Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
19 Pages«<1112131415>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline dhazer  
#181 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:08:47 AM(UTC)
dhazer

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2013Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2009PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2013

Posts: 3,897
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 45
Applause Received: 190

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
How about we ban guns except for the 3 weeks we get to hunt. That's the only time I take mine out. Can't ban cars or trucks because they are used daily. Catch the drift there Haze?


So all these people going on shooting sprees will wait for those 3 weeks? Do you not understand the only thing this gun ban is going to hurt is the law abiding citizen. Why is that so hard for you to understand. Look at the drug laws how good does that work? I can almost bet there are as many drug overdoses as there are gun killings a year. I just don't understand all this ban the guns thing. the drug dealers and gangsters and nuts are going to get guns one way or another but because of the laws you are telling us we can't defend ourselves.

The asshole running the country wants to be the dictator aka the next Hitler and this is another example.

look thru history at leaders that banned guns like Hitler, stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro and Qaddaffi, all wanted to run the world and now you can add Obama to the list. Think about this he bans assault rifles in the US but gives them to the drug Cartel in Mexico and must we forget he opened the borders to the illegals.
UserPostedImage

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be :)
Offline zombieslayer  
#182 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:21:45 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

If I believed in the death penalty, it would be for first degree murder ONLY. No exceptions.

I don't believe in it because there's not one government on the planet I'd trust enough to carry out a fair trial + an execution.

Conservatives claim they're for small government, yet believe a government can execute its citizens. That's yet another reason I'm proud to NOT call myself a conservative.

And for the record, my guns are not for killing animals. They're for killing people. People are a threat to me. Animals aren't. I'm not worried about a bunch of geese robbing my house to feed their meth habit. I'm not worried about some rabbits getting together and burning crosses on my lawn. I'm not worried about ducks blaming the recession on the wrong race/the wrong skin color/the wrong religion/the wrong sexual orientation/etc., and rounding up people and sending them to camps.

If you TRULY want to prevent genocide, keep guns in private hands. Anyone who says otherwise, I'd love to stick a history book up their ass.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Wade on 12/22/2012(UTC)
Offline DakotaT  
#183 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 1:19:28 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 7,243
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 622
Applause Received: 1,296

Originally Posted by: dhazer Go to Quoted Post
So all these people going on shooting sprees will wait for those 3 weeks? Do you not understand the only thing this gun ban is going to hurt is the law abiding citizen. Why is that so hard for you to understand. Look at the drug laws how good does that work? I can almost bet there are as many drug overdoses as there are gun killings a year. I just don't understand all this ban the guns thing. the drug dealers and gangsters and nuts are going to get guns one way or another but because of the laws you are telling us we can't defend ourselves.

The asshole running the country wants to be the dictator aka the next Hitler and this is another example.

look thru history at leaders that banned guns like Hitler, stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro and Qaddaffi, all wanted to run the world and now you can add Obama to the list. Think about this he bans assault rifles in the US but gives them to the drug Cartel in Mexico and must we forget he opened the borders to the illegals.


Haze, you're a perfect example of fright wing programming. I feel bad for you my friend. Obama has 4 years left as president - if you think he can accomplish what you just wrote, I'm sorry, but you are just a fool.
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#184 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 1:49:46 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,656
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
If I believed in the death penalty, it would be for first degree murder ONLY. No exceptions.

I don't believe in it because there's not one government on the planet I'd trust enough to carry out a fair trial + an execution.

Conservatives claim they're for small government, yet believe a government can execute its citizens. That's yet another reason I'm proud to NOT call myself a conservative.


My guess is, that most people today, that consider or call themselves conservatives are strictly talking Fiscal Conservatism, Not social conservatism.

Personally, I have no problem with the death penalty, provided the person has gone through the appeal process. There should be no life in prison. Life should be death. And that appeal process should not take 15 years.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#185 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 3:48:13 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,628
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,833
Applause Received: 1,988

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
Oh, let me boil it down for you: Your communication 'ability' (more like lack thereof) blow. You need to work on it. Also, while you are at it, try some people skills, too.


Actually, you're the one who is lost. Did you even check into what I asked? Did you look into the most users date and find what happen on that date and correlate that to what I said about being FIRST on the internet with news REGARDLESS of accuracy? No sir, you did NOT! You just kept belittling my point because you lack the mental fortitude to grasp the psychological tactic that brainwashed you into thinking valid questions were posed from INACCURATE news sources/reports whom simply threw whatever online to get noticed FIRST!




I'm not convinced more Gun Control is the answer and I know having more guns is definitely not the answer. I mean, we have gun control already and it hasn't seemed to stop much. Then again, who's to say that with accuracy? Do we see many arrests spread country wide about an individual or members who have many assault weapons? Of course we don't because that's not what grabs peoples attention. Tragedy, now that's a different story. Tragedy gets most everyone's attention.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Formo  
#186 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 3:56:22 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,555
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Actually, you're the one who is lost. Did you even check into what I asked? Did you look into the most users date and find what happen on that date and correlate that to what I said about being FIRST on the internet with news REGARDLESS of accuracy? No sir, you did NOT! You just kept belittling my point because you lack the mental fortitude to grasp the psychological tactic that brainwashed you into thinking valid questions were posed from INACCURATE news sources/reports whom simply threw whatever online to get noticed FIRST!


Oh, forgot how you knew all the details. Glad you answered the questions.

Wait, you didn't because you can't. Either because you lack the comprehension of basic communication and/or tact to express it. Either way, you are the one looking like a jackass. 'Answering' my questions with obtuse, confusing, and plain incoherent responses won't get you far, bucko.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#187 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:35:20 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,628
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,833
Applause Received: 1,988

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
Oh, forgot how you knew all the details. Glad you answered the questions.

Wait, you didn't because you can't. Either because you lack the comprehension of basic communication and/or tact to express it. Either way, you are the one looking like a jackass. 'Answering' my questions with obtuse, confusing, and plain incoherent responses won't get you far, bucko.


Continuing to put words in my mouth is only making you a jackass, buckwheat.

You want me to answer the questions he poses and I'm saying the questions arise from the multitude of inaccurate reports, because those reporting care not about accuracy but about being first on the 'breaking news'. Essentially, right back to my point of the author using the piss poor journalism in this country and leveraging brilliant wording to brainwash people thinking the many errant reports were FACTUAL reports, instead of being inaccurate shoot from the hip reports to get their article published first.

I really don't know how to make this more simple for you.

Shooting happens in school.
Reporters throw out anything they 'hear', claiming its from witnesses before verifying the information.
New reports come out after more information obtained.
Official report after confirmation of events while cross checking facts, etc...
Fella on the internet uses the multitude of flippant reports as facts that were retracted by Government and brainwashes weak minded folks who don't understand how to businesses try to monetize the internet.
Most people hate the Government, or at least dislike it strongly and don't trust it (no fault there) and that makes the aforementioned article more believable.


Does that make more sense? I ask because I care. I truly do not want people falling for this guy's manipulation. It really saddens me that people buy into that stuff. And I do not mean that in any negative connotation at all.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline dfosterf  
#188 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:01:53 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Posts: 5,868
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 366

Does anyone have any specific proposed solutions that we might debate?

UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 12/22/2012(UTC)
Offline zombieslayer  
#189 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:00:45 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: dfosterf Go to Quoted Post
Does anyone have any specific proposed solutions that we might debate?



Sure. You want to fix things?

Work less hours. Spend more time with your family. Stop drugging up your kids. Get to know your neighbors.

Do those 4 things and violent crime will plummet. Guaranteed.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Zero2Cool on 12/22/2012(UTC), Wade on 12/23/2012(UTC)
Offline dfosterf  
#190 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:06:31 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Posts: 5,868
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 366

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
Sure. You want to fix things?

Work less hours. Spend more time with your family. Stop drugging up your kids. Get to know your neighbors.

Do those 4 things and violent crime will plummet. Guaranteed.


Will we get government compensation for that, or are you actually suggesting we do that for free?



UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline zombieslayer  
#191 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:07:56 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: dfosterf Go to Quoted Post
Will we get government compensation for that, or are you actually suggesting we do that for free?





Do it for free.

Humans are social animals. Without social activity, they go nuts.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Wade  
#192 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:10:00 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,762
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 629
Applause Received: 647

Originally Posted by: dfosterf Go to Quoted Post
Does anyone have any specific proposed solutions that we might debate?



This used to be where I said, "Call a constitutional convention."

But I've changed my mind.

Now my answer would be:

"Call a constitutional convention and allow no one on the following list to be a delegate:
1. Anyone who has held elective office in the last 25 years.
2. Anyone who has held an appointive office at the level of Assistant Secretary or above.
3. Anyone who is currently CEO of a company with >$1 billion of revenues, or has held said position in the last 15 years.
4. Anyone "general officer" in the US military (including your Marines, Foster, sorry) who holds 2 or more stars. Any retired general officer who has held 2 or more stars.
5. Anyone who works the "national desk" or "international desk" at any newspaper, news magazine, or network.
6. Anyone other than Hannah Storm or Sage Steele who has ever worked in front of a camera for CNN, ESPN, FOXNews, or MSNBC.
7. Anyone currently sitting as a judge on ANY federal court, up to and including the SCOTUS.
8. Anyone who holds a Nobel Prize.
9. Anyone who teaches at an Ivy League Law School.
10. Anyone who holds a degree from Harvard.
11. Anyone who has ever been a partner at Goldman Sachs or who has ever served on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
12. Anyone who cannot correctly answer 90% of the questions on a basic written 100-question multiple choice exam covering only what is said in: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. [Questions would not be interpretative ones, merely "What is said in...?" type questions.

The dyslexic or the legally blind would be allowed to take the exam of #12 orally. There would be no exceptions to 1-11 whatsoever.

I am convinced there are no solutions, Foster, other than (i) one that engages issues on the most basic of constitutional levels or (ii) that involves violent revolution of the French/Confederacy/Bolshevik sort.

And this is just me, but I'd rather not go to (ii).

(Though that would prove wrong once and for all that bastard Hobbes was wrong.)

(a condescending "huzzah" to the first non-historian* who explains the preceding parenthetical -- sorry, ZS you armed fiend, you're disqualified; besides, I'm betting it wouldn't challenge you at all. It's these other dweebs I want to challenge.)

*Can you tell? I've finally finished my grades, I'm pissed off at the state of the nation, and I'm ready to get feisty again?

Asshole


None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
dfosterf on 12/22/2012(UTC)
Offline Wade  
#193 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:17:20 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,762
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 629
Applause Received: 647

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
Sure. You want to fix things?

Work less hours. Spend more time with your family. Stop drugging up your kids. Get to know your neighbors.

Do those 4 things and violent crime will plummet. Guaranteed.


I.

Actually, violent crime has already plummeted rather a lot, hasn't it? I haven't looked at these stats lately (and everyone knows I hate generalizing about trends from short run variability), but I seem to remember that the trend for some time has been that violent crime has actually decreased rather substantially from where it was, say, at the end of WWII or during the peace-and-love 60s.

Do people really think serial killers, gang killings, and out-and-out thuggery are inventions of the 21st century?

Contrary to the received wisdom, the path of crime doesn't follow a nice linear path, any more than "environmental degradation" does. To be sure economic growth often gives rise to increased crime _at first_, as people try to come to terms with the new social and economic organization that such growth brings. Ask anyone who lived in the industrial north of England circa, say, 1820-1850. But then something amazing happens. Just as people in Parliament, or Congress or the NYTimes or wherever, speak of "something must be done," the system of affluence finds ways of improving those very conditions. ANyone who thinks that Englishmen in 1910 weren't substantially better off, virtually across the board, than ANYONE was in 1810 knows nothing of economic history. And anyone who thinks the America of 2012, even with the whacked government policies and the rapacious rich bastards, isn't better off, AND FAR SAFER IN THEIR HOMES, than the America of 1912, is similarly mistaken.

Do we have more serial killers and spree killers today? Probably. We have more than three times as many people after all. And we certainly know of more -- how often would someone in Dakota or Iowa or California in 1912 hear even the most outrageous news out of Connecticut or Colorado? Seriously.

"How big is 'big'?", indeed.

Hmm, I think I'm going to have to make a "crime statistics" project part of my new "basic numeracy skills" course this spring. Damn, another thing to do in January.


II.

To ZS's list I would add: turn off your damn TV news. Stop worrying about what's happening in Connecticut or New Orleans or Las Vegas. Stop letting your fears of dark and nasty things make you into a minder of everyone else's business.

Yeah, it's a tragedy. I get that. People think I'm a heartless bastard sometimes, but I'm not. I was in Iowa City when a disturbed graduate student went off and killed several students, professors, and an associate dean. One of my best friends was *in the seminar room* where the main killings took place. I frankly couldn't have handled it.

