All Posts (brobison)


(1) 2 3 4 ... 219 »


 
Re: Conference Armageddon: The Official Conference Speculation Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

jameschi wrote:
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
These choices suck...

They should have pulled all the stops to lure UL, FSU and Clemson from the ACC before they signed their GOR...

This is the Big East 2.3...adding teams just to add them.

In all reality, the Big 12 should just give up and split the teams up between the remaining P4 conferences.


I agree, but unfortunately WVU could be one of the teams left out in this scenario. Basically you have three open spots. One in ACC and Two for SEC. ACC has pretty much already rejected WVU multiple times. SEC taking WVU as 16th team is no sure thing either. SEC could easily go with OU and OSU. No way Big 10 or Pac 12 take WVU. Therefore, I'd rather try to make it work in the Big 12.


While that is true and I will say, I personally have no desire to BE in the ACC, the fact is this is a whole different dynamic in the ACC now.

First, at least, our administration said that at no time did we apply and while it is true we weren't invited it seems like there was more to the expansion than was in the control of the ACC...(Hint ESPN's telling the ACC who to take.)

The big no votes that kept us out of the ACC was Duke, UNC and NC State. The fact is that these guys including Clemson and Virginia are not even a majority now. In place are a lot of programs that wouldn't mind WVU being in the league.

I suspect that in the future if the ACC chooses to expand WVU would be the logical choice to go in and have the votes to do so.

I do worry though about WVU getting left out if the Big 12 dissolves. It doesn't have to be that way but then again it doesn't seem like there has been any common sense in any of the conference expansion even given monetary issues.

Posted on: 7/20 6:41 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Days to Kickoff
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

mountie13 wrote:
WVU is 12 point favorites against Mizzou.


What do you think about that?

Here is a Mizzou team in turmoil. New Coach. Sounds like it is a mess there.

Coming into an experienced quarterback. Good offense....Possibly the best center in college football.

I think we will have a sound defense.

12 points isn't even two TDs and extra points. I don't think Mizzou can travel here AND keep up with the offense. I understand the 12 odds I just think we should beat that by about 10.

Posted on: 7/10 10:43 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Push for Buctober
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
If I were Bell I would consider retiring. It is only downhill from here.

But this brings up something that I have talked about for years. Here is a guy that comes up and makes his mark quickly. Now IF he were to take over the first base position next year and were to struggle. I am OK with giving him some time.

In history with the Pirates all I have heard about a player is....you have to play him every day and see what he can do. BS!! A guy should earn his spot on the roster by being a guy that you can't deny. We have had a couple lately. Polanco comes to mine. Josh Harrison REALLY comes to mind. How long did he have to play a bit part while we gave Pedro "more time". Another guy I thought should have been a starter for longer for us was Freddie Sanchez.

Here are some guys from my memory that needed more time to show us:

Jeff King
Brad Eldred
Pedro Alvarez
Brandon Moss
Jason "Meathead" Schmidt

The list goes on.

Posted on: 7/10 10:33 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Push for Buctober
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

mrsmountains wrote:
They played well. I would love a sweep but would be satisfied with 2. Let all those Cubbies play in a game that means nothing and let our guys get a few days rest


I hope the Cubs make it to the World Series this year if the Pirates don't. I want the idiot Cub fans to realize that by voting ALL of their players in against the best of the American League they cost themselves home field advantage.

Idiots!

There is no way that they justify 6 of the 9 positions in the ASG (if Arietta or Lester starts). In order to be that deserving they should have already clinched a playoff spot.

Posted on: 7/9 10:58 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Push for Buctober
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

BAssAceNWVa wrote:
I'm still looking for Liriano to get traded to make room room for Glasnow. Pitching, even the bullpen has been great which no one could say that before. Word is we get Cole back sunday as well which will help.


Liriano has more than wore out his welcome. I heard that a couple of weeks ago during a bull pen throwing session between starts Ray Searage stormed out of the bull pen and off the field because he was so pissed at Liriano.

The Pirates want Liriano to pitch from the same spot on the rubber everytime and he will not do it. I look for him to be gone.

I think it also may show another problem in the Pirate miracle pitcher handling. If Liriano no longer respects the Pirates pitching recommendations that would signal to me that Jim Benedict was the real sage and that at least Frankie doesn't respect the rest of their suggestions.

Posted on: 7/9 10:52 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

eer44fan wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Here is the definition of COMPARE:

to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences:
to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.


Another agenda of the left is to redefine words/terms and pour another meaning in them. If you repeat it often enough, the word/term assumes the new meaning. I believe that is exactly what is going on here - the word/term(s) is (has been) redefined and now it's simply a matter of repeating it long enough until it assumes the new meaning.

Sorry lemms, some of us know and understand the tactics involved.


I don't know where Cliff got that definition, but it is inaccurate. I am using the traditional definitions of comparing and contrasting. He isn't. These definitions are older than we are.

The problem with trying to argue with you neo cons us (1) you won't accept facts as facts and (2) you don't try to educate yourselves before giving an opinion. You think you are entitled to your opinion even when it is absolutely 100% wrong, and provably so.


Dictionary.com

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/compare

Here you go tiger....bitch at them. Pretty ripe assuming you know more than the preeminent dictionary on line.

But I expected no less.

You know. Just food for thought for you....Sometimes things change. Maybe you need to change with them. If you are using a dictionary older than we are.....spring for a newer one. Then you will look less like an ass. LOL

EDIT: By the way you will notice that definition 6 is TO DIFFER in quality. Lot of use of difference in this set of definitions.



How many dictionaries did you go through to find one that supported your argument? I would say Webster's Dictionary is a better one, and the first definition it provides is "to say that (something) is similar to something else."

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Compare

Moreover, Webster's also defines "compare and contrast" to mean "to note what is similar and different about (two or more things)."

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Compare and Contrast

You repeatedly get into arguments with people about the meaning of words by relying on taking the meaning of the word in a different context. The word comparison has different meanings depending on the context. The differences are slight, or subtle, but they are different. Of course people use the word in every day conversation to mean showing differences or likenesses. But, in the context of argument, the word has a more specific meaning. Compare means to show likenesses, and contrast means to show differences. I didn't just make this up, and it isn't an outdated notion. Words have different meanings depending on the context. Again, all anybody needs to do is google "compare and contrast" and they will see what the words mean in the context of formulating an argument, which is exactly the context in which we are using them. I really don't want to continue arguing with you about something that is this obvious. It is like arguing about whether the sky is blue. If you want to remain ignorant about comparing and contrasting, feel free.


Your definition says the same thing as my definition! What a jackass.

I will try to slow this idiocy down for you so that even YOU can understand it.

I stated that you COMPARED two things. You stated you didn't. I have showed where I got the definition of MY word and then you proceed to tell me I am wrong about my word. I show you said definition of MY word. Then you show a dumbass definition that has MY DEFINITION in it.

It takes a reall Ahole to tell people that THEIR word is wrong. I speak the English language quite well. While you may wish you were correct. It is, after all MY STATEMENT so I think I am entitled to MY DEFINITION of the word.

I don't really give a rats ass what the difference between contrast and compare is: compare is BY YOUR HOLY MERRIAM WEBSTER'S definition:

to look at (two or more things) closely in order to see what is similar or different about them or in order to decide which one is better

Expand your horizon's look at a definition that is further down the list than number one.

EDIT: By the way, my definition was the first one. A more complete definition with MANY more entries than your Webster's but I am sure when you were manning the inkwells in your school Webster's was the cat's meow of dictionaries. Hell Merriam Webster probably hand wrote the forward.


I am done. I don't have the time to argue with an outright liar. If the argument means that much to you that you resort to that, you have a problem. By the way, we can all read the definitions as well as the entire thread to see you just keep making **** up.



Hahahahahahaha! I MADE stuff up! What did I make up? Hahahahahahaha! You are a complete idiot!

I merely copied your definition! Hahahahahaha! Did you read it before you posted it?!

So now you are an idiot because somehow you think I lied about something. You will go to any lengths to justify yourself.

Posted on: 7/9 10:47 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

eer44fan wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Here is the definition of COMPARE:

to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences:
to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.


Another agenda of the left is to redefine words/terms and pour another meaning in them. If you repeat it often enough, the word/term assumes the new meaning. I believe that is exactly what is going on here - the word/term(s) is (has been) redefined and now it's simply a matter of repeating it long enough until it assumes the new meaning.

Sorry lemms, some of us know and understand the tactics involved.


I don't know where Cliff got that definition, but it is inaccurate. I am using the traditional definitions of comparing and contrasting. He isn't. These definitions are older than we are.

The problem with trying to argue with you neo cons us (1) you won't accept facts as facts and (2) you don't try to educate yourselves before giving an opinion. You think you are entitled to your opinion even when it is absolutely 100% wrong, and provably so.


