Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Professor Tiger]

Darn right, BOJ.

I'll split with you the cost of an NRA membership for Mook. He obviously needs to read "The American Rifleman."

[Big Orange Junky]

I did try to use more mainstream things like the Harvard study as well as USA today and The New York Times. He'll prolly pop a vein when he sees the GOA link LOL.

I stayed away from the NRA links, but they have some very good, and solid info but his head would explode if I had linked that.

[TheBigMook]

I was going to take the time to find a greater number of articles and stats "proving" the opposite... but then I remembered that this is the thread where the POTUS is referred to as "insane" (non tongue and cheek), and I said, fuck it. Whats the point in arguing with a brick wall.

[TheBigMook]

I've participated in countless turkey shoots. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I just think the idea that everyone being armed as the solution to gun violence is as ludicrisp as it sounds.

[10ac]

I don't think anyone is promoting non-responsible gun ownership.

[Professor Tiger]

I think Mook should not own any firearm. Not even a bb gun.

[TheBigMook]

Too late.

[TheBigMook]

I can hit a pigs-eye at 20 paces with a shotgun wad...

or I could before I needed glasses.

[TheBigMook]

Sadly my turkey shoot peak was very brief. When I could actually see the cross hairs on the target, I was too little to shoot a 12 gauge, and instead had to use our modified 20 gauge rabbit gun. I'd hit the center with the wad damn near every time but there was so little shot in the load I hardly stood a chance. Then when I moved up to using the standard choked down 12 gauges I needed glasses, didn't have them yet, and only won one round. Even when I did get glasses as my eye sight got worse, I didn't want to wear them and so my skills were worse than ever. Then I was off to college and done with turkey shoot. I could have been somebody! I could have been a contender!

[10ac]

Damn! That's the saddest story I've heard.

[Big Orange Junky]

I was going to take the time to find a greater number of articles and stats "proving" the opposite... but then I remembered that this is the thread where the POTUS is referred to as "insane" (non tongue and cheek), and I said, fuck it. Whats the point in arguing with a brick wall.

Nobody said he was "insane".

Not credible, check. (and highly accurate)

Nuts? Check. (and still somewhat accurate)

Insane? Nope

[Big Orange Junky]

So these statistics are from the CDC.

There are 233 children per year killed with guns, or 892 since 2001

This is gun deaths per the CDC

30,896 in 2006 (10.34 per 100,000)
642 Unintentional (0.21)
12,791 homicide (4.28)
360 Legal Intervention (0.12)
16,833 Suicide (5.65)
217 children

Other modalities per the CDC
45,509 (15.23) Motor Vehicle Crash
More people die from suffocation per year than are murdered with guns 14,179 (4.75)vs 12,791
More children died in MVC’s (1,673 children 12 and under) and drowning (741) compared to 217 gun deaths


This is straight from the CDC. Drowning kills close to 4 times the children that guns do.

We should outlaw water it's clearly more dangerous than guns to our children.

[AlabamAlum]

Speaking of guns. Went to the police range today. Have a friend on the force who let's me go with him and it's been a while since I've had my Glock 21 and my Colt Combat Elite outta their case.

Anyway, me and a detective with county had a shooting contest. I outscored him 4 outta the 5 targets we penned. He blamed it on his Sig. Said he had messed with the sights. I asked to shoot it. He said yes. Scored 5 tens and a nine and handed it back to him with a "Here ya go, Barney."


Somehow, he and I didn't bond.

[innocentbystander]

[TheBigMook]

So, we have an insane person in the White House now. The fact that he's there proves you don't have to be sane to be elected to the office.

Yuhp. Check yo chinos. They smokin.

That search feature is a real mutha fucka.

Don't worry about it dude, no big deal. Totally used to you Fox watchers bald face lying. Oldest of hat these days. But really, continue to seem shocked, SHOCKED that I don't trust any shit y'all say.

[Big Orange Junky]

That was tongue in cheek there bud and you said "not tongue in cheek" they were calling another politician insane and I was pointing out that relatively speaking there is no difference. Oprama is just as "insane" as the one they were slamming and him being elected proves you don't have to be "sane" to get elected. In all honesty you could put a crackhead up for election and with the MSM backing and a D by their name they would have a very good chance of winning. Oh, that's right they already did that. Some guy by the name of Marion Berry in New York.

I have never lied here or any of the other boards, never will. Of course you said "not tongue in cheek" and you as well as anyone else knows those comments (all of them the nuts, credible etc) were in response to someone trying to say so and so had no shot at the WH. I was just pointing out that comparatively speaking Oprama proved those statements wrong. I would hope you would know that but even if you don't thats OK.

If you can't tell I had went back to where we were having those zings and looked for the insane one and just missed it. How awful LOL.
That's the problem with you liberals. You don't understand the definitions of words like "lie" , "honor", "truth", "responsibility"because that deals with morality and since it's no big deal to you guys you don't know the difference. That's kind of sad really.

I have given you the facts from some sources that I would think would make a bed wetting liberal happy, especially those from the Harvard Law expressly dealing with all those European countries you try to make out to be so much more enlightened than the US and showing that even in those countries there is less crime with more guns.

Sorry, it's just fact.

Of course you can ignore that and go back to getting your "information" from the MSM and people like Rosanne Barr who don't want the little people to have guns but have armed body guards with them.

[TheBigMook]

un hunh. suuuuure. enjoy yourself.

[TheBigMook]

Nobody said he was "insane".

Not credible, check. (and highly accurate)

Nuts? Check. (and still somewhat accurate)

Insane? Nope

Lie lie lie, spin spin spin, lie lie lie, spin spin spin

Really, the fact that it was you yourself that called him "insane" when you said "Nobody" called him insane. Precious.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Building success through resentment of the poor

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp

Until fairly recently, Republicans, at least, have been fairly consistent in their position that tax cuts should benefit everyone. Though the Bush tax cuts were primarily for the rich, they did lower rates for almost all taxpayers, providing a veneer of egalitarianism. Then the recession pushed down incomes severely, many below the minimum income tax level, and the stimulus act lowered that level further with new tax cuts. The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession to about half, and, suddenly, Republicans have a new tool to stoke class resentment.

First, the facts: a vast majority of Americans have skin in the tax game. Even if they earn too little to qualify for the income tax, they pay payroll taxes (which Republicans want to raise), gasoline excise taxes and state and local taxes. Only 14 percent of households pay neither income nor payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution. The poorest fifth paid an average of 16.3 percent of income in taxes in 2010.

[Hacksaw]

Until fairly recently, Republicans, at least, have been fairly consistent in their position that tax cuts should benefit everyone.

Heh...really no need to keep reading after that. But I did...

Though the Bush tax cuts were primarily for the rich, they did lower rates for almost all taxpayers, providing a veneer of egalitarianism.

So they admit that the tax cuts helped everyone, but they're still pissed that the rich benefitted more. This points out the intellectually indefensible position that the less-wealthy should be able to somehow benefit as much from tax cuts as those who pay a lot more in taxes to begin with. You can't cut what was never paid in the first place. For instance, I realize that I don't pay as much in taxes as a millionaire, so I don't expect to save as much on my taxes when they start talking about cutting them.

Why do liberals have such a difficult time understanding such a simple concept?