I was listening to Hannity today and he was taking just Obama caller and there was one that had an good argument that he feels that corporations should pay more and that would help him, becasue he can't pay anymore He also feels that the corporations would have to pay the taxes because the market wouldn’t let them raise the cost of their product to cover the taxes, funny that a liberal would try to use the market to prove his point, anyway so his presumptions that there would be companies that would keep their cost down and that would force the other to the same.
I have to agree with him. Some companies would keep there cost down, they would be foreign companies, the ones not having to pay these higher taxes, mainly china, so the American companies wouldn’t be able to keep up and would have to close down, thus losing America jobs.
So if the consumer doesn’t pay the higher prices the companies would go under.
How is this good for America?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
McCain picks a winner
Well I guess I have to say this. I love that McCain choose Sarah Palin. Yes she is unknown and that may or may pay off, at least there aren’t going to be any ads of Rommey bashing McCain.
But this was a great play by McCain. This is a fresh face and fighter from what I got from the speech she gave.
Now I have already heard from people that McCain choose her because he got scared after Obama’s speech, but the way McCain was able to keep this under wraps and not have made up his mind.
He hit this one out of the park.
I was listing to nightside, the night time talk show here, and Ethen was really trying to down play the impact that Palin will play on the race. Acknowledging that Obama can’t play the inexperience card against her, without pointing out his own,( Really that should be thought about more), but of course he was quick to point out that McCain couldn’t use the inexperience either because of her. I would like to point out that she is not running for the top slot, where the experience is really needed. In other words there can be some on the job training(even if it’s just a little) for the VP.
Anyway, it was funny to me that the wind was just taking out of Ethans sails, because he seamed so ready to just talk about Obama’s speech so he could swoon some more, but because of the Palin pick that was the big news. While I have to admit I couldn’t hear the whole show, but what I heard was all about Palin, even the after party.
This had to rub him raw, because normally he uses as much time as he can defending anything Obama and swooning. Of course it just because Obama is black, and this is not racist of course because it smooths white guilt, but will he now say that he won’t vote for McCain/Palin because he is sexist? Just asking.
But this was a great play by McCain. This is a fresh face and fighter from what I got from the speech she gave.
Now I have already heard from people that McCain choose her because he got scared after Obama’s speech, but the way McCain was able to keep this under wraps and not have made up his mind.
He hit this one out of the park.
I was listing to nightside, the night time talk show here, and Ethen was really trying to down play the impact that Palin will play on the race. Acknowledging that Obama can’t play the inexperience card against her, without pointing out his own,( Really that should be thought about more), but of course he was quick to point out that McCain couldn’t use the inexperience either because of her. I would like to point out that she is not running for the top slot, where the experience is really needed. In other words there can be some on the job training(even if it’s just a little) for the VP.
Anyway, it was funny to me that the wind was just taking out of Ethans sails, because he seamed so ready to just talk about Obama’s speech so he could swoon some more, but because of the Palin pick that was the big news. While I have to admit I couldn’t hear the whole show, but what I heard was all about Palin, even the after party.
This had to rub him raw, because normally he uses as much time as he can defending anything Obama and swooning. Of course it just because Obama is black, and this is not racist of course because it smooths white guilt, but will he now say that he won’t vote for McCain/Palin because he is sexist? Just asking.
Monday, August 11, 2008
What if?
So I want to know what would happen if there was a group out there that stated their goal was to harass any group that was donating to or supporting the Democratic Party. What kind of call to shut them down would be made? Would there be endless instigations into that group? Would the press sit by and not do any reporting on this? I would think not!But when there is a group with the stated purpose of doing this do Republicans, Nothing. Not even any coverage. So is there bias in the press. I have said so before, yup The question is why is the media bias towards Democrats? The only reason I can think of is Money. So long as the media gets to tell you how to think they make money and have power. This goes along with the lefts though process because the masses are too stupid to think for themselves and need to be lead by the balls by the elite. A true conservative wants you to get the information for yourself and think. You are in charge of your life.
I know I didn’t quote any source, I will get them posted later, but even if this is hypothetical, what do you think?
Thanks for listing to my rant
Update,
The group is called accountable America.
They sent out a warning letter and are listed by google as “dedicated to electing Democrats to the state legislature across America.”
So tell me were is the outrage?
If not that where is the coverage?
Michelle Malkin talks about it here.
It’s a good read
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/08/document-drop-the-accountable-america-warning-letter-targeting-gop-donors/
I know I didn’t quote any source, I will get them posted later, but even if this is hypothetical, what do you think?
Thanks for listing to my rant
Update,
The group is called accountable America.
They sent out a warning letter and are listed by google as “dedicated to electing Democrats to the state legislature across America.”
So tell me were is the outrage?
If not that where is the coverage?
Michelle Malkin talks about it here.
It’s a good read
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/08/document-drop-the-accountable-america-warning-letter-targeting-gop-donors/
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Good post
Read this on Stop the ACLU
it's a good read
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/08/01/drilling-the-election-issue-of-all-election-issues/
it's a good read
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/08/01/drilling-the-election-issue-of-all-election-issues/
Vacation Time
So I was listing to the radio today and the news was that Nancy Pelosi voted to recess congress. It seams the she recess the house so that the republicans can't force a vote on the energy crisis
Now I find this telling. The subject comes up and Pelosi can not avoid it like she has been doing, because it is growing across the country the idea or felling that domestic drilling need to be done, and more people even in her state of California.
So she has said lately that she is trying to save the planet. That is finding but I thought that she was elected to do the will of her electric. I thought the term was public servant. Now she has had some justification in being again drilling because California is against but they are changing their mind, so shouldn't she. Or don’t the people no longer matter once the elected office reaches high enough office?
I think that it is showing the elitist view that Washington has, and this goes for both sides of the isles.
The republicans are jumping on this because it is becoming a defining issue and they have less to lose. So their pushing has not as much clot as it should, but at least they are doing something.
Democrats want us to be greener, regardless of the consequences, so they are not going to do anything to put more oil in the market, and I agree that oil is not the long term, but we need it now because we are so depended on it. Unless you want to see our economy completely collapses.
This may be what they want, thinking that it could be rebuild in their vision.
Of course to rebuild us after a crash it would take the kind of hard work they wouldn't know how to inspire, but I digress.
So any what this should the democratic line, we wont fight about an issue, if we can't ignore it we will run from it?
This is why I can't vote for a democrat, even if I may agree with them at a local level; the national party squashes anything that is not the main line. Which I could not disagree with them more.
Case in point, Joe Lieberman, voted 98% of the time with the party but for the war, because of this they primaries him out, to get ride of him.
Think about that next time you have to fill up; the democrats needed their vacation more than they need to deal with the energy issue, or that it is more important to look good in front of the rest of the world, or maybe look the same as the rest of the world than to deal with the situation.
Now I find this telling. The subject comes up and Pelosi can not avoid it like she has been doing, because it is growing across the country the idea or felling that domestic drilling need to be done, and more people even in her state of California.
So she has said lately that she is trying to save the planet. That is finding but I thought that she was elected to do the will of her electric. I thought the term was public servant. Now she has had some justification in being again drilling because California is against but they are changing their mind, so shouldn't she. Or don’t the people no longer matter once the elected office reaches high enough office?
I think that it is showing the elitist view that Washington has, and this goes for both sides of the isles.
The republicans are jumping on this because it is becoming a defining issue and they have less to lose. So their pushing has not as much clot as it should, but at least they are doing something.
Democrats want us to be greener, regardless of the consequences, so they are not going to do anything to put more oil in the market, and I agree that oil is not the long term, but we need it now because we are so depended on it. Unless you want to see our economy completely collapses.
This may be what they want, thinking that it could be rebuild in their vision.
Of course to rebuild us after a crash it would take the kind of hard work they wouldn't know how to inspire, but I digress.
So any what this should the democratic line, we wont fight about an issue, if we can't ignore it we will run from it?
