Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    deltahoosier            09-27-2016, 2:26 PM Reply   
Maybe not created by the Chinese but it is created to try and lay taxes on the US electorate in the name of 3rd world countries. It is a share the wealth scheme. Global warning is off the grid and is now climate change.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       09-27-2016, 6:18 PM Reply   
Nice dodge, Rod.

Trump can't seem to do anything today but complain about his microphone. The (sound) system is rigged!!!
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-27-2016, 7:05 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post

This kind of sums up the fact checking...
Yea, you might even say it sets the gold standard.

https://youtu.be/MpLQzeCoNnA

Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 09-27-2016 at 7:10 PM.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       09-27-2016, 7:49 PM Reply   
What was with the sniffing? Coked up maybe? Do they drug test these fools?
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       09-27-2016, 11:18 PM Reply   
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57...ushpmg00000063


Zach G. on Trump doing Between Two Ferns
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-28-2016, 6:47 AM Reply   
Ralph: I saw Howard Dean was pushing that same rumor. Funny how different people see or catch different things. I had to go back to catch the so called "sniffling" that bothers so many, It appeared to me as he was taking deep breaths between statments.

And as far as Zack not having TRUMP on Betweeen 2 Ferns, IMO it's no shocker. Hollywood loves Hillary and it's no surprise to anyone.

One of the many Things trump said on Monday night that I thought was great. When he said to Hillary "You have spent 200 Million on Negative TV adds against Me and we are either tied or even in the polls" LOL

200 Million in TV adds WoW.
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 9:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
Nice dodge, Rod.

Trump can't seem to do anything today but complain about his microphone. The (sound) system is rigged!!!
Not a dodge. It is the truth and I am sure you can not deny that it is a share the wealth scheme. Always has been and always will be.

I don't really care what Trump says or does. He is not a Hillary. Even if he lit a baby on fire in a satanic ritual, I would pause and still pull the lever for Trump over Hillary. I hate her that much. The progressive left that she represents is only for destabilizing America in the name of the UN. I will never ever support these people.
Old     (wakemitch)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-28-2016, 9:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Even if he lit a baby on fire in a satanic ritual, I would pause and still pull the lever for Trump over Hillary. I hate her that much. The progressive left that she represents is only for destabilizing America in the name of the UN. I will never ever support these people.
WTF? you are destablized america if you believe that. How do you actually think that?
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-28-2016, 9:50 AM Reply   
Do you think letting in thousands of UN VETTED refugees & Doing nothing about Illegal aliens stabilizes America?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-28-2016, 9:50 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakemitch View Post
WTF? you are destablized america if you believe that. How do you actually think that?
Too much talk radio on his long commute, methinks.

Delta otherwise seems to be a rational dude... his sources of information are just marginal/fringe/one sided.

Pretty sure he wouldn't really vote for someone who lights babies (or adults) on fire whether or not in the name of satan.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-28-2016, 9:51 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
Do you think letting in thousands of UN VETTED refugees & Doing nothing about Illegal aliens stabilizes America?
Grant do you have an example of a truly "UN VETTED" refugee? Even one? Who received no vetting whatsoever?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-28-2016, 9:53 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post

200 Million in TV adds WoW.
Good thing you guys don't watch Fox! If you did you'd be totally incensed about all of the FREE media that supposedly fair and balanced "news" outlet has just given away to Trump. He's like a media welfare queen.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-28-2016, 10:23 AM Reply   
Shawn: so because Trump has been getting lots of free press, this is somehow "UN FAIR" Trump dosent have to spend 200 million on negitave campaign adds that have got Hillary only Even with TRUMP but some how he is the bad person?

The rally's right after the debate.
20 Thousand show up to see Trump.
1400 show up to see Hillary.

Hummmm did you ever think that the reason Trump is getting all this FREE press you talk about is because people seem to want and like what he he has to say?
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 10:33 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Too much talk radio on his long commute, methinks.

Delta otherwise seems to be a rational dude... his sources of information are just marginal/fringe/one sided.

Pretty sure he wouldn't really vote for someone who lights babies (or adults) on fire whether or not in the name of satan.
Not sure how listening about how my Colts just got a leg up in the division because JJ Watt is on IR is one sided?

I actually spend all my time when reading politics on Democraticunderground. It is a progressive website. Other than that, it is Wakeworld, Fox, CNN, Bleacher Report and Stampede Blue.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-28-2016, 10:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
Shawn: so because Trump has been getting lots of free press, this is somehow "UN FAIR" Trump dosent have to spend 200 million on negitave campaign adds that have got Hillary only Even with TRUMP but some how he is the bad person?

The rally's right after the debate.
20 Thousand show up to see Trump.
1400 show up to see Hillary.

Hummmm did you ever think that the reason Trump is getting all this FREE press you talk about is because people seem to want and like what he he has to say?
No Grant not saying that at all. I don't think I even said he's a bad person.

(I mean, yeah, I think he's a bad person, but not because he's been able to turn the TV news industry on its head and essentially give him all of the free air time he can handle). Some people tune in because they like what he has to say. Others tune in because they want to hear what outrageous and ridiculous thing he'll say next (I'm guilty of being in this camp for sure). But either way it's eyeballs on the screen for the cable outlets, and that translates to ad revenue, which translates to "how can we get him on tv again and keep our ad revenues up," which translates to more free media.

But let's be real about who has received the most media. HRC pays for hers, DJT doesn't, but it's not like he's not on TV (that'd be Gary Johnson, who can't afford ads and gets little media attention).

Regarding rally attendance, have you ever heard the phrase "there's no greater zealot than the recent convert"? There's definitely a VERY motivated segment of Trump's electorate. But does that translate to broad support? We'll find out!
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 10:58 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakemitch View Post
WTF? you are destablized america if you believe that. How do you actually think that?
Read your history and study socialist and communist groups and you will understand what the staunch support of Islamic refugees is about and why the left does not want to stop illegal immigration. It is about destabilization. Same in Europe.

You can find articles about Soros who is a huge backer of Clinton and Obama. He puts serious money into no borders initiatives. He also is paying BLM agitators. 70% of the protestors arrested in North Carolina were bused in from out of state.

Here is one:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2606...-matthew-vadum

Look at things like the world workers party and workers.com. They are against borders.

http://www.workers.org/category/immi.../#.V-wBrnqk_dI

Young communist website:

http://www.cpusa.org/about-us/

Founded in 1919, the Communist Party USA has championed the struggles for democracy, labor rights, women’s equality, racial justice and peace for 97 years. The Communist Party has an unparalleled history in the progressive movement of the United States,....

Guess who are progressive? Howard Dean, Nancy Polosi, Hillary Clinton, Obama.....

The point is break down borders, seed unrest and people will vote themselves into a centralized control. It has been done in your grandparents life more than once. Hell, it just happened in Venezula a few years ago and is collapsing already.

Look at the mission statements of BLM. They are actually communist mission statements and if you read the world workers party political website the first thing the support on their mission statement is BLM.

Create enough unrest and the people will enslave themselves.

Last edited by deltahoosier; 09-28-2016 at 11:07 AM.
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 11:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
No Grant not saying that at all. I don't think I even said he's a bad person.

(I mean, yeah, I think he's a bad person, but not because he's been able to turn the TV news industry on its head and essentially give him all of the free air time he can handle). Some people tune in because they like what he has to say. Others tune in because they want to hear what outrageous and ridiculous thing he'll say next (I'm guilty of being in this camp for sure). But either way it's eyeballs on the screen for the cable outlets, and that translates to ad revenue, which translates to "how can we get him on tv again and keep our ad revenues up," which translates to more free media.

But let's be real about who has received the most media. HRC pays for hers, DJT doesn't, but it's not like he's not on TV (that'd be Gary Johnson, who can't afford ads and gets little media attention).

Regarding rally attendance, have you ever heard the phrase "there's no greater zealot than the recent convert"? There's definitely a VERY motivated segment of Trump's electorate. But does that translate to broad support? We'll find out!
Huh... I wonder what kind of zealot riots and beats up attendees of Trump rallies? Are those normal long term democrats or recent converts?
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 11:05 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Grant do you have an example of a truly "UN VETTED" refugee? Even one? Who received no vetting whatsoever?
I would say the ones who flew the planes into the world trade center, blew up the world trade center with a car bomb, when down to the draw muhammad cartoon contest to kill everyone, the ones who planted bombs at the Boston Marathon, the ones who planted bombs a week ago in New York, the one who shot up the gay night club, and on and on.......
Old     (stevo8290)      Join Date: Sep 2008       09-28-2016, 11:24 AM Reply   
the number of SJW's on this forum always surprises me.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-28-2016, 11:35 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Huh... I wonder what kind of zealot riots and beats up attendees of Trump rallies? Are those normal long term democrats or recent converts?
Great point! My point was that newbs are more enthusiastic. Bernie's supporters are more enthusiastic, outspoken, etc. than HRC's. Just like BLM is more so than NAACP, Bundy vigilantees are more so than NRA etc etc.

All new groups and movements tend to attract radicals.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-28-2016, 11:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
I would say the ones who flew the planes into the world trade center, blew up the world trade center with a car bomb, when down to the draw muhammad cartoon contest to kill everyone, the ones who planted bombs at the Boston Marathon, the ones who planted bombs a week ago in New York, the one who shot up the gay night club, and on and on.......
Which of them were Syrian war refugees? I mean shoot most of these were citizens, a few even natural born. I thought we're talking about war refugees?
Old     (wakemitch)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-28-2016, 1:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Read your history and study socialist and communist groups and you will understand what the staunch support of Islamic refugees is about and why the left does not want to stop illegal immigration. It is about destabilization. Same in Europe.
My degree is in sociology and I teach history and social studies. I've spent my whole adult life studying this stuff.

The destabilization going on is Trump and his followers claiming that America is horrible and in crisis. He is using fear to manipulate people and grow nationalism. Nationalism is what has led to fascism.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-28-2016, 1:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Which of them were Syrian war refugees? I mean shoot most of these were citizens, a few even natural born. I thought we're talking about war refugees?
He was just giving you a "Trump" answer. You know the ones that completely ignore the actual question and deflect to something that just sounds good on the surface.
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 2:13 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Great point! My point was that newbs are more enthusiastic. Bernie's supporters are more enthusiastic, outspoken, etc. than HRC's. Just like BLM is more so than NAACP, Bundy vigilantees are more so than NRA etc etc.

All new groups and movements tend to attract radicals.
I agree.

Organizations tend to go more radical the longer they exist. My thought is organizations usually form for a reason. The reason for being passes but everyone is used to getting a check so the original organization moves more radical to secure funding from fringe groups.
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 2:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakemitch View Post
My degree is in sociology and I teach history and social studies. I've spent my whole adult life studying this stuff.

The destabilization going on is Trump and his followers claiming that America is horrible and in crisis. He is using fear to manipulate people and grow nationalism. Nationalism is what has led to fascism.
Uh. I think you have it backwards. Leftist are always saying how America is down the tubes. You apparently are not listening to BLM and other leftist groups that always point to a socialist country in Europe as to how they thing America should be. The irony is they always point to a country that is much whiter then America when lecturing us about it.

Operative statement is "what has led to fascism". Bruce Jenner going under a knife has led to him becoming a woman but that does not mean that all operations lead to becoming a woman.

Of the facist regimes, how many have been leftist and how many have been on the right? Of those, how has murdered the most of it's citizens?

Let me ask you this, how if following our laws being fascist? Illegal immigration is just that.....Illegal. As a history major you know darn well how long Europe as been at war with Islam. You can see for yourself how many attacks in this country are by Islamists. Around the world? Also, of all the muslims in the world, why bring in the ones who are the hard core versions from a country such as Syria that has always been anti America and favorable to the Soviets? As a left leaning man, why do you want to import a culture that is polar opposite of their treatment of women? You been keeping up with the Somali Muslims in Minnesota lately?
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 2:24 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Which of them were Syrian war refugees? I mean shoot most of these were citizens, a few even natural born. I thought we're talking about war refugees?
You answered your own question. We are having issues with the ones that were supposed to be trustworthy and "vetted". How is that working out for us and Europe?

When you know the west has been at war with Islam for 2000 years and we have had dozens of attacks by muslim refugees and even home grown muslims who were radicalized by mosques in America, why would you bring in refugees from a muslim country that has been at odds with the US for generations. Syria was always aligned with the Russians. Why do we want them here when they historically been anti American especially when we are having issues with "pro" American muslims.

To go a step further. If this is causing this kind of uproar, would you find this influx to be stablizing or de-stablizing? Which party knows it is destablizing and does not care? Why don't they care?

Last edited by deltahoosier; 09-28-2016 at 2:28 PM.
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 2:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo8290 View Post
the number of SJW's on this forum always surprises me.
Fun isn't it?
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 2:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
He was just giving you a "Trump" answer. You know the ones that completely ignore the actual question and deflect to something that just sounds good on the surface.
There was no mention of war refugees in his question. His question name one unvetted refugee. I gave him a whole list of them that blew up stuff. Or were they vetted and the system is broken?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-28-2016, 3:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
You answered your own question. We are having issues with the ones that were supposed to be trustworthy and "vetted". How is that working out for us and Europe?

When you know the west has been at war with Islam for 2000 years and we have had dozens of attacks by muslim refugees and even home grown muslims who were radicalized by mosques in America, why would you bring in refugees from a muslim country that has been at odds with the US for generations. Syria was always aligned with the Russians. Why do we want them here when they historically been anti American especially when we are having issues with "pro" American muslims.

To go a step further. If this is causing this kind of uproar, would you find this influx to be stablizing or de-stablizing? Which party knows it is destablizing and does not care? Why don't they care?
Delta man I was giving you a compliment earlier today for being rational. And now you are saying that "the West" has been at war for 2000 years with a religion that has only existed for 1400?

West Germany was aligned with the Russians. Czech, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia were aligned with the Russians. Now they're in NATO. Seems like we can get over it.

We've taken hundreds of thousands of refugees (many muslim) from the former Yugoslavia and from Iraq. Both formerly aligned with Russia.

The homegrown muslim terrorists who HAVE perpetrated crimes here (think Mateen and Farook) were "from" (i.e. their parents) arguably ANTI Russian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan respectively.

9/11 perps were from USA friendly nation of Saudi Arabia.

Tsarneivs (sp, sorry) (boston bombers) were CHechen and were involved (at least tangentially) with anti-russian chechen rebels.

So being from a "pro Russian" country seems to be of no bearing. But maybe you have some facts to back up your wacky analysis?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-28-2016, 3:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
There was no mention of war refugees in his question. His question name one unvetted refugee. I gave him a whole list of them that blew up stuff. Or were they vetted and the system is broken?
Dude, for the most part THEY WERE NOT REFUGEES. That was my point.

I mean unless you think Ted Cruz is a refugee?

"immigrant" (legal or not) is not a synonym for "war refugee"
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 4:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Delta man I was giving you a compliment earlier today for being rational. And now you are saying that "the West" has been at war for 2000 years with a religion that has only existed for 1400?

West Germany was aligned with the Russians. Czech, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia were aligned with the Russians. Now they're in NATO. Seems like we can get over it.

We've taken hundreds of thousands of refugees (many muslim) from the former Yugoslavia and from Iraq. Both formerly aligned with Russia.

The homegrown muslim terrorists who HAVE perpetrated crimes here (think Mateen and Farook) were "from" (i.e. their parents) arguably ANTI Russian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan respectively.

9/11 perps were from USA friendly nation of Saudi Arabia.

Tsarneivs (sp, sorry) (boston bombers) were CHechen and were involved (at least tangentially) with anti-russian chechen rebels.

So being from a "pro Russian" country seems to be of no bearing. But maybe you have some facts to back up your wacky analysis?
East Germany was aligned with the Russians. West was with us. There is a bit of difference with the countries you speak about. They were only aligned with Russia because Russia invaded them and installed their puppet leaders with the loom of death if they did not comply.


https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...re-they-doing/

We have taken in 4112,000 Iraqis in the last 12 years.

How are they doing?

See the special section on Iraqi refugees in the 2012 ORR Annual Report to Congress (the most recent data available) beginning on page 110.

Not so hot!

~The overall US unemployment rate that year was 7.6%, the Iraqi unemployment rate was 22.6% (but up from 40% or so in some previous years).

~Of those not looking for work, 33.6% had poor health or disabilities.

~The average hourly wage for Iraqis who were working was $9.79 per hour.

~ORR says that the goal is self-sufficiency in 3 months, but only 21% got their first job in 6 months and welfare continued.

~60% were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance.

~82% were receiving food stamps.

~58% were receiving some sort of cash assistance.

~36% were getting SSI (Supplemental Security Income).

They are bringing in 10,000 to 20,000 Syrians a year.

1400 years true. So how about that. A religion we have been at war with for 1400 years. How is that working out?

Point still stands. The system for vetting these people is broken unless you like bombs going off? Why not put his effort into countries with cultures that have not been hostile to the US? Look if you are fine with importing cultures that kill gays and devalue women, don't come crying to me when it goes wrong.

Funny that you mention a few of those bombers homelands. I notice Eastern European on there. If you look in the history of US immigration policy, we have had restrictions on Eastern European immigration.
Old    deltahoosier            09-28-2016, 4:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Dude, for the most part THEY WERE NOT REFUGEES. That was my point.

I mean unless you think Ted Cruz is a refugee?

"immigrant" (legal or not) is not a synonym for "war refugee"
Which part is the most part? Regardless of refugee status it is a cultural/ religious status. 1st and 2nd generation people are doing these horrific acts. Which part of changing the vetting process sounds like a bad thing? It sounds like common sense to me or we locked into some sort of frozen ideology?

Also, the 1980 Refugee Act removes refugees as a preference category; reduces worldwide ceiling for immigration to 270,000.

Also, you help make my point. You are saying that the people who did these acts were not refugees. Then how in the hell are they "vetted" like Obama's said they were? We can not even vet "legal" immigrants from that part of the world. We are at war with ISIS from that part of the world. How is these refugees vetted when they somehow got an express lane ticket?

Have you been paying attention in Germany with the Syrian refgee's? The rapes and so on. The protests from the liberal German's? Pretty interesting over there. What makes you think it will be different here?

Last edited by deltahoosier; 09-28-2016 at 4:28 PM.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       09-28-2016, 4:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Which part is the most part? Regardless of refugee status it is a cultural/ religious status. 1st and 2nd generation people are doing these horrific acts. Which part of changing the vetting process sounds like a bad thing?
Sorry, not sure i follow your logic, how does vetting the future grand father or father of somebody change anything? How do you know that someone's future offspring is going to commit an act of terror?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-28-2016, 4:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
There was no mention of war refugees in his question. His question name one unvetted refugee. I gave him a whole list of them that blew up stuff. Or were they vetted and the system is broken?
Some of us understand what context means. I instantly understood he was talking about Syrian refugees and not immigrants, which are not refugees in general.
Old     (showmedonttellme)      Join Date: Mar 2008       09-28-2016, 4:54 PM Reply   
So tired of 8 years of this garbage demorat agenda. Healthcare costs through the roof. 2 states don't even have more than ONE option for healthcare coverage. ONE. The rest of the companies have completely dropped coverage options. Is that a good thing?

