home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

radio personality: rush limbaugh

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

rush?

rush, rush i can feel you! i can feel you all through me!
3
3%
crap
75
87%
find him entertaining but don't necessarily agree with his politics
2
2%
find him entertaining but despise his politics
6
7%
 
Total votes : 86

Postby NerblyBear on Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:00 pm

kenoki wrote:beer cans? really?... doofus? nerbly, if yr about being personally demeaning, we have nothing to talk about. i was reserving mine for the politicians.


OK, sorry bout that.

But I'll be disappointed if you concede my points. I'll consider my own position strengthened.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby kenoki on Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:17 pm

NerblyBear wrote:Let me get this straight: You're blaming the left for the Iraq war because they validated Bush's impeachable lying to Congress, but exonerating the right-wingers whose idea it was in the first place?


yes and no. the left is my team, they (our representatives) violated my trust. i never trusted the bush administration and could give a fuck less about the lying to congress since anyone in their right mind knew he was lying even before he opened his mouth. it's not an excuse, i expect nothing good out of gdub thus i'm never, ever disappointed.

I can understand blaming the Democrats for such a dumb move--I blame them myself--but this is enough to make you a right-winger? Huh?


i'm not a right-winger, i'm a thinker, and the two don't mix.

Agreed. But you should know that most Democrats who have their eyes open reject the tactics of the current Democratic Party. Most of the ones I know, at least. This doesn't amount to a rejection of leftist principles.


what you call leftist principles, i call, again, common sense. i don't abandon those principles, which are personal principles, and where we differ, we have always differed. as far as capital punishment, abortion, human rights... shit of "moral" gravity, i steer left always.

What you're advocating is an impossibility. "Letting the people take care of the people" has been proven not to work in an individualistic, consumerist society such as ours. We need federal programs to maintain a basic, fundamental way of life for people who have hit hard times because it's the right thing to do. "A page of guidelines" might seem like nonsense to you, but when that page includes the lack of health care and day care for working mothers, I'm in favor of federal support. Your idealistic plan would need to be provided along with some evidence that this "community spirit" would work the way you intend it to. The problem is that such evidence doesn't exist.


well, by bringing it back to the people i'm not talking about starting little disorganized hippy communes with no governing body... more state and a bit of county/city. my problem with such a large government is this: most of our states have not been established for very long, and as time goes on they are going to become much more populated than they are now. why should someone on the, literally, opposite side of the continent be referring to washington for their financial and personal status? in new york state you've got what, 19M people? texas you've got 24M, florida 18M, california 37M... these are creeping up on england's 50M and over double sweden's 9M. then of course, combined, the US is at 300M!!!! this sounds so normal to us... what a big fat country, aren't we great. but all great, vast empires are doomed to crumble--so we may as well start breaking it down now. just because you've given state's the control they both need and deserve, and look to DC for a bit less, doesn't mean there still won't be the same great system of governing--it's just like cutting class sizes. the citizens get more attention and more control over their futures.

Sorry to break it to you, but us on the left have more important problems to worry about than whether your Dad can get his rocks off by shooting beer cans.


i agree, the left does have more important things to do, so they should quit wasting our time on legislation that would indicate otherwise. i have had a very positive history being around antique collectors and people with real, true substance who love gunsmithing as a craft. i mean, a real craft, working with old, old stocks and trying to clean up metalwork that hasn't been cleaned since 1947. the problem i have with banning individual rights in this regard is that the people in power don't necessarily even research what they are against. i'm not saying it shouldn't be freaking hard as balls to get your hands on a submachine gun (practically a WMD), something crafted for modern combat or similar; but almost anything with a magazine and rigging for a bayonet? ah hell nah.
User avatar
kenoki
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: florida

Postby NerblyBear on Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:38 pm

kenoki wrote:
i'm not a right-winger, i'm a thinker, and the two don't mix.


Well, why didn't you say so? All this time I was under the mistaken impression that you were a right-winger. You should be more avid about disclaiming your ties to these people. It's like having the Mark of Cain on your forehead in a group of intelligent people.

my problem with such a large government is this: most of our states have not been established for very long, and as time goes on they are going to become much more populated than they are now. but all great, vast empires are doomed to crumble--so we may as well start breaking it down now. just because you've given state's the control they both need and deserve, and look to DC for a bit less, doesn't mean there still won't be the same great system of governing--it's just like cutting class sizes. the citizens get more attention and more control over their futures.


What you're advocating now is a horrible idea and one fraught with perilous implications for the future of the republic. Read the Federalist Papers. They conclusively show how, if the Union were to split up into separate enclaves of power, there would inevitably arise conflict between them, and the ensuing civil war would be hellacious. This actually happened during the Civil War, and it wasn't pretty.