This is why I can't vote for a democrat, even if I may agree with them at a local level; the national party squashes anything that is not the main line. Which I could not disagree with them more.
Case in point, Joe Lieberman, voted 98% of the time with the party but for the war, because of this they primaries him out, to get ride of him.
Think about that next time you have to fill up; the democrats needed their vacation more than they need to deal with the energy issue, or that it is more important to look good in front of the rest of the world, or maybe look the same as the rest of the world than to deal with the situation.
Friday, June 27, 2008
NPR's take on high prices
SO listing to NPR the other night I was surprised by the gust they had on.
He was talking about how it was a good thing that the prices for everything are going up, because that would mean that everyone’s income would go up. He justifies this by using the example of the cost of living increased that most people get every year. He stated that although everything is going up, it our buying power would not change because our incomes would increase as well.
My response would be to remind him that everyone’s income already was raised about a year ago when congress raised the minimum wage. This affected everyone’s income, not just the ones making minimum wage.
So at that time most people got the adjustment he is referring to, really our buying power is going to decrease for a while. Of course that’s just what I see.
No-one wants to talk about the effect of raising the minimum wage.
I saw the effect of it because I work currently for minimum wage and tips, but it caused the price change to our pizzas, because the stores labor costs when up.
O well I guess because it make the liberal feel better that they raised the wage fro millions of Americas, they don’t really care affect it has. Then NPR will defend it.
He was talking about how it was a good thing that the prices for everything are going up, because that would mean that everyone’s income would go up. He justifies this by using the example of the cost of living increased that most people get every year. He stated that although everything is going up, it our buying power would not change because our incomes would increase as well.
My response would be to remind him that everyone’s income already was raised about a year ago when congress raised the minimum wage. This affected everyone’s income, not just the ones making minimum wage.
So at that time most people got the adjustment he is referring to, really our buying power is going to decrease for a while. Of course that’s just what I see.
No-one wants to talk about the effect of raising the minimum wage.
I saw the effect of it because I work currently for minimum wage and tips, but it caused the price change to our pizzas, because the stores labor costs when up.
O well I guess because it make the liberal feel better that they raised the wage fro millions of Americas, they don’t really care affect it has. Then NPR will defend it.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Is Michelle really proud?
So on the way home tonight I was listing to the radio and the topic was about Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain.
The host is a real Obama supporter and I don’t think that there is anything the Obamas’ could do that he would not excuse.
Anyway he was talking about he comment that Michelle had said about her not being really proud about America and was giving the excuses for it, and ho Cindy doesn’t have a right to say anything about it because she had a different experience than a black person would have had growing up.
His basic premise is that because there are black people that experienced the racism against them that a black person could have ill feeling.
Ok to be fair I’m not saying that everyone should be forced to have great feelings, but if you have hard feeling towards that country why are you supporting you husband in running for the top job. I know to make it better. By telling white folk that they really screwed it up and it will take a black man to make it better? That’s really color blind.
Anyway the host keep jumping back to that Michelle was totally justified in having hard feeling toward the us because of it’s racism past.
I just have a few questions.
How long do was have to pay for our racism past?
No one I know or was related to has owned a slave or asked a black man to got to the back of the bus.
If you really are only proud of the country now, why would you run for the top job?
And please don’t try and tell me that Brack is running not Michelle, If he is running, she is running because of how she has put herself in the front lines. I mean how much effort you are going to put into something that you have hard felling about.
I also know that I do share most of the feeling and thoughts of my wife. The ones we truly differed from we have mostly come to common ground, and we have only been married seven years.
One last thing, Cindy may have brought it up in an interview today, but then again so did Michelle on the View. So it’s not just he vast right wing conspiracy talking about it.
The host is a real Obama supporter and I don’t think that there is anything the Obamas’ could do that he would not excuse.
Anyway he was talking about he comment that Michelle had said about her not being really proud about America and was giving the excuses for it, and ho Cindy doesn’t have a right to say anything about it because she had a different experience than a black person would have had growing up.
His basic premise is that because there are black people that experienced the racism against them that a black person could have ill feeling.
