Jump to content
Supreme Court agreed with Karl yesterday. (And so do I).
It held that the EPA was wrong to dole out edicts without doing cost/benefit analysis, and that the cost benefit ratios it used in the case were WRONG.
The figures I heard were that the new regs would cost about $10 BILLION and save about $10 MILLION. Sadly, this economic model has become S.O.P for Uncle Scam.
Cost does not matter to these folks, Karl. It is their religion.
Don't vets sell goat tranquilizers?
"...dumb enough to get yourself attacked..." was the context, Pat. Nobody said a gun would have helped or hurt their chances of survival, Pat. Just that the whole concept that becoming a victim of an attack means one is "dumb" is absurd.
Since you are "dumb enough" to defend this indefensible drivel, I will go you one better and say I'll treat you the same way. And let's make it interesting: Say $10,000?? Since I'm not really keen on gambling I will donate it to a charity that helps victims who were "dumb enough" to get attacked. If I lose, you can do whatever you want with your winnings. Zat sound fair?
But I want to collect before you are "dumb enough" to get killed by some attacker; so let's say 1 year. If you agree, I'll put it on my calendar, we can pick a mediator to keep track and write it up, just so memories don't drift.
Nicole Brown Simpson
Martin Luther King, Jr
"The only time use of a gun is justified is if you are dumb enough to get yourself attacked by someone with a deadly weapon, and you can't flee."... "dumb enough to get yourself attacked..." --Dan Shores
That is quite possibly both the dumbest AND most insensitive (I hate that word) thing I have ever read.
From this moment forward I will consider Dan Shores comments void of all intellect and reason, and I will never again engage him in any way.
I agree with almost everything you say, Robert. Especially "...The most dangerous country in the Middle East is Pakistan and they already are Nuclear."
That's why another Islamic nuclear state is a bad deal.
The only thing I disagree with is the part about not expecting anything to change. Iran will make Pakistan look like Britain.
As far as Israel goes, If every Islamic nation in the region declared that tomorrow it would lay down it's arms and not fight no matter what happened, Israel would do NOTHING. If Israel declared that tomorrow morning it would lay down its arms and not fight no matter what, they would be attacked within 24 hrs. You KNOW this. I KNOW this. Therefore, Israel is NOT the problem in the region... period.
Radical Islamists with nukes will be the undoing of the entire globe. The only bright spot is that if we allow Iran to obtain bona-fide nuclear capability there is absolutely, positively no need whatsoever to worry about global warming.
"Mark, are you advocating invading the Middle East again? "
No, but we could keep sanctions in place, even add to them. We could keep their bank accounts frozen. We could ramp up oil production, driving the price down which would hurt them.
Obama could have lent support for the uprising and calls for freedom that happened 6 years ago, instead of turning a blind eye to those fighting for freedom from radical religious extremist terrorists.
The administration could also stop clamping down on Israel and let them act in their own interest.
But we will do the OPPOSITE on all counts, and Iran will go nuclear on Obama's watch, which will further destabilize the most de-stable powder-keg on earth.
GW Bush made on of the biggest blunders in middle east history by de-stabilizing Iraq. As disastrous as that decision was, history will show that it will pale in comparison with allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Everywhere, and on all fronts, the demonstrably "bad guys" are to be given the benefit of the doubt, while the demonstrable law abiding are to be reigned in, their options and responses limited, muted, restricted, restrained, reserved.
Give Iran the benefit of the doubt where no reasonable doubt remains. Give would-be rapist the edge by showing up for a sexual assault unarmed. Run away from deadly assaulters on one's own property. Threaten one's only ally in the entire region to keep them from protecting themselves.
Such is the attitude of the progressive left. There is no greater evil to them than America. There's no strength more objectionable to them than the kind which brings peace and safety to the law abiding, honest citizen. Nothing upsets them more than a man, an individual, acting autonomously, defending life and property without the aid and sanction of gubbamint; except maybe when Israel does the same in the defense of its very existence.
Guns have existed on this terrestrial ball for several centuries. During that time men have had almost unbridled use of them on every continent. Yet man has not even came close to extinction.
Nuclear weapons killed more people in their first week of existence, than guns did in the first century of theirs. Unlike firearms, nuclear capacity now stands ready to eliminate all life on earth within hours. True to form, progressive leftists see no choice but to cede that destructive force to the most evil regime in almost a century, while simultaneously attacking a free man's CHOICE of self defense. Absolute madness.
It is interesting that most gun control advocates are also ardent supporters of a president who is determined to ensure that the most radical militant Islamic terrorist state on earth achieves nuclear status.
Yes, it is doomed anyway. But I'm not "society"; I'm ME.
This leads directly to a concept which leftist progressives hate: PERSONAL responsibility. For one's crimes, one's livelihood, ones behavior, ones protection, healthcare, food, shelter, clothing, etc, etc. Leftist progressives have been fighting for decades in America to abolish the entire spectrum of personal duties AND personal liberties, basically to abolish the individual. (notice how they so often refer to people as part of groups such as "blacks" or "homosexuals" or "women", and they often avoid dealing with people as individuals).
They ignorantly or mistakenly believe freedoms can be separated and doled out based on which ones satisfy their personal sensibilities, with complete disregard for the desires or well being of their peers. For example, many loved the first amendment, but hate the second, which is ironic because the second is the only thing which makes the first possible. But they keep narrowing what they like about the first ammendment too. For example, when they saw an opportunity to eliminate the Confederate flag the first amendment takes second place to their personal desire to further engineer society to their personal liking-- all others be damned. (like Dan Shores (and whomever gave him the "thumbs up") apparently being ok with a woman being raped in front of her son and husband, so long as HE (me, me, me, it's all about me!) can have his society ordered HIS way... without guns... because that's what HE wants.
These people may have good intentions, but intentions alone without sober acknowledgement of the real world, have paved a many a road to Hell. Their failure to understand or accept that freedom is a "package deal" leads to much consternation. They may not like it, but no matter how much they wish it or protest to the contrary, freedom simply can not be pieced out like a buffet at Golden Coral.
The wheat and the weeds are growing in the field inseparably. All persons' right to say what they want no matter how unpopular (1st amendment) and to defend themselves after saying it (2nd amendment) are inseparable. If they succeed in destroying one, they will quickly find they have destroyed the other, which then throws open the door for the elimination of the rest of the package.
Last login: Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.