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 connor on Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:18 pm

clocker bob wrote:A laissez faire trickle down Christian.

So good...
deep.BTUz wrote:I'm into girls, physical fitness and real estate.

Ya'know actual accomplishments.
User avatar
connor
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:31 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Postby kenoki on Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:40 pm

matthew wrote:I think some of you folks are missing the point here. I am certainly not saying that employers ought not to compensate people for work in some instances what with setting the minimum wage at $0.00. After all, no one in their right mind would take a job which offered a wage or salary of nil. I'm merely saying that the market ought to decide how much or how little labor costs, because that is...once again...simply how the world works. The price of anything is ultimately determined by supply and demand (or at least the perception thereof), and labor is no exception. Ask anyone who owns a business.


matthew, you should know human beings better than that, and yes, as the compassionate, empathetic individual that god made you, you should also realize that should we toss the minimum wage, there will literally be people forced to work for server's wages, without the tips, because the "market" (i.e. some butthole in butthole nowhere, missouri) is a dipshit with no business sense who's only idea for cutting cost is cutting labor. there are going to be people, people who have maybe seen hard times and have some past to work through, that won't be able to get but one job, and that employer will take advantage of it. sure, supply and demand... but when you get human beings involved as the commodity, you have to set limits so that these human beings walk in with worth just for being a human being. and not even much worth, 6 f'n 50 an hour. is that enough? well it's better than nothing.

you want the minimum wage set at 0.00? that's called volunteer work, matthew.
User avatar
kenoki
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: florida

Postby kenoki on Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:51 pm

also, the lowest hourly wage is always going to corrolate with the highest hourly wage (aren't you catholic? you don't buy into natural law)? meaning, you have a 2 dollar and hour dishwasher, you're going to have 6 dollar an hour cooks.
User avatar
kenoki
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: florida

Postby steve on Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:56 pm

matthew wrote:I think some of you folks are missing the point here. I am certainly not saying that employers ought not to compensate people for work in some instances what with setting the minimum wage at $0.00. After all, no one in their right mind would take a job which offered a wage or salary of nil. I'm merely saying that the market ought to decide how much or how little labor costs, because that is...once again...simply how the world works. The price of anything is ultimately determined by supply and demand (or at least the perception thereof), and labor is no exception. Ask anyone who owns a business.

I own a business. You are full of shit.

To pretend that unskilled labor is a market, and that workers can negotiate a fair wage is to ignore the difference between a powerful employer and a pool of potential workers who need jobs and have no resources of their own. In the words of someone famous, "How does a cleaning woman effectively negotiate with General Motors?"

A minimum wage puts a bottom rung on how low an employer may sink in the exploitation of people (real people already born, so they may not matter much to you, Matthew). The employer is not interested in paying a fair wage, he is only interested in paying the absolute minimum he can without going to jail. This is not negotiation and does not resemble a market.
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: 9202
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby clocker bob on Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:34 pm

matthew wrote: The price of anything is ultimately determined by supply and demand (or at least the perception thereof), and labor is no exception. Ask anyone who owns a business.


Why don't you ask some of America's agri-giants, who benefit from price supports that were intended for family farmers? Bought any Cuban sugar lately? Miss how good Coca Cola used to taste before it was sweetened by high fructose corn syrup?

The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30


Price supports for human beings?? That's communism!
clocker bob
 

Postby lemur68 on Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:46 pm

Unsurprisingly, the same clinically certifiable website that gave us Soy makes you a fag also gives us The minimum wage is immoral.
User avatar
lemur68
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 18283
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:52 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Postby clocker bob on Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:51 pm



That rules. What prompts them to ring the alarm about tyranny? The minimum wage increase.
WND wrote:Maybe you don't think America is in any danger of becoming a tyranny. Perhaps you believe we are truly a free society.


Yeah, man. And seat belt laws! TYRANNY!
clocker bob
 

Postby steve on Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:36 pm

rzs wrote:I'm sure that guy wouldn't have murdered someone in front of Wrigley Field a couple of years ago in a traffic dispute if he hadn't been traveling with a gun.

You realize he was already breaking the law by having that gun with him, right? So in addition to the law against killing someone, he was already breaking the law about carrying a weapon, and whatever traffic laws he broke to start the ball rolling. You think adding another law somewhere up the river would have mattered? Really?