But you know what? He weathered that horrible event just fine. And you want to know why? Because he was one of the most grounded people I've ever been privileged to know. He put his life for God first, his family and his personal "community" second, and everything else -- EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING ELSE -- third. He did before the tragic events of that day, and he did it afterward. (I don't know if he still does, because I don't know, to my shame, what came of his bout with colon cancer several years ago and I've been afraid to find out. But that's my problem, not his.

We almost never agreed on politics. And, as I wasn't much of a Christian back then, I expect he didn't think much of my lifestyle choices. He probably still wouldn't, since though I do think of myself as a Christian in ways I never did then, I still make a lot of horrible -- and yes, immoral and all the rest -- choices.

Next to my father and, perhaps, my college advisor/former colleague, though, I think I learned more about what a person should be from him than anyone else I've known. And among the most important things I learned from him was how incredibly much of life in the big bad world was my concern. "Saving the world" is not an adult ambition. It is an adolescent one. The adult's ambition should be to be a good person. To be what you all are -- good friends...good parents...good neighbors. That's it.

That's enough.

Frankly, it's more than any of us fallen human beings are able to do all of the time.

After all, isn't that what we hate most about the busybody down the street or across the hall at work? That we know that *they* are as fucked up as any of us, and that *they* should spend more time worrying about how *they* are fucking up and less about how to stop us from fucking up?

In the end, we've all faced into the abyss at times, haven't we? Foster on the battlefield, Troy with his lovely little daughter's cancer, Jeremy's loss of his father, Kevin's loss of his mother, etc., etc. And if you think about it, how well you've handled those things says far more about your character and what's important about you as human beings as anything you or I might ever say about what a tragedy somewhere else means about life, the universe, and everyone.

I know it bugs some people when I get all religious on them, but I have to end it this way.

Strive to take care of your little part of the world to the best of your abilities. Strive to deal with the slings and arrows that fortune throws at you and yours. And let God worry about the rest.

After all, in the end, He's the only one capable of doing so.

Really.

Edited by user Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:57:54 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline dfosterf  
#194 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:29:11 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Posts: 5,868
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 366

5 round magazine. That's it. Big mags in the trash bin. Sorry, you crazy bastards fucked yourselves. You were TOLD not to shoot at the deer crossing signs and the insulators on the power lines as a kid. Now you pay, as the pinkos run the show.

Open all the data on a juvenile offense. We need to look HARD at these so-called kids that do very bad things, so very often. Opening that rap sheet is a START.

Background check on all firearms purchases, without exception, including private sales- could be done at local gun shop. No more gun-show silliness.

Treat all gun-related offenses as the serious crimes that they are. I don't care if we have to erect tent cities in our jails to house the offenders (Joe Arparo [sp?]-style). Hell, let the pot-heads out to house 'em for starters...

Nut jobs getting treated in any capacity, including in a friggin' jail when they go off (my rather broad-brush description of a very complicated issue Duh! ) get reported and access to firearms denied until some authority (judge?) authorizes it when subject nut job is deemed to be un-fucked.

Alcohol, drug, and violence offenders of any kind lose the right to own/possess firearms, unless a judge decides otherwise.- Misdemeanors, not just felonies.

...I'm just throwin' stuff out as food for thought.

Edited by user Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:48:50 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline dfosterf  
#195 Posted : Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:54:43 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Posts: 5,868
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 366

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Actually, violent crime has already plummeted rather a lot, hasn't it? I haven't looked at these stats lately (and everyone knows I hate generalizing about trends from short run variability), but I seem to remember that the trend for some time has been that violent crime has actually decreased rather substantially from where it was, say, at the end of WWII or during the peace-and-love 60s.

Do people really think serial killers, gang killings, and out-and-out thuggery are inventions of the 21st century?

I think I'm going to have to make "crime statistics" part of my new "basic numeracy skills" course this spring.

"How big is 'big'?", indeed. Hmm.




What difference does that make?

We live in a country where the citizens don't bother to even breathe hard when the politicians start outlawing sodas beyond 16 ounces for our own good.

UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
19 Pages«<1112131415>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error



Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

5h / Around The NFL / Dexter_Sinister

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Random Babble / Pack93z

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Jul / Random Babble / DakotaT

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

22-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Wade

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dulak

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Jul / Random Babble / dhazer


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.