Page Last Updated on
Pet Peeves and Random Thoughts:
The
Okay, now we have Spike Lee being an idiotic hypocrite. He says that he thinks NRA should be disbanded and Heston should be shot ''with a .44-caliber Bulldog'' magnum pistol. Violence to prevent violence? What a moron. The NRA isn't responsible for any school shootings. The members are not criminals, and do not condone criminal activity. The reason the NRA is powerful is because there are A LOT of people interested in this subject, and know what liberals like Spike Lee are trying to accomplish: gun confiscation. Not just control, but confiscation. If that's what you people want, just come out and say it. Propose a bill that would repeal the Second Amendment. Make yourselves known, and see how far you go. We know you won't, because you won't stand up for what you really want, because you're afraid to fail (and you know you will fail).
For Rosie O'Donnell: Same treatment as Spike Lee. Rosie is another stupid embicile. These people have no idea what the Second Amendment is based on, or why we have it. There's a reason it's the second one, and not the ninth or tenth. Second. Right after FREEDOM of religion and FREEDOM of speech. It's not outdated, either, as the Rosie thinks (or claims to think).
In light of the Columbine shootings, we do NOT need more gun control laws. They won't stop stupid maniacs like those two. It's already illegal to kill or injure people, no matter what they use to do it. Many, many laws were broken, and it didn't stop those two idiots, so why would stricter laws stop them? Jesse Ventura was right. If someone had a concealed weapon, lives probably would have been saved. Another point... Why did the first cop that shot at the gunman (outside the school) not have a rifle? A scoped rifle would have settled this thing pretty darned quick. So sorry if I offended any bleeding hearts, but we don't need more gun control (aside from a steady hand and clear sight picture).
A guy takes part in one of the nastiest habits known to man for 40 years, dies from it, and his family sues the manufacturer for 110 million? Another smoker. People die from smoke inhalation in fires. It's not good for you. If it's nasty when the guy started (and I'm sure it was), it's probably not good for him. If he does it for 40 years, I guess he takes responsibility for his own actions. I just hope the court says he's responsible, and doesn't pay the family 110 million. And maybe the family can pay for the tobacco company's court costs.... Seems fitting for a frivolous lawsuit, and that's exactly what it is. Frivolous.
These pompous city governments that are suing the gun industry... What happened to personal responsibility? When a manufacturer sells a gun legally, he has sold a gun LEGALLY. If someone sells that gun again, illegally, put that person away. If a small dealer traffics illegal firearms, put the guy away. Most of them don't. People think this parallels the tobacco lawsuit. In the tobacco fiasco, the product is known to cause harm, even (especially) when used correctly. Guns, on the other hand, when used correctly, are safe. If they are used contrary to common sense safety rules, just as with most appliances, tools, automobiles, etc., they are very dangerous. Guns are safe. Let's go after the criminals, and make them pay for the hospital costs. If they can't pay, they stay in debt for the rest of their life for what they've done. It's called punishment and personal responsibility. If a criminal doesn't consider the consequences of his actions before he shoots someone, that's not a gun manufacturer's fault. These lawsuits are stupid, and each moronic city council that jumps on the bandwagon is stupid, too. These people have no sense of responsibility.
Who are the "American People" that the press (and our executive and legislative branches) is always talking about? I'm an American Person, and my friends are American People, but they don't seem to have the same views as the American People the press talks about. Who are these people who are voicing their opinions so emphatically? Certainly not me.
Why do people believe that the current administration is responsible for the favorable economic conditions this country is in? Does anyone think economic improvements happen overnight? Or over five years? I seriously doubt it. Crime rates are down... Did the current White House do that? No. But, they'll take credit for it, as if they have made a difference. The difference will be in about 10 years, when the effects of their actions come to fruition. Then we'll see the things that they've done "for" this country. Changes in economics and crime take time to make. They don't happen overnight. Sure, there will be ripples when news of crime laws or lower interest rates, but it'll take several years to actually "see" what the results are.
Hate crimes. Who cares if a victim is black, hispanic, gay, lesbian, female, or whatever? If a person is murdered in cold blood, the perpetrator should be removed from society, either by execution or life in prison without parole. If a minority is assaulted, should the perp get more time in prison than if the perp assaulted me? I'd be insulted if that was the case. If I'm assaulted and robbed, the guy should go to prison for many years. If a black person is assaulted, the guy should go to prison for the same amount of time. All men are created equal.......