Ok to be fair I’m not saying that everyone should be forced to have great feelings, but if you have hard feeling towards that country why are you supporting you husband in running for the top job. I know to make it better. By telling white folk that they really screwed it up and it will take a black man to make it better? That’s really color blind.
Anyway the host keep jumping back to that Michelle was totally justified in having hard feeling toward the us because of it’s racism past.
I just have a few questions.
How long do was have to pay for our racism past?
No one I know or was related to has owned a slave or asked a black man to got to the back of the bus.
If you really are only proud of the country now, why would you run for the top job?
And please don’t try and tell me that Brack is running not Michelle, If he is running, she is running because of how she has put herself in the front lines. I mean how much effort you are going to put into something that you have hard felling about.
I also know that I do share most of the feeling and thoughts of my wife. The ones we truly differed from we have mostly come to common ground, and we have only been married seven years.
One last thing, Cindy may have brought it up in an interview today, but then again so did Michelle on the View. So it’s not just he vast right wing conspiracy talking about it.
Monday, June 9, 2008
New ad for Prius
So I was in line on Saturday to get gas, and I was cut off by a little Prius.
Now I will give them the benefit of a doubt and say they didn't see me, I mean how could you see a Ford Explorer, it’s so unobtrusive.
But it made me thing of the new advertisement for the Toyota Prius.
Friendly to the earth,
Screw everyone else.
I think it goes right along with the environmentalists’ mindset.
Don't you think?
Now I will give them the benefit of a doubt and say they didn't see me, I mean how could you see a Ford Explorer, it’s so unobtrusive.
But it made me thing of the new advertisement for the Toyota Prius.
Friendly to the earth,
Screw everyone else.
I think it goes right along with the environmentalists’ mindset.
Don't you think?
Friday, May 9, 2008
Managers
Ok I have to say this, I was talking to my mom a few weeks ago. I was frustrated and expressed that I don’t felt that you make your breaks by working hard and that it really is just a matter of being born under the star or in the right place. I have worked longer and harder than most of the people I grew up with and an have not gotten as far as they have.
Well it was proven right, later that week I go to work and one of the other kids get promoted to manager. Now I am a driver, and here I am not required to learn or really do anything else, but I have learned the rest of the jobs and there isn’t anything I can’t do here. The kid that got moved up, really still after about a year had to still be ridden to get his jobs done, and now he struts around and will tell anyone that will listen that he is in charge.
Now he doesn’t ask me a lot of his job, but when there is a problem he expects others to solve them and then it doesn’t get solved.
Yup, show incentive and hoard working and someone else will get promoted beyond you.
This has happened to me several times. I guess there is something wrong with me. I guess I shouldn’t spend so much time learning and doing my job and start kissing more ass.
I just can’t stand the taste.
And nope you can’t come to my pity party.
Well it was proven right, later that week I go to work and one of the other kids get promoted to manager. Now I am a driver, and here I am not required to learn or really do anything else, but I have learned the rest of the jobs and there isn’t anything I can’t do here. The kid that got moved up, really still after about a year had to still be ridden to get his jobs done, and now he struts around and will tell anyone that will listen that he is in charge.
Now he doesn’t ask me a lot of his job, but when there is a problem he expects others to solve them and then it doesn’t get solved.
Yup, show incentive and hoard working and someone else will get promoted beyond you.
This has happened to me several times. I guess there is something wrong with me. I guess I shouldn’t spend so much time learning and doing my job and start kissing more ass.
I just can’t stand the taste.
And nope you can’t come to my pity party.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
McCain and Obama
It does seam that Senator Obama is going to get the nomination. There are things that Senator Clinton is going to use to try to use with the super delegates, but that would destroy the party. Now I would love to see this, but it’s not going to happen.
But I just want someone to ask the question of Senator Obama. You say that you will be able to work across the isle and work with republicans. How can you back this up? And while this question is asked, will they point out that Senator McCain has a history of working with Democrats, much to the stress of many Republicans.
So there are many that Senator Obamas lack of experience is a plus, but then how are we to know what kind of leader he is going to be. Well, I would suggest by looking at his friends and business dealings.
Just wondering.
But I just want someone to ask the question of Senator Obama. You say that you will be able to work across the isle and work with republicans. How can you back this up? And while this question is asked, will they point out that Senator McCain has a history of working with Democrats, much to the stress of many Republicans.
So there are many that Senator Obamas lack of experience is a plus, but then how are we to know what kind of leader he is going to be. Well, I would suggest by looking at his friends and business dealings.
Just wondering.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Bias Press, Na you don't say
Ok I was wondering about this but had not looked it up to see what had happened. If you have been in Utah in the last few years you have herd of Dell Shansy. Well he is a loud mouth that owned a computer store. He was known for his loud commercials. Well he is apparently running for Salt Lake county mayor. That is not what I want to talk about here.
A few years ago he was in trouble for pulling a gun on some guys that had stopped him in a neighborhood. The story was all over the place and big deal was being made about him pulling his gun. It seams that Dell was speeding through a neighborhood and was stopped by three guys. The event was escalated to a point where Dell pulled his gun. I did hear that the reason he pulled his gun was because one of the guys had a rock that he was threatening Dell with.
The story was covered in detail and a lot of his other antics were pulled out to show what type of guy Dell was.
Now was Dell speeding? Probably. Was Dell’s mouth the reason the situation escalated? Probably yes. Did the three guys have the right to stop Dell, no?
Was he right in pulling his gun? That is the question. There was no coverage of the situation after the original court date.
Talking to my wife when I got home she was telling me that Dell was cleared of the charges because it was deemed that he acted appropriately.
So it appears that a person used a gun leally and in defends of his person. But was there any coverage, nope.
Big Surprise
And people say the press is not bias.
A few years ago he was in trouble for pulling a gun on some guys that had stopped him in a neighborhood. The story was all over the place and big deal was being made about him pulling his gun. It seams that Dell was speeding through a neighborhood and was stopped by three guys. The event was escalated to a point where Dell pulled his gun. I did hear that the reason he pulled his gun was because one of the guys had a rock that he was threatening Dell with.
The story was covered in detail and a lot of his other antics were pulled out to show what type of guy Dell was.
Now was Dell speeding? Probably. Was Dell’s mouth the reason the situation escalated? Probably yes. Did the three guys have the right to stop Dell, no?
Was he right in pulling his gun? That is the question. There was no coverage of the situation after the original court date.
Talking to my wife when I got home she was telling me that Dell was cleared of the charges because it was deemed that he acted appropriately.
So it appears that a person used a gun leally and in defends of his person. But was there any coverage, nope.
Big Surprise
And people say the press is not bias.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Big Surprise
I have been watching the president primaries and am finding the fight among the democrats funny.
The big thing now is that The Clinton Camp is trying to make the delegates in Michigan and Florida count. Of course this is contray to the letter Clinton signed saying that she would abide by the DNC’s rules.
Obama of course is making a big deal about it, but I’m thinking he should just be quite because early in the race he sign an agreement with McCain stating if they won the nomanation they would us just public funds, now I’m not sure what that means completely, but Obama is shying away form this because he has raised so much money that to use only public money would be limiting himself.
So really both candidates will agree to something until it hinders them. Big Surprise
On the other hand I heard one guy on that had called in to Doug Wright stating that the reason Florida moved up their primary was because of the republican sensate moved the primary date and the democrats were forced to move and were being punished because of the republicans in the senate.
Wow, do you thing they could come up with something new besides blaming republicans for everything. I’m just waiting for them to blame Bush for the sinking of the Titanic.
The big thing now is that The Clinton Camp is trying to make the delegates in Michigan and Florida count. Of course this is contray to the letter Clinton signed saying that she would abide by the DNC’s rules.
Obama of course is making a big deal about it, but I’m thinking he should just be quite because early in the race he sign an agreement with McCain stating if they won the nomanation they would us just public funds, now I’m not sure what that means completely, but Obama is shying away form this because he has raised so much money that to use only public money would be limiting himself.