Still, the libs talk like it's saved everyone. It's saved the people who never took care of themselves to begin with.

"Healthcare firms have underestimated costs by up to 60% due to accounting for those who haven't had coverage in years. Just flat didn't account for this many sick people."

Those of us that have now pay more for less.

It's called Socialism.

Healthcare is not a right, it's a priv. Go get a job.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-28-2016, 5:15 PM Reply   
HC is a right. And the govt has many rules and regulations that have priced HC out of reach of much of the public. IOW the govt is denying people a right to HC except on their terms and at their cost.

You are confusing a right to HC with a right to have your HC paid by someone else. In a more primitive society where there are no rules and regulations. You are free to enlist anyone you want to give you HC. In our society access to HC is tightly controlled for the safety of the people who vote in the politicians that make the laws that limit access and provide safety for a price. That's were the obligation to help others pay for HC comes into play. You supporting rules and regulations for your safety limits access to the less fortunate. And you pay the price.

Unfortunately people like yourself only focus on poor people getting HC and have zero perspective outside of that. Despite that fact that other modern countries are delivering HC for 1/2 per capita of the US, people like yourself can't see that as a model to emulate. Instead of acknowledging that the same drugs sold here are frequently much more expensive than in other countries you can't bring yourself to see that as a problem that needs to be solved. You apparently can't see that there has been socialized medicine in the workplace long before the ACA. So saving people who don't take care of themselves has been the way HC worked in this country all along. Rising prices in HI have been the norm. Not something that just popped up with the ACA.

Govt subsidies have subverted the free market in HC. Again not the fault of the ACA because it's been happening long before. Forcing people to buy HI has been in place for decades. The govt pays for a large portion of people's HI though tax deductions. Been that way long before the ACA. HI was coerced on the pubic by getting both the govt and employer to buy most or all of it. You had to buy because it was use it or lose it. Again forcing people into a market is a subversion of the free market and extremely inflationary. Do I think that ACA is a good model? Absolutely not. But neither is what preceded it. In fact I would consider our HC rules unconstitutional if the govt didn't make sure it was accessible to all people no matter how poor.

It's not called socialism as much as paying for what you put into law. As in... Quid pro quo.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-28-2016, 7:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
HC is a right.

Huh?

Rights can't place a positive obligation on others to act, but only a constraint or a negative obligation to recognize, respect and restrain from causing harm to others...


Now I DO have the right to keep and bear arms. So with your logic, where do I sign up for my free, taxpayer paid gun?

Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 09-28-2016 at 7:39 PM.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-28-2016, 7:50 PM Reply   
VaG, read much? Apparently not as your comprehension is sorely lacking. The answer to your last question is actually in my post. But first you have to be able to understand the point I was making to apply it to your question. I'm thinking that's above your pay grade. Although it shouldn't be considering that you claimed to pay 80K in taxes.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-28-2016, 7:55 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
VaG, read much? Apparently not as your comprehension is sorely lacking. The answer to your last question is actually in my post. But first you have to be able to understand the point I was making to apply it to your question. I'm thinking that's above your pay grade. Although it shouldn't be considering that you claimed to pay 80K in taxes.
Haha, keep confusing charity with justice my feathered friend.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       09-28-2016, 7:59 PM Reply   
Could Trump be a bigger crybaby? Not sure why all the big manly men on this board want to vote for such a little p***y.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-29-2016, 5:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
1st and 2nd generation people are doing these horrific acts. Which part of changing the vetting process sounds like a bad thing? It sounds like common sense to me or we locked into some sort of frozen ideology?
We have a word for these "second generation people." They are called "citizens." They are not subject to vetting any more than you are. Period.

Have you given a single example an act of terror on American soil committed by a refugee?

I'm thinking a review of the definition may be helpful.

refugee. a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 6:05 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
We have a word for these "second generation people." They are called "citizens." They are not subject to vetting any more than you are. Period.

Have you given a single example an act of terror on American soil committed by a refugee?

I'm thinking a review of the definition may be helpful.

refugee. a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
OK, these two didn't blown up anything, but were caught and arrested. Here's a link to Liberal news dot com...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/us/ter...rges-refugees/


And to be fair and balanced...lol, a link to "faux news"...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ots-in-us.html

2013 report from ABC...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qae...ry?id=20931131

You really want these people as your neighbors?

My take on this is we are American. We should first and foremost protect our citizens. It is clear that there have been terrorist related refugees admitted into the US, CNN even admits the terror related arrests. Why would we risk ONE citizens life to admit them when (if liberal bleeding hearts insist), it would be safer to send aid overseas and establish somewhere safe they can stay until the Oblunder is done with lines in the sand lies?

Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 09-29-2016 at 6:13 AM.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       09-29-2016, 6:53 AM Reply   
This whole country was formed by terrorism, just ask the people who inhabited this land prior to the Europeans taking it over.
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       09-29-2016, 7:55 AM Reply   
Just curious, most of the Clinton Haters are Commies hater too so what is your take on this:
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/d...da-504059.html

Donald violated the Cuban embargo (our commie enemies) to feel out investing in some hotels there. As someone who disagreed with the embargo in the first place I could give a Sh*t, as hard core right wingers, I know you'd be outraged is Clinton was caught doing this so what is your take on Trump doing it?
Old     (doublemwa)      Join Date: May 2016       09-29-2016, 7:56 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
East Germany was aligned with the Russians. West was with us. There is a bit of difference with the countries you speak about. They were only aligned with Russia because Russia invaded them and installed their puppet leaders with the loom of death if they did not comply.


https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...re-they-doing/

We have taken in 4112,000 Iraqis in the last 12 years.

How are they doing?

See the special section on Iraqi refugees in the 2012 ORR Annual Report to Congress (the most recent data available) beginning on page 110.

Not so hot!

~The overall US unemployment rate that year was 7.6%, the Iraqi unemployment rate was 22.6% (but up from 40% or so in some previous years).

~Of those not looking for work, 33.6% had poor health or disabilities.

~The average hourly wage for Iraqis who were working was $9.79 per hour.

~ORR says that the goal is self-sufficiency in 3 months, but only 21% got their first job in 6 months and welfare continued.

~60% were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance.

~82% were receiving food stamps.

~58% were receiving some sort of cash assistance.

~36% were getting SSI (Supplemental Security Income).

They are bringing in 10,000 to 20,000 Syrians a year.

1400 years true. So how about that. A religion we have been at war with for 1400 years. How is that working out?

Point still stands. The system for vetting these people is broken unless you like bombs going off? Why not put his effort into countries with cultures that have not been hostile to the US? Look if you are fine with importing cultures that kill gays and devalue women, don't come crying to me when it goes wrong.

Funny that you mention a few of those bombers homelands. I notice Eastern European on there. If you look in the history of US immigration policy, we have had restrictions on Eastern European immigration.
Hang on....

I usually skip over your baseless rants, but are you saying the vetting process is to allow entry to people who can contribute? This whole time I thought it was to vet out threats to the public. They're not leaving Iraq (or others) out of choice, they're fleeing a war zone. Are you surprised refugees are in bad shape?

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...sound familiar?
Old     (doublemwa)      Join Date: May 2016       09-29-2016, 8:11 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
OK, these two didn't blown up anything, but were caught and arrested. Here's a link to Liberal news dot com...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/us/ter...rges-refugees/


And to be fair and balanced...lol, a link to "faux news"...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ots-in-us.html

2013 report from ABC...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qae...ry?id=20931131

You really want these people as your neighbors?

My take on this is we are American. We should first and foremost protect our citizens. It is clear that there have been terrorist related refugees admitted into the US, CNN even admits the terror related arrests. Why would we risk ONE citizens life to admit them when (if liberal bleeding hearts insist), it would be safer to send aid overseas and establish somewhere safe they can stay until the Oblunder is done with lines in the sand lies?

So they we're caught because they we're being watched.... isn't that a form of being vetted?

I would take my risk with refugees as neighbors before any of these citizens:

Syed Rizwan Farook
Dylann Storm Roof
Jerad and Amanda Miller
Wade Michael Page
Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan
Omar Mateen
John Allen Muhammad
Lee Boyd Malvo
Ahmad Khan
James Eagan Holmes
Timothy McVeigh
Adam Lanza

But to be fair, the Boston Bombers and VT Shooter were immigrants. Point still stands that refugees are not the ones we should be worried about.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-29-2016, 8:50 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublemwa View Post
But to be fair, the Boston Bombers and VT Shooter were immigrants. Point still stands that refugees are not the ones we should be worried about.
I think it would be fair to argue that the Tsarnaev bros were refugees (being Chechen), but Dzhokhar did also obtain citizenship (no vetting obviously /sarcasm font).
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-29-2016, 8:54 AM Reply   
Some easy adds to the list of unvetted natural born terrorists:

Eric Rudolph
Terry Nichols
Chris Harper-Mercer
Eric Harris
Dylan Klebold
Old     (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-29-2016, 9:16 AM Reply   
Wow this thread got interesting in the last 24 hours. Delta-15, SJW's-2.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 10:46 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
East Germany was aligned with the Russians. West was with us. There is a bit of difference with the countries you speak about. They were only aligned with Russia because Russia invaded them and installed their puppet leaders with the loom of death if they did not comply.


https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...re-they-doing/

We have taken in 4112,000 Iraqis in the last 12 years.

How are they doing?

See the special section on Iraqi refugees in the 2012 ORR Annual Report to Congress (the most recent data available) beginning on page 110.

Not so hot!

~The overall US unemployment rate that year was 7.6%, the Iraqi unemployment rate was 22.6% (but up from 40% or so in some previous years).

~Of those not looking for work, 33.6% had poor health or disabilities.

~The average hourly wage for Iraqis who were working was $9.79 per hour.

~ORR says that the goal is self-sufficiency in 3 months, but only 21% got their first job in 6 months and welfare continued.

~60% were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance.

~82% were receiving food stamps.

~58% were receiving some sort of cash assistance.

~36% were getting SSI (Supplemental Security Income).

They are bringing in 10,000 to 20,000 Syrians a year.

1400 years true. So how about that. A religion we have been at war with for 1400 years. How is that working out?

Point still stands. The system for vetting these people is broken unless you like bombs going off? Why not put his effort into countries with cultures that have not been hostile to the US? Look if you are fine with importing cultures that kill gays and devalue women, don't come crying to me when it goes wrong.

Funny that you mention a few of those bombers homelands. I notice Eastern European on there. If you look in the history of US immigration policy, we have had restrictions on Eastern European immigration.

lol, let me get this straight. You are quoting a website that ENDS WITH WORDPRESS. Good god. The first website that appears on google to get clickbait from people like you? LOL. Why don't you try a .gov site instead. Since 2007, only 84,000 admitted. Why such a huge difference in numbers? Because I can create a wordpress website and spew off bullsh*t as well.


Even if we do go off your WORDPRESS website, you really expect a refugee to come here and flourish?
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 10:49 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
OK, these two didn't blown up anything, but were caught and arrested. Here's a link to Liberal news dot com...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/us/ter...rges-refugees/


And to be fair and balanced...lol, a link to "faux news"...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ots-in-us.html

2013 report from ABC...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qae...ry?id=20931131

You really want these people as your neighbors?

My take on this is we are American. We should first and foremost protect our citizens. It is clear that there have been terrorist related refugees admitted into the US, CNN even admits the terror related arrests. Why would we risk ONE citizens life to admit them when (if liberal bleeding hearts insist), it would be safer to send aid overseas and establish somewhere safe they can stay until the Oblunder is done with lines in the sand lies?
Look around you, Americans are doing the killing, not immigrants. If we should first, and foremost protect our citizens, turn in your guns lol. The amount of gun related deaths in this country is something you should be more worried about. Not the boogey man of immigrants killing you.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 11:43 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
Look around you, Americans are doing the killing, not immigrants. If we should first, and foremost protect our citizens, turn in your guns lol. The amount of gun related deaths in this country is something you should be more worried about. Not the boogey man of immigrants killing you.
Who said I'm worried about it? And I'll turn in my guns the same day the government does.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 12:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
Who said I'm worried about it? And I'll turn in my guns the same day the government does.
You literally said we need to protect out citizens from the incoming immigrants. Strange comment from somebody who isn't worried about it.

Yes, continue to stockpile arms against the country you "love".
Old     (wakemitch)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-29-2016, 12:34 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
Yes, continue to stockpile arms against the country you "love".
For real. The people that try to claim to be the most patriotic are often the one's stock piling guns because they don't trust the country's government, don't consider the president their president, claim the country is going to hell and is a mess, and are generally doom and gloom while not acknowledging the growth and everything positive going on in the country.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 12:48 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
Who said I'm worried about it? And I'll turn in my guns the same day the government does.
Ahh I read that wrong. You don't care about the gun related deaths. Interesting. But you care about the few deaths from immigrants? As long as policies to save life's don't affect your life then you're all for em eh?
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 12:48 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
You literally said we need to protect out citizens from the incoming immigrants. Strange comment from somebody who isn't worried about it.

Yes, continue to stockpile arms against the country you "love".
The difference is we have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't remember reading anything about a "right" to keep and bear possible terrorists. If one of them blows something up, I just pray your family and loved ones are in the blast radius... and I'll still say told ya so.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 1:14 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
The difference is we have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't remember reading anything about a "right" to keep and bear possible terrorists. If one of them blows something up, I just pray your family and loved ones are in the blast radius... and I'll still say told ya so.
Wow. Even though I don't agree with your gun stance I don't pray that it misfires and kills you and your family. You are one disturbed person.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       09-29-2016, 1:34 PM Reply   
I don't understand these arguments. Why can't someone want to secure the border, limit who and how many come in, want to fight terrorism, want to reduce domestic violence and gun related deaths, and be in favor of owning and carrying a gun?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-29-2016, 1:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
I don't understand these arguments. Why can't someone want to secure the border, limit who and how many come in, want to fight terrorism, want to reduce domestic violence and gun related deaths, and be in favor of owning and carrying a gun?
Why can't someone be in favor of all that and want to give war refugees a place to land?

Why can't someone be in favor of all that and allow the CDC to study gun deaths as a public health issue?
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       09-29-2016, 1:54 PM Reply   
I think that they can Shawndoggy. It's my understanding that the Syrian refugee argument was about pausing things until a better vetting procedure could be put in place.

Of 'course that wasn't the media slant
Old     (tweeder)      Join Date: Aug 2015       09-29-2016, 2:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
I don't understand these arguments. Why can't someone want to secure the border, limit who and how many come in, want to fight terrorism, want to reduce domestic violence and gun related deaths, and be in favor of owning and carrying a gun?
It's because some people don't believe the gun is the problem, its the individuals wielding the gun.

Have you heard of the old car saying "Gotta work on the nut behind the wheel before fixing the bolts on the car."

Same line of logic.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 2:29 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweeder View Post
It's because some people don't believe the gun is the problem, its the individuals wielding the gun.

Have you heard of the old car saying "Gotta work on the nut behind the wheel before fixing the bolts on the car."

Same line of logic.
Full agree, got guys wishing death upon families for their point of view owning guns. Gotta fix the nuts behind the trigger!
Old     (tweeder)      Join Date: Aug 2015       09-29-2016, 2:51 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
Full agree, got guys wishing death upon families for their point of view owning guns. Gotta fix the nuts behind the trigger!
It's a shame people choose to behave in that manner. Yes we do, and it means creating a huge cultural shift in areas of high gun violence. But the real cultural shift is one people don't want to talk about. Majority of gun violence happen in areas of poverty which happen to be high concentration of African Americans because majority black people in poverty live in concentrated poverty which happen to be in metro areas. I'm not saying a colored issue, but concentrated poverty issue. We can either bring this population out of poverty or somehow reach out and change the culture in the inner cities to change gun violence. Which on the flip side most gun suicides happen in the suburbs. I would take a gander that it is more frequent there because of high stress keep up with the johns lifestyle, high debt living, working more than 40 hour weeks for corporate america reasons. Change those factors in the burbs too and as a whole I bet you see gun violence go way down with out even having to place any new firearm regulations out there. Sorry for derailing the thread. But that kind of gives a deeper answer into the insight of how someone like myself wants to see certain things but own/carry firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Why can't someone be in favor of all that and want to give war refugees a place to land?

Why can't someone be in favor of all that and allow the CDC to study gun deaths as a public health issue?
I just don't believe the gun deaths qualify as a public health problem. Spinning it as a public health problem allows it to fit the narrative that guns are the disease. In reality it just isn't the case. There has to be better agencies to study gun deaths than the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Two different ball games.

Last edited by tweeder; 09-29-2016 at 2:55 PM.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 2:58 PM Reply   
How many people die each year from auto accidents? I'll answer for you. According to Newsweek, the National Safety Council estimated 38,300 died in 2015. FBI data shows 9616 died from guns the same year. Did the car kill those people, or was it the idiot behind the wheel? Why isn't everyone crying about auto deaths?

OK, FBI data for 2015 just released. Hillary is already spouting too many "military type" weapons.. That includes the dreaded AR15.

FBI stats murders 2015...

Rifles (that's what your girl is after) 252
Handguns 6447
Knives 1544
Blunt objects 437
Personal weapons (hands, feet) 624

So where is the outrage about knives , blunt objects and of course hands & feet? Why go after the AR?
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 3:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
Wow. Even though I don't agree with your gun stance I don't pray that it misfires and kills you and your family. You are one disturbed person.
OK, now we're making progress. You want them here with the current BS vetting that the FBI warns is not adequate but you don't want your family blown up by one of them. If you actually trusted the current vetting, my statement wouldn't stir any doubt. I don't want my family, your family, or anyone's family in the blast radius....keep the refugees out unless we can be sure they wont do anything stupid.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 3:07 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
Full agree, got guys wishing death upon families for their point of view owning guns. Gotta fix the nuts behind the trigger!
Huh? Really? TheWakesLoosingItToday
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       09-29-2016, 3:29 PM Reply   
you've probably seen this but it seemed appropriate at this point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-29-2016, 4:16 PM Reply   
2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. 80% of those are males. The majority are white.

Why can't we talk about suicide by firearm in the same way that we've changed public opinion over drunk driving?

Prescription opioid abuse is a public health issue.... about the same number of people die from ODs as suicides by firearm.

Congress prohibits CDC from even studying suicide by firearm as a public health issue.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 5:42 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
How many people die each year from auto accidents? I'll answer for you. According to Newsweek, the National Safety Council estimated 38,300 died in 2015. FBI data shows 9616 died from guns the same year. Did the car kill those people, or was it the idiot behind the wheel? Why isn't everyone crying about auto deaths?

OK, FBI data for 2015 just released. Hillary is already spouting too many "military type" weapons.. That includes the dreaded AR15.

FBI stats murders 2015...

Rifles (that's what your girl is after) 252
Handguns 6447
Knives 1544
Blunt objects 437
Personal weapons (hands, feet) 624

So where is the outrage about knives , blunt objects and of course hands & feet? Why go after the AR?
If you wanna bring up guns and cars in the argument I will be fully open to it. It is actually incredibly damning for your argument if the difference in car deaths and gun deaths is that low. I actually didn't know they were that close. But lets go at it with cars. I'm not against taking all guns away. I just want people to actually be tested and certified to have them. Cars, 6 month permit time, where you have to be watched behind the wheel. Do the same for guns. You actually have to pass tests and what not to drive a car. Do the same. You want an assault rifle? Make it like a different class license like in trucks.

It would be interesting to see the amount of stabbings vs stabbing deaths. I would imagine the amount of stabbings is staggering but the deaths are quite low in comparison.

Again, keep your guns, just make them harder to get. People like you who wish families a fiery death might be ones screened out.
Old     (tweeder)      Join Date: Aug 2015       09-29-2016, 6:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. 80% of those are males. The majority are white.

Why can't we talk about suicide by firearm in the same way that we've changed public opinion over drunk driving?

Prescription opioid abuse is a public health issue.... about the same number of people die from ODs as suicides by firearm.

Congress prohibits CDC from even studying suicide by firearm as a public health issue.
Drunk driving and suicide by firearms are an apples to oranges conversation. You can't talk about drunk driving in the same way as firearms because drinking actually effects the way your brain functions due to substance. Drinking inhibits logical thinking because of what it does, the whole frontal cortex stops working thing. Holding a firearm does not.

The funny part about the opioid thing, it has a fraction of the national coverage that guns do. So are you saying that opioid abuse should be talked about as much as gun suicides? I am all for that.

I know the CDC investigates car deaths too, but jesus its function is in its title. Allowing them to do the research has made it possible for people to believe it is a public health issue. No where in owning a firearm makes me physically ill. It is not a public health issue, the issue is purely behavioral when it comes to firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
If you wanna bring up guns and cars in the argument I will be fully open to it. It is actually incredibly damning for your argument if the difference in car deaths and gun deaths is that low. I actually didn't know they were that close. But lets go at it with cars. I'm not against taking all guns away. I just want people to actually be tested and certified to have them. Cars, 6 month permit time, where you have to be watched behind the wheel. Do the same for guns. You actually have to pass tests and what not to drive a car. Do the same. You want an assault rifle? Make it like a different class license like in trucks.

It would be interesting to see the amount of stabbings vs stabbing deaths. I would imagine the amount of stabbings is staggering but the deaths are quite low in comparison.

Again, keep your guns, just make them harder to get. People like you who wish families a fiery death might be ones screened out.
When it comes the assault rifles, you do need a special license. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Fully automatic weapons, which is a requirement to be an assault rifle, are banned. I am all for better background checks, training etc. but you get into murky water requiring licenses. Did you know the Nazi's used licenses to help control the population for their agenda? It's like the no fly list, once you get on it its damn near impossible to get off of it even if you have been wrongfully placed on it. I won't go into the slippery slope, but requiring a license for just owning a fire arm gives the government way too much control on firearm ownership. You ignored my opinion on how to curb violence. You will never make progress if you chose to ignore other options on the table and go strait for firearm regulations. It shows you really don't want to solve the problem unless it is with your solution.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 7:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweeder View Post
When it comes the assault rifles, you do need a special license. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Fully automatic weapons, which is a requirement to be an assault rifle, are banned. I am all for better background checks, training etc. but you get into murky water requiring licenses. Did you know the Nazi's used licenses to help control the population for their agenda? It's like the no fly list, once you get on it its damn near impossible to get off of it even if you have been wrongfully placed on it. I won't go into the slippery slope, but requiring a license for just owning a fire arm gives the government way too much control on firearm ownership. You ignored my opinion on how to curb violence. You will never make progress if you chose to ignore other options on the table and go strait for firearm regulations. It shows you really don't want to solve the problem unless it is with your solution.
I actually fully agree with what you said, but trust me, I highly doubt Vanilla or many other gun owners have any interest in putting money or time into helping inner-city people. I know I am generalizing which I don't enjoy doing, but I would imagine it is the case for most.

I also agree with you about the slippery slope of licenses, but if you look at the amount of gun violence here compared to other countries it is utterly ridiculous that anybody can still own them. You don't want to use the term license, then fine, make people do something more than going down to the store and buying it.

I know that the AR doesn't fall under the ridiculous umbrella of a rifle needing to be automatic to be considered an assault rifle, but high capacity magazines that can output damage like in Orlando SHOULD have more training and background checks.

Again, I know I came off a bit forward when I told Vanilla to turn in his guns, I don't think the country should be gunless but I do think it needs to be a more checked industry. You can admit there is a problem, most gun owners won't admit there is a problem or even allow it to be looked into.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 7:44 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
Again, keep your guns, just make them harder to get. People like you who wish families a fiery death might be ones screened out.
You can be a funny guy. I proved a point. That point had absolutely nothing to do with guns. If you want to allow the insufficient vetting process to continue, push others to do the same, don't cry when your family dies due to lax policy. Nobody "wished" your family a "fiery" death. I simply think if it did happen, I hope it happens to some pogue's family that pushed this agenda, not someone's family that had some common sense.

As far as guns are concerned, it's a right to own them. I own mine legally, have a concealed carry permit and follow the laws. Background checks are mandatory when buying from a dealer. States aren't always doing required notification of mental status to BATF. That is documented. Straw purchase problems could be addressed. Background checks at gun shows. Your argument that an AR15 with a Beta Mag in it is a problem simply has nothing to support it. 252 TOTAL deaths by ALL rifles last year per FBI data. You are focused on what the left wants, not the real problem.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-29-2016, 7:51 PM Reply   
that's total murders not total deaths.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 7:59 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
If you wanna bring up guns and cars in the argument I will be fully open to it. It is actually incredibly damning for your argument if the difference in car deaths and gun deaths is that low. I actually didn't know they were that close. But lets go at it with cars. I'm not against taking all guns away. I just want people to actually be tested and certified to have them. Cars, 6 month permit time, where you have to be watched behind the wheel. Do the same for guns. You actually have to pass tests and what not to drive a car. Do the same. You want an assault rifle? Make it like a different class license like in trucks.
6 month permit time? What state are you in? Also are you advocating a national drivers license? More government! Yayyy! The amount of deaths is over 400% greater than gun deaths. Per your logic, I think we need MUCH stricter testing and background checks to get a driver's license! Pulled over without a license, felony! Lmao
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-29-2016, 8:00 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
that's total murders not total deaths.
True, but kinda awkward to commit suicide with a rifle. Not that it can't be done but I would bet the percent is low.

Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 09-29-2016 at 8:06 PM.
Old     (tweeder)      Join Date: Aug 2015       09-29-2016, 8:14 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
I actually fully agree with what you said, but trust me, I highly doubt Vanilla or many other gun owners have any interest in putting money or time into helping inner-city people. I know I am generalizing which I don't enjoy doing, but I would imagine it is the case for most.

I also agree with you about the slippery slope of licenses, but if you look at the amount of gun violence here compared to other countries it is utterly ridiculous that anybody can still own them. You don't want to use the term license, then fine, make people do something more than going down to the store and buying it.

I know that the AR doesn't fall under the ridiculous umbrella of a rifle needing to be automatic to be considered an assault rifle, but high capacity magazines that can output damage like in Orlando SHOULD have more training and background checks.

Again, I know I came off a bit forward when I told Vanilla to turn in his guns, I don't think the country should be gunless but I do think it needs to be a more checked industry. You can admit there is a problem, most gun owners won't admit there is a problem or even allow it to be looked into.
Sounds like we just approach the same thing with different choice of words

Not a fan of generalizing, but I could see most people that are hard core gun rights don't want to pour money into the inner city. Which is funny though going into the whole license and other country topics. I have lived outside the US, west coast, midwest,spent time on the east coast, and now currently reside in Denver.

The two places I have felt the safest in were London, and Denver. What I find funny about Denver is, Denver was a city that was never built on Industry. Look at places like Chicago (Gary, IN), Detroit, Jacksonville, Birmingham, cities in California. You have two trends, they were built on industry or were hubs for immigration. What connect the two trends? Poverty, Industry was taken away from a lot of bigger cities and left a lot of people out of work or working crappy jobs with low pay. Immigrants work crappy jobs with low pay. London was different because London was never really built on a gun culture, and honestly the culture in England was totally different.

I have been certified on a couple different firearms and spent a lot of times in classes with a lot of people. There were people in those course that downright scared me because their lack of awareness or their lack of capability to even lock the slide back on a handgun. That does not take away their right to own a firearm. It is a constitutional right. You start requiring classes and licenses I would bet a lot of women out there wouldn't be able to own a handgun because of that. It's really not right. Because of my own personal experiences, I feel it will do more harm to lawful individuals whom want a firearm than keep guns out of the hands of bad people.

Maybe just a required class with the purchase of a firearm. No pass no fail class. But a class that not only goes over the fundamentals of shooting and cleaning a firearm safely but also talks about target and situational awareness. Complete that and take the firearm home along with the already stated background checks. And to take it a step further, require some range time across multiple days before taking delivery of the firearm so the concepts are now set in stone.

Well I feel a little different about the AR. It is truly a wonderful weapons system. The amount of damage done in Orlando could have been done with a handgun. Small Quarters combat you don't see and advantage of ballistics with the .223 over a hand gun round. Hand guns and the AR are both semi automatic so firing rate relies on how fast you can pull the trigger. The AR edges in accuracy but when shooting into a crowd is accuracy that important? The AR shines at 100-150 meters because the barrel length allows a good enough bullet velocity to maintain fragmentation when striking its target. Virginia Tech held the title until Orlando and that was with handguns. The AR thing is all media hype. If anything I actually like the .308/7.62 round more than the .223/5.56

Hey no biggie, I am enjoying the conversation. Always good to hear others perspectives.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       09-29-2016, 9:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
True, but kinda awkward to commit suicide with a rifle. Not that it can't be done but I would bet the percent is low.
But the accident rate is off the chart, hunters are shooting each other all the time
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-29-2016, 10:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
You can be a funny guy. I proved a point. That point had absolutely nothing to do with guns. If you want to allow the insufficient vetting process to continue, push others to do the same, don't cry when your family dies due to lax policy. Nobody "wished" your family a "fiery" death. I simply think if it did happen, I hope it happens to some pogue's family that pushed this agenda, not someone's family that had some common sense.

As far as guns are concerned, it's a right to own them. I own mine legally, have a concealed carry permit and follow the laws. Background checks are mandatory when buying from a dealer. States aren't always doing required notification of mental status to BATF. That is documented. Straw purchase problems could be addressed. Background checks at gun shows. Your argument that an AR15 with a Beta Mag in it is a problem simply has nothing to support it. 252 TOTAL deaths by ALL rifles last year per FBI data. You are focused on what the left wants, not the real problem.
"Pray", "Wish", whatever you wanna call it. You didn't prove a point at all. The amount of deaths from immigrants is slim to none.

Dude, look at your argument, the amount of deaths from immigrants is an effing fraction compared to the deaths of of people from AR15s last year. Your argument simply has nothing to support it. You are focused on what breitbart tells you and how the immigrants are the boogey man not the real problem. Sound familiar?

Again, the difference between me and you is that I don't hope some nutjob like the guy out in Houston comes and kill you and your family to prove my point. I actually think the more concealed carry people there out there the better due to the hoops you have to go through.
Old     (VanillaGorilla)      Join Date: Nov 2015       09-30-2016, 5:36 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
"Pray", "Wish", whatever you wanna call it. You didn't prove a point at all. The amount of deaths from immigrants is slim to none.

Dude, look at your argument, the amount of deaths from immigrants is an effing fraction compared to the deaths of of people from AR15s last year. Your argument simply has nothing to support it. You are focused on what breitbart tells you and how the immigrants are the boogey man not the real problem. Sound familiar?

Again, the difference between me and you is that I don't hope some nutjob like the guy out in Houston comes and kill you and your family to prove my point. I actually think the more concealed carry people there out there the better due to the hoops you have to go through.
Now we're talking about immigrants? What's it going to be? Guns? Refugees? Drivers licenses? Immigrants? Ilegal immigrants? We have already established that no refugees have committed an act of terror.....yet. although several have been arrested for trying. What's your point, other than looking silly?

Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 09-30-2016 at 5:38 AM.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            09-30-2016, 8:41 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla View Post
Now we're talking about immigrants? What's it going to be? Guns? Refugees? Drivers licenses? Immigrants? Ilegal immigrants? We have already established that no refugees have committed an act of terror.....yet. although several have been arrested for trying. What's your point, other than looking silly?
Your "point" was about refugees and immigrants. You get lost quickly. My point is that it is a rather trivial thing to worry about when our biggest threat has been from radicalized citizens and nutjobs shooting places up. But for whatever reason you and a lot of people who think like you would rather keep it as easy as possible to arm these people. But hey as long as you have your guns, f*ck everybody else eh?
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:48 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us