws that have for years failed to curb violence there.
The latest atrocities which occurred were committed by known severely disturbed people but guess what it is the liberals who have written the laws which prohibit that information being posted for background checks.
I guess the liberals want to insure the insane have the same opportunity as the rest of the sane, law abiding citizens, after all liberals thrive on being "fair" and "equal".
Like a gun-owning Republican has the answers on gun control. LMAO!! If it were up to them, we wouldn't even be talking about the issue, let alone trying to do something about it. And the daily carnage from guns would continue unabated.
What Canada abandoned was a costly effort on a national gun registry. That's not the same thing as universal background checks. Check the firearm-related death rates:
United States: 10.2 per 100,000
Canada: 2.13 per 100,000
That's a huge difference. The reason? Canada's tougher gun laws.
You can see it at the state level as well. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
The common theme: More gun control = Less gun violence
Like a gun-owning Republican has the answers on gun control. LMAO!! If it were up to them, we wouldn't even be talking about the issue, let alone trying to do something about it. And the daily carnage from guns would continue unabated.
What Canada abandoned was a costly effort on a national gun registry. That's not the same thing as universal background checks. Check the firearm-related death rates:
United States: 10.2 per 100,000
Canada: 2.13 per 100,000
That's a huge difference. The reason? Canada's tougher gun laws.
You can see it at the state level as well. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
The common theme: More gun control = Less gun violenceI think that's tougher to prove than you think. Take a look at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Also, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=1.
Finally take a look at this map, which shows homicide rates, not just from firearms: http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/1394707-updated-state-state-national-murder-rate.html#be. Compare to the map in the Atlantic article showing "number of deaths due to injury by firearms", where states with at least 1 firearm law designed to protect children are crosshatched. Please note that the states with decent-sized populations AND with firearm laws are the following: California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois and Michigan. And please note that all of these states except Virginia and New York have murder rates higher than the national average of 4.8 per 100,000. If there is a basis to your belief that gun control laws reduce gun violence (and I'm not sure there is), then it appears the murderers are just using knives, etc. instead.
What's kind of interesting, some of the states where you're most likely to see "they'll take my gun from me when they pull my cold dead finger off the trigger" bumper stickers, like Wyoming, Idaho and North Dakota, have very low murder rates, comparable to Canada and western Europe.
Btw, if you were just looking at suicides in the USA, you might have an easier time backing up your argument. Out of the 10.2 per 100,000 deaths from firearms, 6.3 are from suicides.
Member #4112
04-02-13, 11:39
Esten, as always you don't seem to understand the term "gun control". What it means is keeping a solid sight picture and bringing your weapon back on target rapidly for the second shot. Liberals just don't understand what they are talking about.
I remember when Texas was considering "concealed carry" for its citizens. The liberals were all over the place with dire threats of the wild west returning, gun fights in the street at high noon, road rage resulting in shootouts like the OK Corral, and the crime rate would sky rocket. Guess what, none of that occurred and the crime rate went down! Every state that enacted concealed carry laws got the same Liberal treatment and the ACTUAL outcome was the same as Texas.
Canada started out with "registration" but they realized it would not work unless it was national registration which failed totally. Do your home work. What the liberals are pitching is "registration" but what they will attempt to pass is the same as Canada and it will not work here either. Liberal's ideas regarding gun control ignores the firearms already in the hands of citizens. Similar to Liberals social programs always ignoring human nature.
I noticed you did not address Mexico's gun laws, could that be because they have very stringent gun laws but a totally out of control urban war going on with the cartels? Esten, do you really think the cartels are going into their local sporting goods dealers and purchasing M2's, M4's, M16's and ammo?
I noticed you did not address the mental illness aspect of my earlier post, why not? The incidents which caused all this uproar were committed by mentally ill folks. As tragic as all these incidents are, did you ever think they may not have happened if liberals had not insured a person's mental illness history is not permitted into the background check?
I don't notice liberals getting all worked up about traffic fatalities. Why is that? The carnage is certainly great enough. Every day just around Houston there are one or more traffic deaths and many times it is multiple fatalities. So Esten why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit, better yet why not reduce the speed limit to say 30 MPH in the name of safety?
Liberals and "gun control" are as hypocritical as tree huggers who drive their Escalade to the protest for Mother Earth then drive home to their air-conditioned homes or the electric car driver who plugs in his vehicle to recharge from an outlet powered by fossil fuel electric generation stations.