So really both candidates will agree to something until it hinders them. Big Surprise
On the other hand I heard one guy on that had called in to Doug Wright stating that the reason Florida moved up their primary was because of the republican sensate moved the primary date and the democrats were forced to move and were being punished because of the republicans in the senate.
Wow, do you thing they could come up with something new besides blaming republicans for everything. I’m just waiting for them to blame Bush for the sinking of the Titanic.
Monday, February 25, 2008
You've got to love this
hats off to Cassy Faino.
Great post
http://cassyfiano.blogspot.com/2008/02/breaking-news-psychiatrist-finds-that.html
Great post
http://cassyfiano.blogspot.com/2008/02/breaking-news-psychiatrist-finds-that.html
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
More gun control
Ok I have to write this, there has been a lot of shooting over the last few weeks. These things are terrible events and each one saddens me.
I have noticed that there is a general trend among the shootings. They are all at gun free zones. They have been on school campuses and in courthouses. The one at the courthouse the gunman went after the cops first, to eliminate any threat to himself. An gun freezone really does a good job of elimitating threats to the shooter.
As usually there is more calls for gun control, even thought the new laws would not have stopped the crimes. I mean how could a gun free zone such as a school be more restrictive to guns?
Anyway here is the typical liberal response
I have also read posts or editorials that state that the shootings that were stopped by armed citizens were more a chance thing and not a good idea.
Give me a break.
In the case of the trolley square shooting there were several concealed weapon permit holders in the mall with their guns, they did not run out to confront the shooter, but had the shooter come into the store where they were located, the shooter would have meet strong resistance. Still as it was a citizen with a gun that slowed the shooter down and allowed the cops to take him down.
Any way it’s just another attack on the second amendment.
My question is “ Once you do away with the second amendment, what amendment are you going to go after then?”
People it’s not just about guns it about freedom
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
One year from the Trolley Square shooting
I really mostly forgot about this but I really think it should be something to take about. It is the one-year anniversary of the shooting at Trolley Square here in Salt Lake City. This was a scary night. I remember watching the new flashes and thinking of the terror that someone there would be thinking and how I wished I were there to help.
This was a tragic event that no one thought would happen in our town, and there are some that are still feeling the affects. My heart goes out to the families that lost love ones, and a sense of pride goes to the offices that went in to face the evil that was happening.
My wife’s Aunt was working in a store in Trolley Square and missed the shooting by just a few hours. Way too close for comfort.
Now I get to get up on my soapbox. The shooter at Trolley Square (I refuse to use his name) was using a shotgun. Now the damage a shotgun can do is enormous. Pretty much anyone that was shoot was killed, very few wounded, but over all the total killed was less than what it should have been considering the weapon used and the amount of ammo the shooter had with him. Why, because of an armed citizen. Yes he was a police officer, but he was off duty and did not have to have his gun with him or really get involved (of course any good cop would have gotten involved). Now the officer was not the one that killed the shooter, that was the other responding officers, but he slowed the man down and in doing so saved lives.
There have been other examples recently were an armed citizens stopped if not killed a shooter in a public place, and if you really look at the recent shooting across the country you will notice that most are happening in gun free zones. Where if not banned then strongly discouraged.
So what is my rant, I have a cwp and carry a gun the majority of the time. Why, because I feel that you have to fight evil, not just run away, if you want to protect life.
Again, My heart is with the families that must still be feeling the pain of the shooting; you are not alone.
This was a tragic event that no one thought would happen in our town, and there are some that are still feeling the affects. My heart goes out to the families that lost love ones, and a sense of pride goes to the offices that went in to face the evil that was happening.
My wife’s Aunt was working in a store in Trolley Square and missed the shooting by just a few hours. Way too close for comfort.
