Posts by hadit2here

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • What Racially Biased Policing Looks Like

    11/27/2014 3:40:00 PM PST · 33 of 78
    hadit2here to A_Former_Democrat
    Ask and thou shalt receive:
    colorofcrime
    Somewhat dated but it's not gotten better at all since Obola's tenure started.
  • Arrest in robbery of S.F. girl who was selling candy

    07/19/2014 9:14:02 AM PDT · 13 of 13
    hadit2here to artichokegrower

    Not very Christian of her!

    I’m surprised the SF police didn’t ticket and arrest the 8 year old girl for not having a vendor’s license and obstructing the sidewalk.

  • This One Map Shows The Largest Employer In Every State

    05/27/2014 3:17:53 PM PDT · 49 of 49
    hadit2here to SeekAndFind
    From wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_largest_employers_in_washington_state

    As of July 2013, the companies with the largest amount of employees in the US state of Washington are:

    1) Boeing 85,000
    2) Joint Base Lewis-McChord 56,000
    3) Navy Region Northwest 43,000
    4) Microsoft Corp. 41,664
    5) University of Washington 29,800

    From July, 2013 Puget Sound Business Journal:

    This latest list of employers is topped by Chicago-based Boeing, with 85,000 employees working at its Commercial Airplanes division and other manufacturing operations in Everett, Renton and elsewhere in the state. That's almost half of the aerospace company's 172,000 total employees.

    Unless Micro$haft has grown a lot in less than a year, yeah, this guy needs to do some better research than acinet. Their 2014 listing doesn't even list Boeing until #18, which is 'Boeing Training and Flight Svc', which is really a small division of Boeing based in Renton.

    This is why I take these "charts" with a huge bag of salt. They're almost always wrong, made up by ill-informed idiots who don't have even the simplest internet research skills.

  • Seattle Set To Destroy Economy With Highest Minimum Wage Increase In The World

    05/21/2014 9:15:39 AM PDT · 91 of 93
    hadit2here to CSM

    Don’t worry. They will. Just give ‘em time.

  • Walgreens urged to leave US to gain tax benefit

    04/14/2014 3:26:34 PM PDT · 34 of 36
    hadit2here to Cringing Negativism Network

    Jeez, guit sounding like a broken record. I doubt seriously that you have ever started or run a business yourself “with American capital” or not. All you ever do is whine about “Capital is not apolitical” or “American capital is badly in need, of coming home.”

    As some have pointed out but you seem to never get into your thick head, “Capital goes where it is respected and well-treated.” as posted by Ruffian.

    American companies and their capital are dumped on and sabotaged by the laws passed, unmanageable regulatory burdens, light years of red tape and everything else that a business owner has to put up with. And that goes for the huge corps also. When they have to spend their capital on whole departments just to *try* to comply with the laws, regs and penny ante rules, forms and red tape that change on a bureaucrats whim, they have no choice but to either go out of business or leave for somewhere else.

    Businesses, large and small are leaving states like California and Illinois for states with better business atmosphere. Large businesses and corps are beholden to their owners/stockholders to make a profit and stay in business. When they can’t do that, they leave for someplace better.

    The problem is NOT American businesses who don’t want to hire Americans or their American capital. It’s the anti-business, anti-capitalist environment created by the gov’t in the US that is making them flee. They and their capital would come home in a nanosecond if the business and regulatory environment changed for the positive and they could at least survive here.

    You’re really grinding on that one last nerve with yer broken record postings of the same d@mn thing over and over without any mental effort behind it to understand why Americans and American business can’t survive here in the US.

    Give it a break already. It’s not American business and its capital that’s to blame for going ‘overseas’. It’s totally the fault of the gov’t regulation and oppression of all business- except their political crony capitalists with their hands in each other’s and the taxpayers’ pockets.

    If you ain’t part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem and whiny @$$holes who cry about American business trying to stay alive by going overseas doesn’t provide much of a solution.

    Just my 2/100th of a George.

  • WATCH THIS: Secret video footage proves cop lied about horrific accident

    04/14/2014 11:19:13 AM PDT · 53 of 90
    hadit2here to Half Vast Conspiracy

    Having spent more than a few years driving emergency vehicles and also researching the actual state laws, Mr BP Officer is totally in the wrong as far as the Uniform Traffic Codes go, which are basically incorporated in most state laws.

    Any legally authorized person may use flashing lights and/or audible warning/siren and deviate from the normal traffic patterns, directions, indicators and signals, but in doing so they “must exercise due care and caution” at all times. In practice, this means basically if you get into any kind of accident when your emergency warning equipment is in use, you’re at fault. Automatically. Doesn’t matter what you or anyone else was doing. No excuses. It’s the way the law is written as worded.

    I’ve had state troopers, deputy sheriff’s, etc., tell me that they would rather run without lights and siren to an emergency scene, because if *anything* happens, they will be considered at fault, automatically. And their departments won’t or can’t back them up in that case. So they felt safer, both physically and legally, by just running silent, even if it meant exceeding the speed limit or other “violations”.

    Although, in court when it comes down to taking the “word” of the officer or the citizen, naturally the black robe tyrant will often side with the officer contrary to evidence or other things. So the cop has no ‘downside’ to making up whatever will save his ass... unless someone has a recording that totally contraverts his story.

    It’s also interesting to note that most people who have ever run equipment with lights and sirens agree that those things only make you more of a *target* for idjit drivers. Once you light up, you have to assume that *everyone* is aiming for you.

    So this BP officer was immediately at fault because he got into an accident while running with lights/siren. Not using ‘due care and caution’. But unless some witnesses at the accident said otherwise or, as in this case, it was recorded, the BP officer’s “story” could probably win out in court. But he was at fault according to the UTC, and he was at fault in actuality, and it was recorded.

    Then he lied about it. Fry him.

  • TX: Firefighter fatally shot by woman outside Montgomery County

    03/22/2014 12:34:10 PM PDT · 5 of 31
    hadit2here to marktwain

    Can someone please explain why the headline has to identify him as a “firefighter”? He wasn’t acting in any capacity of a firefighter nor representing the fire dept at the time. His occupation should have nothing to do with it.

    He was a drunk intruder who was shot while trying to break into someone else’s house.

    The “firefighter” part should be a minor description, if even that, at the bottom of the story. NOT the headline. “He was employed by the XYZ Fire Dept.”

