Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

How to Make Pinterest Work for Your Brand
Social-savvy marketers tell how companies can start pinning to increase the bottom line. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: The biggest and most egregious

The biggest and most egregious

Post Reply Back to Forums

76–100 out of 122 messages

Author	Message

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/13/2013 11:31:11 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Sorry cruise MAN do we have your number. Grateful nails it when she ID's you as a walking DSM footnote. orthicon hits a bulls-eye with his "he gets caught, time and again, in the same lie by a dozen different people..and still can't acknowledge that he's been caught again.." And then you come out of the closet yourself with what's REALLY important to you--You simply hate Obama. Since the president hasn't done ANYTHING in the past four years to threaten the so-called 'rights' of American gun owners...what does your hatred of the guy have to do with anything?? "he is trying to fundamentally change the US" (HOW??) "and at least fifty percent of the country doesn't support those efforts" (He won by 51%. Get over it) "treading territory never before trod by another chief executive" (HOW??) "doing things that are not permitted by our founding documents and body of law" (HOW?) "Seventy five percent of the country doesn't want further controls on firearms" WHERE?? I see a poll that says 57% americans think gun laws should be stricter. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57559669/poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-at-10-year-high/ I see USAToday/Gallup polls that say the same thing. Pew has one at 42%-49%. CNN/ORC polls aren't much better. WHERE did you find your 75%???? http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm What's "mind-boggling" is your un-reasonable hatred of OUR president. "berate those of us who speak out against this perversion of our heritage." Babble babble babble. No examples. Just more foaming at the mouth. That's why we think you're, well, nuts.

cruiser	Posted - 1/13/2013 12:33:22 PM \| show profile \| flag this post What you're doing , pal, is cherry-picking polls that are supportive of your gun-grabbing point of view. Conversely, I'm looking at impartial polls. Even some of the leftist major dailies carry polls indicating that most Americans DON'T WANT further restrictions on firearms. A consensus seems to be forming around the points that I've been making for months...those being: 1) Improved reporting of mental health data 2) Restriction of high capacity ammunition magazines 3) Expansion of background checks to include private sales 4) Some examination of violent video games, etc. Of course, Joe Veep also wants to ban "mil-spec assault weapons"...nevermind that NONE of those are lawfully available on the civilian market. Mil-spec mean selective fire or fully automatic fire (both fire multiple rounds as long as the trigger is held back). The AR-15 lookalikes are NEITHER but are SEMI-automatic (one round at a time)...just like the VERY innocuous varmint and hunting rifle pictured here: http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html By the way, this rifle fires EXACTLY the same round as the AR-15 lookalikes...the .223...which is only SLIGHTLY larger than the ubiquitous .22. Dianne Feinstein's original "assault weapons" ban outlawed a number of rifles BASED SOLELY ON THEIR COSMETIC APPEARANCE, NOT THEIR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES. Fully automatic firearms have been the subjects of highly restrictive federal regulations since 1932. Several studies have shown that Feinstein's ban had no measurable effect on crime but that's not really the point. Banning "assault weapons" is a part of the overall gun-grabber scheme of eliminating ALL firearms from civilian ownership.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/13/2013 1:20:28 PM \| show profile \| flag this post So put up or shut up. You specifically said 75% "doesn't want further controls on firearms". WHERE? Show me your "impartial polls". Please. You can't? Oh well. As for your 'four-point consensus'...I think you're absolutely correct; those ARE good points (almost everyone) can agree on. But then you turn around and LIE again. Don't understand why you feel the need to do that. "Of course, Joe Veep also wants to ban "mil-spec assault weapons"...WHERE did he say that?? "NONE of those are lawfully available on the civilian market." THAT'S A LIE. If you have the time and money you can buy them, and you know it. You trip over your tongue later when you say "Fully automatic firearms" are highly restricted. Thought you said they weren't even available?? Now they are--but "restricted". Make up your mind. And those countries that DO ban this suff?? They have less gun deaths than we do. But you don't understand "per capita", so that's a waste of time. I love it when you posted that picture of a "VERY innocuous varmint and hunting rifle". Yea, I looked at your picture. Looks like a rifle you would use to HUNT DEER. Now look at a picture of the gun used at Sandy Hook. That looks like a rifle you would use to HUNT HUMANS. Lastly, not only is the driving force in your life 'I Hate Obama'--it's encircled with IT'S A CONSPIRACY!! IT'S A TRAP!! The very fact that the president HAS NOT done anything in four years to restrict gun ownership of any kind--Well that's just PROOF that it's all "part of the overall gun-grabber scheme of eliminating ALL firearms from civilian ownership." Man oh Man does Grateful have you pegged perfectly.