Now I get to get up on my soapbox. The shooter at Trolley Square (I refuse to use his name) was using a shotgun. Now the damage a shotgun can do is enormous. Pretty much anyone that was shoot was killed, very few wounded, but over all the total killed was less than what it should have been considering the weapon used and the amount of ammo the shooter had with him. Why, because of an armed citizen. Yes he was a police officer, but he was off duty and did not have to have his gun with him or really get involved (of course any good cop would have gotten involved). Now the officer was not the one that killed the shooter, that was the other responding officers, but he slowed the man down and in doing so saved lives.
There have been other examples recently were an armed citizens stopped if not killed a shooter in a public place, and if you really look at the recent shooting across the country you will notice that most are happening in gun free zones. Where if not banned then strongly discouraged.
So what is my rant, I have a cwp and carry a gun the majority of the time. Why, because I feel that you have to fight evil, not just run away, if you want to protect life.
Again, My heart is with the families that must still be feeling the pain of the shooting; you are not alone.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Movie Shoot Em Up
Well I finally saw shoot em up, and have to say it was totally under whelming, in fact it was upsetting. I wanted to see it because there were a lot of guns in the movie but it ended up being a slam against the 2 amendment and all gun owners.
The movie starts with the hero saving a pregnant woman from the gun-toting thugs. He does a good job fending the off with the 380. And even delivers the baby. Now I will not go into the fact that you will be hard pressed to get a one shot kill with a 380, not that it isn’t possible but very difficult and he shot about 4 time the number of bullets that gun will hold regardless of the three reloads he does but I digress, anyway the women doesn’t make it, they kill her off with a head shot but the way she was bleeding she wouldn’t have lived anyway. This just kind of shows the level of realism about guns in this movie.
The hero take the baby and tries to give it up but the killers don’t give him the chance, he has to rush in and save the baby.
As the story goes on it comes out that the guys trying to kill the baby are from a gun manufacturer and are trying to kill the baby that would be the marrow donor for the congressman they is ding and is stanch anti-gun guy.
The hero figures this out and goes toe the congressman only to find he’s in bed with the gun company, and will be changing his mind about gun control. This leads the hero to kill the congressman to give the anti-sun movement a poster child or martyr.
As the story progresses the guy leading the thugs is looking in to find out who the hero is, because no matter how many people he throws at him they can’t kill him. He digs up somewhere that the hero is some kind of special ops solder and was the son of a British gunsmith chased to the US by the Uks gun bans. He also uncovers that his wife and child were killed by the lunatic that shot up a McDonalds, also that the hero owned the gun store that sold the lunatic the shotguns used in the shooting. I thought it funny that is wasn’t until the last few scenes that you find out the hero was sloppy in the background check when he sold the gun and was prosecuted for it and is a fugitive because of that.
So we have a fugitive from justice that couldn’t even follow the laws that are already in place proving the point that the gun companies are evil.
What a load of crap.
The laws are in place to help prevent the lunatic from getting a gun legal and the hero didn’t follow them. Not saying that he desired to lose his wife and child, but then he runs and becomes a fugitive. This is your anti-gun poster boy. Not to mention that he very willing execute the congressman and many guards at the gun warehouse, who were doing their job and we legal where he was trespassing.
So this is the man so show that if guns were illegal that the violence would go a way.
I guess I shouldn’t have expected straight thinking from a movie where the hero is able to kill anyone he looks at by just sweeping the gun in that direction, while no one else could even shot sort of strait.If you get a chance to watch this movie, skip it and watch something else more interesting, like paint drying. Your intelligence would be less insulted.
The movie starts with the hero saving a pregnant woman from the gun-toting thugs. He does a good job fending the off with the 380. And even delivers the baby. Now I will not go into the fact that you will be hard pressed to get a one shot kill with a 380, not that it isn’t possible but very difficult and he shot about 4 time the number of bullets that gun will hold regardless of the three reloads he does but I digress, anyway the women doesn’t make it, they kill her off with a head shot but the way she was bleeding she wouldn’t have lived anyway. This just kind of shows the level of realism about guns in this movie.
The hero take the baby and tries to give it up but the killers don’t give him the chance, he has to rush in and save the baby.
As the story goes on it comes out that the guys trying to kill the baby are from a gun manufacturer and are trying to kill the baby that would be the marrow donor for the congressman they is ding and is stanch anti-gun guy.
The hero figures this out and goes toe the congressman only to find he’s in bed with the gun company, and will be changing his mind about gun control. This leads the hero to kill the congressman to give the anti-sun movement a poster child or martyr.
As the story progresses the guy leading the thugs is looking in to find out who the hero is, because no matter how many people he throws at him they can’t kill him. He digs up somewhere that the hero is some kind of special ops solder and was the son of a British gunsmith chased to the US by the Uks gun bans. He also uncovers that his wife and child were killed by the lunatic that shot up a McDonalds, also that the hero owned the gun store that sold the lunatic the shotguns used in the shooting. I thought it funny that is wasn’t until the last few scenes that you find out the hero was sloppy in the background check when he sold the gun and was prosecuted for it and is a fugitive because of that.
So we have a fugitive from justice that couldn’t even follow the laws that are already in place proving the point that the gun companies are evil.
What a load of crap.
The laws are in place to help prevent the lunatic from getting a gun legal and the hero didn’t follow them. Not saying that he desired to lose his wife and child, but then he runs and becomes a fugitive. This is your anti-gun poster boy. Not to mention that he very willing execute the congressman and many guards at the gun warehouse, who were doing their job and we legal where he was trespassing.
So this is the man so show that if guns were illegal that the violence would go a way.
I guess I shouldn’t have expected straight thinking from a movie where the hero is able to kill anyone he looks at by just sweeping the gun in that direction, while no one else could even shot sort of strait.If you get a chance to watch this movie, skip it and watch something else more interesting, like paint drying. Your intelligence would be less insulted.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Science Friday
I was listening to Science Friday on NPR tonight. The had an author on that wrote the book "Plan B” Ok I forgot the authors name, but it was basically the plan we should have to curb global warming and what we should do to accomplish that. The plan is the typical push for alternative energy, now I have to say here I am all for renewable recourses. I have a real difficult time with the US being dependant on foreign oil. This has caused us all sorts of problem and will continue to do so considering the oil comes from the unstable regions of the Middle East.
Most of his ideas were fairly typical global warming rant, you know we need to stop using our cars and we should use solar and wind power (at least he wasn’t advocating population control, at least not in this interview). What surprised me was the author was talking about how the market needed to drive this push towards using alternative energy. However his suggestion was to lower the income tax and make up the difference with a carbon tax. I don’t know about you but that is not having the market drive us towards alternative energy. It is more government program.
However this is what he is calling market driven. This is still government control, or the government knows best attitude.
I love how the global warming group is all for government clamping down. It fallows the liberal view that the government will save us all.
Now I believe there is a reason to control our emissions, and find a better way to fill our energy needs, but it shouldn't be done with a tax or government control.
He was right in one aspect; the market is the force that will ultimately make the country go green. It has more power than any government program to shape how people live.Just another global warming alarmist expecting the government to save him. I wonder what he is willing to give up to have the government to fix it for him. He probably thinks he doesn’t pay enough in taxes now.
Most of his ideas were fairly typical global warming rant, you know we need to stop using our cars and we should use solar and wind power (at least he wasn’t advocating population control, at least not in this interview). What surprised me was the author was talking about how the market needed to drive this push towards using alternative energy. However his suggestion was to lower the income tax and make up the difference with a carbon tax. I don’t know about you but that is not having the market drive us towards alternative energy. It is more government program.
However this is what he is calling market driven. This is still government control, or the government knows best attitude.
I love how the global warming group is all for government clamping down. It fallows the liberal view that the government will save us all.
Now I believe there is a reason to control our emissions, and find a better way to fill our energy needs, but it shouldn't be done with a tax or government control.
He was right in one aspect; the market is the force that will ultimately make the country go green. It has more power than any government program to shape how people live.Just another global warming alarmist expecting the government to save him. I wonder what he is willing to give up to have the government to fix it for him. He probably thinks he doesn’t pay enough in taxes now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)