Yes you are correct, I am a Republican, NRA life member, Safari International member and own a fair number of firearms ranging from 22 to 50 caliber and probably have well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition, which in Texas means I am only a small to medium gun owner. Guess what Esten, I have not killed anyone with them!
WorldTravel69
04-02-13, 12:38
Republican gun control.
Member #4112
04-02-13, 16:09
Cute cartoon.
At least it's more entertaining than Esten's rants.
Silver Star
04-02-13, 18:08
Esten, as always you don't seem to understand the term "gun control". What it means is keeping a solid sight picture and bringing your weapon back on target rapidly for the second shot. Liberals just don't understand what they are talking about.
I remember when Texas was considering "concealed carry" for its citizens. The liberals were all over the place with dire threats of the wild west returning, gun fights in the street at high noon, road rage resulting in shootouts like the OK Corral, and the crime rate would sky rocket. Guess what, none of that occurred and the crime rate went down! Every state that enacted concealed carry laws got the same Liberal treatment and the ACTUAL outcome was the same as Texas.
Canada started out with "registration" but they realized it would not work unless it was national registration which failed totally. Do your home work. What the liberals are pitching is "registration" but what they will attempt to pass is the same as Canada and it will not work here either. Liberal's ideas regarding gun control ignores the firearms already in the hands of citizens. Similar to Liberals social programs always ignoring human nature.
I noticed you did not address Mexico's gun laws, could that be because they have very stringent gun laws but a totally out of control urban war going on with the cartels? Esten, do you really think the cartels are going into their local sporting goods dealers and purchasing M2's, M4's, M16's and ammo?
I noticed you did not address the mental illness aspect of my earlier post, why not? The incidents which caused all this uproar were committed by mentally ill folks. As tragic as all these incidents are, did you ever think they may not have happened if liberals had not insured a person's mental illness history is not permitted into the background check?
I don't notice liberals getting all worked up about traffic fatalities. Why is that? The carnage is certainly great enough. Every day just around Houston there are one or more traffic deaths and many times it is multiple fatalities. So Esten why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit, better yet why not reduce the speed limit to say 30 MPH in the name of safety?
Liberals and "gun control" are as hypocritical as tree huggers who drive their Escalade to the protest for Mother Earth then drive home to their air-conditioned homes or the electric car driver who plugs in his vehicle to recharge from an outlet powered by fossil fuel electric generation stations.
Yes you are correct, I am a Republican, NRA life member, Safari International member and own a fair number of firearms ranging from 22 to 50 caliber and probably have well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition, which in Texas means I am only a small to medium gun owner. Guess what Esten, I have not killed anyone with them!Republicans aren't much better than Democrats on Guns. Gov Pataki and Romney both made the laws more restrictive in their states unfortunately. Better than NRA is Gun Owners of America, and better than Republicans on gun control is Libertarians.
I'm not trying to make a point here one way or the other, just wondering about something. After reading Esten's thought provoking article (really) from the Atlantic, I took a look at a map of the USA that showed % of whites by state and compared it to a map showing homicide rates. The comparison was striking. States with high percentages of whites had lower homicide rates. Some states with the highest % of nonhispanic whites had murder rates similar to places like Canada, Australia and western Europe. Overall, the homicide rate among nonhispanic whites in the USA, at 3.7 per 100,000, is higher than those places, but not that different from Europe as a whole, at 3.5 per 100,000. If you're black in America though, it's far worse. The homicide rate among blacks, 34.4 per 100,000 offending rate and 27.8 per 100,000 victimization rate, puts Black America in the same league as places like Colombia, Brazil, South Africa and Central America.
As far as suicide is concerned though, especially for men, the statistic goes the other way. The suicide rate among nonhispanic white males is 27 per 100,000.
Something that's maybe contradictory, Esten's article shows that the strongest correlation by far is between firearm deaths and the % of people in a state that voted for McCain versus Obama. States that voted for McCain had more deaths from firearms. States that voted for Obama had fewer. Yet black Americans voted for Obama by about a 9 to 1 margin, while white Americans voted for McCain by 6 to 4.
Esten's article also shows a much stronger correlation between poverty level or education level and firearm deaths than it does between firearm controls and firearm deaths.