cruiser	Posted - 1/13/2013 1:44:01 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "WHERE did he say that??" See the news clips from his bloviating session...err, I mean "meeting" with the NRA and others. That was one of his main points.

cruiser	Posted - 1/13/2013 1:51:07 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "Make up your mind" I've made up my mind. You are the most egregious liar on here. Fully automatic firearms are so tightly controlled by federal regulations as to be virtually unavailable on the civilian market. In fact, I can only think of one...that's ONE...incident of a crime with fully automatic firearms and they were ILLEGALLY modified AK-47s. That was the North Hollywood bank robbery in which both robbers were killed and NO OTHER PERSON died.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/13/2013 2:09:05 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Lie lie lie dodge dodge lie lie Old pattern. But still fun to watch. You specifically said 75% "doesn't want further controls on firearms". WHERE? Show me your "impartial polls"....and you didn't. You said "Of course, Joe Veep also wants to ban "mil-spec assault weapons" I asked you WHERE/WHEN. Now you say (without a link/source) "See the news clips from his bloviating session...err, I mean "meeting" with the NRA and others. That was one of his main points." WHERE/WHEN?? From FOX: "The vice president said earlier that "an emerging set of recommendations" focuses on launching "universal" background checks, restricting high-capacity magazines and allowing federal agencies to do more research on gun violence." AND "Biden said the list of possible recommendations so far includes a call for "universal background checks." He said this would include not just closing the so-called gun show loophole but imposing background checks for all transactions, including private sales." He NEVER even goes near 'banning' "mil-spec assault weapons" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/10/biden-meets-with-nra-faces-pushback-on-hill-over-executive-order-gun-control/#ixzz2HsbLgLT1 "During a day of White House meetings on the issue on Thursday, including one with the National Rifle Association, Mr. Biden focused publicly on universal background checks for gun purchases and the need for more federal research on gun violence. In 15 minutes of public remarks, Mr. Biden made no mention of curbing the production and sale of assault weapons" "MADE NO MENTION" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/politics/biden-to-meet-with-gun-advocates-including-nra.html?_r=0 So what are these "mil-spec assault weapons" You claim Biden wants banned??? "Here’s the deal, and it’s very simple: Only rifles made for the U.S. military are MilSpec." http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=2259&cid=4 Oh. So you're making up more conspiracies and more comments that don't exist. And now, instead of "NONE of those are lawfully available on the civilian market", we're back to "virtually unavailable". Same thing in your mind, and it's still a lie. You don't need an AR-15 (or any other semi-automatic assault weapon look-alike) to go deer hunting. But they are easily obtained, and fully automatics are also available. You can lie lie dodge dodge lie lie all you want. Nutcase.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/13/2013 2:12:14 PM \| show profile \| flag this post * Let's see...you're a journalist, a college "professor" and now you're trying to convince everyone here that you're a psychiatrist too? ROFL! * What a shame that you failed to notice the quote marks around the material about NPD and the URLs to the sources of it. It doesn't take a psychiatrist to look up material online about NPD, quote it and provide the URL to the source of it. You're so blinded by yourself, you can't even read what's on a page or conceive of a writer/editor who also teaches. I feel very, very sorry for your inability to connect with reality. This forum needs to shun you, as harsh as shunning is, so that it's no longer satisfying to you to dominate the forum in order to crap all over other people.

cruiser	Posted - 1/13/2013 2:14:22 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "the president HAS NOT done anything in four years to restrict gun ownership" But he's promised to do it now. Do you not "get" that??? And I didn't say the gun-grabbing scheme was necessarily the president's...or, at least, it hasn't been up to now. It's principally been the province of HCI, Brady, VPC, Feinstein and other leftists but it's coming...he's promised it.

cruiser	Posted - 1/13/2013 2:17:15 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "He NEVER even goes near 'banning' "mil-spec assault weapons" Yeah, he did. I heard it with my own ears. And I'm sure you did too but are lying about it.

cruiser	Posted - 1/13/2013 2:19:15 PM \| show profile \| flag this post The only people I "crap" on...DEARIE... are those who have to end every post with an insult (read: Grateful Deadline).

