[draugo]

Path your little jab at Idaho is insulting to say the least. That little kidnapped girl 100 to 1 shot would end up in L.A. or N.Y. or Miami. or any other mecca of liberal urban crap, before ending up in Boise, ID. Get your facts straight dip shit.

Page 4 bitches!

This post has been edited by draugo: 12 April 2010 - 11:11 PM

[pathwriter]

Respond in a timely manner, troll. I made that post how many weeks ago? And, for that matter, get the hell off my nuts. I was choosing an atypical location that was geographically far from the origin point I set. If anything, I was ripping on Danbury, a city that I really hate driving through. I've never been anywhere near Idaho and I know literally nothing about it. But way to be super-sensitive, pussy.

[DianaraVP]

Whoa, look who decided to grow a set! You just took a page outta my book. Toss a dash of "fuck" in there for good measure.

[Metticus]

it's funny cause it's a reference

[Vigilous]

Quote

Path your little jab at Idaho is insulting to say the least. That little kidnapped girl 100 to 1 shot would end up in L.A. or N.Y. or Miami. or any other mecca of liberal urban crap, before ending up in Boise, ID. Get your facts straight dip shit.

And what? Because Idaho is a Red state this couldn't possibly happen, right?

Grow the fuck up. Assholes in middle America are just as perverse and psychotic as any other state.

EDIT:

Also, odds are not facts, quiff-for-brains.

This post has been edited by Vigilous: 13 April 2010 - 10:40 AM

[Cruzandercerberus]

Hrm, it seems draugo was saying that it's roughly 100 times more likely to occur in an urban area than in a rural one. It's not red state blue state, as Miami is firmly Red State territory. it's urban v. rural. As usual. While I'd like it to be true, the likelihood of determining it to be so on a per capita basis is probably going to be problematic. Due to the ways crime statistics are reported in various nonstandardized ways.

The only one I'd probably put money on it being true is L.A. but since it's going broke and it's no longer of any use to Mexico we're going to get it back before long and the numbers should drop accordingly.

In response to Dianara, I'll believe all that when it happens. There are talkers, and then there are doers. And then there are democrats pissing their pants over november's elections. I am far from convinced that the Tea Partiers have a coherent ideology at all (Constitutional libertarianism? ) . Much less a virulent one that is in itself (That is without the media capitalizing on tragic events like the bottom feeders they are) going to create a new class of violent crime.

As far as the IRS plane guy, It's difficult to peg him as either right wing or left wing by a suicide note. The information in suicide notes is not reliable. It is not a manifesto. It is there to engage the reader's sympathies in regard to the suicidal person. That is why it is a it's a suicide note, not a homicide note, because it is about his life/death (as opposed to say, the Oklahoma City Bombing/revenge, or the Unibomber/ideology). No one else matters. Certainly not the IRS, and not Barack Obama. That guy was a loose powder keg on a burning ship. Eventually it was going to make a big mess, or not. Either way, abandon ship.

If I had the power to tell these people to chill the fuck out, put down the AK and get back to the soapbox believe me I would. War is always delightful to those who have not experienced it. It's another one of those things I don't worry about, because of course I have no control over it.

This post has been edited by Cruzandercerberus: 17 April 2010 - 06:44 AM

[Keylime]

DianaraVP, on 12 April 2010 - 09:21 PM, said:

Cruz!!! You got some 'splainin to do...

More of this batshit revolution shit, again coming from your side of the aisle. Seriously, these people are going to end up tearing this country apart if they keep it up. Do these guys know no bounds, have no limits to how far they will twist the Constitution to fit their warped ideology. I mean these guys are talking about insurrection here, as if it is a legitimate way to bring about change in our government: a last resort. I don't think they realize what they are suggesting, nor do they understand the implications and effect that such talk has on those who are ACTUALLY crazy. Shit, they are making me feel like I should own a gun just to protect myself from them in case they attempt to force their will upon me, and that's fucked up. I know that most likely nothing will come of this, but these people are escalating, and fast. In my humble opinion, this is what the Forefathers were referring to when they had the second Amendment in mind: to protect us from those who might to ruin our union and attempt to bring insurrection.