Anyway, it looks like there are other factors much more important than gun control at work. Maybe the best way to cut down on homicides is to put all the businessmen who voted for McCain and all blacks in jail. Oh, but wait, we're already doing that and it's not working.
Now I'm waiting for WT69 to call me a racist, again.
Are the majority of folks on the thread really becoming prepared for a future revolution? It is of great impostance that there will never be a "master list" of gun owners because some pinko polotician will collect all the guns? You need those 30 round clips for fire fights to preserve your liberty? You qwould rather have 50 crazed obvious unstable wackos have access to arms than take a chance the a true brother of liberty may not be able to own multiple assault weapons with large clips suitable for true combat.
Are you guys planning a right wing revolution?
I understand the nra and wayne lapierre have been coopted by large sum of money from gun manufacturers. That is business as normal in the USA.
This group on AP baffles me.
I have nothing against "responsible gun ownership" with backround checks. It is a right in the USA. Combat gear-I am not sure where to draw the line and have an open mind. Combat weapons are sort of like porno--you know it when you see it. No one would generally need automatic weapons, 30+ round clips and 50 cal snipper rifles--maybe there might be some exceptions--I am open to those possibilities? there are people who live in the wilds of Alaska and might have a grizzly in the backyard and really need some access to firepower==anything might be possible and a legitimate excption.[i remeber watching sarah palin's reality tv show episode about protecting yourself from bears]
Some gun owners are clearly just focused on themselves. Meanwhile, others are trying to take concrete steps to address the problem of gun violence. No single step will solve it, but some can have an impact. How about closing the loopholes that let people buy a gun without a background check?
Yes most gun owners have never killed anyone. As long as they keep their guns stored responsibly, and don't sell them without a background check, they should have nothing to worry about. 90% of gun owners support universal background checks, because they know that the only people who will be negatively impacted are criminals and those who sell them firearms. And then we have gun owners like Doppel. Not only is he out of step with his fellow gun owners, but he also obfuscates the discussion by confusing a registry effort with background checks. Like the NRA, they'll say anything to avoid any new laws. It's a waste of time discussing gun control with these people.
Member #4112
04-03-13, 10:28
Liberals don't have any idea what they are talking about when they bandy about words such as "automatic" weapons and "combat" weapons. Permit me to enlighten you.
Automatic Weapon – commonly referred to as a machine gun:
One pull of the trigger sends MULTIPLE ROUNDS down range until the trigger is released. For my liberal friends please be advised these weapons are tightly controlled by the ATF requiring reams of paperwork, a signed document from local law enforcement, the purchase must be made through a Class III licensed dealer, and a tax stamp to mention a few. Check the FBI stats for the last time an automatic weapon was used in a crime, probably back in the 1920's or 1930's in Chicago no less.
Semi-Automatic Weapon:
One pull of the trigger sends ONE ROUND down range. Liberals love to call these AUTOMATICS to bolster their argument.
Combat Weapons:
Well I guess we need to outlaw or control rocks, sticks, knives, forks, fire, arrows, bows, and all firearms since humans have been using these items for "combat" since they could get hold of one. Now if you're talking mortars, field pieces, M2's, M4's, M'16's, Vulcan's you could call those "combat" weapons. If you really want to see "combat" weapons go to Mexico, the cartels are up to their chin straps in them.
Esten, how many times do I have to say it, liberals are the ones who insisted mental health history not be included in the background data base. Also you can not provide a correlation between gun laws and reductions in violence unless you are talking about Germany under the Nazis or Russia under the Stalin and Putin, which is iffy at best.
Criminals don't follow the laws and don't buy weapons from dealers. The proposed requirement for individuals to conduct background checks through licensed dealers before selling a firearm is totally unenforceable on its face with the number of weapons already in circulation. Just ENFORCE the laws we have now.
Doppel, like I said, it's a waste of time discussing gun control with folks like you. The only reason I'll still bother is to expose your crap-o-rama.
First you were trying to educate us on the definition of gun control. Now you're covering the definitions of Automatic, Semi-Automatic and Combat weapons. Where did that come from? Are you trying to impress us or something? I've got sad news for you, your knowledge of guns is completely irrelevant in this debate. What is relevant is an understanding of what steps will help reduce gun violence.