    If he was a “massage therapist” or a “grocery clerk” or a myriad other non-descript professions, would the headline of the story be written the same way?

    Sheesh! Today’s urinalism.

  • Will you get these 20 jokes meant for really brainy people?

    03/12/2014 3:27:49 PM PDT · 149 of 163
    hadit2here to The Looking Spoon

    I took a philosophy class in high school and we were given an essay test with about 10 questions. Tuff test. One brainy guy finished the test, then wrote one sentence or one word answers to each of the questions - for fun (!!). The only one I can remember was:

    “How does Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason fit into his philosophical system?”

    Answer: “Nicely”

  • Sunday Stories: “99 Red Balloons” [aka life as a car salesman]

    03/09/2014 10:15:51 PM PDT · 25 of 30
    hadit2here to nascarnation

    I did a few months stint working on a used car lot for a friend of mine who had been one of the top salesmen at several of the local dealerships for years. He opened a small used car lot and I went to work for him.

    One of the first things he told me to remember was “buyers are liars”. Explained about the “be back bus” as in “we’ll be back”. Then pointed out that one of the first lies out of the buyer’s mouth would be “this is the first place we’ve looked at”. Amazing how he predicted exactly how my first customers acted. LOL

    He also told me that I could bodily throw anyone off the lot that I wanted to and he’d back me up. Said he’d done that at one lot. Almost felt like doing it many times.

    Then there was the classic “Yeah but I can get it for X$ down at *dealer name*”. He gave me the response and I used it once. “Hey, go ahead and buy one for me too at that price”. Then I turned and walked away. The “customer” called after me, “Don’t you want to sell it?” I turned and said, “Yeah, but not to you” and walked off.

    Believe me, as bad as people think car salesmen are - and there are definitely some that are totally sleazebags - the buyers are worse. I found out quickly that a lot of it is just a defensive reaction to the “buyers are liars” that they end up with every day, all day.

  • Members of mom anti-gun violence group urge posting of ‘No Guns’ signs

    02/27/2014 9:51:43 AM PST · 35 of 36
    hadit2here to cork

    And your effort is thus wasted. When you see such a sign on any business establishment, you need to spend a few minutes to make a worthwhile effort that WILL change the situation.

    Go inside, ask for the manager. Talk only to the top manager that is on duty. Politely explain how much money you normally spend or would have spent in their establishment but since they have decided that YOUR and their other customer’s safety is of no importance because they are disarming law abiding citizens who could/would help and stop a crazed shooter, you will no longer patronize their store.

    Be polite and don’t rant, just point out the facts: They’re not only losing YOUR money but many others who will not say anything but will not patronize them.

    Then tell them to talk to their legal counsel and insurance carrier to find out how much it will cost them if some batshit crazy assh0le disregards the sign and shoots any of their defenseless customers, who *could* have carried or used their weapons to stop the shooter or to defend themselves. Point out, nicely, that by EXPLICITLY removing any defense from their customers puts the liability for that defense on their business.

    Ask them to evaluate the costs of 1) lost business from legitimate, law abiding citizen customers who carry and 2) the lawsuits after such a shooting where the customers were required to be defenseless because of their little sign.

    And you can point out that making their establishment PC feelgood “gun free” only means that they have actually made it not only a target rich environment for any crazy ass shooter who won’t obey either the laws or their little sign, but also a magnet for such crazies. Virtually all of the major mass murder shootings have been in “gun free” zones. So they are *attracting* such liability by posting their little PC gun free zone sign.

    Don’t argue with them. Just explain the above, and then leave. Does no good to argue or get steamed. But once the facts have been pointed out to them, it may take a while for them to sink in, but at least a rational person who has been propagandized by the anti-gun, PC crowd will have something to make a better decision on.

    If the store is a huge chain, sit down and write the above in a letter and send it directly to the chain headquarters. No email or phone calls- they cost nothing and are of no value. A hard copy, written letter (especially sent certified/return receipt) shows your effort and conviction put into it.

    Silently walking away does nothing to let the business know their mistake in kowtowing to the minority but very vocal anti-gun PC crowd and what the actual *costs* to the business are of putting up those little signs. And *costs* to the business are what talks and decisions are based on. They erroneously think, unless it’s pointed out to them, that there’s no cost to just post that little sign. When they see the costs - loss of YOUR $$$ - there is business based incentive to remove the PC signs.

    It takes an effort, but look at the effort that the anti-gunners are putting into their cause. If we don’t put out a similar effort, they win by default. Walking away when you see the sign doesn’t provide the business with the feedback that the Mad Moms have given them.

    And it might be quite entertaining if you keep the right mindset and try to smile and enjoy the experience/encounter. And enlightening for the business management who may have never heard the other side of the argument. Think of it as taking the manager/owner out to the range.

    If you want to keep it short and sweet and not spend a lot of YOUR time, just write up a message such as above, print it out and walk in and hand it to the manager, then leave. (They can’t argue with you if you leave, but they have something tangible showing your effort, just as the Mad Moms have done. Which do you think will be more effective- a play on their emotions or definite evidence of loss of $$?)

    Think about it.

  • NOT being "allowed" to drop a class?

    01/29/2014 2:26:11 PM PST · 65 of 80
    hadit2here to MacMattico

    Lots of really good advice here, but most all turn on the facts concerning learning, etc. At this point, it has nothing to do with the girl, learning or her capabilities... it’s all about the school policy/rules and following them.

    Sit down and plan out exactly what the girl wants to do and what her mother wants. Work it out on paper and get a hard copy of the school rules and policies that apply to go with your plan. You might do a little research online regarding the laws governing schools and school districts, and have them printed out to take with you just so you’ll have them (As a prop to refer to, if nothing else. But definitely let them know you have the printed laws with you. It shows them that you’ve done your homework, along with the presence of the atty.)

    By all means, schedule the meeting with the school admin and teacher, but go find either a super bad ass, junk yard dog, ambulance chasing lawyer or a really hungry one- The bad ass who has sued the school/county or local gov’t and has won is the best possible.

    The lawyer just goes with you all to the meeting. He doesn’t have to do anything and you don’t have to refer to him or introduce him at all. Just let him introduce himself at the beginning by saying, “I’m attorney xxx, and I’m here representing Miss Y.” Then he sits down and doesn’t have to say a word further. Also make a big deal of taking the biggest recording machine with you to the meeting. Make a show of putting it on the table or some central focal point and turning it on, while saying “This is just a recording to memorialize everything for everyone’s benefit.”

