An All-Time Low in Journalism

[anon31651765]

[quote]tom63 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Meaning no disrespect, but life teaches everyone a different lesson, 50 years old here , been my own boss for the most part of the last 25 years I think for the Republic or the Democratic Republic to work correctly we have to have swings from liberal to conservative or we lose a balance

There is truth to that. Our system was designed with checks and balances so we don’t move to the whims of public opinion to fast. When I have question, I refer back to the constitution and what the founding fathers wrote. They were very concerned with the growth of government and concentrating to much power in Washington.
[/quote]

I agree with that. However, the breadth of problems that come with technology could not be imagined by them, so keep in mind that the document cannot remain static or else it would become useless.

For me, low taxes and less regulation, keeping my guns and not aborting babies can’t really be taken to extreme. but high taxes, abortion, government confiscation of weapons, and onerous regulation taken to extreme is very dangerous and would end up in tyranny.

Bullshit. All of them can be. People walking the streets with AK-47s in NJ would be a terrible thing. Taxes that are too low lead to massive cuts in services that people either need or enjoy, and less regulation lead us to the bullshit we’re in now. Anything in excess is generally bad.

But you must remember government is made up of people. These people are no better or smarter than a guy like me. and when they decide how I live and how much money i can have from what I earn, I get enraged.

I agree with what you’re saying, and I think alot of people forget this- the people in the government are just like you.

However, when you get enraged, very, very, very few people ever do anything about it. If you don’t believe me, go to your local town council meeting and see how little attention people pay. And forget state politics- that may as well be a foreign language, although the odds are that your state takes more money and fucks you over way more than the federal government does.

I have seen a lot of liberals complains about “giving” tax breaks to the “rich”. Like the government owns a person’s property. the correct wording should be we need to take more money from the “rich”. but that kind of language would send a different meaning now, wouldn’t it?

The money in taxes is done through, more or less, a social contract. When taxes get too low or too high, bad things happen, so it floats in between a set rate. It’s not a momentous concept.

[anon31651765]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

And Garofalo is no left wing version of Coulter because whereas they both are inflammatory Coulter is actually an intelligent person.[/quote]

Again- Coulters just a cunt that capitalizes on trying to make people angry. She’s a walking joke.

[lixy]

[quote]Totenkopf wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
God, why don’t we institute some sort of gene pool removal system already? That’s maybe the most offensive thing I’ve ever heard. I know this is apparently a few days old. Seriously, can ANYONE out there justify this behavior?

Eugenics. It was used by everybody up until WW2 when the Nazis kinda gave it a bad name. Apparently some people thought Eugenics was morally wrong. Pussies.[/quote]

It survived quite well in Sweden. Eugenics laws got repelled as late as 1975.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]malonetd wrote:
jawara wrote:
pushharder wrote:
borrek wrote:
Haha, Now you guys know how us liberals feel when we hear Ann Coulter. I’m sure you guys dismiss a lot of what Coulter says as having a “nugget of truth” and ignore the batshit crazy portion.

Garofalo was trying to piss you off. Seems like she succeeded pretty well.

Piss me off? Ha! She made a ludicrous spectacle of herself. Like I said, I thought it was funny.

And Garofalo is no left wing version of Coulter because whereas they both are inflammatory Coulter is actually an intelligent person.

Coulter does get annoyig sometimes but most of the time she backs up her arguements with facts. Lie the time she was on “the View” and pissed them off with her comments on single moms. The comments she made were factual, kids from single mother homes are more likely to have messed up lives BUT since Whoopie Goldberg doesn’t like those facts she blasted Ann.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I’m not going to let this slide. You watch The View?[/quote]

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[tom63]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Meaning no disrespect, but life teaches everyone a different lesson, 50 years old here , been my own boss for the most part of the last 25 years I think for the Republic or the Democratic Republic to work correctly we have to have swings from liberal to conservative or we lose a balance

There is truth to that. Our system was designed with checks and balances so we don’t move to the whims of public opinion to fast. When I have question, I refer back to the constitution and what the founding fathers wrote. They were very concerned with the growth of government and concentrating to much power in Washington.

I agree with that. However, the breadth of problems that come with technology could not be imagined by them, so keep in mind that the document cannot remain static or else it would become useless.