You repeated that liberals insisted that mental health history not be included in the background database. What's that about, and what's your point? Let's see a link. The problem is with state reporting. Only 27 states authorize or require reporting mental health data to NICS. There's not a clear pattern of red vs blue states here. Check the story below, the killer was able to buy a gun because Oklahoma doesn't transfer mental health records to NICS. Oklahoma is a Republican state. So much for blaming it all on the liberals, huh Doppel? So much for saying we don't need new laws to mandate reporting of mental health records.
How the violent mentally ill can buy guns
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns
Last but not least, your argument that more background checks won't help, because we have too many guns in circulation. Heck, why don't we just stop doing background checks altogether? Great logic there. I'll support a call for better enforcement, but the fact is we also need new laws.
Punter 127
04-05-13, 01:38
I'll support a call for better enforcement, but the fact is we also need new laws.[snip]
Oh now I understand, we have laws that we don't enforce, so to solve our problems we need more laws, that we probably won't enforce. I got it now.
Esten you really have a queer way of looking at things.
Lets enforce current law first, then we can see if new laws are need.
The latest poll from Quinnipiac shows strong support for universal background checks:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877
Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Support 91%
Oppose 8%
DK / NA 1%
According to some estimates, 22 to 35 percent of people selling guns at shows are private sellers who can choose whether to run checks - and often don't. This is the "gun show loophole". The vast majority of people recognize we need new laws to close this loophole, including 88% of households that own a gun. But apparently, a small minority of people still don't get it.
The latest poll from Quinnipiac shows strong support for universal background checks:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877
Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Support 91%
Oppose 8%
DK / NA 1%
According to some estimates, 22 to 35 percent of people selling guns at shows are private sellers who can choose whether to run checks - and often don't. This is the "gun show loophole". The vast majority of people recognize we need new laws to close this loophole, including 88% of households that own a gun. But apparently, a small minority of people still don't get it.Let's say that Mr. Right passed the background check, purchased a gun, keeps it why a safe place etc.
Few months after that, his wife divorces him, o he loses his job and goes bankrupt, or gets a bad news from his doctor who tells him he has some type of terminal disease.
Perhaps he reads too many bad news about politics, and starts getting angry about certain groups, minorities, government, etc.
Question: would a person in that state of mind have more propensity to commit and atrocity like the ones that happened at the schools, movie theatre and other places?
Do you think that those who committed these crimes could pass the background check before they acquire their weapons? Probably! Unless background check "also" includes some type of P.S.ychological test, but that is quite expensive and never 100% accurate.
So what type of "test" have to be created before a person purchases a semi-automatic? How often does he have to go through that test to make sure that he is ok every day?
Thank you!
Punter 127
04-06-13, 11:37
The Real Truth about
Guns and Background
Checks
http://backgroundchecks.org/#/
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
Member #4112
04-06-13, 12:57
Esten it's a waste of time discussing gun control with folks like you. The only reason I'll still bother is to expose your crap-o-rama.
First you totally missed the tongue –and-cheek humor of the "gun control" comment I made earlier, but then liberals just don't have a sense of humor.
Second I am trying to debunk popular references made by liberals to mislead the general non-shooting public about firearms. The liberal's and their allies in the press would have the general public believe folks are running around with machine guns the way they use "automatic" which is not the case. The liberal press pundits are not much better with political cartoons depicting quad-50's, Nike-Ajax missile launchers in the back of pickup trucks to hunt deer.
I know you are going have a fit and demand proof. Well here you go, Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette (D) and ardent gun control advocate has no idea what she is talking about.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/04/denver-dem-has-akin-moment-on-guns/
These are the folks who govern us? With Liberals it's all about feeling and not about facts.
If you had taken the time to check Mother Jones, a liberal rag if there ever was one, the split between the states that do report mental illness VS those that don't include a lot of blue states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland, Rhode Island to name a few who don't report. So you don't have much of a "redneck" argument there, just typical Liberal hyperbole.
I really loved your link to CNN / Anderson Cooper. Now if someone does not seem "right" or when they speak the liberal listener believes that person is "not right" then by all means they should be denied access to firearms. Who needs a trained Psychologist or testing to determine mental capacity or trouble the courts for a judgment or bother with that trivial matter of DUE PROCESS? All we need is someone, anyone to determine they are "not right" for denial.
I wish the liberals would apply the same zeal and fervor to voting violations and illegal immigration as they do to "gun control".