A total ban isn't necessary. Hunting, etc. is fine. But if guns are harder to obtain, maybe every random idiot won't have them and allow themselves the possiblilty to make terrible heat of the moment decisions.

You think terrible, heat-of-the-moment decisions are what cause gun deaths? Not people choosing to arm themselves and shoot at people? Honestly, you think that's the problem? Or you think that's more of a problem than criminals acting like criminals>

If so, I disagree. I think regular people kill each other pretty rarely, and we shouldn't go crazy trying to prevent it because using drastic means to solve small problems inevitably makes bad laws with unintended consequences. Prohibition, Patriot Act, Alien and Sedition Acts, HUAC, etc. as evidence.
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: 9202
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby tmidgett on Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:53 pm

I had a guy fake-shoot me in the head yesterday.

I don't know if he wanted a gun and couldn't get one, and therefore he could not actually shoot me in the head, even though he wanted to do so.

Or if he was just fuckin' with me.

There are very, VERY few people on the planet I wouldn't mind having dead. Rush Limbaugh is one of them.
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8989
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Postby rzs on Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:02 pm

steve wrote:
rzs wrote:I'm sure that guy wouldn't have murdered someone in front of Wrigley Field a couple of years ago in a traffic dispute if he hadn't been traveling with a gun.

You realize he was already breaking the law by having that gun with him, right? So in addition to the law against killing someone, he was already breaking the law about carrying a weapon, and whatever traffic laws he broke to start the ball rolling. You think adding another law somewhere up the river would have mattered? Really?


I think that if it were more difficult to obtain guns, these type of incidents could be reduced. To what extent, I'm not sure, but if they weren't sold at Wal Mart and at everyday sporting goods stores, many people wouldn't jump through hoops to get them. There would be less chance that so and so who gets involved in a bad situation is armed. We're interested in less people being killed right? You know, as long as we're not using the I'm going to kill to make sure less people get killed style flawed logic of the "War on Terror" and the death penalty.
Rotten Tanx wrote: every time I watch Die Hard (6am and 8pm, mon to sat)...
User avatar
rzs
boris becker
boris becker
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: Fairfield, OH

Postby rzs on Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:06 pm

steve wrote:
rzs wrote:

A total ban isn't necessary. Hunting, etc. is fine. But if guns are harder to obtain, maybe every random idiot won't have them and allow themselves the possiblilty to make terrible heat of the moment decisions.


You think terrible, heat-of-the-moment decisions are what cause gun deaths? Not people choosing to arm themselves and shoot at people? Honestly, you think that's the problem? Or you think that's more of a problem than criminals acting like criminals?


It's just one of many problems associated with this debate. One of the problems that we could possibly do something about.
Rotten Tanx wrote: every time I watch Die Hard (6am and 8pm, mon to sat)...
User avatar
rzs
boris becker
boris becker
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: Fairfield, OH

Postby NerblyBear on Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:13 pm

Steve, I'd like you to clarify your position on a few points here.

Are you against laws prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon? Or are you merely against the suggestion that we should toughen these laws? I ask because, if you're only against toughening them up, I can understand where you're coming from. You make a pretty good case that, in the long run, more stringent regulations won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Also, you rightfully fear that the means whereby these increased restrictions are implemented might lead to government spying and other, unrelated, tyrannical laws.

But if you're also against the existence of the present laws, and are in favor of complete free flow of fire-arms (no questions asked), you need to imagine the results of such a situation:

* Everyone will, sensibly, fear that the number of people who are carrying guns around everyday has risen considerably. Whether this fear is justified or not, remember that most people tend to act on their fears just so they'll be on the safe side. As a result, more and more people will start carrying guns (and driving with them in their cars) as a defensive reaction against the general (perceived) upsurge in others' propensity to carry them.

* As a consequence, more violent deaths will occur. Period. It's just common sense to realize that a massive influx (or even a lesser influx caused by the mass fear of a huge influx) of firearms into a society will result in more deaths somehow or other.

Again, if you're only against hubristic strengthenings of the current laws as they're on the books, then I think we can all understand where you're coming from. But if you are not only (a) against background checks, but (b) against any laws regulating the sale and transportation of firearms whatsoever, then you are advocating an increase in violent deaths. Sorry about that.

