…is a horrible steak from an evil moo cow which will kill all the plants from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on a populist, anti-Establishment government takeover in Italy.
THE AUTHOR
PAGES
Recent Comments
- drowningpuppies on Rolling Stone: The Polls Are Totally Wrong On The Importance Of Hotcoldwetdry Or Something: ““The great and powerful @elonmusk. If it wasn’t for him we’d be f—ked. He makes what I think is the…” Nov 4, 22:40
- sd on Rolling Stone: The Polls Are Totally Wrong On The Importance Of Hotcoldwetdry Or Something: “Two for today: Nikki Haley endorses Donald Trump in WSJ Editorial: https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2024/11/nikki-haley-endorses-donald-trump-in.html Joe Rogan Experience #2223 – Elon Musk -…” Nov 4, 21:31
- drowningpuppies on If All You See…: “HUGE! “HUGE election integrity victory in Georgia. Democrat-run Cobb County wanted to accept 3,000 absentee ballots AFTER the Election Day…” Nov 4, 21:18
- david7134 on Rolling Stone: The Polls Are Totally Wrong On The Importance Of Hotcoldwetdry Or Something: “There are a couple million cows. But during the 1800s there were 60 million buffalo. No issue with methane doing…” Nov 4, 19:14
- drowningpuppies on Rolling Stone: The Polls Are Totally Wrong On The Importance Of Hotcoldwetdry Or Something: “Okay, So?” Nov 4, 19:01
You are free to not bake cakes for fags if you don’t want to bake cakes for fags.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html
I’m very concerned about hot grease splattering on the cook!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3647dc7ca9a94b07c0d7434e46ac79830f5540f07b1bdc20680bba3e57d609fa.png
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/here-it-is-complete-list-of-president-trumps-historic-accomplishments-after-first-500-days-in-office/
Citing the odious jimhoft at the Gateway Pudendum is a mental disease.
His first historic accomplishment according to the odious jimhoft is a modest increase in the stock market. The DOW average nearly TRIPLED during President Obama’s tenure. TRIPLED! At that time Con Men said the stock market was not reflective of the economy. Now they say it is. But that kind of hypocrisy is diagnostic for the Con mind.
He will be the first US President to be imprisoned.
The results speak for themselves.
•The stock market is currently up more than 33% (or a third) since President Trump won the election.
•Today there are more people working than at any time in US history.
•The GDP growth rate is expected to be 4.8% in the 2nd Quarter this year
•At the end of the 1st Quarter 2018 the national GDP reached nearly $20 trillion for the highest recorded GDP in US history.
• Millions of Americans have received bonuses due to the tax cuts and major companies have announced plans to move capital and operations to the US due to these cuts.
•Overall consumer confidence is at a 17 year high
•Etc., etc., etc., ….
Yep, President Trump’s first 500 days were not a big deal according to the nignorant angry little black fella.
So how does losing feel?
Having never lost, we don’t know. As a chronic loser, perhaps you can tell us. Did Wal-Mart give you a $100 bonus?
And we had more people working than before in Dec 2016. The unemployment rate continues to drop to levels not seen since the Clinton era. So? The economy has expanded steadily since the Great Recession, and tRump hasn’t fouled it up. Yet.
You really believe we had $20 trillion GDP in one quarter of 2018? That displays your ignorance.
Consumer confidence IS high! Yay.
And does the Right now trust the employment and GDP numbers? According to tRump, they were scam numbers under President Obama. And what happened to the Right-wing mantra about the “Real Unemployment Rate” under President Obama?
All the Right has is hypocrisy, hatred, ignorance and projection. That’s a lot to have, but none of it good.
#LockHimUp!
So nignorant cannot refute the facts.
As far as losing goes, tell it to The Heifer.
You’re incredibly stupid.
Heaven forbid gun manufacturers be held to safety standards. Maybe that FBI agent wouldn’t have shot that bystander in the leg if his gun was safer. He was just picking up his pistol and it fired.
Anyway, in California, the number of deaths from firearms per capita (8/100K) is lower than the national average (11/100K) and far lower than almost every red state. Alaska (21/100K) has nearly 3 times the number of deaths per capita from firearms as does California. LA, AL, MS, WY, MN over twice as many.
Are all those people being killed in red states bad guys being shot by good guys with guns?
There are about 800 accidental gun deaths a year in the US, 100 or so are kids.
If tRump is forced out will his white nationalist base riot?
They are held to safety standards, Jeffery. What makes you think that they are not?
Or maybe if he had followed proper safety protocols the gun wouldn’t have fired.
And car accidents kill how many?
We get it, Jeffery.
You claimed that liberals weren’t after guns and now that people who believe in the 2nd Amendment have been shown to be right and in fact liberals are after all guns, you don’t even have the common decency to say, “I was wrong.”
Why? Because all left has is hate.
Your contention that any change to the current firearm laws/policies is unconstitutional is radical and not supported by our Supreme Court.