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/13/2013 2:34:12 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Lie lie dodge dodge lie lie YOU SAID, QUOTE "Of course, Joe Veep also wants to ban "mil-spec assault weapons"...Where? When?? And from a pro-gun site I found ""Here’s the deal, and it’s very simple: Only rifles made for the U.S. military are MilSpec." So Biden and Obama want to ban military rifles from the military?? Really?? You said Biden talked about it after meeting with the NRA. No link, no source, no proof. But then you haven't answered your other blatant lies either: (Obama) "he is trying to fundamentally change the US" (HOW??) "and at least fifty percent of the country doesn't support those efforts" (He won by 51%. Get over it) "treading territory never before trod by another chief executive" (HOW??) "doing things that are not permitted by our founding documents and body of law" (HOW?) "Seventy five percent of the country doesn't want further controls on firearms" WHERE?? I see a poll that says 57% americans think gun laws should be stricter. "I didn't say the gun-grabbing scheme was necessarily the president's...or, at least, it hasn't been up to now." Oh. So he hasn't done anything about it for four years. "But he's promised to do it now. Do you not "get" that???" What I "GET" is that your a paranoid nutcase. Besides giving you math lessons, and reading comp lessons, we constantly have to give you Civics lessons. The President SIGNS laws the Congress passes. That goes for banning assault weapons (and spending bills). No no no in your head. He's a Dictator donchaknow. Does anything he wants. Just like Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Drudge told me so. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/drudge-features-hitler-stalin-with-link-to-gun

cruiser	Posted - 1/13/2013 3:08:38 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You're not Goebbels Constantly repeating your lies won't make them true. It only makes you look foolish...like an unintelligent tool of a radical left political machine. Others here may note that whenever dogson, etwinke, grateful, etc., get cranked up to their most prolific and most vehement, it's when I've touched a raw nerve they'd much rather I hadn't exposed.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/13/2013 4:08:07 PM \| show profile \| flag this post mp, please stop. Let him go, for our sake and for his. He has an illness that is fed by pointing out anything to him. He truly isn't able to process it. You're basically picking on someone who can't help what he does. The way to handle NPD is to ignore the person -- shun him, cut him out, disengage. Nothing you or me or any other layperson can do will change his behavior, but we can get it off this forum. I recently used the technique on a real-life NPD person; it worked like a charm, and I got a lot more done without the distraction. I think that MB is well aware of this forum's toxicity and the chill it put on the other MB forums when many of you were shunted here from your old site, and that MB would welcome the users' revitalizing this as a place to discuss current events. A forum isn't worth keeping when it's dominated by one poster who denigrates the profession that the entire site was created to support. What we can do is cut him out of conversations as if he doesn't exist, never referring to him and never falling for his setups. Then he won't get what keeps him coming back.

cruiser	Posted - 1/13/2013 4:23:59 PM \| show profile \| flag this post PLEASE do that Then I can post without the vitriol that has been directed at me ever since you people became aware that I was not "one of you." It was always my primary purpose to correct the misinformation posted by supposedly trained and impartial journalists. Circumstances forced me to take on the secondary purpose of responding in kind to the vitriol and ad hominem directed at me. And you're one of the worst, dearie...always with a mouth full of vinegar.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/13/2013 4:33:31 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You're right of course. I will try. Maybe we can shut the idiot down. And his friend con for that matter. Someone just emailed me this: “Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.” ― Michael Crichton, State of Fear Nice.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/13/2013 6:44:29 PM \| show profile \| flag this post mp, thanks. I'm going to start a fresh thread to reply to you.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/13/2013 7:06:04 PM \| show profile \| flag this post mp's quote on backing opinion with evidence mpdodgson wrote: "Someone just emailed me this: 'Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice. ― Michael Crichton, State of Fear Nice." I should print out that quote and hang it in my classroom. My students do a good job of backing up opinion on the opinion pages and at fairness in their news and features. Their motivations are similar to what ours were at college age -- right down to some who want to be watchdogs, others who want to empower the audience and the few who only want to cover music!

con	Posted - 1/14/2013 9:52:17 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Grateful Deadline Posted - HA! THERE IS NO LINK IN YOUR POST!!!!! con Posted - 1/10/2013 11:32:03 AM \| show profile \| flag this post http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand/165757356.html Source Data compiled from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program by James Alan Fox, criminology professor at Northeastern University; U.S. Census Bureau; Journal Sentinel research By Emily Yount and Ben Poston, Journal Sentinel bless your little heart. gd, please get some help. your projection issues must be a btch.

con	Posted - 1/14/2013 10:02:21 AM \| show profile \| flag this post mp, if you dare step out of your liberal bubble, you would find the truth is often not what you believe. the geo study has been discredited- which is why clinton and obama distanced themselves from it. it is a fact most weapons given to the mexican government finds their way into the hands of cartels. while mp tries so hard to defend dearleader- it is noted mp downplays obama's fast and furious program. whats a few thousand weapons and over 300 hunderd death mexicans when blindly defending obama? "Just like Mao, Stalin and Hitler" some on the left would think obama adding himself to that list is a good thing.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/14/2013 10:28:17 AM \| show profile \| flag this post con, you may want to take a look in the posts above yours to see what we're doing to handle cruiser. Then you can decide whether you want to have it happen to you, too.

cruiser	Posted - 1/14/2013 10:50:59 AM \| show profile \| flag this post I've encountered "controlling" women before but NEVER one like grateful dud. She seems to think she can dictate to EVERYONE...and that everyone should just accede without question or exercise of their own free will. I suspect she's a VERY lonely person...and I suspect I know why.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/14/2013 11:39:03 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Pls see p.4 of "biggest and most egregious" to restore forum Please see page 4 of the thread "The biggest and most egregious." It contains important information and a fail-safe plan for restoring Current Events to a discussion forum.

livinliberal	Posted - 1/14/2013 1:24:47 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Cruiser is wrong...again... Comparing a .22 to a .223 is like comparing a hand grenade to a pineapple. The .223 bullet is almost as large as an entire .22 round. The .223 has much more gunpowder and can fire the bullet at much higher velocities. You have a bigger bullet traveling at a much higher speed. Not the same at all. Plus when you have a gun that launches 100 of them in a matter of seconds you are talking about a real killing machine, which is what that gun was made to do. Kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Do you want a lot of those floating around in your community?

blackedtaped	Posted - 1/14/2013 1:50:23 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I have to agree with livinliberal The sight of a rifle "floating" in my neighborhood would concern me. I probably would need to cut back on something if I start seeing guns floating in the air.

cruiser	Posted - 1/14/2013 2:43:49 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "Comparing a .22 to a .223 is like comparing a hand grenade to a pineapple" You are SO wrong on so many levels that your response is beyond laughable. Learn something about firearms, ballistics, etc., so you won't embarass yourself again. The bullet from a .22 is 40 grains (0.091 oz) while the bullet from a .223 is 55 grains (0.125 oz). That's a difference of about three TENTHS of an ounce...or about the weight of a housefly. Just for the sake of comparison, the bullet from a deer rifle is about FIVE TIMES heavier (270 grains) than from a .223. The energy at the muzzle of the .223 is 906 ft/lbs for and 2837 ft/lbs for a .30-06 (a common deer rifle caliber). There's NO WAY you can make the ballistics support your bullsh*t contention of "high power assault weapons." I've been doing this for more than sixty years. I know what I'm talking about. Y'see, one of the things you know-nothing gun-grabbers DON'T know is that the objective of a military rifle is NOT to kill but to wound. It takes MANY more people to care for a wounded soldier as it takes to bury a dead one. War is an exercise in attrition (however that can be accomplished) and the more people who are tied up caring for the wounded the fewer who are avaiable as fighters.