Regarding you closing comment on background checks, again you miss the point completely, but me thinks on purpose. My point was the idea of forcing individual to individual sales to use a licensed dealer to background checks is unworkable due to the number of firearms in circulation. I said nothing about scraping background checks, just that this will not work no matter how much liberals dream about it.
Last but not least I direct your attention to Mexico whose gun laws make ours pale to near invisibility in comparison. They are having a literal war in the streets with the cartels. The cartels are now using true military grade "combat" hardware. A lot of good "gun control" has done there.
Criminals will always secure weapons; no law will prevent it as they do not follow the laws. Your mental illness argument is a red herring.
The Real Truth about
Guns and Background
Checks
http://backgroundchecks.org/#/
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!I didn't mean such a "sophisticate" background check.
Funny that we do need a background check to drive a car (driver license sort of background check right? But is ok not to have it for other things.
In the society we live in we are constantly checked. Driver license, Credit report, Insurances, Passport, etc. Why?, because no one trusts what we say so they need to have something to corroborate that we are a "nice people"able to meet the responsibilities whatever they may be.
Let's say that Mr. Right passed the background check, purchased a gun, keeps it why a safe place etc.
Few months after that, his wife divorces him, o he loses his job and goes bankrupt, or gets a bad news from his doctor who tells him he has some type of terminal disease.
Perhaps he reads too many bad news about politics, and starts getting angry about certain groups, minorities, government, etc.
Question: would a person in that state of mind have more propensity to commit and atrocity like the ones that happened at the schools, movie theatre and other places?
Do you think that those who committed these crimes could pass the background check before they acquire their weapons? Probably! Unless background check "also" includes some type of P.S.ychological test, but that is quite expensive and never 100% accurate.
So what type of "test" have to be created before a person purchases a semi-automatic? How often does he have to go through that test to make sure that he is ok every day?
Thank you!Good points.
Nobody is saying a background check system will stop all gun violence. It is simply a common sense measure to make it more difficult for some groups of people (who shouldn't have guns) to get guns.
Esten it's a waste of time discussing gun control with folks like you. The only reason I'll still bother is to expose your crap-o-rama.Doppel joins the growing list of AP conservatives who repeat my words back at me, maybe switching just a word or two. Why do they do this? One can only surmise they get frustrated when their arguments are exposed as crap, and it's easier to copy someone else's words. I bet there is a correlation between watching Fox News and being unable to express original thoughts.
Sorry Doppel, I've already submitted 'crap-o-rama' to Webster, and your posts are part of the definition. An example I gave is when you insisted over and over that liberals were to blame for incomplete mental health record reporting. I did not argue the opposite, I pointed out there is no clear pattern of red vs blue states who do not require such reporting. Even the states with no federal or state reporting requirement are a mixed bag: Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Lousiana, Mississipi, South Carolina, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island. It looks like your original assertion that this was just a 'liberal' problem, has gone down in flames. That's what happens to crap.
Now if we do a better job of reporting mental health records, into a database that can be used in a background check, why would we still allow loopholes that let someone buy a gun without a background check?
Member #4112
04-08-13, 13:45
Esten, not only are you unable to discern humor, you also fail to realize we are mocking you by the use of your own words. I have to say your inability to perceive these simple nuances never fails to elicit a smile.
It's a shame I had to direct you to Mother Jones for which states report to debunk your assumption this was a "red state" thing. I hope you noted Texas is a state which reports.
I did note you have failed to provide any linkage of more restrictive gun laws to reductions in crime involving firearms in the US. Look at Chicago, laws out the wazoo but more shootings / homicides than you can shake a stick at.
You also seem to wish to ignore our neighbor to the south which has had very restrictive laws on the books for years. Nor did you address the Liberal Democrat who has no idea what she is talking about but feels free to call for a ban on whatever it is.
Again, since I seem to be speaking to a post, I did not say to stop background checks. I said what is proposed is unworkable, just as Canada found out, due to the number of weapons already in circulation. That is unless you are ready to have the storm troopers invade everyone's home and place of business to determine if firearms are present, record the make model caliber and serial number of each weapon? Oh and don't forget to count the magazines.
WorldTravel69
04-08-13, 16:29
Some schools already have arm guards.
Columbine and Virginia Tech school shootings, there were armed guards, but they weren't able to prevent those tragedies.
How about armed ushers in the theaters?
Armed bus drivers?
