16 comments:

Rich said...

The problem is not the gun, but the person that uses it. A moron will find a way to commit murder and crime without the use of a gun. How do use suppose a single mother of an infant defend herself from a large ogre like you? Maybe she can squirt milk in an assailant's eyes.

April 6, 2012 at 10:54 AM  

Regs said...

I know it is out of style these days, but have you ever thought about, just maybe, GETTING MARRIED BEFORE YOU HAVE A BABY? Hopefully we are not at a juncture in our existence where we cater to people, who, in most cases, make poor choices in life.

I personally know 2 people whos children found a parents' gun (Both locked up), found the key to the lock and were playing guns and accidentally shot and killed themselves (both ruled accidental). I have also read about these events happening many times.

April 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM  

Rich said...

Tragic story, but it was an accident. Kids are always doing stupid shit. Kids that smart and adventurous are the same kids that will sneak out with dad's car in the middle of the night and get drunk. Darwin at work. Once again, the person not the tool.

April 6, 2012 at 4:11 PM  

Rich said...

By the way, what if the lady with infant is a widow? Is it ok for her to keep her baby now that she isn't married?

April 6, 2012 at 4:15 PM  

Regs said...

There are plenty of ways to defend yourself besides shooting someone. For one, get a good home alarm system. Most of them automatically call the police. It is not that expensive. Make sure you have strong windows and doors with good locks. If that doesn't work, keep a baseball bat near you, just in case.

Yes of course a widowed you can keep your baby, but that is definitely the exception to the rule. If you took a poll of all women who were young single moms, I would bet that well over 99% would not be widowed.

I'm not letting dads off the hook either. They have equal responsibility for their kids, except it is much easier for those cowards to walk away.

April 8, 2012 at 8:54 AM  

Koko said...

- I agree with your take on the Saints. And I don't care how many former players come out of the woodwork and talk about how this happens in all locker rooms. If it happens in one, it's too many. And to all the other teams who have been getting away with it, they should consider themselves lucky they were not the first to get caught.

-On the NCAA, I'm stunned by how many people are so misinformed on the topic, even radio hosts with their own shows do not even know that the "one and done" is not an NCAA rule. It's not even a rule at all. The NBA simply has a 19-year-old minimum for acceptance into the draft. They don't have to go to college, they can go overseas, the D-League, just sit out. It's their choice. Before this requirement, these kids would bypass college altogether.

Kentucky is doing absolutely NOTHING wrong. They and every other school are simply trying to recruit the best players possible. If they already have it in their head that they are leaving after one year, how is that a university's fault? The only thing you can do is to start having kids sign 2-year college contracts so they stay. But of course if you make them sign a contract to stay, they are going to want other compensation.

-Your hyperbole on Obama is getting weaker and weaker. And you continue to be the guys who wrecked the house and blame everyone else for the mess.

Now you're actually attacking him for campaigning. Something that I'm sure you would defend if it were a Republican president. And of course you take everything out of context and make it sound like Obama is just putting aside everything until after the election. What he obviously meant was that he'll be able to have a heavier hand and push through his policies when the election is done, a la your buddy, Bush Jr. aka The Worst President in the History of the United States.

Gas has zero do with who's in office. The companies are now too powerful after being unregulated for so many years. And you don't like regulations now do you? That would go against your Captain Capitalism persona. Just keep on voting in the people who vote against every alternative energy policy the Democrates think of, that'll show em.

-No you're not conservative Regs, I'm sorry to throw cold water on your identity, but the truth, and I know how you hate that word, is that you are an extremist.

That doesn't mean you go around with a dynamite vest threatening to blow up the Winn Dixie because they are out of Four Loco. You can be an extremist without being a terrorist.

Saying that everyone should have a gun or that no one should have a gun is not liberal or conservative. It's an extreme point of view because it lies on the end of one side of the spectrum. Pure Capitalism is another extreme point of view, along with thinking 99% of single mothers are in that position due to their own choices.

April 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM  

Koko said...

-I am a gun owner myself. And yes there needs to be much tougher gun control in this country, especially this state. We are not the norm at all. Florida is ridiculous, it's the wild, wild, west here. I don't even need a single piece of paper documenting my gun. All I need is a license if I want to carry it concealed. That's insane. And the law we have where you can just shoot someone if you feel threatened is even more insane. How do you prove for or against that in court?

Zimmerman is a prime example of why we need better gun laws. Many gun nuts will quote the 2nd Amendment and say that gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Well maybe if someone looked into Zimmerman's background, they'd see that perhaps he shouldn't be carrying around a concealed weapon.

And yes, people do not even understand the 2nd Amendment in the first place. However, you're wrong as to why the four fathers created it, it was not to prevent an uprising, it was to enable one in case the government turned into another aristocracy.