    Then go over your step by step plan for the girl and her argument that she should be allowed to drop the course (according to THEIR OWN school policy, which you HAVE a copy of) and take it next year after the tutoring during the summer. At any point when any of the school personnel object to what you want, make a very pointed look towards the attorney, have him nod his head or shake his head “no” or whatever, then reiterate your demand/request and don’t back down.

    It’s all theater of the absurd, but the second the school authorities hear the lawyer introduce himself, the whole game reverses and now they’re on the defensive and have to sweat to justify EVERY tiny detail they bring up - or be sued by the nasty looking atty sitting there taking it all in.

    I know this sounds like way too much overkill, but the school admins today MUST be stood up to and shown that they are not the power holders, that the students and parents are. At no time are you threatening a lawsuit, you’ve only brought the attorney into the room with you. But it will work wonders as an attitude adjustment for the admin, who are completely used to totally getting their way and lording their “power” over both the students and their parents and the taxpayers. When you play the “supplicant” to their Lordship Powers, it only energizes them to lord it over you. Walking in being on the offense changes their game and you and the student are no longer their “supplicant”, begging for scraps of their good will.

    If you think of this more as doing it for the rest of the students and parents who would just be steamrolled over by the school admin bullies, it makes it more worth the efforts. If you know an attorney friend who can go with you and just play the role, that will do. He doesn’t have to say anything or give any legal advice at all. Just introduce himself and then sit there, looking sour and ready to tear some new @$$holes if need be.

    Or you can just let the student (a worthy one from the sounds of it) and her mother get steamrolled by the asinine bureaucrats with their petty power plays and strutting shows of authority.

    I’ve actually done things like this and it is really an entertaining thing. It’s fun watching the so-called “powerful” bullies start stuttering and measuring their words very carefully so they won’t be listed on the ‘defendant’ side of a lawsuit— even if the lawsuit threat is only in their own mind. But it is fun to watch them. No matter what, make a big deal about recording the whole session, “so it can be transcribed for ‘legal purposes, if needed’”. And DON’T BACK DOWN!

  • WV Leads 27 States,Territories in Supreme Court Brief Supporting Citizens’ Rights to Buy, Sell Guns

    12/09/2013 8:17:13 AM PST · 16 of 20
    hadit2here to colderwater

    I’d sure LOVE to have you show me the part of the US Constitution which gives the federal gov’t that power. I’m not talking rules, regulations, state laws, etc. I’m talking about the explicit power designated to the Federal Government to do such things. In the actual words of the Constitution. ‘Cuz if it ain’t there, it ain’t anywhere.

    The US Constitution was written to give the Federal Gov. only certain specified powers. All the rest are kept at the state level or retained by “the people”.

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
    —Thomas Jefferson

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”
    —James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45

    “No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words ‘no’ and ‘not’ employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”
    —Edmund A. Opitz

    Again, show me the words. State’s may have that power, but I find nothing within the four corners of the Constitution giving the Federal Gov’t. those powers.

    I could be wrong.......... NAW!

  • WV Leads 27 States,Territories in Supreme Court Brief Supporting Citizens’ Rights to Buy, Sell Guns

    12/07/2013 11:16:21 PM PST · 3 of 20
    hadit2here to marktwain

    This is in addition to the FACT that the fed gov has never been given the legal power or ability to legally regulate any type of “gun”. Not only from proscription of the 2nd Amendment, but the Constitution gives the fed gov no powers to do anything like it. Unfortunately, the fed gov has total disregard for the “chains” of the Constitution that were enacted expressly to hold down the gov’t., not the citizens.

  • (Dick) Metcalf Responds (Guns & Ammo)

    11/08/2013 7:52:53 PM PST · 36 of 51
    hadit2here to Red in Blue PA

    Just sent this to the editor at The Outdoor Wire:

    To Dick Metcalf

    >When the present controversy erupted a week ago, I was asked by Guns & Ammo/InterMedia management to write the following “clarification and elaboration” on the December Backstop column for use on the G&A website. I did so, but the decision was made to wait and see how the situation developed. I was also asked to hold off on making any comments in any other forum, and no other response appeared in any G&A/IMO forum at all.<

    You should probably learn and take to heart the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

    >Then, after Paul Erhardt’s column appeared in the Shooting Wire yesterday, IMO was contacted by two major firearms industry manufacturers, stating that they would do no further business with IMO if it continued with its present personnel structure. Within hours, Jim Bequette resigned as Editor of Guns & Ammo, and my relationship with all IMO publications and TV shows was terminated.

    How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?<

    Apparently you’re hanging your hat on that First Amendment thingie... you know, Freedom of Speech- that you’ve got the right to write or say anything controversial you want without anyone being able to take you to task or there being any consequences for you. Number one, the Constitution affirms our God-given rights and enchains the GOVERNMENT from violating them. The First Amendment guarantees us that the government has not been granted the power to violate that right.

    You can, of course, write or say anything you wish, however if you have any kind of mental faculties at all, you should realize that there can be consequences. While the First Amendment may try to keep the government from doing something because of what you wrote or said, all of the general public and businesses are not constrained by those limitations. If “two major firearms industry manufacturers” contacted your employer as a result of what you wrote, they have every right to do so. They can explain to your employer the amount of revenue and business your employer will lose from them if you are continued to be employed. Nothing about the First Amendment at all. Just common business practices. If I don’t like something a business or one of their employees does or says, and I contact that business, explaining that I will take MY business elsewhere, that is totally within my rights to do so. If that business fires the employee because of the loss of MY business, that again is totally within their rights to do so. It’s called survival in the business world and has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Freedom of Speech.

    That’s apparently another simple concept from the Constitution that you just haven’t got a grasp on, in addition to the “well-regulated” thing.

