NCclimber

How pedantic. Evasion! How can anyone answer you question without knowing what you mean by the term used. Are US Democrats automatically lefties? How about fiscal conservatives who are social liberals? Wow. Another Rush Limbaugh technique. LOL Off the irony scale. Instead of "lefty", how about "liberals"? Still to vague? How about people who describe themselves a liberals? That works - a well defined SET. According to this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liberal_opinions_copy.jpg Twice as many liberals favor lowering defense spending as liberals who oppose it. While this doesn't prove they are anti-military, it's still pretty telling.

How pedantic. Evasion! How can anyone answer you question without knowing what you mean by the term used. Are US Democrats automatically lefties? How about fiscal conservatives who are social liberals? Wow. Another Rush Limbaugh technique. LOL Off the irony scale. Instead of "lefty", how about "liberals"? Still to vague? How about people who describe themselves a liberals?

Doesn't that depend on what is being addressed? I may be wrong, but I thought the gist of this thread was the character of CCW holders. Some people seem to imply they (as a group) are really not much different that the general population. The previously posted stats indicate they are a "cut above". They indicate a crime/conviction rate of CCW holders is dramatically lower than that of the general population.

How pedantic.

You are completely backwards and inside out You were asked to source the statement that most lefties are anti-military. The evidence you supplied was that (in your opinion) anti war protesters are anti military. For this to qualify as any kind of support at all for your original statement you must show that most lefties attend anti war protests. The idea that most people at anti war protests are lefties is completely fucking irrelevant. Sooo, most lefties are anti military vs. most anti military are lefties - please tell me that you can recognise that those two statements are different, and that you can therefore see where you just fucked up? Which leads us right back to.... show that most lefties attend anti-war protests or admit the pointlessness of your argument. I'd recommend skipping straight to the admission of pointlessness myself, otherwise you'll just keep digging deeper and deeper and deeper... no-one likes to see that. It's embarrassing for everyone. Do you think the statement "Most lefties are anti-military" is accurate?

Oh yeah Well, the crime rates concerning CCW holders rose 160 percent from 2002 to 2005, while statewide crime rates fell!!! What do you have to say about that? CCW crime rate nearly triples! Statewide crime rate falls! I wait your response. And people don't think I pay attention to other's tactics.

So, now that no one is responding to your posts, you're responding to yourself?

Good disclaimer. If it had been with the original post I would have no argument. As I indicated earlier, the concept that all CCW holders are good is just as false as the concept that all CCW holders are bad. But I do have to raise one point in the original post that is questionable in the skydiving community. "We don't get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do." I guess no skydivers that go to a bonfire after jumping are CCW holders!!! LOL Seems like your splitting hairs here. First off, I took that statement as a general one for most CCW permit holders. That first point about not drinking etc. seemed to be about "when they are actually carrying a weapon". In other words, they take steps to avoid hazardous situations when they are carrying. Perhaps you could've asked for clarification instead of saying: "It just amazes me that people feel so insecure that they need to have guns on their person, but then I don't live in a overly violent society. Perhaps their insecurity is justified or maybe they're just paranoid, I don't know. "

Would you have a problem with the OP statement, if it included a qualifier along the lines of: "The following speaks for the overwhelming majority (but not necessarily 100%) of CCW permit holders." Seems like a number of people are using the probability that some CCW holders are less reputable to discount the statement.

Not anymore. Labels like chickenhawk, neocon, denier get dishonestly thrown around with such regularity most people just ignore them. So your goal here is to add to the dishonesty and to be eventually ignored? How's you get that?

Not anymore. Labels like chickenhawk, neocon, denier get dishonestly thrown around with such regularity most people just ignore them.

http://www.miamiherald.com/top_stories/story/283492.html

Why don't you find out and report back? Find out what? Both figures are based on estimates. Of course, the 2.4 trillion estimate is less than current annual spending. Considering the estimate is looking out 10 years, it's a pretty safe bet it will be less than 10% of federal spending.

Yes. The author consistently confuses the cause of the fire with the response to the fire, thus the main thrust of the first half of the article is complete rubbish. To me, it seemed that the article was about what is being addressed in the media, regarding this topic. Seems like there is a lot of finger pointing at Bush, while very little attention to the cause of the fires. Let's go ahead and focus the blame on Bush, while we ignore the instigators of this horrific event. Who cares if bad people do bad things, what matters is how the government steps up on it's nannystate duties. IOW everybody is getting worked up over something that has yet to play out, while they ignore a key aspect of the current situation. Seems like some very lopsided reporting. But that's just how I see it.

What are we talking about here? Five... maybe ten percent of federal government spending?

Speaking of the elephant in the room.... would having armed students and teachers result in a net reduction of gun-related fatalities on campus?

I'm not the right person to answer that. Oh. Like that's a prerequisite for you offering an opinion?

Why do you think Harry Reid made that claim? Because he's a politician? What do you think? I'd rephrase the question, but you'd probably reply with something about iPods or Lewis Carroll....

Even accounting for exaggeration, that's still a horrible example. Any way you cut it, Margaret Thatcher is a "real man". Does anyone still eat quiche?

Yeah. That's what I thought you meant. Why is it now being given so much power?

Dismissed outright? Well, no. Stated connection? Well, no. Reserving comment? Probably smart. At the time, that was all you could say about it, really. An outlier event. Does that justify comments like "What a maroon." or "la la land"? Why do you think Harry Reid made that claim?

Well, then require training. On a side note: If the claims are true that our university educators typically lean to the left, watching this play out would be quite amusing.

Again. Yes. How about it Kallend???

Shell, eh? I had a problem with those guys a few years ago. I cancelled my card. They charged me an annual fee and then started charging me late fees for not making payments. I paid the annual fee and got the late payments waved. Then they refunded the annual fee. A few months later I got another check from them. I cashed it. They charged the amount to my cancelled account. Then back came the overdue annual fee and the late fees started back up. Throughout it all, I probably spent 3-4 hours on the phone with those people. what a racket.

While he said "our world", I think he meant it figuratively, about life in the US.