Same thing for gun crimes. Who cares if a criminal uses a gun or a baseball bat to kill someone? Either way, life or execution. If someone assaults someone and they have a gun, it's still assault. How about if we just put the people away for the required time, whether or not they had a weapon, but based on the act that they, the perpetrators, carried out. Assault is assault, murder is murder, robbery is robbery.
How about a White History Month? Would that be racist? We have Black History Month, Women Months, Hispanic Months, and every other kind of month....... Something to think about, huh?
People that look forward to getting a tax refund seem to think that the government is giving them something. It's their money!!! The government took too much, and now has to pay them back. If you like getting a tax refund each year, because it's "like a savings account," then they're partly right. A savings account, although it makes very little interest, gets more than the tax refund, which is NOTHING. It's a ZERO PERCENT loan to the United States Government. If you want to loan the largest, most inefficient beauracracy in the world some money, buy a savings bond. At least it makes something. Do some tax planning and save the money that's due you.
Drivers who won't turn in to the closest lane. This is where someone turns from a one lane road onto a two lane road. They go sweeping all the way across the road, no signal or anything, just wandering around. As far as I know, rules of the road say that if you make a left turn, you turn in to the left lane. Making a right turn, turn in to the right lane. THEN signal and make a lane change if that's not where you need to be.
People who don't use their turn signals. Even if the thing's broken, stick an arm out the window! People wander around the road, seemingly having no idea where they're going. Have you ever waited at a four way intersection, trying to make a left turn, for a driver coming the other way to come straight across the road (since he's not signaling, he's going straight, right?), then he turns left (or right) on you? How about a signal, just to let other people know what you're doing? Sorry, that would be asking someone to be courteous! Mustn't have that!
Speeders who tailgate. They come racing up behind you, then ride your bumper until you move over. Here, I have a distinct tendency to slow down, just for them.
Speeders who won't wait for you to move over. These come racing up behind you, then as soon as YOU have room to move over into the right lane, they jump over and pass on the right. Usually doesn't stop me from continuing over into the right lane, though. They're not supposed to be there, anyway.
People that can't wait in line in a construction zone. Two lanes merge to one, and everyone starts getting into the correct lane. Then people go flying by, and try to merge some distance up. This does nothing except slow everyone down. Oh, yeah, it also makes them look like idiots.
Respect for life has decreased by leaps and bounds.
Kids shooting kids? Where does that come from? Society shows a decided decline for respect for life. Why should we expect anything different from our youth? It's not the guns. It's society. Freedom of choice in abortions was the very start, I believe, and it continues with the refusal to prohibit late term abortions, where the baby is partially born alive, and before it is completely out, it is killed in a gruesome, barbaric procedure. President Clinton refuses to ban the procedure because the proposed laws won't allow the procedure even in the event of medical necessity. Problem is, it'll never be a necessity. The baby is partially born normally, and killed "before it is born." What a crock. When we treat unborn children like this, why should we expect kids to respect people and the human life? They're just being like the majority of society, uncaring about anything but themselves.
We can't execute criminals who have blatantly stolen rights (the lives) from innocent people, but we can kill innocent babies indiscriminately on a whim, for "convenience." It's not convenient to make prison space by executing criminals that have been living off our tax dollars for over a decade? Hogwash. I've heard it said that it's very expensive to execute a criminal. If the criminal is arrested and tried in 30 days, then allowed 30 days for the appeal, and then executed within the next 30 days, how much could that cost?
One guy in Andrews, NC, allegedly bombed an abortion clinic
(that kills innocent babies, for that matter) and bombed a couple of other
places. Two people died, several were hurt. Our government can
spend multiple millions of our tax dollars daily on a hunt for one man, who
might be responsible for two deaths. At the same time, we let cold
blooded killers out of prison, because it costs TOO MUCH to keep them in
jail. I see this as our government making a statement. What that
statement is, I'm not exactly sure. I really don't believe they'll find
the guy.
