Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pepsi

Pages: 1 ... 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95
1381
Foreign Policy / Re: America Loves Israel. Why??
« on: January 22, 2013, 11:34:24 AM »
Well, who doesn't love a good caning.

Stringent rules and harsh punishment sure has a way of keeping folks civilized!


1382
Foreign Policy / Re: America Loves Israel. Why??
« on: January 22, 2013, 10:28:18 AM »
hey PMF

here's a picture of Riyadh



here's a picture of Kansas




I've never been to either places but by the definition of civilized the countries you say are uncivilized look a lot more civilized than someplace like Kansas.

I'm just sayin..

1383
Foreign Policy / Re: America Loves Israel. Why??
« on: January 22, 2013, 09:51:01 AM »
Because Israel is virtually the most civilized nation in the Middle East.

Most civilized?    I would think you would have to travel around those countries to make that determination.    Have you been?


1384
Gun control / Re: 19 January: Gun Appreciation Day
« on: January 19, 2013, 05:37:06 PM »
If only they were armed they could have prevented that incident. 

1385
Health Care Debate / Re: Re: Re: Whole Foods CEO: Obamacare is Fascism
« on: January 19, 2013, 05:28:16 PM »
Really?

I just went through an incident in which I racked up considerable medical expenses. The taxpayers didn't have to pay a dime for my care. I paid for it. The surgeon, the hospital, the radiologist, the anesthesiologist, the EMS on scene care and transport, the post op follow ups and physical therapy... It didn't cost the taxpayers one damned cent.

I paid for it all. What you want is to not have to pay for it all by forcing everyone to share the cost of YOUR medical care. YOU are looking for a free ride, not the indigents who end up in some ER, it is YOU and all your little yuppified friends who want to strip everyone else of their freedom to determine their own needs and to provide for those needs in a manner of their own choosing.

My medical treatment cost nobody but me a single cent. The next time you see a doctor and pass the cost off to everyone else, will you be able to say the same?

I've paid ~$200,000 in health care insurance in the last 20 years and have needed nothing but a check up which I do ever couple years.   

If you're bragging about not having insurance and paying out of pocket as you need it you're simply telling us you're not that bright, especially as you get older.   Another mishap, a heart condition or cancer and you're financially ruined.   

1386
Gun control / Re: HOW DARE THEY!
« on: January 18, 2013, 04:44:00 PM »
You do understand that the first gun control laws in this country were introduced by Democrats to prevent Blacks from owning guns, don't you?

that makes sense and confirms what I said.   

Of course today's republicans are yesterdays democrats in the south and we all know that although some won't admit it.

1387
Gun control / Re: Reagan on assault weapons
« on: January 18, 2013, 01:51:52 PM »
here's the context -

Plea From 3 Ex-Presidents

The letter from three former presidents to the House:

May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban/2

1388
Gun control / Re: HOW DARE THEY!
« on: January 18, 2013, 12:39:50 PM »
NO TEACHER should be armed. NONE. ZERO. It's not their job. Teachers (prior to Sandy Hook) were already being treated like shit by the right wing. Now suddenly "serve and protect with firearms" is being included in their job description for which they were already considered paid too much and chastized for peformance? I'd say don't be ridiculous, but I'm not sure you're capable at this point.

Not to mention it quite obviously raises the risk of gun accidents, gun stolen, gun lost, etc, etc in the classroom. 

1389
Gun control / Reagan on assault weapons
« on: January 18, 2013, 12:17:51 PM »

1390
Gun control / Re: HOW DARE THEY!
« on: January 17, 2013, 04:26:36 PM »
Teachers armed in the class would present an added risk and threat to the Obama kids.    Same reason its not a good idea generally.    Trained LE at the school: good idea (thanks gun nuts for necessitating this cost to society).     Teachers packing heat in class: moronic (godwulf's idea)

1391
Gun control / Re: HOW DARE THEY!
« on: January 17, 2013, 03:32:28 PM »
Here's some REAL world Peps: Not ONE of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by Obama's laundry list of EOs. Yesterday.

That's right.. there's a limit to what the president can do with EO.   But several of them address the mental health issues and may lead to better controls around preventing mentally instable people from obtaining weapons.     I'll list them:

Quote
Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

You're making an argument that stronger measures are necessary and that will require legislation - and I agree with you.


1392
Gun control / Re: HOW DARE THEY!
« on: January 17, 2013, 01:23:56 PM »
They may, to some extent, make some sense...but neither - in particular, not the "assault weapons" ban - does anything to address at least 96.3% of the problem.  In all candor and honesty, Pepsi, don't you believe that the "assault weapons" (the quotation marks are there to emphasize the fact that they are not, in fact, assault weapons at all) ban idea is being pushed and highlighted to the extent that it is primarily because the stereotypical beer-swilling, redneck deer hunter or target shooter - which is the picture of the "typical" owner of such weapons that is being drawn and passed around by certain folks - is such an (no pun intended) easy target? 

The idea of universal background checks for all private gun sales has its inherent logistical problems, but they might be overcome, and would probably result in some crimes being prevented.  Severely increased penalties for the use or possession of any firearm during the commission of a crime would, I believe, have an even greater impact.  In my opinion, putting so much effort into banning a weapon used in such a small number of crimes, horrific though they may be, and especially since - depending on the exact specifications being used to define and describe the rifle - there are already between four and eight million of them in private hands in the United States as we speak, suggests a failure to look honesty at the facts surrounding the entire issue, and a tendency to go for the sexy or "glamour" answer.

I don't agree with this argument that we shouldn't do X because it's only Y percentage of the problem or Z (ex: car accidents) result in more deaths.   This is Observer's (weak) argument against gun control.   

This is along the lines of what is the value of a human life - its an existential question and its relevant.   If it was your child who was in the Y statistic then it'd be pretty damn important of a problem to address.   


1393
Gun control / Re: HOW DARE THEY!
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:19:53 PM »
With millions of guns in private hands right now, many of them a part of the underground criminal "economy", how can limitations on what can be legally manufactured, bought and sold starting at some date down the road, or criminal background checks (which I'm certainly all in favor of, but to which only a relatively few criminally-minded or certifiably disturbed potential gun purchasers will ever subject themselves) do any substantive thing to keep that gun out of the wrong hands? 

I was looking at some FBI crime statistics for 2011, and of the 8,583 reported murders in the U.S. involving firearms, only 323, or less than 4%, involved any kind of rifle at all.  Given that, doesn't the emphasis being given that type of weapon by certain politicians, special interest groups and the media strike you as odd or misplaced, at best?


Not really.   Both areas make sense.   

I just think we need to and can do a better job keeping high powered weapons and as much ammo as they desire out of the hands of people like this:



and this:



and this:


1394
Gun control / Re: Re: The Hitler gun control lie
« on: January 15, 2013, 01:24:40 PM »
That is actually pretty easy.

If the feds ever came to my door or sent some "contractor" to my door to forcefully confiscate my firearms, they would in all probability find most of the municipal police department, the Sheriff's office, and a bunch of State Police Officers, not to mention a whole herd of armed private citizens waiting to greet them.

This isn't Chicago.

Ha!  You're in a fantacy world if you don't think your local yokel law enforcement wouldn't uphold the law in a federal law enforcement situation.

1395
Gun control / Re: Re: The Hitler gun control lie
« on: January 15, 2013, 12:59:59 PM »
No, that is not what I said, at all.

I said I would not comply. The statement is pretty much self explanatory.

If the ATF showed up you wouldn't go waco ridge standoff on US?  Would make for exciting television news story but I'm sure you're not stupid.

Pages: 1 ... 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95