Bottom line: if, when you said that the only thing that liberals like me get wrong is gun control, then, presumably, you would be (as per the above argument) in favor of the eradication of gun control and, therefore, in favor of an increase in the number of violent deaths. There's no way you can get around that. You sensibly blame the state for killing its own citizens, so join the liberal consensus and admit that a lack of gun control would kill the states' citizens just as effectively.
Last edited by NerblyBear on Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby eephour on Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:30 pm

Fuck Limbaugh for tainting a great thread.
User avatar
eephour
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
 
Posts: 5139
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: Fleetwood

Postby steve on Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:52 pm

NerblyBear wrote:Are you against laws prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon?

I think they have no effect on someone who wants to carry a concealed firearm and commit crimes with it. He is presumably the target of the law, and since it doesn't affect him, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter either to him or me. I guess it allows you to send him to jail for longer when he eventually does commit a crime, so okay, whatever. If punishment is your bag, then put that in it. Me, I don't care.

Or are you merely against the suggestion that we should toughen these laws? I ask because, if you're only against toughening them up, I can understand where you're coming from. You make a pretty good case that, in the long run, more stringent regulations won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Also, you rightfully fear that the means whereby these increased restrictions are implemented might lead to government spying and other, unrelated, tyrannical laws.

That is precisely why I think more restrictive regulation will be bad.

But if you're also against the existence of the present laws, and are in favor of complete free flow of fire-arms (no questions asked), you need to imagine the results of such a situation....As a consequence, more violent deaths will occur. Period.

What do you say to the empirical evidence that shows this to be untrue? The NRA, with whom it pains me to agree, touted several academic studies of urban areas with liberal carry laws and those with strict ones, including those who re-liberalized once-restrictive carry laws. Places that have liberalized carry laws have not seen an increase in shootings. Most have seen them decline. In Montana when I was living there, carrying a sidearm was perfectly legal as long as it wasn't concealed, and nobody got shot.

Bottom line: if, when you said that the only thing that liberals like me get wrong is gun control, then, presumably, you would be (as per the above argument) in favor of the eradication of gun control...

Don't jump to retarded conclusions. Most gun contol laws are of little effect, but they are prosecutorial tools I don't mind, so whatever. They don't keep guns away from criminals, but they don't bother me either.

and, therefore, in favor of an increase in the number of violent deaths.

Go fuck yourself.
There's no way you can get around that.

Except by you having no evidence to come to that conclusion, and me having evidence to the contrary. By that I mean by me being right and you being wrong.
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: 9202
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby Glenn W. Turner on Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:04 pm

NerblyBear wrote:
Everyone will, sensibly, fear that the number of people who are carrying guns around everyday has risen considerably. Whether this fear is justified or not, remember that most people tend to act on their fears just so they'll be on the safe side. As a result, more and more people will start carrying guns (and driving with them in their cars) as a defensive reaction against the general (perceived) upsurge in others' propensity to carry them.

* As a consequence, more violent deaths will occur. Period. It's just common sense to realize that a massive influx (or even a lesser influx caused by the mass fear of a huge influx) of firearms into a society will result in more deaths somehow or other.


Here, in the state of Missouri, it is legal to carry a concealed weapon (you have to be licensed by the state.) It is also legal to carry a legally owned weapon, in your car, without a license. To my knowledge, in the 3 or so years since this law passed, no person with a "conceal carry permit" has used the weapon in the commission of a crime. Your claims that "more violent deaths will occur" hasn't been the case here in Missouri. I don't know of anyone (and I know some crazy gun types) who advocate getting rid gun licensing laws.
User avatar
Glenn W. Turner
howard lederer
howard lederer
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:10 am
Location: South St. Louis

Postby kenoki on Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:09 pm

Nerbly, I am curious. Is your stance for severe gun control a product of personal experience with firearms or just something you have decided based on your reading?

I think about what you are suggesting and reflect upon personal experiences involving violent crime. One of an classmate and acquaintance in wisconsin who violetly shot his neighbor 12 times while trying to steal her VCR and the other a friend who was violently shot and killed for reasons we do not know. In both situations the firearm (both pistols) were unregistered. Could stricter gun control laws have prevented these deaths from happening? I doubt it.
User avatar
kenoki
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: florida

Postby El Protoolio on Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:10 pm

rzs wrote:
steve wrote:
rzs wrote:I'm sure that guy wouldn't have murdered someone in front of Wrigley Field a couple of years ago in a traffic dispute if he hadn't been traveling with a gun.