Women with careers and children don't mix, unless the father stays at home
with the kids. Women who have kids out of wedlock (preceded by unmarried sex,
of course, which is mostly the problem) and try to make themselves something in
the professional world are doing a great disservice to the children,
themselves, and society. Look at Murphy Brown (Candace Bergen). She slammed Dan
Quayle when he spoke down about her part. Now, about eight years later, she
AGREES with what he said. How stupid. A woman can have a career, and a very
good career. If she has children and a husband, she can still have a career, if
the father stays at home and is a father to his children. If she has to be a
full-time mother, she needs to sacrifice the career. You can substitute man
with woman, father with mother, and it's the same. This is not a slam of women
at all. Single women (or men, for that matter) who have children and claim to
have a great professional career, for the most part, lie. The basic structure
for
Cal Thomas has some excellent points. I read in a
One reason people deny that God exists is to alleviate themselves from having to answer to anyone or anything, or to be held responsible for anything. Government tries to close down any school that teaches religion, claiming "separation of church and state." There is nothing about separation in the constitution, and the constitution was based on Christian values. First Amendment allows these freedoms, doesn't restrict them. Along the same lines, people that "believe" in evolution, and that the world is some millions and billions of years old, are attempting to get people to believe that there is no god, and that we just "happened." They're trying to make themselves believe that they don't have responsibility to anyone. If there is proof that there's a god, there is someone over them, and they'd have to answer for their actions. They refuse to believe this. Problem is, they get government to force this drivel down the throats of the rest of us, and if they can do that, religion dies off, and God fearing people become more insignificant.
How have we come to have a justice system that will give a couple two and two and a half years for murdering their newborn baby boy, while a man who tortures and kills five cats, gets twelve years? Are we to believe that human life is worth less than an animal's? I don't believe that cats, or any animal for that matter, should be tortured and killed, but taking an innocent human life is unforgivable, punishable by death. The cat killer should be put away for several years. The couple should be put to death. Now.
We, as civilians, should be very wary of the government we have now.
Mass attacks, such as
Liberals are for a larger, more restrictive government. Anything that reduces a person's dependence on the government, in their view, is bad. I guess that when they try to free prisoners who have served less than half of their sentences, they're trying to make us more dependent on the government for protection. Then, they try to grab our guns, so they can have one more reason to put police on the streets. Of course, the police, FBI, BATF, SWAT are the ones we have to watch out for, and have a defense against. They're the ones that get out of hand. It's a vicious circle. The more big, easy (one or two people in a house?), well publicized raids they do, the more praise they get for protecting the public. Then, they put their own spin on the story (the defender is either dead or in prison), get public support, more funding, and continue their transgressions. If they'd do their job and put the known violent criminals away, we'd be fine, and they could cut back a little, instead of making it look like we need 100,000 more police officers. Better yet, let everyone carry personal protection, and we'll just take care of ourselves. But then we wouldn't be relying totally on the government. That would be bad, wouldn't it?
People who don't know the difference between "its" and "it's". "It's" ALWAYS means "it is" so how can this make any sense: It's leg was hurt (It is leg was hurt?). "Its" is possessive. "It's" is the contraction for "it is". Simple.
Same thing goes for O (the letter) and 0 (zero). "One Oh Six" isn't a number. It's a letter, number, letter. "One Zero Six" is a number. If someone gives you a phone number, like 655-1006, and they say it's "one-oh-oh-six" that would mean it's actually "one six six six" because the letter "O" is over the 6 key, right?
People that believe that moral infidelity should go unpunished, that we
should just "let it go, and get it behind us." I think the
whole scandal is very serious, and we need to deal with it. We need to
deal with it swiftly, but deal with it. If these people don't feel some
punishment, they set an example for all the
People in public office have no "right" to that office. They are appointed or elected, and if they make stupid choices, the public needs to remove them. This government is by the people, for the people. Government works for the people, and they need to understand the meaning of that principle. The people are not there for the government. It is most definitely the other way around.
There should be at least a 5 day waiting period on abortions. Better yet, let's make mandatory instant checks performed by the FBI before anyone can get any type of abortion. Then, register the names of the people receiving any type of abortion, and maintain those records for 6 months to a year. Hey, we have to do it to buy a gun legally, right? Most guns are used for target practice, competition, and hunting, NOT killing people. EVERY TIME an abortion is performed, it kills a person. We should have controls at least as strict on this murderous procedure.
School shootings and gun free school zones. Will any of these no-good anti-gun slugs ever figure out that the criminals don’t pay attention to laws? That’s what makes them criminals. Why penalize a teacher for having a gun in his car on school grounds? There’s no good reason. These laws make criminals where there were none before, and where there are no victims.
Laws that ban smoking in restaurants.
I don’t want to be around smokers.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to smoke. If they want to smoke, and a restaurant owner
allows it, I can choose to go elsewhere.
I’ll let the business owner know that I’m going elsewhere,
and why he’s losing my business, and then HE can decide if he has made a
good policy. The city has NO RIGHT to
ban smoking on private property. Yes, a
restaurant is PRIVATE PROPERTY. If the
city wants to ban smoking in a city owned (public owned, specifically) building
or park, that’s fine, and I think it is appropriate that they do so, but they
should have NO SAY in what goes on in a business on private property, as long
as it is conducting legal business.