    >From its inception as “Cooper’s Corner” in 1986 the back page column in Guns & Ammo has been intentionally designed to address controversial issues, and to invite reader response. By that standard, the December edition certainly succeeded—some might say, too well. But our intention was to provoke a debate, not to incite a riot (which is illegal under laws regulating the 1st Amendment).<

    Again, there you go with the misinterpretation of the Constitution and the First Amendment. I doubt you’ll find anything anywhere in the Constitution or all of the Bill of Rights that has anything to do with “not inciting a riot”. And again you show that your abject ignorance of all of that with the phrase “illegal under the laws ***regulating*** the 1st Amendment”. Laws passed by Congress don’t REGULATE anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, i.e., the first ten amendments to it. The Constitution and the Amendments REGULATE all of the laws. You may have heard something (or not, apparently) about the U.S. Constitution being the “Supreme Law of the Land”. Maybe you should ponder on those words just a little bit before opening your mouth or pounding your fingers on the keyboard.

    In the words of some old white guy from about 235 years ago:

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
    —Thomas Jefferson

    >In today’s political climate within the community of firearms owners, even to open a discussion about whether 2nd Amendment rights can be regulated at all, is to be immediately and aggressively branded as anti-gun and anti-American by outspoken hard-corps pro-gunners who believe the answer is an absolute “NO!” And yes, I am fully aware of the many and varied historical/legal definitions of the term “well-regulated,” and how they are used and misused.<

    Dick, maybe you should try to grasp the concept that “rights” are not to be “regulated”. Rights that are regulated are “privileges” and no longer “rights”. And apparently you really ARE NOT aware of what “well-regulated” means. Maybe that and the concept of “rights” is where your basic misunderstandings spring from.

    >I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions. I further clearly understand that owning or driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, and that keeping and bearing arms is. But both involve issues of public safety, which is why both are of great and immediate interest to a great number of Americans for much the same reasons. Should we not speak of both in the same sentence?<

    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
    — Daniel Webster

    Dick, Dick, Dick. Again with the “regulation of rights”. When will you get the concept of “rights” into your head? To reiterate again, the Constitution enumerates the God-given rights with which we are born and enjoins the government from abrogating, violating or revoking those God-given rights. And if you actually believe that owning or driving a vehicle is NOT a constitutional right, then I can give you quite a few legal citations that show that none other than the U.S. Supreme Court, and many lesser courts, have declared that it indeed IS a right. You do NOT need to have a government permit to “own” a vehicle, and you are not required to have a “license” to travel with your private automobile. Only when you do so for the purpose of commerce may the government “regulate” and require a “license”. Get some facts and get educated.

    And don’t even bring up the ridiculous point of it being “illegal” to shout Fire! in a crowded theater. Again, read the words of the Amendments.

    >Let me make myself clear (again): I believe without question that all U.S. citizens have an absolute Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.<

    If you stopped right there, that would be recognized as stopping digging when you’re in a hole. But no, you’ve gotta continue digging.

    >At the same time, how can anyone deny that the 2nd Amendment is already regulated by innumerable federal, state, and local statutes, and always has been? Even the Supreme Court’s widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.<

    “But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
    —George Washington, Farewell Address

    Again, Dick, your abject ignorance is on display. And again, innumerable federal, state and local statutes DO NOT regulate the 2nd Amendment. They cannot. While they may violate the 2nd Amendment prohibitions against “shall not be infringed”, they CANNOT regulate that Amendment. Can’t you get this through your thick head? Apparently not, as you continue on with the same misapprehensions regarding “regulating”. Yes, many laws and court rulings DO infringe upon the 2nd Amendment, but they DO NOT regulate it. They attempt to regulate rights, actions and activities of U.S. citizens, not the Amendment itself. And even if the King, the Congress or whatever potentate there is establishes laws that violate the U.S. Constitution, those laws are at their inception, null and void. Look it up.

    >Do we all agree with every part of those rulings? Of course not. I personally do not. But these are laws; now part of the organic fabric of the Constitution, and we ignore them at our peril. Should we now hold that those rulings themselves are unconstitutional?<

    “The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded.”
    —Montesquieu, 1748

    When some far off King in England made “laws” for the colonists in the New World, there were a few guys who looked at those laws and the violations of the God-given rights they engendered and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in holding those laws as unjust... or as we may consider them today, unconstitutional, as they were then establishing our U.S. Constitution and writing the Declaration of Independence. Maybe you should read some of those documents.

    I’m sorry to relate this to you, Dick, but laws are not part of the “organic fabric of the Constitution”. All the laws enacted by Congress are subject to and under the Constitution. They do not constitute the fabric of it.

    >All 50 states now have individual statutes or constitutional provisions regulating concealed firearms carry. The vast majority require state-issued permits, and most require some type of training to qualify. Are all those laws unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd Amendment? Should we entirely oppose their existence? Should we obtain concealed-carry licenses anyway? Are we violating the Constitution ourselves if we do? On these issues reasonable gun-owners may reasonably differ (although you wouldn’t know it from what erupted on the Guns & Ammo website, G&A Facebook pages, and many other firearms forums following the appearance of the December Backstop column).<

    The states may have statutes regulating firearms, but they do not have constitutional provisions regulating them. The constitutions are proscriptions and inhibitions against the government, describing the constraints upon such government. Thus they confirm or assert the rights of the state citizens. While the federal and other governments may “require” state-issued “permits” or training requirements, that does not negate the basic Constitutionally affirmed rights of the citizens.

    According to your logic, if the Congress makes a law that violates the Constitution, then the sheer fact of the existence of that “law” proves the lack of violation of the Constitution by it. Circular logic. Irrational.

    Are all those laws infringements? YES. Should we oppose their existence? YES. Should we obtain licenses? If you want to bow down, go ahead. Are we violating the Constitution if we do? Again, Dick, a citizen cannot “violate” the Constitution. Again, the Constitution is a prohibition against government, not the citizens. Learn that while you’re researching the law of holes. Please.

    You say, “On these issues reasonable gun-owners may reasonably differ” and they may. But the Constitution and its wording of the 2nd Amendment does NOT differ; it remains unchanged since its origination. It states VERY PLAINLY that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t state, like the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law...” You may differ in your opinion with others, but the words are quite plain: “the right... shall not be infringed”. A permit by the government is an infringement. A law “regulating” the keeping and bearing of arms is an infringement, whether it requires a citizen to own or obtain an arm or proscribes against it and “requires” a permit.

    >Myself, I would rather carry legally, than carry illegally and risk prison. Given the fact an Illinois concealed carry law now does exist, I have no problem spending 16 hours of my life under its training requirement. And I will. I am glad Illinois finally passed a concealed carry law. Do I believe training is a good thing? Of course I do. Do I believe the onerous fees and procedures imposed by Illinois’ anti-gun legislators to reduce the number of applicants are an “infringement?” Of course I do. I’m applying for a license anyway. But that’s just me.

    “Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    -Samuel Adams

    Go ahead, Dick, and get that “permit”. Take that training. May your chains set lightly upon you.

    >Difficult as it may be for some to believe, To those who have expressed their vigorous opposition to the content of the December column (and to my continued existence on this planet), I would pose these questions:

    1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?<

    Strawman argument. Dick, I can’t for the life of me find any wording in the whole of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence that even intimates that the government has been given the power to prohibit ANYONE from keeping and bearing arms. Just the opposite. So the Federal government DOES NOT have that right or power delegated to it. May it usurp that power? Sure. That still doesn’t make it Constitutional nor the usurpations “legal”.

    >2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?<

    What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Licenses, permits or government approvals ARE infringements on the 2nd Amendment and ARE, prima facie, unConstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the government given the power to establish concealed-carry licenses. If you can find that wording for me, please let me know.

    >3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?<

    I personally don’t. Had one many years ago before I understood what the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution provided me.

    >4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?<

    No, you are voluntarily entering into a “contract” with the government to allow their rules to apply to you. Again, Dick, a citizen cannot violate the Constitution, because the Constitution is a set of prohibitions upon government, not the citizens. In fact, the Bill of Rights sets out for the government a list of the God-given rights that it shall NOT violate or infringe upon.

    >I would hope this discussion could continue.<

    It probably will. But you should do some reading and research before opening your mouth again, because you only seem to be able to exhibit your own lack of education and understanding of how this country was setup and is supposed to operate.

    “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
    —Thomas Jefferson.

    “The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”
    —Albert Gallatin (1789)

    “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves and to sustain ourselves.”
    James Madison,1778

    And lastly, Dick, I’m really trying hard to determine which applies to you: “IGNORANCE CAN BE ELIMINATED WITH KNOWLEDGE, IT’S STUPIDITY THAT REMAINS FOREVER” So far, from reading what you’ve written, I’m tending toward the latter.

  • Top Scientist: “Fukushima is the most terrifying"

    11/08/2013 3:59:53 PM PST · 16 of 63
    hadit2here to Carbonsteel

    I started reading the article and it started sounding like one of the “top global warming scientist’s” total doom and gloom type of bullchit. So I looked at the so called “scientist” whose claims they are - David Suzuki is the equivalent of Paul Ehrlich. You know, the one that said that the human population of the earth would be extinct by 2000 from starvation... among many other “globull warming/cooling/freezing” diatribes that have all been proven to be total... ummm, being charitable- hocum.

    If David Suzuki, the “top scientist” said that the sky was blue or that the sun would rise in the morning, I’d go outside and double check because there is probably close to 99% chance he’d be wrong about both things.

    So, consider the source. If David Suzuki says Fukushima is a disaster, I’m pretty well convinced that it’s probably OK and not much at all is wrong, so I can put it on my list of vacation destination spots. Remind me again how many people have died from the nuclear reactor “disaster” at Fukushima, as opposed to the number of people who have died due to medical malpractice and mis-prescribing or pharmaceutical side effects. Or even freezing weather since the globull warming alarmists have made heating costs skyrocket with their “green energy” scams.

    [By the way, what *was* the population of the world when Paul Ehrlich was ranting and raving back in the 70’s about human extinction and what’s the population now? Quod erat demonstrandum.]

  • Los Angeles Sheriff's Dogs Bite Only Blacks and Latinos?

    10/11/2013 7:27:10 PM PDT · 15 of 69
    hadit2here to nickcarraway
  • Mexico's planned telecoms shake-up threatens Slim, Televisa

    03/20/2013 7:56:14 PM PDT · 3 of 4
    hadit2here to JerseyanExile

    I wonder who Slim pissed off or didn’t contribute enough to in the last election? Nieto?

  • School Confiscates Cupcakes Decorated with Toy Soldiers

    03/07/2013 11:11:47 PM PST · 52 of 67
    hadit2here to massmike

    I’d give anything to see a small detachment of actual soldiers, in full dress uniform- with medals- show up at the school and have a nice “talk” with Ms Susan Wright and ‘splain to her just how the military works and why she’s not speaking German or Japanese right now. Love to listen to a few of them tell about some of their experiences on the battlefield, so SHE can sit safely in her cushy NEA supported job and live long enough to draw her taxpayer provided obscene pension.

    I know it being Michigan and a school “gun free zone”, they couldn’t bring their weapons with them, but wouldn’t that be quite the sight to see. Ms Wright blanching and puking with fear at the sight of the tools of the soldier’s trade. The very things they have to use to keep her and her ilk free.

    Maybe each one with war wounds, like missing limbs, could politely explain just how “offended” they are by Ms Wright’s complete lack of respect for opposing opinions and that they’re not impressed with her claim of “no disrespect for our military” and their sacrifice for our country. And that they’d really like to have her explain how her actions allow the children have “respectful dialogues” about something she will not allow in the school.

    I’m mentally picturing about a half dozen ramrod straight, decorated soldiers, standing at parade rest, and each one stepping forward to very forcefully provide the “respectful dialogue” that she will not allow.

    I can dream, can’t I?

  • How one question changed an undocumented immigrant's fate

    02/03/2013 6:31:53 PM PST · 7 of 31
    hadit2here to moonshinner_09
    Udi Ofer, an attorney and advocacy director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, didn’t like that the trooper asked for Orozco’s paperwork or anything else. They had no reason to because she wasn’t a suspect in a crime and it’s not the job of state police to enforce federal immigration law, he said.

    So I guess this Noo Yawk lawyer would be entirely agreeable if state, county and local police decided that it wasn't their job to enforce anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment federal laws.

    Oh, wait. They want federal anti-gun laws to be enforced all the way down to the tiny cow town level, preferably by jack booted thugs and fully automatic "assault weapons", body armor and armored personnel carriers during midnight raids. That's OK. But let any LEO try to enforce constitutional illegal immigration laws and such a stink!

    The rank hypocrisy and pure evil in liberals is barely believable, yet they prove it daily, hourly.

    She was asked a simple quesion and can't speak enought English to even answer the trooper. THEN she has an immigration warrant out for her because she skipped appearance in court the last time she was caught.