Dictionary.com

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/compare

Here you go tiger....bitch at them. Pretty ripe assuming you know more than the preeminent dictionary on line.

But I expected no less.

You know. Just food for thought for you....Sometimes things change. Maybe you need to change with them. If you are using a dictionary older than we are.....spring for a newer one. Then you will look less like an ass. LOL

EDIT: By the way you will notice that definition 6 is TO DIFFER in quality. Lot of use of difference in this set of definitions.



How many dictionaries did you go through to find one that supported your argument? I would say Webster's Dictionary is a better one, and the first definition it provides is "to say that (something) is similar to something else."

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Compare

Moreover, Webster's also defines "compare and contrast" to mean "to note what is similar and different about (two or more things)."

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Compare and Contrast

You repeatedly get into arguments with people about the meaning of words by relying on taking the meaning of the word in a different context. The word comparison has different meanings depending on the context. The differences are slight, or subtle, but they are different. Of course people use the word in every day conversation to mean showing differences or likenesses. But, in the context of argument, the word has a more specific meaning. Compare means to show likenesses, and contrast means to show differences. I didn't just make this up, and it isn't an outdated notion. Words have different meanings depending on the context. Again, all anybody needs to do is google "compare and contrast" and they will see what the words mean in the context of formulating an argument, which is exactly the context in which we are using them. I really don't want to continue arguing with you about something that is this obvious. It is like arguing about whether the sky is blue. If you want to remain ignorant about comparing and contrasting, feel free.


Your definition says the same thing as my definition! What a jackass.

I will try to slow this idiocy down for you so that even YOU can understand it.

I stated that you COMPARED two things. You stated you didn't. I have showed where I got the definition of MY word and then you proceed to tell me I am wrong about my word. I show you said definition of MY word. Then you show a dumbass definition that has MY DEFINITION in it.

It takes a reall Ahole to tell people that THEIR word is wrong. I speak the English language quite well. While you may wish you were correct. It is, after all MY STATEMENT so I think I am entitled to MY DEFINITION of the word.

I don't really give a rats ass what the difference between contrast and compare is: compare is BY YOUR HOLY MERRIAM WEBSTER'S definition:

to look at (two or more things) closely in order to see what is similar or different about them or in order to decide which one is better

Expand your horizon's look at a definition that is further down the list than number one.

EDIT: By the way, my definition was the first one. A more complete definition with MANY more entries than your Webster's but I am sure when you were manning the inkwells in your school Webster's was the cat's meow of dictionaries. Hell Merriam Webster probably hand wrote the forward.

Posted on: 7/6 8:58 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: UK exits EU?
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
This process has been a great example about how markets, while mostly efficient, overreact to news.

I don't know why the UK didn't hold this vote on a Friday to give the markets the weekend to calm the F down but they didn't. Friday arrives and the markets take a beating. The beating that was taken was INSANE! To give an example, one of my stocks is Corrections Corporation of America. They run prison facilities across the US. There stock price went down. ?!?!?!?! This is a company wholly in the US with no exposure to the EU that, if the world economy falls apart and tanks would be well poised to PROFIT!!!! It went down.

Monday, the dolts and late comers figured the idiots on Friday must know something so they sold. But after that people started to realize that the world wasn't really coming to an end and the markets are now pretty close to where they were before the news.

Don't get me wrong. There will be negative effects for the EU and the UK but this rush to crawl out on a ledge was just an overreaction.

It will be interesting to see if this actually happens. I do like the fact that the EU has been put in its place to some extent. I LOVE the guy who spoke there and said, "A year ago you were laughing at me.....you're not laughing now are you?" That was a classic "Suck it" moment.

Posted on: 7/3 10:22 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Theodore Roosevelt said.....

"Comparison is the thief of joy."

Why Eers, would being similar to some one else steal your joy? Is it possible that what steals your joy is that others have something that you don't have?

Or is Theodore Roosevelt an idiot too?

Posted on: 7/2 5:43 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

eer44fan wrote:
Who is Rush and what frigging conspiracy are you talking about?

Dude, you need to go back on your meds.


Sadly.......he is neither (right or correct).

Posted on: 7/1 9:05 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

eer44fan wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Here is the definition of COMPARE:

to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences:
to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.


Another agenda of the left is to redefine words/terms and pour another meaning in them. If you repeat it often enough, the word/term assumes the new meaning. I believe that is exactly what is going on here - the word/term(s) is (has been) redefined and now it's simply a matter of repeating it long enough until it assumes the new meaning.