People don’t always follow proper safety protocols, do they?
Firearms and autos are responsible for about equal numbers of deaths in the US each year. Of course cars have important economic functions besides killing people, and we have greatly improved their safety over the decades, greatly reducing not only the absolute number of deaths from auto accidents but the especially the deaths per miles driven. Cars are much more valuable to society than guns and are rarely used in homicides or suicides. Over 30,000 Americans die each year from firearms. You and the NRA insist there are millions of times that personal firearms are used to stop crimes, but the “statistics” are suspect. The US crime rate, even with our hundreds of millions of firearms, is higher than most other advanced nations. Shouldn’t more guns mean fewer crimes? Do we not have enough guns? Is that why our crime rates are so high?
Granted, accidental firearm-related deaths have decreased since the marketing of Viagra. Maybe it’s just a coincidence.
All the Right has is hatred, projection, ignorance and dishonesty.
Another incredibly nignorant post/rant.
You really are stupid.
So stupid you’re almost entertaining.
As dumb as I am, I still run rings around your lameness every day.
You’re such a loser.
All the Right has is hatred, projection, ignorance and dishonesty. But rarely in one puppy!
The only thing conveyed correctly in your silly little nignorant response.
I can’t see where I said what you claim I am saying. Is this more delusional talk, lies and hypocrisy from you?
Once again, despite claiming previously that the left would never come after guns, they are and you don’t even have the moral fortitude to say “I was wrong.” An adult would do that in “decent America,” you know.
That’s right. And when they don’t, we don’t blame the object, we blame the person – except when it comes to firearms.
The drug industry – the very industry you are a part of – accounts for twice the number of deaths than handguns. So why aren’t you out demanding that companies such as yours be accountable and held responsible for those deaths?
The government disagrees with you, Jeffery.
But let’s assume that there are not “millions” of cases where guns have prevented a crime. We know that is it far above the rate that people are killed with guns.
Given that is the case, wouldn’t removing guns result in more crime?
You said that your daughter in law has a shotgun that she uses for in house protection. Have you demanded that she give up her weapon? After all, under your (lack of) logic, she has nothing to fear from anyone and should just give up the weapon.
Get back to us when you have demanded from her the things that you demand from others.
Are you really trying to say that guns are responsible for crime? If that were the case, then countries that have banned guns would have no crime. Is that true? Do those countries have a zero percent crime rate, Jeffery? Or is this just another case where you want to throw out an illogical thought and hope that it sticks?
One must wonder whether the teachings of the left that emphasize that if you don’t have something, it not because of your failings but someone else so go and take it contributes to this. Or the teaching that the government will protect you from all harm, irrespective of your own actions. Of if you have a perceived wrong done against you, that you should commit violence against others? Or that you aren’t responsible for your own actions?
The left won’t take responsibility for the logical conclusions of their beliefs because they would rather hate others than be adults and live in a “decent America.”
All the left has is hate, Jeffery.
Your obvious mistake is dishonestly saying I’m demanding that people give up their guns.
Do you agree that there may be some people who should have restricted access to guns?
Do you agree that there may be restrictions placed on guns that would limit their accidental discharge or that would assure they are only fired by their rightful owner?
Do you agree that thorough, universal background checks for all gun transfers could be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who shouldn’t have them?
Are there any proposed restrictions that do not violate our constitution, in your opinion?
Your (lack of) logic concerning crime rates is disturbing. SHOULDN’T OUR crime rate be the lowest since we have more guns per resident than any other nation? In fact, our violent crime rate is higher than almost every other advanced nation that has more restrictive gun laws. When will more guns cause fewer crimes?
Banning all guns is not an option in the US. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delirious. Aren’t you familiar with the US Supreme Court rulings?
I trust my daughter in law’s judgement. She’s also a more effective deer hunter than I, and mentions that fact often.
Why aren’t you insisting that everyone you know keep a gun handy for protection? Isn’t it hypocritical not to?
All you have is hate and projection, gitarcarver.
With conservatives, it’s ALWAYS projection.
Because you support every action that demands that people give up their weapons – except, of course, for those that would affect your personally.
There are already designs that limit accidental discharge. As for “other than their rightful owner,” that is up to the owner. If you wanted to shoot the weapon that your DIL owns, should you be able to do that?
As you have stated before, this is not about the gun, but the liability that people like you want to place on a gun for working exactly the way it was designed. Such a thing is a back door into the long range plans to eliminate guns altogether, which is the hateful left’s ultimate goal.
No. And there is no statistics to back up that there is. Even so, as the government doesn’t seem interested in enforcing the laws on the books now. (see: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/4/banned-gun-buyers-beat-background-checks-are-rarel/)
The vast number of people who own guns illegally steal them. So they aren’t going through a background check.
Wouldn’t you agree that instead of making new laws that affect lawful owners, that we should enforce the laws that are on the books now that address actions of criminals?