Here is the irony of this (roll with me here, I'm being speculative): What if these people get "angry" enough and start getting out of control, then attempting to lay siege to capital buildings (and whatnot) in protest? What if then the government, in an effort to put a stop to the chaos, sends out the National Guard to put down the riots? Then something gets out of hand, some dumbfuck opens fire on the National Guard because they think the NG was trashing their rights, and the NG starts firing into the crowd out of panic (or vise versa). The tea-party followers and those ideologically aligned with them see this as the first step in what they view as martial law. Assholes start arming themselves and things spiral out of control further as more and more people move to capture capital buildings in protest. Now we have close to a full on Civil War on our hands.

This is pretty far-fetched, and you know I don't think that shit is realistic. However, I do believe that if things continue to degenerate, we might have some crazy people on our hands who might think that something of the suchlike is the only answer because "the government doesn't listen to the people" or rather the people those people agree with. Next thing you know some piece of shit is "inspired" to blow up a government building or poppin' shots off at elected officials. THAT is not far-fetched, and we actually just saw something similar when that guy rammed his Cessna into that IRS building because he thought it was fucked up that he had to pay taxes like everyone else.

EDIT: I did a strikethrough because I like Cruz, and it isn't fair to associate him with those fuckheads on the far right, joking or not.

I'll try to keep this coherent. I'll address the first bolded line first.
Amendment II

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.
Source

This seems like a pretty straight forward Amendment. But there are nuances in it's reading. Let's take the first part, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. This part is fairly straight forward, the people, state, federal government have the right to maintain a Milit8ia to defend the Country. Now the second part, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is where interpretation can get tricky, the literal translation would be that the citizens of the US have the right to arm themselves and that right shall not be infringed. My reading of this is that the Founding Fathers wanted not only a Militia, but also armed citizens. Why do you think they wanted both? You'd think with a militia that everything would be honkey dorey. But the Founding Fathers understood that there maybe another time in the future when the people may need to "renew" this country.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson


As for the second bolded section, is change really so bad? Yes there is always the possibility that the change could be for the worse, but what if it isn't? Civil War is probably the most brutal kind of conflict, as we can see from the First American Civil War. But let's look at your scenario in a different manner. Say you are the National Guardsman, you are surrounded by a crowd of angry people and you are charged with keeping some semblance of order. Being in this kind of situation tensions are going to be high on both sides. Now for what ever reason someone sets off a fire cracker, or a car back fires. Suddenly you think you are under fire and you return as a reflex, soon other Guardsmen are returning fire until a C.O. yells for them to cease. Congratulations the government has fired the first volley leaving those who where fired upon while "peacefully protesting" the moral high ground to start an armed insurrection. Just think The Kent State Massacre but in a more volatile climate.

Sorry for jumping in late, I felt this was worth commenting on.

[MrReinhardt]

Just because one member of the party throws out the idea of a militia doesn't mean the whole party wants to. I don't see the real point in a militia force, the point risen about the OKC bombing possibly prevented by a militia is absurd. So if OK gets a militia maybe NY and DC should as well, since they also suffered terrorist attacks attacks (I'd actually be curious what those 2 groups would look like).

If a militia is really necessary then perhaps they could be regulated by the Guard. I don't know have a few members of the guard in a militia unit so that they are well aware of the groups activities and ideas. That or their members be given competency tests. We don't need a bunch of paranoid people in these groups who think the government is trying to control their actions or take away their rights.

This image is also relative to the argument:

[Synnre]

I would really like to know at what point in human evolution we went from Survival of the fittest and those able to survive through means of their own to killing the whole herd to try and keep the slow, weak, pathetic living comfortable.

The mom died. Even though it's tragic, let's ask Why? Because she didn't have insurance. Why? Because she lost her job. Why? Because she wasn't the best worker. Why? Because she didn't try hard enough or smart enough to secure a benefit of hard work: ie insurance.

Life isn't something you take for granted. It isn't something that's guaranteed. If you want the benefits of hard work: ie Insurance, Nice clothes, Nice house, Good healthy food, watches, necklaces, etc... WORK HARD AND ACHIEVE IT.

Stop expecting Mommy, Daddy, Obama, McCain, Palin, Jesus, or Santa Claus to give it to you.

People need to grow up and be responsible for their actions and whatever results those actions bring (or don't bring like insurance).

***Notice - I was born of an 18yr dad and a 16yr mom. My dad was working at Arby's and my mom was in high school. My dad worked hard and got promoted, got a better job, saved money, went to college, got a better job and now is grossing 6 figures a year. He wasn't given anything. He earned it.

[pathwriter]

Synnre, on 17 April 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

I would really like to know at what point in human evolution we went from Survival of the fittest and those able to survive through means of their own to killing the whole herd to try and keep the slow, weak, pathetic living comfortable.

You're not going to like it, but the point when we moved from selfishness to altruism happened long before homo sapiens developed. Altruism is a major defining characteristic of higher order mammals and humans tend to express it the most. For that matter, Americans are some of the most altruistic people on the planet, not that you're likely to see that headline trumpeted often. We adopt more children than the rest of the world combined, and that's both in bulk and per capita. We're practically the only nation that adopts, period, in spite of a long tradition of foundlings and orphans raised by others in pre-industrial Europe. We spend amazing quantities of money on foreign aid through the government and charity to foreign nations through NGOs. We spend even more domestically and, for the most part, we do it gladly. To argue that people should not support one another is actually just about as diametrically opposed to the American value system as one can get, in spite of our cultural myths about rugged individualism, capitalism, and self-reliance.

[Synnre]

We should give and help others. But those who "have" should have the option to give to the "have nots". It should NOT be taken by a third party (the goverment) and distributed as they see fit. I love how the rich as burdened with more expectations, more taxes, and more criticism. They don't use more roads, more public assistance, more public facilities, in fact, they use less. Not only do rich people take less and give more by force, They give more and take less by choice as well.

If the woman was involved in a social circle, a church, if she reached out and got help she may be a live today. Btw. Last I checked, doesn't single mothers get medical cards?

[pathwriter]

You really believe that nonsense? Look into how the gap between middle class employees and their rich employers has changed in your lifetime. They take plenty, they just don't take it from the public fund (except that they avoid paying taxes whenever possible -- for instance, Exxon paid $15B in taxes this year and $0 of them to the United States). I'm all for a person being able to make lots of money, but there are a lot of swindlers out there and no one should have been surprised at Bernie Madoff or the current scandal coming out of Goldman-Sachs. Insurance, particularly health insurance, is one of the biggest rackets going right now and suggesting that they're dealing with their customers and employees fairly flies in the face of reality. You're buying into cultural myths; you need to visit the real world.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Still under the impression that corporations pay taxes I see.

Exxon Corporation paying 0 in federal taxes has nothing to do with the amount of tax revenue generated by Exxon petroleum sales. Or the profit margins of petroleum extraction/refineries.The discussion is a shell game, only marginally useful in drumming up anger and securing populist approval. It is simply the nature of the beast that the only reason that Exxon provides any product at all is at the behest of the people who control the oil deposits themselves, typically a motley crew of Dictators, Emirs/Sultans, Monarchs, and the like. Of course with some help from the unwillingness of American politicians to open up domestic areas to exploration.

If the foreign kickbacks equal 15B and there is a sales tax and a federal corporate tax, that just means that Consumers pay three times the tax, and a third of it goes into the pockets of some emirate, which will use it for such progressive projects as building undersea hotels and islands shaped like things.

This post has been edited by Cruzandercerberus: 19 April 2010 - 06:42 AM

[Synnre]

Yes, Let's use a company like Exxon Moblie as our escapegoat. Did you know or just willfully omit that The International house of pancakes, Yes, IHop, made more of a profit than every gas company. Why are we not pointing fingers, Why are we not crusifying them for being profittable? And as far as Why the gap between the rich and the poor contrinues to widen it's simple. It takes a lot more to succeed in this world than it did 15-20 years ago. You could be a made man without even a high school diploma. Now if you don't invest in yourself and prepare you or your children in this world you will never make more than the dust that falls out a well educated person that strives to succeed.

Also poor people are dumb with thier money and there's hundreds of traps to seperate the two. High Interest rates, Sub prime rates, Rent, Overdraft fees, Refuelling cost. ATM charges, check cashing fees etc.... Heck, Even the lottery is taking the poor peoples money on a daily basis. Do you think Bill Gates buys a lotto ticket, some beef jerky and a Mt.dew on his way to make a billion dollars a day? This is just imo but poor people are nickeled and dimed to death because they are too dumb to avoid those type of charges. They never create wealth because they don't create an enviorment where they earn, save, and accumulate wealth.

Now this is where you come back with some heartbleeding story about poor people can't afford food and blah, blah, blaaaaah. But the fees they pay on a weekly basis would surprise you. I've been in the banking industry for over 10 years. It's designed to charge people more based on risk to the bank, thus higher interest rates, more fees, etc. The system is fine. It protects the bank from taking losses and recoups some of the overhead when it does take a hit. It's the people that don't read, learn, understand how to be smart with their money and build long term wealth.