It's fine that you advocate states' rights, but not at the price of a decrease in federal government. Our federal government--in particular, our Supreme Court and our Constitution--are the only things holding us together at this point. Literally the only things. Which is why right-wing attacks on them are so horrifying.

Our country was meticulously put together by men of genius who knew exactly what they were doing. They foresaw arguments such as the one you've just put forward, and I refer you to them in answer of your proposal.


i agree, the left does have more important things to do, so they should quit wasting our time on legislation that would indicate otherwise. .


You missed my point that the Second Amendment does not guarantee personal ownership of firearms. It gave that right to the founding states' militias; back then, each state had its own army, and the Constitution needed to protect their right to them in order to guarantee ratification by more skeptical anti-Federalists.

If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd revoke your right and be perfectly justified in doing so, at least Constitutionally.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby steve on Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:53 pm

Trying to control gun ownership is probably the only thing the left gets consistently wrong. There either needs to be a total ban on private arms (retarded) or very little said about them. Anything in-between is both unenforceable and ridiculous.

So there, there's one thing we got wrong. That's about it though.
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electricalaudio dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
User avatar
steve
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9163
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby kenoki on Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:23 pm

NerblyBear wrote:What you're advocating now is a horrible idea and one fraught with perilous implications for the future of the republic. Read the Federalist Papers. They conclusively show how, if the Union were to split up into separate enclaves of power, there would inevitably arise conflict between them, and the ensuing civil war would be hellacious. This actually happened during the Civil War, and it wasn't pretty.

It's fine that you advocate states' rights, but not at the price of a decrease in federal government. Our federal government--in particular, our Supreme Court and our Constitution--are the only things holding us together at this point.


well yeah, keep the federal government... i'm not talking about throwing away everything or states becoming isolationists. but, no one really thinks about states being very useful except in terms electoral votes... that is a shame. and i stand by social programs being too big. they should be relegated to the state, simple. counties can also facilitate their own programs. the federal government, in other words, should be the last person you have to call--(relatively) local communities should be mostly self-sufficient--but there is a definite stranglehold where we must look to the feds first.

as i'm sure you have heard there are federal departments for freaking everything scattered all over the northeast doing almost nothing, just funneled enough cash to pay people to be there. i mean, when i pay my taxes, which is every day, i do not think about how they are benefiting my community or what projects they are being invested in. where part of the money i earned goes is a vague mystery to me ... a big kettle as big as this nation and i'm being told that i'm part of this organization that is really in a world debt.

dude, we, americans, fucking flipped out over a one cent tax... and i'm sure the founding fathers were like, fuck yeah. fuck that tax. do you think this is what they anticipated? this world that we live in? liberals included... there are so many limits on what people can and cannot do it's gone beyond a necessary control in order for people to live as a society... this shit is a full on mafia with the right and the left equally participating in the laundering of our money, our futures and our rights.

If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd revoke your right and be perfectly justified in doing so, at least Constitutionally.


and that is because you would make a good lawyer.
User avatar
kenoki
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: florida

Postby lemur68 on Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 pm

Steve V. wrote:
Best Rush moment: when that fat fucking junky came out with his attacks on rehabilitation programs for basically everybody, and said drugs were a crutch and prescription drugs were especially foolish to grow dependent on. Then that asshole got himself a nice big bottle of OxyContin and spent a while in rehab afterwards. They should have made him "walk it off" as he suggested to other addicts.


Dishonorable Mention: claiming Michael J. Fox was exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms, and then demonstrating.
User avatar
lemur68
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 18283
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:52 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Postby NerblyBear on Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:01 pm

steve wrote:Trying to control gun ownership is probably the only thing the left gets consistently wrong. There either needs to be a total ban on private arms (retarded) or very little said about them. Anything in-between is both unenforceable and ridiculous.

So there, there's one thing we got wrong. That's about it though.


So you're not in favor of extensive and rigorous background checks? Not in favor of keeping them out of the hands of criminals?

I'm not in favor of a total ban, but I don't see how sanely regulating gun ownership--and the concomitant "fuck you" to both the NRA (who perpetuate an ugly, racist machismo) and gun manufacturers, who have entirely too much lobbying power in Washington--is any different from sanely regulating any other hazardous public commodity. Our food and drugs are inspected by the FDA. Same thing holds here.

And these regulations would be enforceable in a way that a total ban would not be. A total ban would indeed encourage Prohibition-type smuggling and even more street crime, so I'm with you there. But I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby John C3 on Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:05 pm

Hello I'm British

NerblyBear wrote: A total ban would indeed encourage Prohibition-type smuggling


Yes

NerblyBear wrote: and even more street crime.


No (not with guns anyway)





But there's a thread about this elsewhere.
User avatar
John C3
beng
beng
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:17 am
Location: Middlesbrough Cleveland England

Postby NerblyBear on Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:13 pm

kenoki wrote: and i stand by social programs being too big. they should be relegated to the state, simple. counties can also facilitate their own programs. the federal government, in other words, should be the last person you have to call--(relatively) local communities should be mostly self-sufficient--but there is a definite stranglehold where we must look to the feds first.


If the local communities had been shown to have the wherewithal to handle as extensive and daunting a job as allocating welfare funds and social security and medical checks, I'd be all for it. It would be six of one and a half dozen of the other. But the infrastructure is already in place, and it would work fine if it were given the proper funding. Don't fuck with it.

As it stands, you're making a baseless assertion and providing no evidence. It's understandable that you're disappointed with the way the country is going, and I'm agreeing with you. But reducing federal power is not the answer.

where part of the money i earned goes is a vague mystery to me ... a big kettle as big as this nation and i'm being told that i'm part of this organization that is really in a world debt.


With all due respect, you've fallen for the Limbaugh mantra which holds that your tax dollars are being wasted on projects to benefit the needy. This is actually not the case. The majority of your tax dollars gets funnelled through the Pentagon and either ends up in the hands of military contractors or in the hands of high-technology corporations that are aligned with the Pentagon. This is the hallowed military-industrial complex of which Ike was so afraid. It sucks up your tax dollars, not welfare checks. The latter are a pittance.

Do the research and get back to me. You'll start humming a different tune.

dude, we, americans, fucking flipped out over a one cent tax... and i'm sure the founding fathers were like, fuck yeah. fuck that tax. do you think this is what they anticipated? this world that we live in? liberals included... there are so many limits on what people can and cannot do it's gone beyond a necessary control in order for people to live as a society... this shit is a full on mafia with the right and the left equally participating in the laundering of our money, our futures and our rights.


I do think that the founders would be aghast at our current malaise, but I don't think they would target leftists such as myself.

Also, it should be said that the stamp tax signified much more than a one-cent-tax. It was yet another example of British tyranny and exhaustive involvement in every aspect of early colonial life. And the situation here is different. Your taxes should, at least theoretically, accord with your representation. Taxes have helped to make American society a better place. The same could not have been said for the stamp tax. That shit was getting funnelled straight to England.


and that is because you would make a good lawyer.


Yeah, I'm preparing to enter law school in the fall. You got me. :wink:
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby steve on Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:02 pm

NerblyBear wrote:So you're not in favor of extensive and rigorous background checks?

No. I don't think the government has any right to know more about me than anyone else, and whatever excuse made to gather the information, it will be used elsewhere. This is spying and I don't think the government should do it to me.
Not in favor of keeping them out of the hands of criminals?

Hah! That's funny. You think criminals will obey a law! Hah! That's funny! You already called them criminals, and you think a law will stop them! Hah! Maybe we should just make crime illegal!
I'm not in favor of a total ban, but I don't see how sanely regulating gun ownership--and the concomitant "fuck you" to both the NRA (who perpetuate an ugly, racist machismo) and gun manufacturers, who have entirely too much lobbying power in Washington--is any different from sanely regulating any other hazardous public commodity. Our food and drugs are inspected by the FDA. Same thing holds here.

The problem isn't that guns are unsafe (the reason foods and drugs are inspected), but that certain people shouldn't own them. A law will have no effect on this, given that the reason you don't want them to have guns is that they don't obey laws.

And these regulations would be enforceable in a way that a total ban would not be. A total ban would indeed encourage Prohibition-type smuggling and even more street crime, so I'm with you there. But I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm all for that too. It's impossible, unless you make them contraband, like bazookas, which are kept out of the hands of criminals by being kept out of the hands of everybody.
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electricalaudio dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
User avatar
steve
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9163
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby NerblyBear on Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:21 pm

Okay, well, given that it'll be impossible to completely eradicate criminals' usage of guns, we can at least ameliorate the problem somewhat by toughening up possession laws and making it significantly harder to buy one from a licensed merchant. If I've just been released from jail, and possession laws are very strict, it might be the case that I choose to look for a different line of work when I re-enter society. You might call this idealistic claptrap, but it's at least logically possible.

The same thing applies to crack and heroin, and I think legalization of them would probably entail an increased amount of possession and abuse.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby cwiko on Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:31 pm

I have no beef with Rush. He's basically a shock-jock not to be taken seriously. And thusly, his ignorant "political views" are dismissed. I personally think it's all just an act.

My problem is when people take him seriously & follow his views to the tee. Those're the real problems.
User avatar
cwiko
not wearing any pants
not wearing any pants
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:12 pm
Location: chicago

Postby steve on Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:34 pm

NerblyBear wrote:Okay, well, given that it'll be impossible to completely eradicate criminals' usage of guns, we can at least ameliorate the problem somewhat by toughening up possession laws and making it significantly harder to buy one from a licensed merchant.

Do you believe that criminals go to licensed merchants to buy their guns? If so, then I guess you've solved the problem once and for all then. Except that they don't.

If I've just been released from jail, and possession laws are very strict, it might be the case that I choose to look for a different line of work when I re-enter society. You might call this idealistic claptrap, but it's at least logically possible.

The same thing applies to crack and heroin, and I think legalization of them would probably entail an increased amount of possession and abuse.

Then why hasn't that happened in countries with legal narcotics programs? Are we Americans somehow special and prone to going crazy when officially allowed to do things?
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electricalaudio dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
User avatar
steve
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9163
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby NerblyBear on Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:44 pm

steve wrote:Do you believe that criminals go to licensed merchants to buy their guns? If so, then I guess you've solved the problem once and for all then. Except that they don't.


Okay, you've got me there, but what about strengthened possession laws? Might that make a difference? At least a small one?


Then why hasn't that happened in countries with legal narcotics programs? Are we Americans somehow special and prone to going crazy when officially allowed to do things?


Honestly, Steve, I don't know what would happen. I guess my only reason for supporting drug laws is an irrational one--I've seen friends lose every good thing in their lives to drugs, and I fully admit that I'm scared about what would happen if they were fully legalized. (Imagine for a moment that such a thing had a snowball's chance in Hell of actually occurring.) So, I'm not going to argue for drug laws. But I will admit that I'm frightened of the power that these hard drugs have over people, and I'm not chomping at the bit to legalize them.

Pot? Hell, yeah. Legalize that today.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby steve on Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:54 pm

NerblyBear wrote:Okay, you've got me there, but what about strengthened possession laws? Might that make a difference? At least a small one?

A criminal buys an illegal gun to commit crimes with. So we should make it more illegal than it already is for him to posess the gun. Extra-super-double illegal.

Do you think that will make a difference?
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electricalaudio dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
User avatar
steve
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9163
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby vockins on Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:00 pm

steve wrote:The problem isn't that guns are unsafe


No, that's the problem. Guns are unsafe. By design. That's the whole idea of the gun. Unsafety to the extreme.
vockins
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:29 pm
Location: New York

Postby NerblyBear on Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:03 pm

steve wrote:A criminal buys an illegal gun to commit crimes with. So we should make it more illegal than it already is for him to posess the gun. Extra-super-double illegal.

Do you think that will make a difference?


No, but keep in mind that you're in favor of completely eradicating any laws against criminals' possession of guns. And that will make a difference.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby DregsInTheCrowd on Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:36 pm

vockins wrote:
steve wrote:The problem isn't that guns are unsafe


No, that's the problem. Guns are unsafe. By design. That's the whole idea of the gun. Unsafety to the extreme.


Unsafety to the extreme? How about this: I have a pretty average kitchen. In the wrong hands (or the middle ages) it would be a treacherous dungeon. I have a car. In the wrong hands, it is a top notch people/squirrel flattener. I have a garage full of motor oil, propane, cleaning products, styrofoam, and a rake. In the wrong hands, it is a bomb/rake-attack factory.

Guns are no different. And assholes who want to commit crimes will find ways to get them, regardless of what the law states.
User avatar
DregsInTheCrowd
saw big cat
saw big cat
 
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:14 am
Location: Chicago

Postby steve on Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:07 am

vockins wrote:
steve wrote:The problem isn't that guns are unsafe


No, that's the problem. Guns are unsafe. By design. That's the whole idea of the gun. Unsafety to the extreme.

By that I mean that no gun is more unsafe than another, and inspecting them won't keep the unsafe ones off the streets. Any gun is pretty much as good as any other for gunsmanship. And gunning.
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electricalaudio dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
User avatar
steve
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9163
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby NerblyBear on Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:16 am

steve wrote: Any gun is pretty much as good as any other for gunsmanship. And gunning.


What about water guns? Their only danger: that a wet t-shirt will reveal nips. And that's the sort of danger I'm willing to risk.

Image
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 13 guests