You realize he was already breaking the law by having that gun with him, right? So in addition to the law against killing someone, he was already breaking the law about carrying a weapon, and whatever traffic laws he broke to start the ball rolling. You think adding another law somewhere up the river would have mattered? Really?


I think that if it were more difficult to obtain guns, these type of incidents could be reduced. To what extent, I'm not sure, but if they weren't sold at Wal Mart and at everyday sporting goods stores, many people wouldn't jump through hoops to get them.


Guns are already difficult to obtain legally in Chicago so those laws mean nothing to this particular incident. We cannot purchase and own handguns much less carry them if we live in Chicago and there are no gun shops within the city limits. Yes there are one or two just past the limits but they will not sell you a handgun if you live in Chicago.

We can buy and keep rifles and shotguns but even that requires a FOID card and we cannot carry them around legally. You can't even use a firing range without a FOID card.

So this guy at Wrigley Field did in fact jump through hoops to obtain a handgun regardless of our local laws. Keeping them out of Wal Mart and sporting goods stores did nothing to prevent this incident from happening. As was said the guy was already breaking laws by the time he shot someone.
User avatar
El Protoolio
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9197
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Your Mom

Postby NerblyBear on Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:26 pm

steve wrote:I think they have no effect on someone who wants to carry a concealed firearm and commit crimes with it. He is presumably the target of the law, and since it doesn't affect him, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter either to him or me. I guess it allows you to send him to jail for longer when he eventually does commit a crime, so okay, whatever. If punishment is your bag, then put that in it. Me, I don't care.


The risk of longer sentences wouldn't cause you to hesitate? That's not a desire on my part to punish criminals; it's an attempt to deter them from committing crimes. Doing away with gun laws altogether would take away that deterrent.


What do you say to the empirical evidence that shows this to be untrue? The NRA, with whom it pains me to agree, touted several academic studies of urban areas with liberal carry laws and those with strict ones, including those who re-liberalized once-restrictive carry laws. Places that have liberalized carry laws have not seen an increase in shootings. Most have seen them decline. In Montana when I was living there, carrying a sidearm was perfectly legal as long as it wasn't concealed, and nobody got shot.


Montana's not exactly a hotbed of criminal activity. Your evidence is suggestive, but (a) I'm not inclined to trust the NRA's findings on much of anything, and (b) I'd need to see which areas these liberalizations took place in. If it was only in areas where criminal activity was already very low--and I suspect that this is the case, though I might be wrong--then it doesn't exactly say anything about what would happen on a national scale. Try the same thing in Los Angeles and New York City and then my mind might be changed.

Don't jump to retarded conclusions. Most gun contol laws are of little effect, but they are prosecutorial tools I don't mind, so whatever. They don't keep guns away from criminals, but they don't bother me either.


So we're basically in agreement with each other: the gun laws, as they stand, should stay on the books. You favor them as prosecutorial tools while I tend to think that they serve as a deterrent.

Go fuck yourself.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you personally are in favor of more deaths. I only meant to say that the argument for doing away with gun control logically leads to the conclusion that there will be more deaths. No personal intent to insult was meant.

Except by you having no evidence to come to that conclusion, and me having evidence to the contrary. By that I mean by me being right and you being wrong.


What about this evidence: places like England have enormously restrictive gun laws and they face much less crime than America does.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby NerblyBear on Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:29 pm

kenoki wrote:Nerbly, I am curious. Is your stance for severe gun control a product of personal experience with firearms or just something you have decided based on your reading?

I think about what you are suggesting and reflect upon personal experiences involving violent crime. One of an classmate and acquaintance in wisconsin who violetly shot his neighbor 12 times while trying to steal her VCR and the other a friend who was violently shot and killed for reasons we do not know. In both situations the firearm (both pistols) were unregistered. Could stricter gun control laws have prevented these deaths from happening? I doubt it.


No, I don't have personal experience with gun violence, but my argument just seems logically valid. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, however. I'm not as firm on gun control as I am on almost any other issue.

The gun laws didn't prevent those specific deaths from occurring, but, again, I can always reply: Maybe the lack of any gun laws would have led to even more such incidents.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby eephour on Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:33 pm

just make the bullets more expensive
User avatar
eephour
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
 
Posts: 5139
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: Fleetwood

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 154, skewer, Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests