|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/10/2014 12:41 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/10/14, 12:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/10/2014 11:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/10/14, 11:19 AM, wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2014 08:18:46 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: What "severe restrictions?" Background checks? Max magazine size? How's that going? I haven't kept up. "Severe restrictions" is like Romney saying he's a "severe Conservative". Try to pay attention to the threads you start. This is all about an existing law in New Jersey and a proposed federal law that would make virtually every handgun in America illegal. It sounds pretty severe to me. Speaking of handguns... I got a box of "real deal" .357 mag rounds (as opposed to the somewhat lighter Blazer aluminum case .357 rounds I had), and shot 18 of them. Got 11 of 'em within the circle at 50 yards, and got close enough to the center to scare it. The other seven probably are still in low earth orbit (that's just a joke, morons...) Wonderful sounds, even wearing earplugs *and* muffs. Recoil and muzzle flip not too bad, thanks to the avoirdupois of the revolver, I suppose, and the "rubber" grips. I wouldn't want to shoot this piece with wood grips. Well, not often. The S&W 627 I had (5" barrel) had wood grips. My wife shot a whole box of brass .357 magnum rounds through it. She didn't complain. Actually, she liked it. It was the first time in her life that she ever held or fired a handgun. She started out with my Ruger SR22 thinking that's all she'd be interested in because she never liked even holding a handgun. Next she tried the 38 Special and then the Walther 380. When it came time to try to 627 she was all over it. Expensive tastes. Haven't tried wood grips. My .357 came with Hogue rubber grips, and I bought the Hogue "Tamer" grips which look pretty much the same but have a chunk of blue rubber going down the backside of the grip on the inside. It definitely absorbs more of the recoil. I never felt that the recoil was that bad on the 627. It's a heavy gun. Krause is backpedaling. Narcissistic overload! |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On Saturday, May 10, 2014 8:59:06 AM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/10/14, 11:51 AM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2014 11:19:06 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2014 08:18:46 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: What "severe restrictions?" Background checks? Max magazine size? How's that going? I haven't kept up. "Severe restrictions" is like Romney saying he's a "severe Conservative". Try to pay attention to the threads you start. This is all about an existing law in New Jersey and a proposed federal law that would make virtually every handgun in America illegal. It sounds pretty severe to me. And Krause used this as an opening to brag about his 'shooting prowess'. Yes, I'd believe he could hit this a couple times at 50 yards given enough ammo! https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...oYBkdDSIdmEvzg What's the matter, Johnnycakes? Someone call and tell you there were black people at the bluegrass festival? And what is the matter with you jackass. Did you spill your lighter fluid before your local chapters cross burning ritual? |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 6:13 AM, KC wrote:
On 5/11/2014 2:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Sorry. I thought you were referring to my "smart" comment. As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind. Being sane and responsible does. However: In past generations there were many reasons people didn't complete high school. In certain farming regions for example or unique situations where the kids were needed to help support the family. During WWII there were many who dropped out of high school to join the military. Most went on and received at least a GED and many went on to college under the GI bill. In today's world there aren't really many justified reasons for not getting at least a high school diploma. Since the 1960's our welfare and aid to people and families has increased over 700 percent. High tech farming has eliminated most of the grunt work requirements with higher yields. The government pays some farmers *not* to grow some crops. The purpose of getting an education ... even if it's only a high school diploma ... is so one can become self sufficient and a contributing member of society ... not a burden on it. Unfortunately our welfare system has created a culture whereby there is little motivation in many cases because Uncle Sam will provide. Unless someone is mentally disabled, physically disabled or has some boni fide reason for not sticking it out and getting a HS diploma or a GED, I could understand making some federal benefits unavailable. If you can't get a job ... go back to school and the benefits will continue. So, you would disqualify anybody who did not have a HS Diploma from having a weapon? Please note my comment, "As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind" however the more I think about it, maybe it should now-a-days, along with certain other rights and benefits normally allowed to responsible, contributing members of society. If someone is 18 years old, dropped out of high school, doesn't have a job or visible means of support .... should they be issued a permit for a handgun? My logic says "No". What does the Constitution say? Some folks like to be in charge and set the rules... Seems the qualifications always ignore their own deficiencies, really seems to be a blue state thing. I don't think bullies should have guns... The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms but it doesn't say that right necessarily extends to everyone. Laws already exist under the framework of the Constitution that nobody argues with because they are common sense interpretations. What state allows selling a hand gun to a 10 year old? What state allows legal selling of a firearm to a convicted felon? I also favor background checks. I also favor prohibiting firearm sales to those with diagnosed physiological disorders or mental illness. A basic education (high school diploma) is supposed to minimally prepare you for the adult world and means of supporting yourself as a contributing member of society. The reasons to drop out now-a-days are more by choice than by necessity and those who drop out are far more likely to become a burden on society rather than a contributing member. My logic says they are more likely to commit crimes to survive, having few other options for making a living. So, again I ask, "Should an 18 year old high school drop out be issued a permit to own a handgun?" I can see valid reasons to answer "No" just like a 10 year old shouldn't own one. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 6:13 AM, KC wrote: On 5/11/2014 2:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Sorry. I thought you were referring to my "smart" comment. As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind. Being sane and responsible does. However: In past generations there were many reasons people didn't complete high school. In certain farming regions for example or unique situations where the kids were needed to help support the family. During WWII there were many who dropped out of high school to join the military. Most went on and received at least a GED and many went on to college under the GI bill. In today's world there aren't really many justified reasons for not getting at least a high school diploma. Since the 1960's our welfare and aid to people and families has increased over 700 percent. High tech farming has eliminated most of the grunt work requirements with higher yields. The government pays some farmers *not* to grow some crops. The purpose of getting an education ... even if it's only a high school diploma ... is so one can become self sufficient and a contributing member of society ... not a burden on it. Unfortunately our welfare system has created a culture whereby there is little motivation in many cases because Uncle Sam will provide. Unless someone is mentally disabled, physically disabled or has some boni fide reason for not sticking it out and getting a HS diploma or a GED, I could understand making some federal benefits unavailable. If you can't get a job ... go back to school and the benefits will continue. So, you would disqualify anybody who did not have a HS Diploma from having a weapon? Please note my comment, "As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind" however the more I think about it, maybe it should now-a-days, along with certain other rights and benefits normally allowed to responsible, contributing members of society. If someone is 18 years old, dropped out of high school, doesn't have a job or visible means of support .... should they be issued a permit for a handgun? My logic says "No". What does the Constitution say? Some folks like to be in charge and set the rules... Seems the qualifications always ignore their own deficiencies, really seems to be a blue state thing. I don't think bullies should have guns... The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms but it doesn't say that right necessarily extends to everyone. Laws already exist under the framework of the Constitution that nobody argues with because they are common sense interpretations. What state allows selling a hand gun to a 10 year old? What state allows legal selling of a firearm to a convicted felon? I also favor background checks. I also favor prohibiting firearm sales to those with diagnosed physiological disorders or mental illness. A basic education (high school diploma) is supposed to minimally prepare you for the adult world and means of supporting yourself as a contributing member of society. The reasons to drop out now-a-days are more by choice than by necessity and those who drop out are far more likely to become a burden on society rather than a contributing member. My logic says they are more likely to commit crimes to survive, having few other options for making a living. So, again I ask, "Should an 18 year old high school drop out be issued a permit to own a handgun?" I can see valid reasons to answer "No" just like a 10 year old shouldn't own one. You can almost smell the "pride" in having a father who "had the sense" to drop out of school in the third grade. Sad. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 9:59 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/11/14, 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 6:13 AM, KC wrote: On 5/11/2014 2:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Sorry. I thought you were referring to my "smart" comment. As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind. Being sane and responsible does. However: In past generations there were many reasons people didn't complete high school. In certain farming regions for example or unique situations where the kids were needed to help support the family. During WWII there were many who dropped out of high school to join the military. Most went on and received at least a GED and many went on to college under the GI bill. In today's world there aren't really many justified reasons for not getting at least a high school diploma. Since the 1960's our welfare and aid to people and families has increased over 700 percent. High tech farming has eliminated most of the grunt work requirements with higher yields. The government pays some farmers *not* to grow some crops. The purpose of getting an education ... even if it's only a high school diploma ... is so one can become self sufficient and a contributing member of society ... not a burden on it. Unfortunately our welfare system has created a culture whereby there is little motivation in many cases because Uncle Sam will provide. Unless someone is mentally disabled, physically disabled or has some boni fide reason for not sticking it out and getting a HS diploma or a GED, I could understand making some federal benefits unavailable. If you can't get a job ... go back to school and the benefits will continue. So, you would disqualify anybody who did not have a HS Diploma from having a weapon? Please note my comment, "As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind" however the more I think about it, maybe it should now-a-days, along with certain other rights and benefits normally allowed to responsible, contributing members of society. If someone is 18 years old, dropped out of high school, doesn't have a job or visible means of support .... should they be issued a permit for a handgun? My logic says "No". What does the Constitution say? Some folks like to be in charge and set the rules... Seems the qualifications always ignore their own deficiencies, really seems to be a blue state thing. I don't think bullies should have guns... The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms but it doesn't say that right necessarily extends to everyone. Laws already exist under the framework of the Constitution that nobody argues with because they are common sense interpretations. What state allows selling a hand gun to a 10 year old? What state allows legal selling of a firearm to a convicted felon? I also favor background checks. I also favor prohibiting firearm sales to those with diagnosed physiological disorders or mental illness. A basic education (high school diploma) is supposed to minimally prepare you for the adult world and means of supporting yourself as a contributing member of society. The reasons to drop out now-a-days are more by choice than by necessity and those who drop out are far more likely to become a burden on society rather than a contributing member. My logic says they are more likely to commit crimes to survive, having few other options for making a living. So, again I ask, "Should an 18 year old high school drop out be issued a permit to own a handgun?" I can see valid reasons to answer "No" just like a 10 year old shouldn't own one. You can almost smell the "pride" in having a father who "had the sense" to drop out of school in the third grade. Sad. This has nothing to do with Scott or his father. There was a time in this society where legitimate reasons existed to drop out of school and go to work to help support the extended family. My point is that those reasons aren't as valid in today's society. One of the negative consequences of the expansion of welfare programs and federal aid programs since the 1960's has been to lessen the need for an education or even a job in some cases. I tie it to being "responsible" ... another prerequisite for gun ownership in my mind. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 10:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 9:59 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 6:13 AM, KC wrote: On 5/11/2014 2:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Sorry. I thought you were referring to my "smart" comment. As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind. Being sane and responsible does. However: In past generations there were many reasons people didn't complete high school. In certain farming regions for example or unique situations where the kids were needed to help support the family. During WWII there were many who dropped out of high school to join the military. Most went on and received at least a GED and many went on to college under the GI bill. In today's world there aren't really many justified reasons for not getting at least a high school diploma. Since the 1960's our welfare and aid to people and families has increased over 700 percent. High tech farming has eliminated most of the grunt work requirements with higher yields. The government pays some farmers *not* to grow some crops. The purpose of getting an education ... even if it's only a high school diploma ... is so one can become self sufficient and a contributing member of society ... not a burden on it. Unfortunately our welfare system has created a culture whereby there is little motivation in many cases because Uncle Sam will provide. Unless someone is mentally disabled, physically disabled or has some boni fide reason for not sticking it out and getting a HS diploma or a GED, I could understand making some federal benefits unavailable. If you can't get a job ... go back to school and the benefits will continue. So, you would disqualify anybody who did not have a HS Diploma from having a weapon? Please note my comment, "As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind" however the more I think about it, maybe it should now-a-days, along with certain other rights and benefits normally allowed to responsible, contributing members of society. If someone is 18 years old, dropped out of high school, doesn't have a job or visible means of support .... should they be issued a permit for a handgun? My logic says "No". What does the Constitution say? Some folks like to be in charge and set the rules... Seems the qualifications always ignore their own deficiencies, really seems to be a blue state thing. I don't think bullies should have guns... The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms but it doesn't say that right necessarily extends to everyone. Laws already exist under the framework of the Constitution that nobody argues with because they are common sense interpretations. What state allows selling a hand gun to a 10 year old? What state allows legal selling of a firearm to a convicted felon? I also favor background checks. I also favor prohibiting firearm sales to those