Donald Trump running for president

DemntedCowboy said:
Nathans is the only brand hotdog sniper rifle I will buy. Lol
Click to expand...
I think somewhere around 10,000 children under 14 go to the emergency room for choking on food each year, with up to around 77 dying. About 17% of these food-related asphyxiations come from hot dogs, so hot dogs cause 1,700 emergency room visits and 13 deaths per year.

Think about the children! #banhotdogs, #hotdogskill /s
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I think somewhere around 10,000 children under 14 go to the emergency room for choking on food each year, with up to around 77 dying. About 17% of these food-related asphyxiations come from hot dogs, so hot dogs cause 1,700 emergency room visits and 13 deaths per year.

Think about the children! #banhotdogs, #hotdogskill /s
Click to expand...
We should ban all hotdogs. This is serious. #banallhotdogs
 
Don't forget that the phallic shape of the hot dogs represents the oppression of the patriarchy being forced down women and children's throats.

Edit: I actually sort of want to write a satirical article on this and see if some liberal site will pick it up.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
But the corrupt hotdog lobby is too powerful and only cares about profits! We should sue Nathan's! They even have commercials and contests pushing these death dogs on our children!
Click to expand...

give me liberty or give me hot dogs....
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Don't forget that the phallic shape of the hot dogs represents the oppression of the patriarchy being forced down women and children's throats.

Edit: I actually sort of want to write a satirical article on this and see if some liberal site will pick it up.
Click to expand...

don't forget the footlong up nancy pilosi's....:moon:

that one really needs to be banned...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Haha, I'm sure we can agree that both sides sometimes care more about ratings and/or an agenda than objectively informing viewers.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind (Ive posted the documents several times before) that the CIA and Government by law can infiltrate the mainstream media to propagate their message to brainwash the mass population. So we dont really always know who, what, when and exactly why. That easily includes CiaNN, MSNBC and FOX, all 3 sides of the same coin pretending to be biased (in CiaNN's case pretending to be the middle/center non biased, which is still actually a bias) at its core.
 
ax1 said:
Keep in mind (Ive posted the documents several times before) that the CIA and Government by law can infiltrate the mainstream media to propagate their message to brainwash the mass population. So we dont really always know who, what, when and exactly why. That easily includes CiaNN, MSNBC and FOX.
Click to expand...
I do, but I'm part of the government
 
thebigt said:
lol...let me see if I have this right.

pence protested the protesters and now cnn and liberals are...protesting pence for protesting the protesters-omg!!!


who needs ringling bros....:lew:
Click to expand...

I saw that on CiaNN website late (my) last night that Pence protested because Dump "told him to!" ROFL!!!!!!!!!
 
ax1 said:
At least Communists here arent preteding anything over here, they run the show and just about everybody knows it.

I think Cartoon News Network is more accurate :)
Click to expand...
They should just make Big Bird and Wyle E Coyote their main reporters
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I think somewhere around 10,000 children under 14 go to the emergency room for choking on food each year, with up to around 77 dying. About 17% of these food-related asphyxiations come from hot dogs, so hot dogs cause 1,700 emergency room visits and 13 deaths per year.

Think about the children! #banhotdogs, #hotdogskill /s
Click to expand...

I cant imagine what that would be like if the main course in public schools involved something that gave the illusion of healthier such as spaghetti or noodles which would turn to child genocide. You would either have to get kids to bring in a parental disclaimer to each lunch that year or have the government enforce and regulate shears for the cooks to convert it into a less deadly product. And people worry about guns, I give up.
 
ax1 said:
I cant imagine what that would be like if the main course in public schools involved something that gave the illusion of healthier such as spaghetti or noodles which would turn to child genocide. You would either have to get kids to bring in a parental disclaimer to each lunch that year or have the government enforce and regulate shears for the cooks to convert it into a less deadly product. And people worry about guns, I give up.
Click to expand...
In my daughters school they serve 100% beef hotdogs they taste like cr@p. Dont know what they use, but they are not good
 
looks like chris c is next on the axe list....I thought these new age liberals liked immigrants, lol.
 
DemntedCowboy said:
In my daughters school they serve 100% beef hotdogs they taste like cr@p. Dont know what they use, but they are not good
Click to expand...

You can thank fat azz tranny Michelle Obama's" “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act." for that one.
 
CJNator said:
You’re right, what I really meant was loyalists. People that adhere their loyalty to their nation and state.
Click to expand...

Being loyal to your nation and state doesnt necessarily need to equate to being loyal to your active government.

So what did you mean exactly?
 
ax1 said:
You can thank fat azz tranny Michelle Obama's" “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act." for that one.
Click to expand...
So you're saying she authored the bill?

Wrong.

What legislation would you introduce to address the issues of child malnutrition in impoverished areas?
 
CJNator said:
You’re right, what I really meant was loyalists. People that adhere their loyalty to their nation and state.
Click to expand...
The problem with humans is that we are really good at changing on a whim, and even concealing who we really are. Sometimes we even fool ourselves.

We allow our emotions and impulses to guide our thinking, and some of our worst decisions are made in these moments. How many times have we said things to our friends, partners, colleagues and family that didn't need to be said? For some people, these fits of emotion have led to fights we normally wouldn't get involved in.

A friend of mine once threw a chair at someone in high school which required the guy to get stitches and my friend stood down. The guy had it coming.

We never know how we will react until we are pushed beyond that threshold ourselves, and sometimes how we react surprises even us.

The point is, we cannot predict how someone will react under certain pressures. And even good people with even tempers can fall victim. We all like to think that we can control our temper but a lot of us can't. It requires skills we very rarely develop. In those moments the nicest people can turn killer, even if not intentionally.

We cannot assume that a criminal will always remain a criminal, or that those who are not yet, will always not be. When you pass laws you have to do so undiscriminantly, because you never know who's life you might be saving later.

You can make the laws harsher for violent criminals but that won't deter violence. You might even end up punishing those caught up in a moment of weakness. If they never intended to turn violent, how can the potential of a tougher sentence deter them from a crime they never intended to commit?
 
ax1 said:
Being loyal to your nation and state doesnt necessarily need to equate to being loyal to your active government.

So what did you mean exactly?
Click to expand...
Well it would, I’m guessing you mean the type of governing which in that case I’d agree. I’m saying law abiding citizens or loyalists should dictate gun control per say so it’s in their favor and not the interest of others. They also should own firearms.

This also comes with a domino effect of issues like other meaningless laws that shouldn’t exist to make it easier but that’s not the world we live in.
 
Jiigzz said:
The problem with humans is that we are really good at changing on a whim, and even concealing who we really are. Sometimes we even fool ourselves.

We allow our emotions and impulses to guide our thinking, and some of our worst decisions are made in these moments. How many times have we said things to our friends, partners, colleagues and family that didn't need to be said? For some people, these fits of emotion have led to fights we normally wouldn't get involved in.

A friend of mine once threw a chair at someone in high school which required the guy to get stitches and my friend stood down. The guy had it coming.

We never know how we will react until we are pushed beyond that threshold ourselves, and sometimes how we react surprises even us.

The point is, we cannot predict how someone will react under certain pressures. And even good people with even tempers can fall victim. We all like to think that we can control our temper but a lot of us can't. It requires skills we very rarely develop. In those moments the nicest people can turn killer, even if not intentionally.

We cannot assume that a criminal will always remain a criminal, or that those who are not yet, will always not be. When you pass laws you have to do so undiscriminantly, because you never know who's life you might be saving later.

You can make the laws harsher for violent criminals but that won't deter violence. You might even end up punishing those caught up in a moment of weakness. If they never intended to turn violent, how can the potential of a tougher sentence deter them from a crime they never intended to commit?
Click to expand...
I thought we already covered that even if harsher penalties for violent crime don't actually deter the crime itself, which is technically debatable to some degree, it at least gets the violent offenders off the street, reducing the number of known criminals who have already demonstrated the capability and willingness to engage in these violent crimes. Perhaps it's more applicable to repeat offenders than anything. People screw up and make bad decisions, I get that, but if you decide to, say, commit armed robbery more then once, I don't think you should be quickly back on the streets to do it a third time. Repeat offenders are a different story I suppose is the point I'm trying to make. There's also the act of premeditation, which a lot of "arguments" and "fights" you mention don't really necessitate; they can be an almost instinctual, spur of the moment, or impulsive actions (yelling at someone, punching someone in an argument, throwing something at them, etc), that say, an armed robbery likely isn't, and a second and third armed robbery are almost assuredly not.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I thought we already covered that even if harsher penalties for violent crime don't actually deter the crime itself, which is technically debatable to some degree, it at least gets the violent offenders off the street, reducing the number of known criminals who have already demonstrated the capability and willingness to engage in these violent crimes. Perhaps it's more applicable to repeat offenders than anything. People screw up and make bad decisions, I get that, but if you decide to, say, commit armed robbery more then once, I don't think you should be quickly back on the streets to do it a third time. Repeat offenders are a different story I suppose is the point I'm trying to make. There's also the act of premeditation, which a lot of "arguments" and "fights" you mention don't really necessitate; they can be an almost instinctual, spur of the moment, or impulsive actions (yelling at someone, punching someone in an argument, throwing something at them, etc), that say, an armed robbery likely isn't, and a second and third armed robbery are almost assuredly not.
Click to expand...
I agree with your stance, and I was meaning more impulsive acts of violence (like throwing a chair lol).