For me, low taxes and less regulation, keeping my guns and not aborting babies can’t really be taken to extreme. but high taxes, abortion, government confiscation of weapons, and onerous regulation taken to extreme is very dangerous and would end up in tyranny.

Bullshit. All of them can be. People walking the streets with AK-47s in NJ would be a terrible thing. Taxes that are too low lead to massive cuts in services that people either need or enjoy, and less regulation lead us to the bullshit we’re in now. Anything in excess is generally bad.

But you must remember government is made up of people. These people are no better or smarter than a guy like me. and when they decide how I live and how much money i can have from what I earn, I get enraged.

I agree with what you’re saying, and I think alot of people forget this- the people in the government are just like you.

However, when you get enraged, very, very, very few people ever do anything about it. If you don’t believe me, go to your local town council meeting and see how little attention people pay. And forget state politics- that may as well be a foreign language, although the odds are that your state takes more money and fucks you over way more than the federal government does.

I have seen a lot of liberals complains about “giving” tax breaks to the “rich”. Like the government owns a person’s property. the correct wording should be we need to take more money from the “rich”. but that kind of language would send a different meaning now, wouldn’t it?

The money in taxes is done through, more or less, a social contract. When taxes get too low or too high, bad things happen, so it floats in between a set rate. It’s not a momentous concept.
[/quote]

I know we need to pay taxes, but when it is for things like welfare, make work stuff, etc. i see a big waste. And before we think ole tom is just a big meanie, I treat people on welfare. Very few are worth a damn. That are not hard working noble people that just a bad break they are nitwhits.

As for AK 47s, I live in Pa. in a rural area. I have a few friends who own AKs. They are normal target shooting guys. I own 2 ARS and a 50 caliber sniper rifle among other things. We are not out there committing crimes.

And does it matter if you get shot by an AK or a Winchester 94 in the caliber 30/30? Both shoot a 30 caliber round at app the same energy. One is a popular deer rifle, the other is a semi auto rifle. we can’t use those in Pa., but other states people can.

For myself I do call , write, or go to meetings.

But again I live in Pa. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in New Jersey, mainly due to the taxes and gun laws. Pa. is bad with taxes, but Jersey is at a differtent level.

[skaz05]

Lou Dobbs fires back at PMSNBC

- YouTube

[anon31651765]

[quote]tom63 wrote:

I know we need to pay taxes, but when it is for things like welfare, make work stuff, etc. i see a big waste. And before we think ole tom is just a big meanie, I treat people on welfare. Very few are worth a damn. That are not hard working noble people that just a bad break they are nitwhits.
[/quote]

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I am for working welfare, but not outright giving money to people. And I’ve known plenty of people too… you are right, many are far from those that are just down on their luck. Many are outright stupid.

As for AK 47s, I live in Pa. in a rural area. I have a few friends who own AKs. They are normal target shooting guys. I own 2 ARS and a 50 caliber sniper rifle among other things. We are not out there committing crimes.

I am pro-gun rights, believe me.

However, in societies that are not accustomed to having guns all the time, specifically in NJ, which is the most densely populated state in the union, everyone having guns could be a terrible thing.

I’m not saying you’re committing crimes, but I would be far less comfortable if every asshole could have a concealed carry license around here.

And does it matter if you get shot by an AK or a Winchester 94 in the caliber 30/30? Both shoot a 30 caliber round at app the same energy. One is a popular deer rifle, the other is a semi auto rifle. we can’t use those in Pa., but other states people can.

Well. The dynamics of one make it a much more efficient killer of men. Again, I’m not against them, but I just used it as an example.

For myself I do call , write, or go to meetings.

Good man.

But again I live in Pa. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in New Jersey, mainly due to the taxes and gun laws. Pa. is bad with taxes, but Jersey is at a differtent level.

hahaha. I don’t blame you- the gun laws do suck and the taxes are huge.

But I say the same thing about PA, hillbilly. Nothing good comes from living in the country from the eyes of this city slicker.

[anon31651765]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

However, in societies that are not accustomed to having guns all the time, specifically in NJ, which is the most densely populated state in the union, everyone having guns could be a terrible thing.

Then NJ must breed a whole different bunch of cats because EVERYWHERE CCW has been enacted it has resulted in lower crime rates. In other words, an established track record flies in the face of the “terrible thing” you envision.
[/quote]

I don’t know the statistics on it- I’ve never really looked into it much because I generally operate under the “Guns are good” banner and most guys I know agree with me.