    And we're supposed to feel sorry for her. And her brood? Sorry, my Give A Damn broke a long time ago.

  • Will Obama's order lead to surge in gun research?(Admistration Propaganda)

    01/18/2013 2:27:09 PM PST · 12 of 13
    hadit2here to TurboZamboni
    Dear Marilyn,

    There's quite a bit of research that's been done. As one poster here pointed out, John Lott's books and research. But that doesn't support your lib, leftist ideology. So it doesn't count.

    Well, here's another that probably won't be counted as valid research by you either: The Color Of Crime

  • Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested

    12/11/2012 9:15:38 AM PST · 22 of 59
    hadit2here to LibWhacker

    Help! I’ve fallen into a for/next loop and I can’t get up!

  • SEND 'EM UP, I'LL WAIT

    08/31/2012 7:31:20 PM PDT · 5 of 17
    hadit2here to TsonicTsunami08

    Iranian Commander: “OK, guys! Scramble. We’ve got a Great Satan F-18 on radar. Go run ‘em out of our airspace.”

    Achmed, Camel Jock 1: “Uh, Sorry, I hurt my thumb today. I can’t fly.”

    Mohammed, Camel Jock 2: “Hey Boss. I’ve got the flu. Can’t fly due to medical.”

    Hassan, Camel Jock 3: (looks around, sees he’s the only one left) “Uh, Boss. I just got a suden case of explosive diarrhea. Gotta run!”

    Iranian Air Defense Site: “Marine F-18. We’ve encountered some delays. Check back with us next week. Allah Fubar.”

  • Criticism of Photographer Behind U.S. Olympic Team Portraits

    07/03/2012 11:33:04 PM PDT · 50 of 57
    hadit2here to Vermont Lt

    Yeah, on the worst day of a krappy school yearbook photographer doing mass produced headshots of hundreds of kids a day, they’d still get better pix than this guy did. Like I said, I’d be ashamed of putting those shots in a proof book even. Let alone having them published as examples of my work.

  • Criticism of Photographer Behind U.S. Olympic Team Portraits

    07/03/2012 6:46:51 PM PDT · 47 of 57
    hadit2here to Loud Mime

    I envy you. If you’ve got 12,000 shots from the OTC, I’m sure that 12,001 of them are better than all of his combined.

    When I taught photography at the community college, some of the beginning students did better work than his.

    I’d be embarrassed to even put most of those shots in a proof book.

    Artsy-fartsy. When you try to be too artsy, all you get is fartsy. (Wet ones at that.)

  • Criticism of Photographer Behind U.S. Olympic Team Portraits

    07/03/2012 4:31:48 PM PDT · 14 of 57
    hadit2here to Loud Mime

    As a former professional portrait photographer, these aren’t even *amateur* quality. And they *paid* him to take them? Sheesh.

  • Washington State Issues Proposed Brake Pad Regulations

    06/26/2012 10:31:57 PM PDT · 25 of 27
    hadit2here to BobL

    I’d love to see every gov’t car and truck in the whole state of Washington sit idle because they don’t have break shoes/pads. If every mfr just said, “Hey, it’ll cost too much, ain’t gonna do it,” you can bet the regs/laws would quickly be obliterated. Capitalism works if you let it. When the regs mandate something too expensive, just don’t make it. Let the gov’t try to find the replacements. But all the mfr’s would have to say the same thing. Just one won’t do it.

    But it seems really hard for people to understand the long term costs/losses vs. the short term gains. Just how long do you think the state of Californicate’s gas blending regs would last if the gas companies said, “Sorry, only one blend available. Buy it or don’t run your vehicles.” I suspect it wouldn’t take 48 hours before someone called a special emergency session of the legislature to hastily make changes. That is if any of the legislators could find a bicycle to pedal to get to the capitol.

    I just think that the mfr.’s should first just refuse to go along and refuse to sell to the gov’t. The public aren’t the ones making the regs. So what would the gov’t do? Force the mfr to make the product and sell it to the gov’t?

    Oh, wait...

  • Washington State Issues Proposed Brake Pad Regulations

    06/26/2012 8:45:19 PM PDT · 22 of 27
    hadit2here to BobL

    I really really wish that at some point an industry that has this type of regulation dumped on them would have the balls to just refuse to sell those products to any gov’t. entity in that particular state. And if the whole industry banded together and did the same thing, the gov’t would quickly realize the folly of their heavy handed regulation. If the gov’t. tried to obtain the product through other channels, all of the mfr’s should refuse to supply those channels and refuse to honor any warrantees on any of the products. If the gob’t continued, the mfr should simply refuse to sell into that particular state.

    If industries started doing this, there’d be a whole lot less idiotic regulations by corrupt greedy politicians and screwed up little Mussolini bureaucrats.

    Yeah, I understand that there would be a short term sales hit, but the long term would make it much better compared to the increased costs of compliance in the first place.

  • U.S. Building a Domestic Population-Control Grid Based on Military Ops

    04/21/2012 8:08:45 PM PDT · 1 of 56
    hadit2here
    Got this link in an email. Interesting compilation of what's been going on... nothing that most FReepers don't know, I guess. But good to have in one place.

    Not as strident as some conspiracy blogs.

  • Gun Owners Seek End to State Barriers to Concealed Weapons

    04/11/2012 8:53:22 AM PDT · 6 of 10
    hadit2here to marktwain

    >> “How can the city of New York override your rights under the Second Amendment of the Constitution?” said Jerome, 29, who pleaded guilty last month to a misdemeanor weapons possession charge as part of a plea deal with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. <<

    How? Because so many have already “pleaded guilty... to a misddemeanor weapons possession charge” for so long that they have allowed those “authorities” to usurp the very basic God-given rights supposedly “guaranteed” to us by the U.S. Constitution.

    You want to see someone who helped them take away your 2nd Amendment right, Mr. Jerome? Look in the mirror.

    “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” James Madison

    “Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

  • Incarceration: The New Jim Crow [race-baiting alert]

    04/02/2012 11:07:29 PM PDT · 6 of 11
    hadit2here to sthguard
  • Mobile operators seek to 'block' Skype in Sweden

    04/02/2012 11:42:28 AM PDT · 2 of 3
    hadit2here to dickmc

    Should be a simple contractual matter and let the free market determine the winner. The telecoms include a clause in their service contracts prohibiting use of their service with VOIP such as Skype, and let the consumer decide if they want to sign up with that contract or if they want to go to the competitor who doesn’t have it. Simple.

    And they should have every right to put that clause in their service contracts. Just as the customer has every right to go to their competitor, who doesn’t have that clause.

    The government should stay the hell out of it. Government only distorts and marginalizes anything it touches.

  • No safety training required to get gun permit (liberal columnist shocked to discover 2nd amendment)

    03/29/2012 11:45:07 PM PDT · 14 of 24
    hadit2here to Junior_G

    Nicole Brodeur is a whiny, bleeding heart liberal (but I repeat myself) who has written numerous articles about firearms or incidents involving them. She certainly isn’t surprised to know about this “lack of training requirement” for a concealed carry permit. (Do a search for “Nicole Brodeur Seattle Times firearms” and see the articles she’s written)

    She’s just toeing the Marxist line - which she wholeheartedly endorses and believes in - and providing the required inflammatory material that people like the Brady Bunch and others can point to for more ammunition against firearms and the second amendment.

    This is an election year and she and the Times will work hard to stir up everything they can to get the liberal viewpoint out in front of the sheeple public.

    I’m sure one of her articles in the future will cover the raids on prostitutes and dirty bookstores, as every election year, like clockwork, those things take place and are given major publicity in the leftist media. Queen Christine just signed an anti-prostitution bill, natch. Gotta show how swell your bought and paid for gov’t is working with smoke and mirrors so the public never even asks about all the corrupt public officials, kickbacks and sleazy dealings that go on at every level of gov’t.

    I’m really amazed that the comments on the article weren’t closed or deleted, as almost all of them pointed out just how mistaken her article is... no, that would require her being unaware of the truth to be ‘mistaken’... how her LIES are so obvious and transparent. I suspect the comments will be deleted once the editorial staff gets back off coffee break.

  • In Florida Racialist Black Leaders Found A Cause.Unfortunately,The Wrong One RE:Zimmerman/Martin

    03/26/2012 1:01:50 PM PDT · 19 of 26
    hadit2here to WilliamofCarmichael
  • Ex-officer sentenced to 10 years for bizarre shooting, sex case

    03/23/2012 8:14:29 PM PDT · 7 of 7
    hadit2here to Venturer

    Thanks for clearing that up. I read this and thought it *couldn’t* be Washington state as Mount Rainier is a national park and he would have to be a park ranger. There is no Mount Rainier city here that I know of.

    As this article is from the “Washington Examiner” and the perp’s home was in Capitol Heights, which sounds like the Capitol Hill area of Seattle, I thought WTF??

    Glad it’s clear across the country. There’s enough problems with the queers in Seattle and Olympia here, not to mention all the rest of the liberals.

    (And don’t beat me up for using the word “queer, as many/most of them use it to describe themselves in common conversation.)

  • Sharpton emcees racially-focused Sanford rally, warns against use of violence [Treyvon Martin]

    03/23/2012 10:24:17 AM PDT · 45 of 53
    hadit2here to csense
  • North Miami High School Students Fight Valedictorian's Deportation Order ["Over My Dead Body"-Suptd]

    03/02/2012 10:21:53 AM PST · 6 of 14
    hadit2here to Steelfish

    >> “I’ve been asked the question before: ‘Do I feel American?’ or ‘Do I believe I am?’” she said. “And I don’t think it’s a question. I’m American. I know the national anthem. I know the laws. I know what it is to be an American.” <<

    If she “knows the laws”, then she knows she’s here illegally. Quod erat demonstrandum

    What say we make a deal. We’ll apply to her the Columbian immigration laws and give her the same rights as she’d have in the country her parents left and illegally entered the U.S.

    I’m all for applying to any Mexican the immigration laws of that country here. Seems fair to me. They don’t like the U.S. immigration laws, then they’ll certainly like their native country’s laws being applied to them here. Right?

    Bueller??

    Bueller??

  • 22 Carnival Cruise passengers robbed at gunpoint on ship-sponsored tour in Mexico

    02/25/2012 5:51:37 PM PST · 76 of 80
    hadit2here to Verginius Rufus

    I had the same problem. Then I looked at the top where it shows the number of comments and there’s a link next to it that says “comments below” or something like that. Click on that link and it takes you to the comments.

    At least that worked for me. Not really intuitive, like most of msn/msnbc.

  • 22 Carnival Cruise passengers robbed at gunpoint on ship-sponsored tour in Mexico

    02/25/2012 9:45:37 AM PST · 51 of 80
    hadit2here to jimbo123

    Wow, you have to read through all the comments on that story at msnbc. I’m amazed that they’ve left them up. Nearly all are scathingly against Mehico and jug ears Obumba. I would have thought that NBC would have filtered or pulled almost all of them.

    Some NBC website worker is going to get canned for not pulling the conservative comments.

  • CDC: Raw Milk Much More Likely to Cause Illness

    02/22/2012 11:07:52 AM PST · 29 of 30
    hadit2here to iowamark

    I don’t drink much, if any, milk. When I do, it’s usually “super pasteurized” because it lasts longer in the fridge as I use so little of it. So I don’t really have a dog in this fight.

    But my primary question is: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the right to “regulate” or proscribe any food, drug or other products? Or create any agencies which do that?

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” — Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

  • Exclusive: 2nd N.C. Mother Says Daughter’s School Lunch Replaced for Not Being Healthy Enough

    02/17/2012 6:25:08 PM PST · 29 of 47
    hadit2here to Nachum

    I’ve given these two stories of the lunch nazis some thought on how I would react if I was the parent. While it would cost me some time and money, it would put the school on notice (legal notice) and save me time and trouble in the future. I would:

    Take a lawyer, preferably a civil rights specialist, to the school with me to meet with the superintendent or principal. I would hand them a written notice (legal notice) that if they tried to inspect or interfere with my child’s lunch that I provided the child, they would have charges filed against them and the school district would be taken to court for civil rights violations, privacy violations and any other that the lawyer could think up to put in the legal notice.

    I would have the lawyer explain to the administrator just what “being put on legal notice” means and what the possible consequences would be if they took any action or discriminated against my child in any conceivable way, or violated any privacy, imagined or otherwise. I’d have the lawyer list the costs of legal litigation expenses and let him point out that the school officials would be named “personally and individually” in addition to their being named in their “official” positions. He could point out that this may require that the school officials may need to obtain (and pay for) the services of a attorney, separate from the school district’s legal representation.

    I would have the attorney hand them the citations of federal law regarding deprivation of rights under color of law and advise them that charges would be filed both under those federal statutes and any state statutes that might apply.

    Then I’d have the attorney give them statements to sign acknowledging that they had been provided all of this and that they fully understood the legal jeopardy that they were in if they should cause any further problem with my child.

    They could explain anything they wanted, but only after they had been given the notices and signed the statements. If they refused to accept them, then the lawyer would point out that he has legally witnessed their being advised and given the notices so the “legal notification” still applies.

    Then I’d thank them for their time and leave with the lawyer. Preferably, we would record the whole thing also.

    Once they had cleaned up their underwear, I suspect that they would leave my kid alone and hope they didn’t see me back at the school ever again.

    Believe me, I’ve done things like this and it works wonders with government a##holes who think their’s doesn’t stink. Once they find that they can be **personally** sued and will have to shoulder the cost of their personal legal representation, most will realize that discretion is the better part of valor and my kid’s lunches would be the last thing they’d want anybody to touch.

    Walking into a meeting with a good, aggressive attorney and taking control away from them that they usually have works wonders.

    If I knew a cop or sheriff who’d help us just by accompanying us to make sure no physical threats were made against us, I have them there also.

    Much future time, money and effort would be saved with one little legal tete ‘a tete with the right attitude adjustment. But most people are too scared of the “authorities” and think that a phone call or an email will do something. Nothing but a full on, aggressive legal game will do it. Going alone to meet or complain is useless as there is no witnesses on your side.

    It’s nice if you can get a local newspaper or teevee reporter to go along with you too. Even more effective is if they school officials don’t know that it is a reporter who’s with you. Amazing what happens when afterward the reporter goes and asks the officials for a public statement on the meeting. Bullying officials will crap their drawers when they find out they’ve acted nastily in front of the reporter.

  • Lost snowshoer burned money for warmth

    01/17/2012 6:09:02 PM PST · 12 of 12
    hadit2here to afraidfortherepublic

    I’m glad they found him and he’s OK. I’m no hiker/snowshoer and as a matter of fact, whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lay down until it passes, but WTF was he doing out on Mt. Rainier, in the middle of winter, ALONE?

    Call me crazy, but I’d sure want to have someone with me when I got lost in the snow on a mountain in the middle of winter. But that’s just me...

  • {Vanity} Are the admins considering a comment rating system update?

    01/16/2012 1:04:02 PM PST · 56 of 57
    hadit2here to Skeez

    Dunning–Kruger effect

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, “the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others” (p. 1127).

    The effect is about paradoxical defects in cognitive ability, in oneself and others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    Your post is a case in point.

    We don’t need hordes of mental incompetents “grading” other mental incompetents, neither of which group can conjugate and post a coherent, rational thought with plain text and can only express their feeeeelings by squashing “Like” or “Dislike” buttons.

    And why a “Like” button. Why not a “Dislike” button. And then a “Hate” button. Which would require a “Perverse Idiot Warning” button and then a “This Poster Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Play With Sharp Objects” button... ad infinitum.

    Why the constant need to “fix” something that works so well that there is nothing else like it on the whole global interwebs?

  • Vanity: National Agricultural Classification Survey - WTF?!

    01/10/2012 8:53:34 PM PST · 26 of 40
    hadit2here to bigbob

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    -Samuel Adams

  • Shooting of dogs disputed

    01/09/2012 4:07:54 PM PST · 23 of 27
    hadit2here to Altariel
  • Fedzilla is demanding I complete a 4-page survey ... about my garden! (vanity)

    01/06/2012 10:32:58 AM PST · 75 of 148
    hadit2here to matt1234

    Chuck it.

    If they call, hang up on them.

    If they personally visit your property, pick up the phone and dial the business number of the Sheriff’s dept. and while on the line, tell the gov’t person to please leave your property.

    If they refuse to leave immediately, tell the Sheriff’s office person on the line that you’ve asked them to leave and they’ve refused and to send a deputy over to arrest the person for trespassing.

    Handle subsequent personal visits similarly and any continued phone calls as harassment.

    They can always make an appointment to talk with you at your lawyer’s office. [ grin ] If they can get a hold of you via registered mail each time.

  • Burglar Shot By Accomplice... and Other Random Acts Of Justice

    12/30/2011 9:57:56 AM PST · 6 of 6
    hadit2here to Sasparilla

    I know I’m rassssist, but how did I know from the headline that these would be Holder’s people.

    Oh, that’s right... I read “The Color of Crime” again the other day.

  • Police: 9 shot at Tenn. nightclub Christmas party

    12/25/2011 1:16:27 PM PST · 37 of 67
    hadit2here to SkyPilot

    I saw the headline and instantly knew that all or most involved were Holder’s people... does being right about that such a high percentage of times make me a rassssist?? Naw, I’m a rasssist before I even SEE the headlines.

  • Merry Christmas JR and Family

    12/25/2011 10:09:04 AM PST · 17 of 95
    hadit2here to Vendome

    >> Merry Christmas Jim Robinson and John Robinson! <<

    AMEN!

  • BPA sends false signals to female hearts

    12/21/2011 3:28:15 PM PST · 18 of 20
    hadit2here to calex59

    Yeah, if you check the article linked to in #7, they state that pop/soda cans contain a lining with BPA in it. But, ooooops, they also let slip that you’d have to drink *** 940 *** CANS A DAY to get the gov’t. max limit amount.

    Plus, as someone else has noted, “a study that fed monkeys 400 times the dose level that is currently considered safe. The result was that the monkeys had blood levels that were lower than the average US adult”.

    But the sky is falling!!! Hurry and ban BPA and screw the economy just a little bit more using scary stories.

    “Remember, IQ is distributed on the bell curve. At any point in time, 50 percent of the people walking past you are morons.” — Gallagher

  • Elkhart County sheriff intervenes against feds in raw milk case

    12/21/2011 1:55:19 PM PST · 32 of 59
    hadit2here to thackney

    I wonder whether this Sheriff is a member of AZ Sheriff Babaau’s 10th Amendment group of Sheriff’s? (Either Babeau or a retired AZ Sheriff.)

    If so, they’re gaining traction and I hope they continue.