If you kill someone, are involved in killing someone, hold up a store, and/ or repeatedly offend, then we need to look them up for long periods.
 
Jiigzz said:
I agree with your stance, and I was meaning more impulsive acts of violence (like throwing a chair lol).

If you kill someone, are involved in killing someone, hold up a store, and/ or repeatedly offend, then we need to look them up for long periods.
Click to expand...
Ok. Then I agree with you too haha. I think the real issue here is chair violence! If we didn't have access to chairs, we wouldn't have any chair-related crime. We need to ban chairs.

Clearly that was sarcasm, but it does help illustrate the point that banning an object used in a crime won't necessarily eliminate all crime that would have used that object, as some people would just throw a table instead of a chair, just like some people would still commit crimes with something besides a gun. Or look at beer. How many people die from alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, violence, etc from drinking beer? Would banning beer prevent all these deaths? Likely not, as some people would drink tequila or wine or something else, or may even go for a drug besides alcohol. I'm not saying that reducing the number of, and access to, guns wouldn't cut down on total crime at all, just that if there are 5,000 homicides with guns, banning guns would likely not reduce the total homicide count by 5,000, but only the gun homicide content by 5,000. First, some people will still use guns, but even if no one did, there will still be some people who use knives, bats, cars, explosives, piano wire, ice picks, etc.
 
Jiigzz said:
The problem with humans is that we are really good at changing on a whim, and even concealing who we really are. Sometimes we even fool ourselves.

We allow our emotions and impulses to guide our thinking, and some of our worst decisions are made in these moments. How many times have we said things to our friends, partners, colleagues and family that didn't need to be said? For some people, these fits of emotion have led to fights we normally wouldn't get involved in.

A friend of mine once threw a chair at someone in high school which required the guy to get stitches and my friend stood down. The guy had it coming.

We never know how we will react until we are pushed beyond that threshold ourselves, and sometimes how we react surprises even us.

The point is, we cannot predict how someone will react under certain pressures. And even good people with even tempers can fall victim. We all like to think that we can control our temper but a lot of us can't. It requires skills we very rarely develop. In those moments the nicest people can turn killer, even if not intentionally.

We cannot assume that a criminal will always remain a criminal, or that those who are not yet, will always not be. When you pass laws you have to do so undiscriminantly, because you never know who's life you might be saving later.

You can make the laws harsher for violent criminals but that won't deter violence. You might even end up punishing those caught up in a moment of weakness. If they never intended to turn violent, how can the potential of a tougher sentence deter them from a crime they never intended to commit?
Click to expand...

I agree with you but I blame society for all that, laws shouldn’t be make assuming all humans are equally impulsive. There are degrees of impulsive that can be corrected with the correct culture. I do not believe in harsh punishment but we cannot shift our culture so it’s the next best thing.
 
CJNator said:
I agree with you but I blame society for all that, laws shouldn’t be make assuming all humans are equally impulsive. There are degrees of impulsive that can be corrected with the correct culture. I do not believe in harsh punishment but we cannot shift our culture so it’s the next best thing.
Click to expand...
No they shouldn't, ideally, but they need to. You can't single out anyone or any group these days without probable cause, and so blanket rules need to be applied.

Not for everything mind you, but certainly in areas that can create large groups of vulnerable people
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Ok. Then I agree with you too haha. I think the real issue here is chair violence! If we didn't have access to chairs, we wouldn't have any chair-related crime. We need to ban chairs.

Clearly that was sarcasm, but it does help illustrate the point that banning an object used in a crime won't necessarily eliminate all crime that would have used that object, as some people would just throw a table instead of a chair, just like some people would still commit crimes with something besides a gun. Or look at beer. How many people die from alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, violence, etc from drinking beer? Would banning beer prevent all these deaths? Likely not, as some people would drink tequila or wine or something else, or may even go for a drug besides alcohol. I'm not saying that reducing the number of, and access to, guns wouldn't cut down on total crime at all, just that if there are 5,000 homicides with guns, banning guns would likely not reduce the total homicide count by 5,000, but only the gun homicide content by 5,000. First, some people will still use guns, but even if no one did, there will still be some people who use knives, bats, cars, explosives, piano wire, ice picks, etc.
Click to expand...
A chair can hurt few, a gun can kill many. While you might not stop that offender offending, you can limit the harm he causes.

You cannot defend that. That is a fact regularly shown to us by what happens in the US.
 
Jiigzz said:
A chair can hurt few, a gun can kill many. While you might not stop that offender offending, you can limit the harm he causes.

You cannot defend that. That is a fact regularly shown to us by what happens in the US.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with that, my point was only to illustrate that saying that, since we have X number of gun homicides, say 5,000, if we removed every gun (assuming it is possible for the sake of the example), that we'd prevent the same X number (or 5,000) deaths. We'd prevent 5,000 gun deaths, but it is an absolute certainty that some of those homicides would still occur if the killer did not have access to guns. People are so quick to say how much higher the chances are of being killed by a gun in the US than in other counties, which creates a greatly exaggerated picture that the US is exponentially more dangerous than other counties, when the overall murder rate is somewhere around 10-20% higher than the other countries referenced, if that. Now, that's not nothing, and we can stand to reduce gun violence in the US, but we should look at the big picture and all possible outcomes, not just gun deaths. I do think it that we can improve the situation in the US, and we've agreed on some ideas already, I'm just a bit of a stickler for statistics and analysis.
 
i see they are changing their story...most detectives would tell you that changing stories or inconsistencies in telling of story is a definite RED FLAG!!!


THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE...
ax1
 
thebigt said:
i see they are changing their story...most detectives would tell you that changing stories or inconsistencies in telling of story is a definite RED FLAG!!!


THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE...
Click to expand...

What's this for?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I'm not disagreeing with that, my point was only to illustrate that saying that, since we have X number of gun homicides, say 5,000, if we removed every gun (assuming it is possible for the sake of the example), that we'd prevent the same X number (or 5,000) deaths. We'd prevent 5,000 gun deaths, but it is an absolute certainty that some of those homicides would still occur if the killer did not have access to guns. People are so quick to say how much higher the chances are of being killed by a gun in the US than in other counties, which creates a greatly exaggerated picture that the US is exponentially more dangerous than other counties, when the overall murder rate is somewhere around 10-20% higher than the other countries referenced, if that. Now, that's not nothing, and we can stand to reduce gun violence in the US, but we should look at the big picture and all possible outcomes, not just gun deaths. I do think it that we can improve the situation in the US, and we've agreed on some ideas already, I'm just a bit of a stickler for statistics and analysis.
Click to expand...

I do agree. Perhaps it's just very taboo to me for an entire country to feel the need to be armed. While i'd never want it for my own country, I respect your rights to owning guns.
 
Misfit28 said:
So you're saying she authored the bill?

Wrong.

What legislation would you introduce to address the issues of child malnutrition in impoverished areas?
Click to expand...

I dunno, I was going off the top of my head off that one. I remember there was a huge thing with Michelle and public food thing for years and that even that orifice Dump rolled some of these policies back earlier this year. So I dunno not sure now, maybe your correction is right (not a good time for me to dig deep into this lol)

I dont usually expect the government to pass anything to do things these days. They usually now wave a magic wand and poof.
 
CJNator said:
Well it would, I’m guessing you mean the type of governing which in that case I’d agree. I’m saying law abiding citizens or loyalists should dictate gun control per say so it’s in their favor and not the interest of others. They also should own firearms.

This also comes with a domino effect of issues like other meaningless laws that shouldn’t exist to make it easier but that’s not the world we live in.
Click to expand...

That wouldnt be entirely possible here in the USA. The USA is not a democratic country, it is a Constitutional Republic. What Im saying is if 80% of "law abiding citizens" want to then vote to take away the rights of the other 20% who have not infringed on the rights of others they are no longer loyal to their nation and state, they are non-law abiding criminals. The only loyalists no longer. Being law abiding does not assume you can infringe on others with guilty until proven innocent methodologies.

Not sure if that is exactly on topic with what your talking about but it is what it is :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top