Well. The dynamics of one make it a much more efficient killer of men…

If by “dynamics”, you mean “rate of fire”, then yes. And that is a good thing. That means the vast majority of people ever to handle that weapon, who just so happen to be law abiding citizens, will be able to more efficiently kill an attacker if need be. Like I said, a good thing. Wouldn’t you agree?

I meant rate of fire and ammunition capacity, so yes.

[quote]
But I say the same thing about PA, hillbilly. Nothing good comes from living in the country from the eyes of this city slicker.

NOW you stepped out of bounds.

FWIW, I’ve been to New Jersey. When I looked around I saw a lot regular folks. Folks that deserve their God-given right to defend themselves. Folks who descended from some of the guys who signed a document that guaranteed, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

“Infringe” means: to violate or break (a law or agreement)
or to encroach or trespass on.

Therefore, if the state of New Jersey enacts laws that violate, break, encroach, or trespass on its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms (“bear” means carry) then the state of New Jersey, or any other state or the federal government, has blatantly fucked up and deserves reproach. It deserves the willful violation of those laws because those laws clearly contradict the framing legal document of our union.[/quote]

I was really just breaking his balls with that, I just didn’t want to have to put that gay winking thing after it.

But, I agree for the most part. I’m still not sure where I stand on conceal and carry, but I am mostly against assault weapons bans, I am against banning clips that carry more ammo, and I’m of the opinion that every house should have a gun.

Believe me, you won’t hear me argue that guns should ever be taken away. I distrust the government (all governments) way too much to believe that they’re the only ones who should have the rifles.

[orion]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

The money in taxes is done through, more or less, a social contract. When taxes get too low or too high, bad things happen, so it floats in between a set rate. It’s not a momentous concept.
[/quote]

What social contract?

Where can I see it?

How is it possible that other people made that contract for me?

If I supposedly agreed to that contract to protect my life, property and freedom how do you explain the draft, income tax and the war on drugs?

[tom63]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tom63 wrote:

I know we need to pay taxes, but when it is for things like welfare, make work stuff, etc. i see a big waste. And before we think ole tom is just a big meanie, I treat people on welfare. Very few are worth a damn. That are not hard working noble people that just a bad break they are nitwhits.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I am for working welfare, but not outright giving money to people. And I’ve known plenty of people too… you are right, many are far from those that are just down on their luck. Many are outright stupid.

As for AK 47s, I live in Pa. in a rural area. I have a few friends who own AKs. They are normal target shooting guys. I own 2 ARS and a 50 caliber sniper rifle among other things. We are not out there committing crimes.

I am pro-gun rights, believe me.

However, in societies that are not accustomed to having guns all the time, specifically in NJ, which is the most densely populated state in the union, everyone having guns could be a terrible thing.

I’m not saying you’re committing crimes, but I would be far less comfortable if every asshole could have a concealed carry license around here.

And does it matter if you get shot by an AK or a Winchester 94 in the caliber 30/30? Both shoot a 30 caliber round at app the same energy. One is a popular deer rifle, the other is a semi auto rifle. we can’t use those in Pa., but other states people can.

Well. The dynamics of one make it a much more efficient killer of men. Again, I’m not against them, but I just used it as an example.

For myself I do call , write, or go to meetings.

Good man.

But again I live in Pa. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in New Jersey, mainly due to the taxes and gun laws. Pa. is bad with taxes, but Jersey is at a differtent level.

hahaha. I don’t blame you- the gun laws do suck and the taxes are huge.

But I say the same thing about PA, hillbilly. Nothing good comes from living in the country from the eyes of this city slicker. [/quote]

You want to take Philly cheap?

Actually, AKs are not better man killers than a Winchester 94. they are ballistically the same and can be shot as fast while aiming. A lever action gun is very quick to shoot, and if you take in account you don’t hit well without aiming, you’ll see what I mean. If you are a shooter.

I picked the 30/30 specifically because people are enamored by the powerful AK. a goo shooter could probably get off an aimed shot in a little over a second at close range. an AK won’t be faster. That is aimed of course. People that just spray out bullets don’t normally hit much.

But this is the thing about guns. If you know guns, you know how ridiculous most laws are. Criminals will get them and use them criminally. a law abiding guy like me obeys the laws and is a safe gun owner.

Then efficiency of a gun as a man killer is dependent on how and when the gun is used. Close range a pump or semi auto shotgun can’t be beat. Longer ranges some commonly used deer rifles would be hard to beat.

But if you do not accurately describe the gun and use inflammatory language like “telescopically sighted sniper rifle” of “AK47” you are being misleading. I’ve seen anti gunners do this repeatedly.

BTW, the semi auto AK copy is not an AK47, that designation is for the fully auto version. And most rifles have scopes that are used for hunting. the 30 calibers, 308, 30 06, 300 win mag, and 300 weatherby mag can be used effectively at ranges of 800 -1200 yards. The first three are common sniper rounds.

In fact almost every single gun developed was originally developed for military means. That old lever action, the bolt action rifle, the 1911and so on.

I’ve never seen a liberal tell the truth about guns. I’ve seen nothing but fear and lies when it comes down to it.

[anon31651765]

[quote]tom63 wrote:

But this is the thing about guns. If you know guns, you know how ridiculous most laws are. Criminals will get them and use them criminally. a law abiding guy like me obeys the laws and is a safe gun owner.
[/quote]

I agree. That’s probably the biggest reason I think our gun laws are fucked up right now- they punish the regular citizen.

Then efficiency of a gun as a man killer is dependent on how and when the gun is used. Close range a pump or semi auto shotgun can’t be beat. Longer ranges some commonly used deer rifles would be hard to beat.

This I know- I don’t know much about guns, but I know a good amount about history and some about self-defense.

However, it’s easy to claim you’re using a shotgun as home defense. A high-powered deer rifle- not so much. When you’re shooting someone from that far away, it’s hard to claim that they were much of a threat. But again, I’m just talking about it within the context of how they could be used in America.

But if you do not accurately describe the gun and use inflammatory language like “telescopically sighted sniper rifle” of “AK47” you are being misleading. I’ve seen anti gunners do this repeatedly.

Understood.

In fact almost every single gun developed was originally developed for military means. That old lever action, the bolt action rifle, the 1911and so on.

I’ve never seen a liberal tell the truth about guns. I’ve seen nothing but fear and lies when it comes down to it.

I am not quite sure how this fits the liberal idea. Keep the government away from deciding things about social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. but we don’t want them to have guns. I just don’t know where that retarded piece of the platform came from… it never used to be that way…

[Jab1]

[quote]tedro wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
tedro wrote:
What about Anderson Cooper? “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea bagging.”

- YouTube

Can you imagine if a conservative, or a Don Imus said that? At a minimum he deserves a lengthy suspension. Prime time news and we have nancy-boy Anderson Cooper making vulgar sexual innuendos.

Haha that was funny. Both the video and your sense of humour fail.

If I want to watch tv with that sort of language I’ll put something on where I know I can expect it. Prime time news is not the time to bring up the difficulties you have while tea-bagging, and I don’t watch it to hear about that. If one wants to make a comedy show with vulgar jokes, fine, but I don’t believe that is CNN’s goal with AC. There is a reasonable expectation to be able to turn on the news at night and not have to worry about explaining to any young ears that may be watching what a tea-bagger is and why joking about it is funny.[/quote]

You are a ridiculous prude. “That sort of language?” Please, it’s not the 1950s any more. It’s quite obviously easy for you to explain a tea-bagger as this form of “activist”. You must have hated this piece (which, unsurprisingly, I love); - YouTube

[myjennycdb]

[quote]force of one wrote:
omg… She’s directly out of her fucking mind. This is terrible.

All that stuff about brain size… Tea parties were about race…

head explodes[/quote]

I found this today online and thought I would add it to the discussion… - YouTube

[dhickey]

[quote]myjennycdb wrote:
force of one wrote:
omg… She’s directly out of her fucking mind. This is terrible.

All that stuff about brain size… Tea parties were about race…

head explodes

I found this today online and thought I would add it to the discussion… - YouTube

Yep. Freedom of speech is only for liberals. Anyone else is an ignorant brown-toother that should shut the fuck up and just hand over their paychecks.

Evidently logic and reason are tools of the weak minded. They have no place in true intellectual thought or conversation.