Too broad of a question. That’s the same thing as asking “are any laws that limit the First Amendment unConstitutional?”
But yes, laws that require things such as registration would be unConstitutional.
In your opinion, are all laws on gun issues Constitutional?
I take that to mean that you cannot deal with the point, so you just deflect. Once again, if guns limits crimes and crime victims, (and there are NO statistics that say otherwise) removing guns from law abiding citizens will only make crime rates rise.
As for “violent crimes,” once again, thank the teaching of the left that I discussed earlier.
You want more blood because as I said, the left won’t take responsibility for the logical consequences of what they believe. You hate so much that you are willing to have more blood on your hands.
Yes – more familiar than you are as you frequently demonstrate. While it may appear to “not be an option,” that hasn’t stopped people like yourself from trying.
To demonstrate the hypocrisy you and the hateful left exhibit, one of the cases you have cited here is the 1939 case of United States v. Miller in which the Court said this in regards to banning sawed off shotguns:
Of course, in WWI sawed off shotguns were used by military units for “trench clearing” and many of those units were, in fact, called up Guard units. The opinion itself seems to be on shaky grounds of ignorance.
Yet even giving that Miller is correct, you and your hate filled, gun grabbing friends say there is no reason for anyone to have a military style weapon.
On one hand you cite Miller to say that laws can restrict weapons, and then in the same breath say the very thought process cited in Miller is wrong, should not be used and we should turn in any weapon that is not for hunting.
The hypocrisy from you and the left is astounding.
So, yeah, I am more familiar with the rulings – much more than you are – and it is easy for any intellectually honest person to see the hypocrisy and lack of logic in your writings and thoughts on this issue.
Yet you want her disarmed. Or you should because you have stated that people should not have weapons. You want her to have the same type of weapon that you would deny others. The hypocrisy is astounding.
This may be the dumbest thing you have ever said, and that is saying a great deal. I am not for people to be forced to exercise their rights.
You even make the point above when you talk about your DIL. You “trust her,” but yet you don’t seem to trust anyone else because you simply hate everyone else.
If people want to legally exercise a right, that is fine with me. The difference is that you and people of the hateful left are saying that people cannot legally exercise a right.
Now go back in your hole and create drugs that kill 3 times more people than firearms. Get back to us when you live by your own arguments in instances where you don’t make money. You haven’t been able to do that before and I am betting you won’t do it now.
You and the left hate freedom, Jeffery. That’s because all the left has is hate.
We understand your strategy of going down rabbit holes rather than addressing issues.
Answer this, please.
Do you think the laws restricting (but not banning) fully automatic weapons violate our Constitution? The laws are so onerous to make it nearly impossible for a common citizen to buy and possess a machine gun to defend his family and property. We’re attempting to get an idea of the limits of your gun extremism.
Again, autos, trucks and medicines are not intended to kill people. They are valuable to societies. And you ALWAYS overgeneralize, ascribing motives to an entire group, rather than being specific. The medicines my company are developing have killed no one, and are intended to save lives. You’re welcome. Another medicine I invented has been on the market for 8 years and has killed no one, and has helped millions worldwide. What have you done.
You have become as hateful as dp and dave, we suspect because either 1) you see that your god-king tRump will not survive or 2) your god-king tRump has normalized hatred amongst his lemmings and you finally feel comfortable letting your hate shine.
All the Right has is ignorance, dishonesty, hatred and projection.
Again. You missed the point. And you lied repeatedly.
All you have is hatred, dishonesty and projection.
Hatred is the keystone of conservatism, so we’re hardly surprised.
Yet nignorant can’t refute any of gitarcarver’s salient points.
So how does losing feel, little fella?
Losing little puppy,
Select the most salient point that needs refuting, please.
Yeah, didn’t think so.
All Con Men have is their hatred, projection, dishonesty and ignorance.
Do you know what refute means?
Do you know what any means?
Do you know what salient means?
Do you know what point means?
Yeah, didn’t think so, nignorant.
You are one incredibly stupid little black fella.
drownedpup,
Yeah, just as we thought. You got nothing but your bignorant hatred. Anyway pick a salient point and let’s discuss.
Hey, did you notice the SD GOPher who accidentally told a Con Man truth?
He thinks businesspeople should be able to pick and choose their customers based on race. What say you? Should businesses be able to turn away customers based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/south-dakota-lawmaker-let-businesses-turn-away-people-of-color-later-apologizes/ar-AAyhmlJ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp
“Report of the Special Rapporteur On Extreme Poverty And Civil Rights On His Mission to the United States of America.” U.N. Document #G1812530
Our policies have been leading to this for decades (at least since 1980). Drumpf is trying to make it worse.
Drumpf is hurting worst, those that voted for him.
So the nignorant angry little black fella (aka House Negro) does a copy and paste job from a commenter at the field negro.
Ahem.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/black-unemployment-rate-lowest-17-years