with diagnosed physiological disorders or mental illness. A basic education (high school diploma) is supposed to minimally prepare you for the adult world and means of supporting yourself as a contributing member of society. The reasons to drop out now-a-days are more by choice than by necessity and those who drop out are far more likely to become a burden on society rather than a contributing member. My logic says they are more likely to commit crimes to survive, having few other options for making a living. So, again I ask, "Should an 18 year old high school drop out be issued a permit to own a handgun?" I can see valid reasons to answer "No" just like a 10 year old shouldn't own one. You can almost smell the "pride" in having a father who "had the sense" to drop out of school in the third grade. Sad. This has nothing to do with Scott or his father. There was a time in this society where legitimate reasons existed to drop out of school and go to work to help support the extended family. Typically not until after the 6th grade. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
In article ,
says... On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". What in the name of hell are you talking about? You must really be afraid of her to bring up such nonsense. Oh well. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 5:09 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". What in the name of hell are you talking about? You must really be afraid of her to bring up such nonsense. Oh well. I am not "afraid" of her. I just think she's a lying windbag. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". I can't believe you fellas are judging Hillary on her mistatements, exaggerations, b.s., whatever. She's a politician. And whatever she says pales in comparison to the crazy nonsense spewed by the 2016 GOP presidential wannabes. Most of those guys are plain bat**** crazy. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 5:36 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/11/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". I can't believe you fellas are judging Hillary on her mistatements, exaggerations, b.s., whatever. She's a politician. And whatever she says pales in comparison to the crazy nonsense spewed by the 2016 GOP presidential wannabes. Most of those guys are plain bat**** crazy. So outright lying and making up stories to garner votes is ok with you if you're a politician? Phew. Amazing the standards by which some are willing to live by. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 5:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 5:36 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". I can't believe you fellas are judging Hillary on her mistatements, exaggerations, b.s., whatever. She's a politician. And whatever she says pales in comparison to the crazy nonsense spewed by the 2016 GOP presidential wannabes. Most of those guys are plain bat**** crazy. So outright lying and making up stories to garner votes is ok with you if you're a politician? Phew. Amazing the standards by which some are willing to live by. It's the stock in trade of the GOP. As in, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Just ask Darryl Issa, who apparently got away with arson. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 5:09 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". What in the name of hell are you talking about? You must really be afraid of her to bring up such nonsense. Oh well. There's no doubt the Republicans are terrified of Mrs. Clinton. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 5:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/11/14, 5:09 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". What in the name of hell are you talking about? You must really be afraid of her to bring up such nonsense. Oh well. There's no doubt the Republicans are terrified of Mrs. Clinton. I doubt "terrified" is an accurate term, but it sure invokes some spin to the cycle. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 5:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/11/14, 5:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 5:36 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". I can't believe you fellas are judging Hillary on her mistatements, exaggerations, b.s., whatever. She's a politician. And whatever she says pales in comparison to the crazy nonsense spewed by the 2016 GOP presidential wannabes. Most of those guys are plain bat**** crazy. So outright lying and making up stories to garner votes is ok with you if you're a politician? Phew. Amazing the standards by which some are willing to live by. It's the stock in trade of the GOP. As in, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Just ask Darryl Issa, who apparently got away with arson. Darryl Issa is unlikely to be a candidate for POTUS. If he were, I'd be as critical of him if there's proof he "got away with anything". We aren't talking about Issa, Biden, Paul or Bush. We are talking about Hillary Clinton who, IMO, is a lying opportunist who doesn't come close to meeting any reasonable character standards to be considered for POTUS. Sorry Harry but none of the left wing spin or touch up paint is going to change my mind or the minds of many others. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:43:25 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote: I want a smart gun. You still haven't caught on? Wouldn't it be better to insist on smart owners? He thinks technology will make him smart. Do you recognize the Loogieistic behavior yet? === He certainly does chase his own tail/tale a lot, amusing for a few minutes, after that not so much. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 5:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 5:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 5:09 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". What in the name of hell are you talking about? You must really be afraid of her to bring up such nonsense. Oh well. There's no doubt the Republicans are terrified of Mrs. Clinton. I doubt "terrified" is an accurate term, but it sure invokes some spin to the cycle. I think terrified is appropriate. If the GOPers nominates one of their crazies, he will lose. Demographic changes are working against the GOP, and that will continue. Meanwhile, the party is pretty much locked into the Tea Party/Ultraconservative stance it has been developing since 2008. The GOPers are perceived, and pretty much correctly, as: anti womens' rights anti raising the minimum wage anti science anti immigration reform anti health care coverage for the less wealthy anti helping out students with huge student loan balances anti spending heavily on rebuilding superstructure anti worker anti union anti bank reform anti separation of church and state anti meaningful firearms reform anti black anti latino anti a role for the federal government anti environment And a few more. So, what groups are going to vote for a crazed GOP nominee? Rich white folks Dumb rednecks racists men who dislike women I don't know who will rescue the GOP from itself. The nomination won't go to Jon Huntsman. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 6:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 5:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 5:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 5:36 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". I can't believe you fellas are judging Hillary on her mistatements, exaggerations, b.s., whatever. She's a politician. And whatever she says pales in comparison to the crazy nonsense spewed by the 2016 GOP presidential wannabes. Most of those guys are plain bat**** crazy. So outright lying and making up stories to garner votes is ok with you if you're a politician? Phew. Amazing the standards by which some are willing to live by. It's the stock in trade of the GOP. As in, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Just ask Darryl Issa, who apparently got away with arson. Darryl Issa is unlikely to be a candidate for POTUS. If he were, I'd be as critical of him if there's proof he "got away with anything". We aren't talking about Issa, Biden, Paul or Bush. We are talking about Hillary Clinton who, IMO, is a lying opportunist who doesn't come close to meeting any reasonable character standards to be considered for POTUS. Sorry Harry but none of the left wing spin or touch up paint is going to change my mind or the minds of many others. If you believe that, then there also is no GOPer who will meet your standard. So. You'll be sitting out the election? |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 6:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/11/14, 5:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 5:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 5:09 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". What in the name of hell are you talking about? You must really be afraid of her to bring up such nonsense. Oh well. There's no doubt the Republicans are terrified of Mrs. Clinton. I doubt "terrified" is an accurate term, but it sure invokes some spin to the cycle. I think terrified is appropriate. If the GOPers nominates one of their crazies, he will lose. Demographic changes are working against the GOP, and that will continue. Meanwhile, the party is pretty much locked into the Tea Party/Ultraconservative stance it has been developing since 2008. The GOPers are perceived, and pretty much correctly, as: anti womens' rights anti raising the minimum wage anti science anti immigration reform anti health care coverage for the less wealthy anti helping out students with huge student loan balances anti spending heavily on rebuilding superstructure anti worker anti union anti bank reform anti separation of church and state anti meaningful firearms reform anti black anti latino anti a role for the federal government anti environment And a few more. So, what groups are going to vote for a crazed GOP nominee? Rich white folks Dumb rednecks racists men who dislike women I don't know who will rescue the GOP from itself. The nomination won't go to Jon Huntsman. We were talking about the moral competency of Hillary Clinton to serve as POTUS. As usual, you take advantage of that discussion to start spewing your typical anti-GOP political spin BS. As the assumed nominee Hillary backers are promoting her as if she's the second coming of FDR or JFK but with the added component as the first woman to break the presidential glass ceiling. But what exactly does Hillary bring to the table? Lots of talk. Many lies. Dems don't like to talk about it but her years as Sec. of State were not exactly productive nor was her performance extraordinary in any way. I get a big kick out of the spinsters who love to call her "one of the best" Sec. of State in recent history. Give me a break. What exactly did she accomplish? Nada. Zip. In fact, she may have been asleep at the wheel, causing more lying and cover ups necessary. Nope. You can have her. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 6:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/11/14, 6:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 5:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 5:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 5:36 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". I can't believe you fellas are judging Hillary on her mistatements, exaggerations, b.s., whatever. She's a politician. And whatever she says pales in comparison to the crazy nonsense spewed by the 2016 GOP presidential wannabes. Most of those guys are plain bat**** crazy. So outright lying and making up stories to garner votes is ok with you if you're a politician? Phew. Amazing the standards by which some are willing to live by. It's the stock in trade of the GOP. As in, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Just ask Darryl Issa, who apparently got away with arson. Darryl Issa is unlikely to be a candidate for POTUS. If he were, I'd be as critical of him if there's proof he "got away with anything". We aren't talking about Issa, Biden, Paul or Bush. We are talking about Hillary Clinton who, IMO, is a lying opportunist who doesn't come close to meeting any reasonable character standards to be considered for POTUS. Sorry Harry but none of the left wing spin or touch up paint is going to change my mind or the minds of many others. If you believe that, then there also is no GOPer who will meet your standard. So. You'll be sitting out the election? It's a long time to 2016. Let's see who emerges for consideration. If it's Clinton versus someone like Ted Cruz, yup I'll probably pass altogether. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 6:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Darryl Issa is unlikely to be a candidate for POTUS. If he were, I'd be as critical of him if there's proof he "got away with anything". We aren't talking about Issa, Biden, Paul or Bush. We are talking about Hillary Clinton who, IMO, is a lying opportunist who doesn't come close to meeting any reasonable character standards to be considered for POTUS. Sorry Harry but none of the left wing spin or touch up paint is going to change my mind or the minds of many others. You aren't going to find a Republican who's any less an "lying opportunist." Name one so I can point that out to you. There's a base number of people who will never vote for Hillary. They are called "Republicans." That would be you. BFD. Nothing you say about "millions of words" or that you "don't like the way she does hair" will mean anything to those who will vote for her. Give me a break. You're either trolling or watching Fox News. Benghazi to you. If you can't follow the specifics of a conversation, please shut the heck up. I don't justify Clinton's lies because a Republican has also lied. That's just stupid. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 6:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Darryl Issa is unlikely to be a candidate for POTUS. If he were, I'd be as critical of him if there's proof he "got away with anything". We aren't talking about Issa, Biden, Paul or Bush. We are talking about Hillary Clinton who, IMO, is a lying opportunist who doesn't come close to meeting any reasonable character standards to be considered for POTUS. Sorry Harry but none of the left wing spin or touch up paint is going to change my mind or the minds of many others. You aren't going to find a Republican who's any less an "lying opportunist." Name one so I can point that out to you. There's a base number of people who will never vote for Hillary. They are called "Republicans." That would be you. BFD. Nothing you say about "millions of words" or that you "don't like the way she does hair" will mean anything to those who will vote for her. Give me a break. You're either trolling or watching Fox News. Benghazi to you. It's disingenuous to call out Hillary for dishonesty when you voted for Bush, Cheney, and indirectly Rice and Rumsfeld, the four political liars of the apocalypse. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 6:33 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/11/14, 6:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Darryl Issa is unlikely to be a candidate for POTUS. If he were, I'd be as critical of him if there's proof he "got away with anything". We aren't talking about Issa, Biden, Paul or Bush. We are talking about Hillary Clinton who, IMO, is a lying opportunist who doesn't come close to meeting any reasonable character standards to be considered for POTUS. Sorry Harry but none of the left wing spin or touch up paint is going to change my mind or the minds of many others. You aren't going to find a Republican who's any less an "lying opportunist." Name one so I can point that out to you. There's a base number of people who will never vote for Hillary. They are called "Republicans." That would be you. BFD. Nothing you say about "millions of words" or that you "don't like the way she does hair" will mean anything to those who will vote for her. Give me a break. You're either trolling or watching Fox News. Benghazi to you. It's disingenuous to call out Hillary for dishonesty when you voted for Bush, Cheney, and indirectly Rice and Rumsfeld, the four political liars of the apocalypse. You can't help yourself. Nothing you say makes Hillary any *more* honest. How can anyone knowingly support and vote for a person who has on several occasions outright lied and/or seriously exaggerated his/her qualifications and experiences in an attempt to become the POTUS? It's beyond me. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On Sun, 11 May 2014 18:22:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: But what exactly does Hillary bring to the table? Lots of talk. Many lies. Dems don't like to talk about it but her years as Sec. of State were not exactly productive nor was her performance extraordinary in any way. === I know at least one confirmed liberal democrat, who also happens to be a woman, who says flat out that she will not/can not support Hillary for president on moral issues. If there are a lot more like her, that does not bode well for Hillary's aspirations. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 6:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 18:22:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: But what exactly does Hillary bring to the table? Lots of talk. Many lies. Dems don't like to talk about it but her years as Sec. of State were not exactly productive nor was her performance extraordinary in any way. === I know at least one confirmed liberal democrat, who also happens to be a woman, who says flat out that she will not/can not support Hillary for president on moral issues. If there are a lot more like her, that does not bode well for Hillary's aspirations. The DNC and the Democratic faithful are working hard to project Hillary as some kind of superhuman with credentials and experience beyond reproach. Even Hillary is starting to believe it. I just can't in good conscious support or vote for a person who before assuming the office of POTUS has already proven him or herself to be an outright liar. Her statements weren't "miss-statements" and her excuses, when the lies were exposed, demonstrated nothing but pure arrogance. She seems to have a history of that. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/14, 7:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 6:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 11 May 2014 18:22:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: But what exactly does Hillary bring to the table? Lots of talk. Many lies. Dems don't like to talk about it but her years as Sec. of State were not exactly productive nor was her performance extraordinary in any way. === I know at least one confirmed liberal democrat, who also happens to be a woman, who says flat out that she will not/can not support Hillary for president on moral issues. If there are a lot more like her, that does not bode well for Hillary's aspirations. The DNC and the Democratic faithful are working hard to project Hillary as some kind of superhuman with credentials and experience beyond reproach. Even Hillary is starting to believe it. I just can't in good conscious support or vote for a person who before assuming the office of POTUS has already proven him or herself to be an outright liar. Her statements weren't "miss-statements" and her excuses, when the lies were exposed, demonstrated nothing but pure arrogance. She seems to have a history of that. I get a lot of DNC mailings. I've never seen one that projects Mrs. Clinton as superhuman or with credentials/experience as over the top as you claim. I'll be pleased if Mrs. Clinton or Mrs. Warren gets the nod. I feel confident the GOPers will nominate one of their crazies. They lost with supermoderate (ha!) Romney. They lost with moderately conservative McCain. The Tea Baggers want someone who reflects their bat**** craziness. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
In article ,
says... On 5/11/2014 6:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Darryl Issa is unlikely to be a candidate for POTUS. If he were, I'd be as critical of him if there's proof he "got away with anything". We aren't talking about Issa, Biden, Paul or Bush. We are talking about Hillary Clinton who, IMO, is a lying opportunist who doesn't come close to meeting any reasonable character standards to be considered for POTUS. Sorry Harry but none of the left wing spin or touch up paint is going to change my mind or the minds of many others. You aren't going to find a Republican who's any less an "lying opportunist." Name one so I can point that out to you. There's a base number of people who will never vote for Hillary. They are called "Republicans." That would be you. BFD. Nothing you say about "millions of words" or that you "don't like the way she does hair" will mean anything to those who will vote for her. Give me a break. You're either trolling or watching Fox News. Benghazi to you. If you can't follow the specifics of a conversation, please shut the heck up. Wait a minute here. You start slamming Hillary Clinton - after you bring her up for no apparent reason - and tell me I'm not "following the specifics of the conversation?" Okaaay. Go ahead and beat her up. I don't justify Clinton's lies because a Republican has also lied. That's just stupid. You've already been told that all politicians lie. But it is stupid to think you won't always have to pick your liar. One side will always excuse lies for bigger issues than "lying" about being sniped at an airport, or some bull**** about a "million words." The big danger for a candidate is telling what they think is truth. Like Romney trashing 47 percent of Americans. It'll be interesting to hear the candidates speak what they believe to be truth - about issues that matter. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 10:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 9:59 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 5/11/14, 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 5/11/2014 6:13 AM, KC wrote: On 5/11/2014 2:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Sorry. I thought you were referring to my "smart" comment. As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind. Being sane and responsible does. However: In past generations there were many reasons people didn't complete high school. In certain farming regions for example or unique situations where the kids were needed to help support the family. During WWII there were many who dropped out of high school to join the military. Most went on and received at least a GED and many went on to college under the GI bill. In today's world there aren't really many justified reasons for not getting at least a high school diploma. Since the 1960's our welfare and aid to people and families has increased over 700 percent. High tech farming has eliminated most of the grunt work requirements with higher yields. The government pays some farmers *not* to grow some crops. The purpose of getting an education ... even if it's only a high school diploma ... is so one can become self sufficient and a contributing member of society ... not a burden on it. Unfortunately our welfare system has created a culture whereby there is little motivation in many cases because Uncle Sam will provide. Unless someone is mentally disabled, physically disabled or has some boni fide reason for not sticking it out and getting a HS diploma or a GED, I could understand making some federal benefits unavailable. If you can't get a job ... go back to school and the benefits will continue. So, you would disqualify anybody who did not have a HS Diploma from having a weapon? Please note my comment, "As far as guns are concerned, formal education doesn't play into the equation in my mind" however the more I think about it, maybe it should now-a-days, along with certain other rights and benefits normally allowed to responsible, contributing members of society. If someone is 18 years old, dropped out of high school, doesn't have a job or visible means of support .... should they be issued a permit for a handgun? My logic says "No". What does the Constitution say? Some folks like to be in charge and set the rules... Seems the qualifications always ignore their own deficiencies, really seems to be a blue state thing. I don't think bullies should have guns... The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms but it doesn't say that right necessarily extends to everyone. Laws already exist under the framework of the Constitution that nobody argues with because they are common sense interpretations. What state allows selling a hand gun to a 10 year old? What state allows legal selling of a firearm to a convicted felon? I also favor background checks. I also favor prohibiting firearm sales to those with diagnosed physiological disorders or mental illness. A basic education (high school diploma) is supposed to minimally prepare you for the adult world and means of supporting yourself as a contributing member of society. The reasons to drop out now-a-days are more by choice than by necessity and those who drop out are far more likely to become a burden on society rather than a contributing member. My logic says they are more likely to commit crimes to survive, having few other options for making a living. So, again I ask, "Should an 18 year old high school drop out be issued a permit to own a handgun?" I can see valid reasons to answer "No" just like a 10 year old shouldn't own one. You can almost smell the "pride" in having a father who "had the sense" to drop out of school in the third grade. Sad. Yeah, and you were so proud of your failure of a parent, you make up stories to try to convince us you know which one he was... |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
|
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. She faked being a war hero, just as good as wearing fake medals. She is a coward and a sellout... just like her biggest fans here. |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/11/2014 10:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Her "excuse": "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said. Sorta like, "What difference does it make". All politicians are liars, or at minimum exaggerators. That goes for Republicans too. Just don't have a target yet. It'll be fun when the target appears. I expect it to be a real big target. Even her "millions of words a day" is a far fetched exaggeration of the truth. Several studies indicate that the average woman speaks about 20,000 words in a 24 hour period. (Men typically speak about 7,000). Assuming that Hillary is not "average", let's give her the benefit of the doubt and double that. No, lets' triple that. Hell, lets make it *10* times more words a day than the average woman. Still not even close to a "million words a day". You have to understand that "facts" to democrats are "whatever sounds good at the time".. Like harry and loogie, bao, jps etc... |
WTF Happened To My 2nd?
On 5/11/2014 7:28 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On 5/11/2014 6:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Darryl Issa is unlikely to be a candidate for POTUS. If he were, I'd be as critical of him if there's proof he "got away with anything". We aren't talking about Issa, Biden, Paul or Bush. We are talking about Hillary Clinton who, IMO, is a lying opportunist who doesn't come close to meeting any reasonable character standards to be considered for POTUS. Sorry Harry but none of the left wing spin or touch up paint is going to change my mind or the minds of many others. You aren't going to find a Republican who's any less an "lying opportunist." Name one so I can point that out to you. There's a base number of people who will never vote for Hillary. They are called "Republicans." That would be you. BFD. Nothing you say about "millions of words" or that you "don't like the way she does hair" will mean anything to those who will vote for her. Give me a break. You're either trolling or watching Fox News. Benghazi to you. If you can't follow the specifics of a conversation, please shut the heck up. Wait a minute here. You start slamming Hillary Clinton - after you bring her up for no apparent reason - and tell me I'm not "following the specifics of the conversation?" Okaaay. Go ahead and beat her up. I don't justify Clinton's lies because a Republican has also lied. That's just stupid. You've already been told that all politicians lie. But it is stupid to think you won't always have to pick your liar. One side will always excuse lies for bigger issues than "lying" about being sniped at an airport, or some bull**** about a "million words." The big danger for a candidate is telling what they think is truth. Like Romney trashing 47 percent of Americans. It'll be interesting to hear the candidates speak what they believe to be truth - about issues that matter. To the dismay of the Tea Party, one potential GOP candidate has already begun doing exactly that. BTW ... my comment about the specifics of a conversation was made because you started flapping your jaw about 3/4 of the way through it, ignoring several posts and comments made before you joined in. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com