Armed guards at work?
Arm all places.
Strap your six guns on again; like the old days.
Some schools already have arm guards.
Columbine and Virginia Tech school shootings, there were armed guards, but they weren't able to prevent those tragedies.
How about armed ushers in the theaters?
Armed bus drivers?
Armed guards at work?
Arm all places.
Strap your six guns on again; like the old days.
And the cost of security will explode, and everything will be more costly, and the Cheneys of the world will make a fortune. It is a capitalism at it's best, the law of the free market is after all, the law of the jungle. The survival of the fittest
Peggy Noonan, quoting Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore. When he took office as prime minister, in 1959, per capita income was about $400 per year. Last year it was more than $50,000.
And America goes the way of modern Europe at its peril: "If you follow the ideological direction of Europe, you are done for." There are always people who require help, but "addressing their needs must be done in a way that does not kill incentive."
"Americans and European governments believed that they could always afford to support the poor and the needy: widows, orphans, the old and homeless, disadvantaged minorities, unwed mothers. Their sociologists expounded the theory that hardship and failure were due...to flaws in the economic system. So charity became 'entitlement' and the stigma of living on charity disappeared." Welfare costs grew faster than the government's willingness to raise taxes. They "took the easy way out by borrowing to give higher benefits to the current generation of voters." The result: deficits and dangerously high public debt.
I'm putting Doppel on ignore for awhile.
Regarding the discussion on what states report mental health records, he originally claimed this was a 'liberal' problem. I twice stated it's not really a red or blue issue, but still in his last post he claims I assume it's a "red state" issue. Either he is dumb as a rock, or up to tomfoolery.
He also continues to obfuscate the discussion about background checks and Canada's gun registry effort. They are different things, and I explained this before. By continuing to repeat this, I can only conclude he is willingly trying to deceive.
The most important lesson from Chicago is that we need stricter, nation-wide gun laws. Surrounding areas within Illinois, and nearby states, have looser gun laws, so it's easy to get guns to criminals in Chicago. Yes it's actually that simple, which makes it remarkable that the gun lovers think Chicago is a good argument against more gun control.
Where Chicago's Guns Come From
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/08/where-chicagos-guns-come/3090/
TejanoLibre
04-09-13, 03:08
Is this what we want?
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm
Is this what we need?
TL.
Peggy Noonan, quoting Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore. When he took office as prime minister, in 1959, per capita income was about $400 per year. Last year it was more than $50,000.
And America goes the way of modern Europe at its peril: "If you follow the ideological direction of Europe, you are done for." There are always people who require help, but "addressing their needs must be done in a way that does not kill incentive."
"Americans and European governments believed that they could always afford to support the poor and the needy: widows, orphans, the old and homeless, disadvantaged minorities, unwed mothers. Their sociologists expounded the theory that hardship and failure were due...to flaws in the economic system. So charity became 'entitlement' and the stigma of living on charity disappeared." Welfare costs grew faster than the government's willingness to raise taxes. They "took the easy way out by borrowing to give higher benefits to the current generation of voters." The result: deficits and dangerously high public debt."For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and loses his own soul".
Growing up in Singapore, penniless, searching for bottles for redemption so as to be able to watch soccer in the standing terraces. Then a leisurely stroll through the red light district, getting chided by the girls for window-shopping. And now, the only free pleasure left in Singapore is to fart.
Don't cry when you visit Singapore, you have been warned.
I'm putting Doppel on ignore for a while]Does anyone wonder why AP is now the 2-4 posts a day board it has now become. Members brag about who they have now put on ignore. Although many who boast about who they ignore, they suddenly appear commenting on those that they claim to be ignoring! Is this what we have become? Why do we behave in this manner? If you don't like the dialoug then stop posting. Why announce you are now putting whoever on ignore. What does this accomplish? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Does anyone wonder why the board is at an all time low when it comes to posting? Years ago, no one used the "I am putting you on ignore" statement. We have become an ugly people I am afraid. Unlike the local board, the anti-price police have now discouraged anyone from posting the basics (price, service, quality). Now on the political thread, that used to be at least a free exchange of diametrically opposed positions, we are now ignoring those that we can no longer legitimately debate! WTF! I am not singling you out Esten, but when where your sensibilities so easily offended. We have become an ugly people and sadly it is ever so obvious for all to see. Toymann Out.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.