But now that notion is completely outdated. Unless the public is allowed to keep tanks and nuclear weapons in their backyard, there's no way the American public can take out the government with the weapons available to them. And no I don't condone that we be allowed to have tanks and nukes. It's called an AMENDMENT for a reason. It's NOT a commandment. Change it and couple of other ones to bring them into relevancy for our day and time.

April 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM  

Regs said...

Wait!!! Winn Dixie is out of Four Lokos? Where's my gun?

April 9, 2012 at 1:41 PM  

Regs said...

For the record, I don't believe in Pure Capitalism. I think many of our institutions (police, fire, IRS, ect.) need to be run and regulated by the government. Free enterprise in these areas would cause mass chaos.

Also, do you honestly believe that if you took a poll of all under 30 single parents, that over 1 % would be married and widowed? I would be willing to bet that the ratio would be close to 500 to 1, in the number of unmarried single mothers to widowed single mothers in that age range 16-30.

Listen, I have nothing against single moms. In fact, my wife was a single mom before she met me after her husband abandoned her with 2 babies and no money. My point was that we should not make laws based on this demographic alone.

Finally, if Obama had good ideas, the house would listen, but it works both ways. I don't see Obama signing a whole lot that has come from the Republican House either.

April 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM  

Koko said...

You should add health care into the group with fire, police, IRS, etc. because not only is our system the epitome of capitalism at its worst, but the ethical considerations are off the scale. A health care industry run with profit at the forefront of the model is beyond disgraceful.

And why is widowed your only options. You have extreme tunnel vision here. A single mother can end up being so by a multitude of factors that are not egregious. Examples: Dead beat dad, divorce, faulty birth control, adoption, etc.

And even if a woman chooses to become a single mother on her own accord, who are you to tell her she shouldn't? Who is anyone to tell anyone else they cannot have a family? And no, you don't get a say into what type of family they can have either.

And no one is making gun laws based on single moms, but yes that is a group that if they feel the need to protect their home with a firearm, they absolutely have the right to. I just believe there should be stricter rules and regulations on educating gun users and licensing them. I didn't even have to take a class on how to use it. I'm just lucky Alexa's mom is a cop.

And finally no, there's an obvious agenda. The Republican will vote on zero bills proposed by Obama, because the ONLY thing they've cared about for the last 2 years is this upcoming election. They've proved time and time again, the well being of the American public comes second to getting a win.

As for good ideas from the Republicans . . . please list some for me.

April 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM  

Regs said...

That's good that you brought up health care, because it was a hot topic on my last business convention.

I'm going to keep it real simple, so everyone can understand. Ready?

When Hospitals make money, they expand; they invest in technology; they open new wings; they build new floors; they buy new equipment. All of which creates "real" jobs.

When Hospitals lose money, you start to hear phrases like "clinically acceptable" and "capital budget freeze" used a lot. Not ideal, but acceptable. The question becomes "can we get away with this old, outdated piece of equipment for a while longer", rather than investing in safer, more advanced equipment?

There are so many awesome innovations in the medical field that make surgeries so much more precise, imaging so much easier. Basically eliminating the human error aspects of medicine. But Hospitals simply can't afford them today.

So, based upon this truth, you would think that if "Obamacare" was a positive that Hospitals would support it, right? The fact that every single Hospital administrator, cfo, ceo,cno that I have spoken to in the last 2 years opposes it speaks volumes. These are highly intelligent people who get paid to run every aspect of a Hospital.

April 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM  

Koko said...

Thank you for keeping things so simple.

Unfortunately that's your party's whole problem. They only understand simple and the world is complicated.

Regs, why are we the only First World country that still has this system?

You want simple, ok here it is . . . GRRREEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!

The whole industry needs to be standardized. Someone living in KillJew, Mississippi should have the same exact level of medical treatment as someone living in New York. Hospitals should not be independent businesses where you may die at one or live at another simply because of the type of equipment they have. Of course there should always be specialty hospitals and everyone should have access to those as well no matter where they live.

This is life and death, money has no place here. Healthcare is exactly the type of thing a government is made to provide. Something that is a necessity for all people. A customer driven health care industry is something out of the dark ages. I'm not going in to buy a new big screen TV. This is our lives we're talking about.

We're supposedly the greatest nation in the world, but we'd rather make more money than ensure everyone in the country has access to proper health care.

Please sell the whole "create jobs" riff to someone along with a brand new complete edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica, because thats' the only person stupid enough to believe it.

In our system, coin is king. People actually die in this country every day just because they do not make enough money for proper health care. That's indefensible.

We absolutely must have the public option in this country. I thought that's what we were all about, choices, right? You like competition to bring down prices, right? Is that not healthy for the consumer? Well then you can't be against citizens simply having the choice to go with the public option.

No one is saying shut down all the crooked insurance companies. I'm sure they'll still do just fine. But perhaps their ability to fleece people will be weakened.

Hospitals care more about their bottom line than they do helping people. And it's not their fault, they are just playing in the system we have and to survive they have to make money.

That's a completely unethical and archaic system.

April 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM  

Regs said...

I was just at a seminar 2 weeks ago where a Hospital watchdog group, AHA, presented the results of a poll in which the most important thing to Hospitals is, without doubt, "reputation in the community". Having the best doctors. Having the most advanced, updated equipment. Having the shortest ER times. These all play into community reputation. Without that, a Hospital is sunk in today's competitive environment.

Oh, and another point, we already do have Nationalized Public Healthcare. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. Who both happen to be amongst the most corrupt and wasteful government agencies out there. Pretty much every day, people talk about a new case of medicaid/medicare fraud. What do you think would happen if everyone was on a system like this? Tinkerbell would spread magic pixie dust on it and make it all go away?

One last thing. You talk about choice. How exactly is mandating that everyone has to buy health care insurance a choice?

April 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM  

Koko said...

Sometimes I feel like I'm just repeatedly bashing my head into a wall in these arguments.

I make a point, and then you prove that very point by adding a figurative, "so there" to the end of it.

Competitive Environment is the core of the problem Regs. That's exactly what healthcare should not be. At least when money is concerned. The only competition going on should be who can cure what disease fastest. Not who has the nicest hospital. That should just be standard. Every city should have at least one standardized hospital with all of the latest and up to date equipment. I know, sounds crazy. Let's just throw another billion towards building a stealth fighter that sits in a hanger until it's obsolete.

And aren't you they guy who's always talking about not catering to the minority? Well then why do you care about the people who would be mandated into the healthcare program?

Seems you're only interested when it serves your argument. The mandate would not affect you, because you would not be someone that would go through life without health insurance.

The option we need is for people to be able to access health insurance that is not susceptible to the whims of a company just looking to make a profit. An option that will take anyone regardless of their condition.

Not having health insurance should NOT be an option. You know why? Because everyone uses it, that's why. How can the Republicans actually be against a program that cuts down on welfare, that cuts down on handouts, that cuts down on people who drain society?

I'll tell you how . . . because the idea came from a guy who's name rhymes with Sarack Jomama.

I can't call the IRS and tell them I've decided that I no longer want to pay taxes for roads or schools, or bridges, or any other endeavor because I do not live in my own little country. People who do not pay into the health care system will end up using it anyway. Why shouldn't they be required to pay into a system that they will definitely use.

It's ridiculous, just because this is Obama's plan, you guys act like a bunch of righteous Constitution defenders. Meanwhile, we are forced to pay for things like taxes and car insurance every year. Where's your outrage on those issues?

April 10, 2012 at 3:05 PM  

Regs said...

There will always be competition. Competition drives advances in medicine, so doctors and hospitals are not stuck in a status quo situation. Florida Hospital and ORMC are 5 minutes away from each other. Which one do we close? Who decides which procedures are done at which Hospital?

Your biggest flaw with all of your arguements is your faith that the government knows what the fuck they are doing and they somehow know better than people who have spent 30 years in the industry.

Who are they going to get to make the federal decisions for the Hospitals? The 1 sap who actually thinks this is a good idea in the Hospital community? You haven't dealt with the ridiculous amount of waste and red tape involved with the VA Hospitals like I have. And that is just the VAs. I couldn't even imagine how bad it would be if all Hospitals functioned this way

April 11, 2012 at 1:50 PM  

Koko said...

I already said that Regs, if you want to just repeat my points and make them your own then be my guest.

The competition should be in the advances of medicine without the worry of raising funds or which drug company will be the highest bidder. There's no defending the ethics of that. If you don't understand it, then I'm sorry but you are lost as human being.

And if you really want to go the route of I have too much faith in government, then what is it that you have faith in? Private conglomerates? Have you ever seen Robocop, Aliens, Terminator, Resident Evil, etc. Or if you want to go all real world . . . BP, Haliburton, Enron, etc.

It's the lesser of 2 evils Regs, at the very least, we get a say in who our politicians are. Corporations have no place in monopolizing industries that are necessities to life. There should at least be a public funded option to keep them somewhat honest.

You keep trying to funnel my point down to government vs private sector. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying keep your private companies, keep every crooked one of them along with the ones who are actually tyring to run ethically. And add in the OPTION of one that is publicly funded to create a fairer market for industries that are necessities to a person's well being.

April 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM  

Post a Comment