Sorry lemms, some of us know and understand the tactics involved.


I don't know where Cliff got that definition, but it is inaccurate. I am using the traditional definitions of comparing and contrasting. He isn't. These definitions are older than we are.

The problem with trying to argue with you neo cons us (1) you won't accept facts as facts and (2) you don't try to educate yourselves before giving an opinion. You think you are entitled to your opinion even when it is absolutely 100% wrong, and provably so.


Dictionary.com

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/compare

Here you go tiger....bitch at them. Pretty ripe assuming you know more than the preeminent dictionary on line.

But I expected no less.

You know. Just food for thought for you....Sometimes things change. Maybe you need to change with them. If you are using a dictionary older than we are.....spring for a newer one. Then you will look less like an ass. LOL

EDIT: By the way you will notice that definition 6 is TO DIFFER in quality. Lot of use of difference in this set of definitions.


Posted on: 7/1 9:01 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:
Nope. You compared guns to swimming pools. I merely showed that your comparison was flawed. As for the English language, there is a difference between comparing and contrasting. When someone compares two items in an argument, the way to refute that argument is to contrast the two things. "On the other hand" is a method of showing a contrast, not a comparison.


A contrast is a negative comparison. While I may have compared the two, that is immaterial to the fact that you also compared the two. So for you to deny comparing the two things is incorrect.

Here you can read up on contrasts and comparison.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/gr ... british-grammar/contrasts


First, you apparently didn't even read your link. Your link reads:

Contrasts
from English Grammar Today
There are several common expressions for making contrasts in English. They include on the one hand … on the other hand, on the contrary, in comparison, by comparison, in contrast, by contrast.

On the one hand … on the other hand
We can use on the one hand and on the other hand when we contrast two different things or two different ways of thinking about something. We often use them to present a balanced argument in which both sides must be considered:

On the one hand, mobile phones are very useful and can save lives. On the other hand, people seem to use them for the most pointless and unnecessary calls.

We often use on the other hand on its own in the second part of a contrast, without on the one hand:

It’s a chaotic and disorganised country, but on the other hand it’s a very friendly and beautiful place. (Both things are true about the country.)

Not: … but on the contrary …



Your link says that the expression I used is a method of showing a contrast.

Your link doesn't define either contrast or compare. It simply identified some expressions that are used to contrast. The actual definition of contrast is:

contrast
The verb contrast means to show a difference, like photos that reveal how much weight someone lost by contrasting the "before" and "after" shots.
You probably know contrast in its relation to compare. To contrast something is to look for differences among two or more elements, but compare is to do the opposite, to look for similarities. It's easy to tell the difference if you remember that contrast comes from the Latin root contra, and means "against." Contrast is also a noun meaning basically the same thing — you might notice the contrast of a dark tree against a snow-covered hill.


Thus, contrasting shows differences between two things, and comparing shows similarities. There is no such thing as a "negative comparison." As the definition shows, contrasting is, in fact, the opposite of comparing. You are actually arguing that to do the opposite of something is in fact doing that something. You are wrong. Let it go. I didn't compare them. You did. I simply contrasted them to show you were wrong to compare them.


How about you just admit that in order to show a difference you have to COMPARE:

Here is the definition of COMPARE:

to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences:
to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.

Posted on: 6/29 6:05 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:
Nope. You compared guns to swimming pools. I merely showed that your comparison was flawed. As for the English language, there is a difference between comparing and contrasting. When someone compares two items in an argument, the way to refute that argument is to contrast the two things. "On the other hand" is a method of showing a contrast, not a comparison.


A contrast is a negative comparison. While I may have compared the two, that is immaterial to the fact that you also compared the two. So for you to deny comparing the two things is incorrect.

Here you can read up on contrasts and comparison.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/gr ... british-grammar/contrasts

Posted on: 6/28 9:31 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
For a lawyer or anyone to deny selling a gun to anyone on the terror watch list may be the dumbest and most irresponsible thing I have ever heard. It doesn't benefit ANYONE. This shows how little thought is put into our attacks on guns.

First off, How do you get on the terror watch list? How do you get OFF the terror watch list? Who keeps control of the terror watch list?

Due process on the terror watch list? That means you have to alert a person that they are on the list so that they have the proper ability to utilize their due process to get off the list.

Now I would suspect that if you have people on the terror watch list you would NOT WANT THEM TO KNOW they are on the terror watch list.

