Sad. And these are the guys who supposedly report the facts…
Archive for December, 2012
look up “Guy on a Buffalo.” Honestly, I don’t know why it’s funny, but it is.
so aptly puts it, “Laws are for the little people.” Yeah, pretty much.
I just don’t know why Gregory should go free when “regular” citizens get prosecuted. Seems grossly unfair.
Is their a link between the timing of death and taxes? I would guess so.
Of course, it doesn’t personally impinge on me, because i’m not looking to be a beneficiary of an estate worth that much. But then again, I’m not someone else who wants to inherit the family farm or well-drilling business, for example. Those kinds of people might well see their future prospects stolen by Obama and the government.
should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. I mean, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…
I agree that any prosecution would be ridiculous, but then again, the laws themselves are ridiculous! That is part and parcel of the whole gun law gig, and a prosecution of Gregory would demonstrate that well. It would be poetic justice. This situation just shows how ridiculous these stupid laws are. This is a system that persecutes honest and harmless citizens and lets criminals go free and unpunished. For the same behavior. It’s not like criminals care what the law says. That’s why we call them criminals! Gregory is a moron, and he ought to be in jail for his stupid actions. Do I think is a danger to society? Of course not. But the law says that he deserves jail time, and I think that either we uphold the law or we don’t. I thought they were really stupid laws in the first place, but don’t blame me for them. I would never have implemented them or voted for them. But Gregory loves them, so let him deal with the aftermath of his boorish behavior.
Brits have taught us a lesson. If we are wise we will pay heed. What lefties here want is exactly what will do the most damage. Ignore those buffoons–they are just wrong.
Liberal laws are terribly ineffective in doing what they say they are for. But they might be totally in line with their practical (and predictable) consequences. In other words, the intent and effect of the laws are very much different than its content. It’s fundamentally a way to keep out those with “wrong” views.
For example, I lived in Boston and was associated with Harvard Medical. I had a guy (higher up) who suggested that they could hire me. I never wanted to live in the Boston area, and never even obliquely pursued the possible job. Boston was way too (openly) leftist for me and anyone who dared utter a peep of something NOT leftist was attacked–the population selected against someone with my views even joining in the conversation. Yeah, diversity was when everyone looked different, but thought exactly the same.
This was not a conspiracy. It’s like the mainstream media–there is such a lack of diversity and it’s been that way for so long that the conventional wisdom just assumes a lefty bent.
A story. One morning I was in rounds and the other docs and they were talking about a kid who had brought a gun in his car to school. They were aghast at what a criminal act this was. I spoke up and said, “I think I took a gun to school every day in my car. My seat covers had a spot for a shotgun (bench seats). I also had a gun rack in the pick-up and I might want to hunt pheasants on the way home.” There was dead silence from the other four or five docs and the head of the department. After a minute, the head of the department said, “Well, that’s a different perspective.” Now in Boston, that was a very antisocial act, I agree. But the problem was NOT the gun.
Plus, with those laws there is the added bonus of the stated content of the laws being concordant with the socio-political “tics” of those voters. Yes, they ignore (or ignorant of) the bigger picture… Kind of like chocolate truffles–they taste good going down, but then I shouldn’t be shocked at the weight gain! Hey Einstein, maybe it was the pound and a half of chocolate truffles!
It also gives new meaning to the term “free rider.” I may live in a state which, for example, has less restricted concealed carry laws but never carry myself. I still benefit from those laws in a number of ways, from personal safety to wise governmental fund management and a good economy to the population’s general outlook.
disagreement. At all. What I mind is the crap-eating, overweening hypocrisy. Honestly that sickens me and every decent human being is revolted at the charade. Where is the moral outrage from the left? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question…
I guess if you can afford to send your kids to a school with armed guards that’s perfectly OK, but if you suggest that public schools have armed guards you are a “gun nut” and a lunatic. Huh. Truly, some animals are more equal than others, eh?