Terror watch person goes to buy a gun. They are denied. They know they don't have a felony conviction, they know they don't have a mental illness.....bingo! Doesn't take a genius to know why you didn't get the gun. NOW YOU NUMBNUTS HAVE created a system where every person that SUSPECTS they might be being watched can now test the system. GREAT JOB GUYS!

For those of you who are supporters of the second amendment here is your downfall. Don't want someone to have a gun? Put them on the terror watch list. What is the end result of this? Too many people on the terror watch list without being able to watch the people who are real threats.

Look the fact is the one gun shop tipped off the FBI and they did diddly squat. Second of all, I don't think the guy was on a terror watch list so it wouldn't have made any difference.

How about we just keep the terror watch list a list. Let the FBI or Homeland security watch or more likely, don't watch them and when some freak that is chanting **** from the Koran wants to buy body armor and freaks out the gun store to call the FBI, the FBI does their job and tries to figure out what this guy's end game is?

EDIT: Just found out he was on the terror watch list. So the gun shop calls the FBI about a guy on their watch list and they do nothing Why the Eff do you have a list?!

Posted on: 6/28 9:26 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Push for Buctober
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
...and another thing....Why do we always have to have an Alvarez? I thought if anyone would NOT be this years Alvarez it would be 'Cutch but lo and behold he is sucking for 6 days and he wins a game on the 7th.

Posted on: 6/27 6:57 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Push for Buctober
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
A frustrating year for Cutch!

Good to see he had the fire to get tossed. 2 of the three strikes were low. Not as low as one of the strikes to Polanco though. Polanco with those long legs gets screwed all of the time.


Posted on: 6/27 6:54 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:
If my pool gate doesn't lock and a kid wanders in and drowns then yes, I would be responsible for not being a responsible pool owner.


Only in the case of a lawsuit. I don't think you would be criminally negligent at least in some places.

Posted on: 6/27 6:43 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
If you don't have a fence around your pool (in NC anyway) or your gate does not lock and stays open, the police will issue you a ticket.

Leave your gun where a four year old can get it? Unprevenatable. Not negligent at all. Nothing can be done. Move along.


As usual....wrong again.

Leave your gun OUT WHERE CHILDREN can get it.....

https://jonathanturley.org/2015/10/20/ ... aded-gun-left-in-kitchen/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic ... s-mold-covered-house.html

Posted on: 6/27 6:38 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

HookEm wrote:
Quote:

There is something that can be done...

Seems this child was accidentally killed by the lack of adult/parent supervision. Who leaves a 4 year old, and another child under the age of 4, to roam unattended around someone else's home?

The article states that the homeowner wasn't home. Assuming that the gun belongs to this person, they were either negligent for storing a gun where children would have access to it and knowing that children would be in the house, or they stored their gun knowing that children wouldn't even be in the house, let alone roaming around unsupervised.

1. Store your guns in safe places.
2. Watch your damn kids in other peoples homes.


Precisely! Who let's kids roam around another person's house when they aren't home?! If I would have done that when I was little even if the person was home I would have been whipped silly.

The number of children killed in swimming pools who are not watched dwarfs the number killed by guns BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

http://www.parents.com/baby/safety/ca ... afety-facts-and-mistakes/

How many more children were like the 2 year old that was killed when other kids set in motion an automobile because their parents were too busy to watch them.

....No......let's blame it on guns. Don't worry about the orders of magnitude MORE deaths caused by other everyday items.


And swimming pools, which aren't specifically designed to injure and kill people, are highly regulated. There are laws in every state governing pool design standards, security fencing, signs, and on and on. Guns, on the other hand, are a sacred cow. That is the point of this thread. Comparing guns to other inherently dangerous but highly regulated objects, like pools, just proves the point.


Swimming pools are "highly" regulated versus guns. That may be the worst statement I have ever heard. You seriously can not be serious!? Are there waiting periods for swimming pools? Are there mental health checks for swimming pools? Do you REALLY HAVE to be 18 to buy a swimming pool? Are there any swimming pools made that are not allowed to be owned by an individual? Please enlighten me. Show me the ban swimming pool lobby. Has Dianne Feinstein ever said that she wouldn't rest until there were no swimming pools in the country?

WOW! Talking about someone arguing for the sake of arguing.

EDIT: By the way....I have purchased both a swimming pool and a gun and to actually state the regulations of swimming pools is so great.....I think they just checked my Visa card to make sure it was good.


That isn't what I said. Nice to see you have limited your indignant "Wow just wow" shtick to "wow." Sorry to see you are still a disingenuous blowhard and cannot keep yourself from making up what people say when they show how you are completely full of ****. Stop talking about subjects that you don't know about and you won't have that problem.

I didn't compare gun and pool regulations. You compared guns to pools with regard to people placing blame for deaths related to guns and pools. I think it is safe to say that people recognize the inherent risk of pools, i.e. "blaming" pools for pool deaths, when they are regulated by both the federal government as well as all fifty states. Just because you didn't know that doesn't mean it isn't so. It just means you like to write things that you don't know **** about. This discussion is about gun regulations and how people think guns shouldn't be regulated regardless of the risk. You stepped right into it and are exhibiting the problem. How does comparing guns to pools show guns aren't inherently dangerous? it doesn't. It is the same tired ploy tried over and over. Next is the "We shouldn't regulate guns until we regulate (fill in name of dangerous item here)." These illogical arguments just prove the point.

By the way, your statements about buying a pool show that you really don't understand how statutes and regulations work. Safety regulations don't necessarily relate to the purchase of an inherently dangerous product. They can also relate to the methods of making or designing the product (e.g. regulations regarding pool drain covers, the slope and depth of a pool floor in relation to a diving board, or enclosing a pool with certain types of fencing), using the product (e.g. regulations requiring adult supervision of pools), or warning of the dangers of the product (e.g. pool warning signs). It is kind of silly to expect that the sales of pools would be regulated from a safety standpoint. Why the **** would you think that? Are pools more dangerous in the hands of a felon? Are pools more dangerous in the hands of a person on the terror watch list? That is a ridiculous argument.


Nice to see you have the same grasp of the English language as ever. Yes you did compare pools to guns. When you use the phrase...."on the other hand" that is a comparison phrase as in you are comparing things. Swimming pools which was the subject of the former rantings and guns which was the subject of the latter.

I didn't bother reading the rest because I am pretty sure that those warnings on pools weren't regulated by the federal government they were regulated by the ambulance chasing lawyers which have sued the pool companies.

There is a world of difference between design standards and LAWS.

Next.....There is no federal law against me digging a hole in the ground and filling it with water. That would be a swimming pool.

Maybe you should spend some more time thoughtfully putting together an argument that at least you understand.

EDIT: Also you state swimming pools VERSUS guns. Seems like a comparison to me but what do I know I am only a logical English speaker not a lawyer.

Posted on: 6/27 6:34 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 4388
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

HookEm wrote:
Quote:

There is something that can be done...

Seems this child was accidentally killed by the lack of adult/parent supervision. Who leaves a 4 year old, and another child under the age of 4, to roam unattended around someone else's home?

The article states that the homeowner wasn't home. Assuming that the gun belongs to this person, they were either negligent for storing a gun where children would have access to it and knowing that children would be in the house, or they stored their gun knowing that children wouldn't even be in the house, let alone roaming around unsupervised.

1. Store your guns in safe places.
2. Watch your damn kids in other peoples homes.


Precisely! Who let's kids roam around another person's house when they aren't home?! If I would have done that when I was little even if the person was home I would have been whipped silly.

The number of children killed in swimming pools who are not watched dwarfs the number killed by guns BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

http://www.parents.com/baby/safety/ca ... afety-facts-and-mistakes/

How many more children were like the 2 year old that was killed when other kids set in motion an automobile because their parents were too busy to watch them.

....No......let's blame it on guns. Don't worry about the orders of magnitude MORE deaths caused by other everyday items.


And swimming pools, which aren't specifically designed to injure and kill people, are highly regulated. There are laws in every state governing pool design standards, security fencing, signs, and on and on. Guns, on the other hand, are a sacred cow. That is the point of this thread. Comparing guns to other inherently dangerous but highly regulated objects, like pools, just proves the point.


Swimming pools are "highly" regulated versus guns. That may be the worst statement I have ever heard. You seriously can not be serious!? Are there waiting periods for swimming pools? Are there mental health checks for swimming pools? Do you REALLY HAVE to be 18 to buy a swimming pool? Are there any swimming pools made that are not allowed to be owned by an individual? Please enlighten me. Show me the ban swimming pool lobby. Has Dianne Feinstein ever said that she wouldn't rest until there were no swimming pools in the country?

WOW! Talking about someone arguing for the sake of arguing.

EDIT: By the way....I have purchased both a swimming pool and a gun and to actually state the regulations of swimming pools is so great.....I think they just checked my Visa card to make sure it was good.

Posted on: 6/26 8:21 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 219 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved