The Flame Room

This is something I used to have when I was running a Bulletin Board System (BBS for the experienced).

The Flame Room was a place that you could go to vent your rage. You could blow off steam to your heart’s content.
Think of it as your pressure relief valve, where you can really let it all out.

I had a request for a post like this, but I am thinking that a page would be better. It will stick around and I will need to clean it over time as the comment count will likely go through the roof.

402 thoughts on “The Flame Room”

    1. Your logic is flawed, at least in my case, and the cases of the people I know and associate with. People saying "they're coming for our guns" doesn't influence us to go out and buy more firearms or ammo, it's the words and deeds of anti-gun politicians that influence our decisions. Blame the anti-gun people for increased sales.

    1. Way out of line, even for you, extremely poor taste and about as lowlife as it gets. Offensive as heck. I guess that just about covers it.

      Don't bother responding on this one. I'm done.

        1. I support his right to free speech. A lot of people, using guns, defended that right. I still like Coggy and Mr 64, but I just disagree with their ideology.

        1. When all the guns are gone from the hands of the law abiding citizens, the children will still die by the hands of evil men (using guns) obtained by illegal means.

          Easy offense, You say? Do you think that those of us who hold to our 2nd Amendment Rights do not love the children too? I would save them all by putting myself between them who would do them harm. But, I can't.

          Political satire is usually funny. This is NOT!.

            1. And here's my chance to exercise my first amendment rights.

              Coggy, you are a sick, heartless, confused, bastard. If you think for one minute that the people advocating to keep their firearms to defend their families from the criminal elements around us, would sacrifice their children for the right to defend their children, you are a fool as well. What you imply is absolute reverse logic and makes no since in the real world. Who do you think is defending YOU against those evil, bad men with drugs and guns? It's other men and women with guns. You may be scared to stand on that wall and defend yourself, much less the weaker members of our society that can't defend themselves, but not all of us are scared to risk our lives to save yours. If you really think the world would be better off without law abiding citizens owning guns to defend themselves, move your sorry ass to China, where citizens aren't allowed to have guns, see how long you last outside the protection of the embassy.

              * A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

              * A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

              * A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

              * A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

              * A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

              * A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealedhandguns.

              * A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

              * At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

              2,500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it, long before any police assistance … Of course, you probably didn't know any of this because mainstreammedia doesn't find it worth reporting. It's not sensational enough and doesn't fit with their agenda. What's insane is people who think removing rights from responsible people will somehow keep them safe.

              If you want to be defenseless, fine that is your right, but you don't have to worry, we'll still be here to defend you from the bad guys while you cower in the corner. We don't expect you to thank us, just stay the hell out of our way, we have a job to do.

              1. "Who do you think is defending YOU against those evil, bad men with drugs and guns? It's other men and women with guns."

                The only people I prefer to have defending me as you describe, are the men and women in blue.

                And both the bad guys, and the cops, and the private citizens all get guns that originate from the same factories. And those manufactures profit from all three types of clientele.

                1. "The only people I prefer to have defending me as you describe, are the men and women in blue."

                  Yep, and when every second counts, a cop is only a minute away.

                  Of all the gun owners I listed in the incidents above, only one was a cop, and he was off duty. If all the others had waited on police to arrive there would have been a lot more innocent lives lost. Anti-gun laws have nothing to do with the manufacturers, if they don't sell their products here, they'll sell then somewhere else.

                2. I would rather defend myself, the private citizen often has more range time than the men and women in blue. Their budgets do not let them spend more than a box or two of ammo each year.Most of those how carry concealed (or openly) will burn that several times each year, some monthly.

                  1. I would rather America be a safe enough place where I don't have to divert parenting time and money from my child's education and well being to undertake the expansive responsibility of gun ownership.

                    But oh, god forbid America actually be a safe secure place. Where would all those gun profits come from if we tried for that?

                    1. Utopia has never existed. If there was a way to eliminate all the criminals, it would have happened long ago. But if you have come up with some new, magical way of making all the criminals vanish and no new ones appear to take their place, please let us all in on the secret.

                    2. so why are you and your ilk demanding your gun-utopia?


                      ANYTHING of the slightest smallest deviation or moderation away from only the most PUREST hardcore unrestrained total access to guns everywhere all the time is met with… conversations like this.

                      look at this thread.

                      I'm not challenging the 2nd Amendment. I'm not calling for a ban on automatics.

                      all I'm merely doing is pointing out that the gun makers, the NRA, and pro-gun politicians profit from incidents like Newtown. Its a simple point. But to say it appears to be sacrilege in your unfettered utopia of gun-worship.

                    3. First off, there have been plenty of restriction passed over the years, but no matter how many are passed your ilk always want more. Automatics have been illegal for decades, as have extremely large calibers. Shortened rifles and shotguns are illegal as well. Explosive, incendiary, and fragmenting ammunition is illegal. But none of that is enough, You want to pretend that none of that counts and you need to "protect" everybody by banning more.

                      More over, nearly all states require federal background checks to get a conceal weapons licenses, and a back ground check to by any fire arm from any dealer. And we are required to register all handguns. It doesn't quite seem like a utopia when we have a plethora of restricted weapons and mountains of paperwork just to own and carry a firearm to defend ourselves with. Maybe you don't understand what "Utopia" means.

                      Second, how did anyone other than the anti-gun liberals get ANY profit from Newtown, or any other incident?

                    4. I understand what utopia means, and I'm not pretending that's a realistic possibility.

                      so much of the "restrictions" you list are watered down, NRA-corrupted, un-enforced band-aid bullshit.

                      it all serves to fake us out from anything that remotely WORKS.

                      so you didn't notice that gun and ammo sales (and price mark ups) are WAY up since Newtown? You didn't notice that the NRA's contributions are soaring?

                    5. The reason ammo sales are way up has nothing to do with Newtown, it is the threat of gun restrictions from the liberals that has everyone stocking up before the ammo and guns become unattainable.

                      How are the restriction watered down? No one without a special government licenses can get an automatic weapon, and even they are regulated as to when as where they can us it. No one that isn't a government agency can get anything larger than a 50 cal. Not even law enforcement are allowed to have cut down rifles or shot guns. So exactly how are they watered down and un-enforced. And even if only one of these many restrictions was enforced, to proves that your assertion that we live in a gun-utopia is a complete fabrication to invoke an emotional response instead of sticking to the facts, because the facts are not on your side.

                    6. "The reason ammo sales are way up has nothing to do with Newtown, it is the threat of gun restrictions from the liberals that has everyone stocking up before the ammo and guns become unattainable. "

                      This has everything to do with Newtown. And its not a realistic legitimate threat, its the perception of a threat.

                      And what has the NRA said since Newtown? That your rights are under threat! Better buy mor e guns!

                      Cha-ching! cha-ching! cha-ching!

                      suckers are born ever minute.

                    7. its not a conspiracy.

                      A conspiracy is when its done on the sly. Gun makers and their mouthpiece, the NRA, advocate for policies (that sacrifice our children) in broad daylight.

                    8. When a senator introduces a bill to ban 70% of the firearms in America, how can you say that isn't a threat? Take your blinders off and wipe the sand out of your eyes. You can claim apple trees bear orange fruit all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

                    9. Notice that I specified liberal, not democrat. On the issue of gun control you seem more conservative than liberal. And this is over a specific issue, not general ideology. I have many liberal views, but not on this one.

                    10. The ammo sales have been way up since Obama was elected the first time.Newtown is a pathetic red herring.The restrictions are not conforming with the bill of rights, it is a series of pansy-assed political pricks that have chosen to ignore the 2nd amendment (and the courts has gone along with trying to guide the citizenry to a more sheep like form).The NRA membership has been ratcheting up accordingly with the levels of crybaby loons who think that removing guns form the militia’s hands is a good idea.

                    11. How do they profit from it? The profit because of proposed gun bans. When the anti gun nuts start calling for tougher BS laws people go buy guns. Blame the politicians

                    12. Last I heard only LaRue Tactical has increased their wholesale prices. The price increases have to do with limited supply for an increased demand. Firearm retailers are raising their prices in order to keep some product on their shelves, because if they sold all their stock at pre-Newtown prices, it might be months before they can restock. Lack of supply needed to meet demand means they must get top dollar from their current stock.

                      If sales return to normal levels, then no, firearm manufacturer's profits will not actually be up, since what we're seeing now is just a depletion of inventory. If demand remains high then we should see an increase in wholesale prices across the board, and an increase in profits.

                    13. No, as di da alpha is saying it supply and demand. You say you are going to ban something demand goes up and supply shirnks. Simple economics

            1. Now they're saying that video games drove Lanza over the edge. How are you going to feel about losing your First Amendment rights "for the good of the children"? By the way, "Big Government" has killed more children than all the AR-15s ever made.

                    1. hey look, I'm not indicating that its un-fair play to find something out there and share it here if you agree with it.

                      What I AM indicating is that I find what you chose to share to be extreme bullshit, and I'm shocked that you would take it seriously.

                      I know I know, you now want to turn that around and say the same about me.

                      See this? It means "whatever!"

                      <img src=""&gt;


      I saw this article and thought: "big shock (not)"

      Its not the least surprising that Intuit would lobby congress to essentially preserve the entire demand for their product.

      So why should we think any different with gun makers? Money is money. The SAFE and LOGICAL assumption is that gun manufacturers exert pressure on our Government to cultivate societal conditions that make sure people want to buy weapons. The main reason people want to buy weapons? Self defense – they perceive our nation to be dangerous, and they feel they need guns to defend and protect themselves.

      So the NRA and its gun manufacturing sponsors have incentive to do what they can to ensure America is dangerous. (And they are also in the ideal position to make this happen – just add more guns… they make them after all.)

      Maybe you have a strong sense of the goodness of the human heart, and based on this, you trust that the NRA and the gun makers wouldn't stoop so low. Good for you if so.

      But I don't see why they would act so self-less-ly. Corporations are designed to pursue profit, pure and simple.

            1. Fact is Kennesaw has "mandatory" gun ownership, but yet never had a mass shooting and only 4 gun related homicides in the last 30 years.

              And I do love it when people bring up Chicago as a good reason for more gun control, because it is a perfect example of why I keep repeating myself, ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS BEFORE YOU PASS ANY NEW ONES.

              Yep, Chicago is dead last (pun intended) in enforcing federal gun control laws, so how are more laws going to fix the problem? Maybe they should try convicting the criminals first, then incarcerating them. But no, "the Chicago way, the Obama way" as Obama once said, is to put them back out on the street, after all "it wasn't their fault, they're poor so what else are they going to do."

              Enforcing the existing laws works. Gun ownership by honest citizens works. The assault ban has already been tried and had no effect on the crime rate at all, it doesn't work other than to make honest citizens who are trying to protect themselves into criminals for possessing what they have possessed all their lives.

                1. The NRA isn't fighting against any existing laws, especially in Chicago. It even helps with enforcing some of the laws, like education for young gun owners, and keeping guns away from convicted criminals, when they aren't getting run out of town by liberal that only listen to democratic talking points.

                    1. The ATF is in such piss poor shape because of it's own inability and lack of leadership. There is no excuse for them not naming a permanent director in the last six years. No one wants the job, because the agency is so screwed up anyone that takes the position is going to be used as a scape goat by what ever administration is in place at the time. As far as being under staffed, I know a former ATF agent, who now works for the GBI, he left the much better paying job because the ATF has the highest mortality rate of all the law enforcement agencies in the US. Mostly because of the Mexican cartels and the drug gangs, he said most agents leave within 3 to 4 years of coming on board.

                    2. Sorry, guess I'm just disgusted by this oft-heard refrain from NRA-mouthpieces:

                      "We don't need new laws, they just need to enforce existing laws".

                      AT FIRST, I was like, okay, that sounds pretty reasonable. what good reason could there be that laws aren't being enforced?

                      And then I do some reading. The problem? Oh, just the downright DEVILISH influence that the NRA has on our government, that's all. That, and, the hook-line-and-sinker WORSHIP that so many people in our country have for the NRA and what THEY THINK they stand for.

                      Too bad you are so religious about your false idol.

                    3. It is oft heard because it is still true. just because you get tire of hearing something doesn't make it less true.

                      And though the ATF is under staffed and without true leadership, that doesn't address the issues of Chicago being dead last in prosecuting violent criminals. We're not talking about gun running, or cult/cartel level events, we're talking about muggers, rapist, and burglars. The ones that the regular police should be arresting and the city/state court system should be convicting, but they are allowed to go free because they courts/DAs don't want to prosecute or the cops "botch" the investigation and the crooks get off on a technicality. That has zero, zip, and nil to do with the NRA or the ATF, it has everything to do with the Chicago mentality.

                    4. Guess you didn't notice, but I'm not disgusted because its false. I am not disputing that its true. I agree that its true. The question is WHY is it true?

                      You completely dodge this. You are all like, yeah, so the ATF is what we're saying (but I don't want to respond to your accusation of why) but that's nothing because, hey, look over here at Chicago there's a Chicago mentality!

                    5. "but I don't want to respond to your accusation of why" I did respond, it is their poor leadership, not the NRAs.

                      And again, you keep hearing about the "Chicago mentality" because they keep showing it, not because it is an excuse but because it is still happening and is real. When Chicago gets tough on their own people instead of blaming the rest of the country, then their crime rate will fall. But, with one of their own in office and pushing for firearms restrictions, they know that reducing crime will only serve to weaken his platform so they do nothing.

      1. careful there with throwing around the term "postmodernist". in order to tag something with that catch-all, you risk sounding like someone who would use the word "postmodernist".

        but anyway, I do like science, and on the one hand, this stuff here is not great. but I try to take it in stride. is it political correctness gone too far? well, maybe, but so what?

        who goes into anthropology in the first place? largely, people that have a certain natural curiosity about human nature and social origins and are willing to make it their central focus. Then, it turns out, as they figure things out about their field, they want to be humanistically blah blah blah I don't know what… but so, that's their problem. they don't bother me too much for so many reasons.

        its like getting in a huff when it turns out that military types tend to be (more so than the general population) conservative. I understand the reasons for this. It doesn't bother me.

        And, what's more, as this article points out…there remain the hard science anthropologists. The one's we should take seriously as scientists.

        Is Anthro one of your majors, Di Da? Crusading "against-type" types are always not too far off in the mix… getting worked up when articles like this come out.

        I feel like I am inoculated against whatever point you could hope to make with me about this here…because… on the one hand I would possibly AGREE with so many obscure factoids maybe some un-PC anthro science would show. But I still say- eh, but so what? What is significant about this knowledge, and what is not?

        what groups would you name? You name a group to me. the differences that define this group from others are just skin deep. The stuff that matters a billion times more is what we have in common in the first place.

        1. I'm not the one labeling them that. Anthropology is currently divided into "Evolutionary Anthropology" and "Postmodern Anthropology." Evolutionary seeks to bridge natural science (mostly objective) and social science (fairly subjective), whereas Postmodern Anthropology tries to bridge social science and the humanities (also subjective).

          I'm not in a huff about it, I just think it's kinda silly and is an example of political correctness run amok. Postmodernists are like those philosophers who say "how can we really know that reality is what we think it is?" Maybe they're right (I don't think so), but in that case, why try to learn anything? Why not eat cold Spam, and tell yourself it's really filet mignon? I don't think they should go away, debate is good, but I just hate to see the discipline move so far in that direction due to political considerations and not scientific ones.

          Yeah, Anthropology is one of my majors. My professors seem to be on the Evolutionary side, so there's no bumping of heads. On that level, anyway. They don't outright criticize the Postmodern side, but they do like their science, and give the impression of being a little concerned about movement like in the article. Plus, they don't buy the argument "my answer on that test is correct. You just think it's wrong." 🙂

          I figured you for the science side, but your approval of Fry (whom I don't believe is a PMs) lumps you in with many PMs who point to Fry's work when dismissing out of hand studies that show conflict existed between certain ancient hunter/gatherers, even when there is an abundance of evidence suggesting conflict indeed took place. It's kinda like writing the paper before doing any research.

          As for the significance? Don't ask me, I'm just a curious person, not a crusader.

          1. well, the more I read about this… the more interesting it gets.

            The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated argu-
            ments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based, however, on the
            central postmodern notion of subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of
            the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument,
            cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject
            precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since
            its much-vaunted objectivity is an illusion, science, according to the ideologi-
            cal argument, serves the interests of dominant social groups (males, whites,
            Westerners), thereby subverting those of oppressed groups (females, ethnics,
            third-world peoples)


            it seems to me to be very logical and noble, in a way, in fact. It seems not so much that they don't want to be scientific… that they don't want to be objective… but rather… that they are, simply, attempting to be wary of hubris. They seek to be watchful that 'objectivity' is a mirage fraught with self-delusional peril. Ultimately, the notion that comes to mind is:

            "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." – Confucius

            If to be scientific requires us to be objective, and the subject is human culture, well how the heck are we supposed to be objective about human culture? How is one immune from the influence of their own culture and time? That's impossible. So perhaps this is merely the recognition that objectivity is not possible in the case of anthropology.

            1. Would you say it was a sign of hubris for anyone to oppose this ….… …??

              How about the the Aztecs, and their human sacrifices? How about the Nazis? Was their culture just as good as any other? All relative?

              "[I]ts much-vaunted objectivity is an illusion, science, according to the ideologi-
              cal argument, serves the interests of dominant social groups (males, whites,
              Westerners), thereby subverting those of oppressed groups (females, ethnics,
              third-world peoples)"

              Don't let the buzz words (males, whites, Westerners) skew your judgement. How do you know the Postmodernists aren't the ones serving their own interests?

              1. We do know the post-modernists are serving their own interests. That is their point. We all are, respectively.

                They are like judges reclosing themselves from the hearing.

                Now, since you are appealing to the cause of science, then I will trust that you view things carefully. Is the purpose of science to oppose things? Or to study things?

                I think its perfectly normal and typical for us- 2013 humanity – to be absolutely arrogant in viewing ourselves as the ultimate sayers of what is and what isn't so and so. (Until 2014 – we will be slightly improved by then, and know even better then!)

                So by all means, let's embrace our typical human self-righteousness and take perfect comfort in looking down upon every horrible thing that came either immediately before or a long time ago- or primitive current stuff that we're obviously superior to as well. Afghanistan, Africa, Mexico… heck, I look down on Arizona, Texas and South Carolina in the same spirit.

                So all well and good.

                However, will I agree with you its fine for us to oppose these things that we are so evolved to know are wrong… I don't think us opposing those things should be part of what science does. It seems outside of the purpose of science.

      1. Well, generally wars are caused by people (or countries) threatening the security and peace of other people (or countries). So general statements can be very open ended. Do banks profit from wars? Of course, somebody has to build the weapons, and they barrow capital from banks to do it. Does that mean banks start wars just to reap the profit? I don't believe it one bit, and no one has ever produced one shred of evidence to back the hippie/liberal propaganda that they do. With the understanding that I am a big fan of the hippies, being raise amid quite a few of them, their logic on this is skewed by an absolute belief that anything to do with the government or big business is an absolute evil.

          1. Yes, but you allude to profit being the only thing people are motivated by, which isn't the truth. And the evidence I was referring to wasn't that people are sometimes motivated by profit, it was that banks start and control wars, as you insinuated with your picture.

            Apparently I wasn't born last night, or your attempt at twisting words might have had a better chance.

    1. Also, the American people when they gained their independence and the right to self govern. Everyone from Texas to California when we liberated them from Mexico. Slaves, the vast majority of them black, when we fought the war amongst ourselves which resulted in the abolishment of slavery across all states. France, when it was liberated from a dictator in WW1. The Jews who were saved by stopping Hitler from exterminating their people entirely in WW2. South Koreans, when we helped to secure their freedom from the oppression of communism. Kuwaiti citizens, when we liberated them from the Iraqi invaders. Again, the American people, when we announced to the world that we would not quietly accept terrorism in Operation Enduring Freedom. Many Iraqi people, especially women, when we over through Saddam Hussein, even though the conditions are only marginally improved at least they aren't getting kidnapped and enslaved just because the dictators sons what a new bedroom play toy.

      I don't agree with everything in the articles, but they do make good points.

      1. Okay… I am not willing to go that far.They are people, but they do not get the right to suck us dry.If you have read what I have put forth, we need to amend the Constitution to no longer grant citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil.We need to make it an application process. We are no longer trying to grow a nation.We are fully grown.I am not trying to minimize the contribution of immigrants, but we can now be more selective.The h1b1 process if Republican bullshit.If the emppyers feel that they cannot get suitable applicants, then they are dreaming.They need to either set their sights lower, or they need an entry level process that allows them to hire lower level employees to do the jobs that they are looking for. In the tech industry we are predominantly self-study, and not bachelor’s degrees. We work off of certifications that are commonly paper techs…None of us respect a paper tech… but the HR departments are clueless.My own employer used to pay my team quite well. Now we are financially abused because they haven’t a fucking clue as to what we really do.I loved my specialty, until they started cutting back so hard.My actual short title is Abuse Specialist, the long or more fancy title is Lead Abuse Mitigation Specialist…It has some unsavory sides to it, but I have talked geek with the United Nations Security Team, which was cool as was my discussion with Kevin Mitnik.Anyway… back to the topic at hand, I have no problem with those coming into the United States, as long as they do so legally.Fuck the Associated Press and their pansy assed now longer using the phrase “illegal alien as it offend some of the Latino community. If they don’t want to be offended, perhaps they should try coming in legally for once.BTW why is it a Latino issue, they are not the only community sneaking over the border…

        1. It was meant as sarcasm, but I like what you have to say.

          BTW, If you make a thread out of the question you posted on FB I would love to answer, but there are too many people on FB, that are also in my everyday RL, I really don't want in my personal business. My lifestyle choices aren't readily accepted by everyone around my area. I don't hide my ways, I just don't publicize them either.

            1. "I have been seeing more and more of plural relationships. I have no problem with how consenting adults choose to share their lives and bodies. How many of you live in a plural relationship? Do you enjoy it? Are you really consenting or were you more or less pushed to either do it or lose the relationship? What are the best two aspect? and what is the one that you don't like?"

  1. Ok, where is the media on this one!

    On 9-11-2001 we had a terrorist attack in NYC. Then President G.W. Bush was in a Kindergarten class and waited 3 minutes to respond to the information so as not to frighten the children. The media still brings up this 3 minute delay as a failing in his leadership.

    On 4-15-2013 terrorist bombed Boston during the running of the marathon. Now President B.H. Obama waited 3 hours to respond, in the solitude and protection of the White House, surrounded by his staff and guards. When he finally does make a showing, the media herald him as the great leader that will end all terrorism by "looking into it and finding out who is to blame". WTF!!! Three hours to tell us that he knows nothing and he is looked at as a leader, give me a break!

    1. They are all off somewhere protecting their Lord and Master's rear-end. No criticism of Mr. Obozo will be forth coming from anyone other than Fox on this.

      1. Well, that IS what the liberal media said that Bush should have done. And they still insist to this day that he didn't react quickly enough because he waited 3 minute. I just see it as EXTREMELY hypocritical that they now say nothing when THEIR president waits 3 hour to react.

        So are you now saying that Bush did the right thing in waiting?

          1. Yes, the media obviously has a double standard for the same office. If you're a liberal, you can do no wrong, if you're a conservative, you can do no right.

            i don't see how one incident is any different from the other, in this regard.

            1. I could probably find something about Bush's handling that I didn't like if I went back and looked.

              Its so long ago.

              Are you burning up on this because there's a particularly flagrant example of this double standard that weighs on your mind? I welcome an example of some article trashing Bush in the vein that you describe.

    1. Staged by a lefty. The socks are a dead giveaway.

      And the restrictive clause of the Second Amendment gets to the the heart of the matter, not the declaratory clause contained in the preamble. If it said "… the right of the Militia …." you'd have a point, but it doesn't and you don't


    The Justice department has decided to charge the bomber with using "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

    If this is the correct charge, them Obama's justice department has officially made it clear that Bush was correct in his invasion, because Saddam did have "weapons of mass destruction" as was asserted.

    Or is this just the liberal media flip-flopping to make sure that no tragedy goes to waste?

      1. Its not fine when either a liberal or a conservative does it. This WMD thing is ridiculous!

        b.t.w. this definition of "WMD" comes from the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" (when Republicans controlled Congress.)

        Per some legal scholar at HuffPo, they may have chose to try him on this (rather than "terrorism") for the following reason:

        The Federal Terrorism statute requires the government to prove an intent to terrorize, whereas the mass destruction statute requires no such motive or intention. An ordinary citizen could be indicted under that statute if he used a homemade bomb to kill his mother in law or his business rival.

        There may, however, be a different reason for why the government selected the mass destruction statute. A trial under that statute may be far less ideological or political.

        Anyway, THIS LIBERAL considers this complete fucking bullshit!

        They are screwing around to make sure that they win the case… but a home made pressure cooker bomb is NOT a WMD.

          1. well, looks like maybe the reason they are labelling it WMD is precisely to secure the death penalty.

            I appreciate that. This guy should fry (if anyone). but the headaches to come on the WMD term make my mind swim.

            You'd think that nailing him on terrorism would be enough to get him executed.

                    1. Agreed. This guy was an infiltrator, who became a citizen as part of his shtick. To me, that qualifies him for a vacation in the sunny Caribbean resort, Gitmo, where he can work on his tan and his self inflicted diet plan. All his rowdy friends down there can join him in a few rounds of Allahu Akbar as they turn their plates over on the floor.He ain’t no American, no matter what he swore allegiance to.

                    2. Show me your crystal ball. You can’t possibly know that for sure. His mom taught him how to be a good Muslin.

        1. Do you have a definition for WMD that I can't find? Because all the definitions that I've found, including the one attacked to the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" would make any bomb that is designed to kill multiple people a WMD.

          1. yeah, that's bullshit. Mass and multiple are not synonyms. What are you, in 1st grade?

            An actual WMD is a weapon that causes mass destruction

            A coherent, typically large body of matter with no definite shape.
            Relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers of people or things.
            Assemble or cause to assemble into a mass or as one body: "both countries began massing troops in the region".
            noun. heap – multitude – crowd – bulk – pile – lump
            adjective. massive – wholesale
            verb. collect – gather – accumulate – muster – assemble

            1. Hmm. So I guess we are suppose to accept YOUR definition of what a WMD is, instead of the one you pointed to earlier as described by the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994".

              Sounds like a kindergarten argument to me. I guess when you rise up to the first grade we can try to have an intelligent conversation without name calling and mud slinging. Until then maybe you should stay out of grown folks business.

              FBI Official definition
              Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

              “(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
              (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
              (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

              1. why don't we just go with common usage.

                Until two weeks ago, people generally thought a WMD was a chemical, nuclear or biological weapon. People who aren't partisan wise-asses still do.

                I'm embarrassed for you that you are just trying to make hay and wipe George Bush's stinky ass over this and his still-unfound WMDs.

                1. "why don't we just go with common usage."

                  b.t.w. this definition of "WMD" comes from the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" (when Republicans controlled Congress.)

                  So which is it Coggy, you can't have it both ways?

                  Common language definitions change with the crowd, that's why we have official definitions. And the "common" definition always included explosive devices, at least it always has where I'm from. Too bad your so busy licking Obama's black ass to see the truth has backed you into a corner.

                    1. Nice try to change the subject, another normal ploy from you when you know your wrong but can't find a way to save face.

                    2. how am I trying to change the subject?

                      Do you or do you not agree with the 1994 Republican Congress and the current Obama administration's apparent definition of "WMD"?

                      I do not. And you are supporting it. Not out of intellectual honesty. But out of partisan convenience.

                    3. I never said I agreed with it, or that I disagree with it, just that it is the official definition and now liberals (you) are trying to use a double standard. You are the one playing partisan politics here. One word, one definition. Either these assholes used a WMD in Boston and there were WMDs found when Iraq was invaded, or no WMDs were found in Iraq and no WMD was used in Boston. According to the present legal definition, it is the former.

                    4. Horse shit or not, it is what is on the books. Are you now campaigning that explosive devices aren't WMDs?

                    5. What is obvious is that according to the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994", from which YOU quoted, the bomb in question was a WMD.

                      What is also obvious is that when you realized that definition didn't fit with your narrative, you start backtracking and claiming that your own example was actually bullshit. Well, I have to give it to you, in 90% of the cases, you're right, your examples are bullshit.

                    6. Oh, come on now, you were talking about the bomb in Boston, not a grenade.

                      "this definition of "WMD" comes from the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994""

                      "but a home made pressure cooker bomb is NOT a WMD."

                      "why don't we just go with common usage."

                      "Do you or do you not agree with the 1994 Republican Congress and the current Obama administration's apparent definition of "WMD"?
                      I do not."

                      So you take the definition from the VCCLE act, then you want to use a "common" definition that can be subjective, then you want to claim that the VCCLE act has been wrong all along, so you can make up your on definition to suit your argument.

                    7. you need to learn to read. We've been bickering and perhaps because you misunderstand me we're on the same page on this.

                      I'm saying the definition of WMD from 1994 is BULL.

                      I'm saying that neither a pressure cooker NOR a grenade is a WMD.

                      When I say "common" usage of WMD – that I do support – I mean nuclear weapon, biological, chemical weapon. Why are you making this so difficult?

                      I am NOT carrying water for Obama on this.

                    8. And my original point, which apparently you failed to comprehend, was that they media and the government MUST settle on one definition and stick with it. I never entered my opinion of whether the VCCLE act was right or wrong, only that it is the official definition according to the government. And by that definition, Bush did find WMDs in Iraq as he predicted. So they either should admit that Bush was right, or change the definition and charge the bombers with terrorism, murder, and what ever else they can find, but not usage of a WMD.

                    9. I don't see that the media is supporting this usage of WMD. If anything they are questioning this and observing the definition creep that we discuss here.

                      I typed WMD into Google's news query and got the following links (along with stuff about Syria and Iraq).

                    10. Again, this isn't about what the media has decided, it is about the governments definition. The media will reinterpret any and all words to mean whatever they want to get their ratings up, even if it means contradicting themselves repeatedly, so their definition of anything is completely meaningless in any rational or logical conversation.

                    11. The medias definition changes with the daily sentiment and headlines, to whatever is going to sell the most copies, the government is required to put it's definition in black and white so that everyone is aware of exactly what is being talked about and it doesn't change when it no longer suits the mood. At least that is what government used to do, with this administration it is no better than the media, changing to whatever liberal meaning is needed for today's agenda.

                    12. Now, I realize that you just go to the liberal talking point web site and copy these images to post, so I don't blame you for their lack of thought or logic, just to be clear.

                      So, let's look at this logically, shall we. A bomb is by definition an explosive device, at least in the conventional since. Which means that it is capable of causing destruction of large areas such as a wall for instance. An AR-15 can only put a small hole in the same wall. That is one difference between "mass destruction" and rifle fire. Also, a bomb is capable of killing multiple people at the same instance, something no rifle can do. One bullet can cause one death, two at the most and even that second one wouldn't be at the same time. So with a detonator, the push of one button could kill, say 30 people simultaneously. Whereas with an AR-15, one pull of the trigger has the possibility of killing one person.

                      Also, a little off subject, a bomb can be detonated remotely, or by timer, or by "booby trap" trigger. A rifle must be held by a person to pull the trigger. (ok, with a few exception for geeks building remote trigger pullers, but they aren't accurate and never have been used in any real life situation)


      Oh, but don't worry, they weren't vandals, they were protesters, so no one should go to jail or pay for the clean up. Well, the tax payers had to pay for the clean up, but they don't count when most of the "protesters" don't even pay taxes.

        1. Why does that matter? Oh, criminals only get convicted if someone dies? Everybody else is to be let free, so says the mighty and wise Coggy. Especially the rapist, not only did they not kill anybody, some of them actually helped to bring more life into this world!

            1. The top of this thread is talking about innocent people being treated as though they are criminals because of a terrible accident. I was asking why then aren't the criminals treated like criminal? If an accident begets criminal charges why is it that when protesters do what they know is criminal behavior they should be expected to get away with it?

              Quite the double standard you have going on there.

                1. And as of yet, no negligence has been found. There are also such things as pure accidents, or are you one of those that believes that nothing is an accident?

                    1. Well, fortunately no one really cares what you "trust". The investigation is still on going, but terrorism and sabotage have already been ruled out. And investigators are leaning towards accident, not neglect.

                      Odd how you are so outraged, even though you have no stake in the incident, while the people effected and in the surrounding town hold no ill will because they understand that accidents happen and can't always be avoided.

                    2. "can't always be avoided." But sometimes they can, but its cheaper "More business friendly" not to.

                      All Americans have a stake in this as long as there is a political movement to model the nation after Texas.

                      you should here the woman they interview in this piece here. Her house was decimated. Her words not mine – "if he knew the plant was out of the guideline and did nothing – then its the same as if he struck a match himself".

                    3. First off, who the hell wants to model the entire nation after Texas. I mean it is a nice enough state, but I like my Georgia much better. And if there has ever been a state government that the rest of the states modeled themselves after, even a little bit, it is California. The laws passed out there often end up migrating to the rest of the country.

                      "if he knew the plant was out of the guideline and did nothing – then its the same as if he struck a match himself". Yep, that is still a big IF.

                    4. WOW, so the former governor of Texas wants to model the rest of the country after his home state. Well, that's good enough for me, let's do it! (/sarc)

                      I don't think he speaks for the majority of the citizens.

                    5. Very few, the fringe of the right wing mostly. Tea partiers and the such. Defiantly not the majority. No different than MSNBC being the mouth piece for the extreme left wing. Would you say that you agree with and support EVERYTHING that MSNBC broadcasts? The news media, all of then, have been catering to the extreme fringes of the political spectrum for the last decade. I'm sure they found it to give them better ratings than covering the middle with a non-partisan view, but they don't represent any majorities in doing so.

                    6. I agree with you that it is extreme. but they have a power grip on our government and I stand my earlier comment:

                      "All Americans have a stake in this as long as there is a political movement to model the nation after Texas."

                    7. Fox News, has a power grip on our government? You can't seriously believe that. With all of the other networks squarely on the liberal extreme of the democratic side of the aisle, with untold billions of dollars and political influence, and you are afraid of one network on the conservative extreme. Now I see why you are so upset, you can't rest until 100% of the nation is on the extreme liberal side, no middle ground in allowed in your world view.

                    8. Which is absolute no different than the previous congresses absolute and extreme control in the opposite direction. When they can force through bills without ANY of the opposing parties voting for it, that is the definition of a controlling grip on government. So why do you perceive it any different when it is a conservative congress as apposed to a liberal congress? (and, at the moment, the conservatives don't have near the power to push through legislature as the liberals did during the first two years of Obama's administration)

    2. You know Coggy, these people manufacture fertilizer that farmers all over the country need. Your sarcasm with this crap (picture w/Comments) is often very hard for me to take. Without these kind of hard workers, the lazy people on well fair and food stamps don't get any money. Go read the work of Ann Rand. There will be an economic revolt one day when the people who provide for those who take will rise up and say "no more."

      May it cometh soon.

        1. A funny one for you Mr. Eyes.

          A wife, being the romantic sort, sent her husband a text:
          “If you are sleeping, send me your dreams.
          If you are laughing, send me your smile.
          If you are eating, send me a bite.
          If you are drinking send me a sip.
          If you are crying, send me your tears. I love you!"

          The husband, typically non-romantic, replied ,

          “I am on the commode. Please advise.

      1. how much Ayn Rand did you read RM?

        There is an argument against industrial agriculture, but I am not making it here.

        Here I'm only taking about the dangers of wanton refusal to properly regulate.

        According to Ayn Rand, the free market should determine the name of this neglectful business and stop buying their fertilizer. Is that happening? No. Ayn Rand = Fail.

            1. It did not say anything about regulations. What I have seen is they failed to report certain quantities that were over the sara threshold that would have plced them in a Tier II or Tier III category under the sara act. I would think they would have an RMP as well. In any case they have determined what the actual cause was. Faliure to report certain quanties will get them in trouble but that does not mean they did not properly regulate the ammonia nitrate and store it properly.

              1. okay, you are splitting hairs. To me, there's not much difference between needing more regulation, and failing to adhere to regulation, or failing to enforce regulation.

                Either way, they appear to have been cutting corners and the State of Texas brags about their support for such lax treatment.

                1. A lot of companies have trouble with the Tier reporting system. The fact still remains the reported they had it but the quantity may have been incorrect. It really makes no difference the ammonia nitrate was not the cause of the fire it was the cause of the explosion. That is what needs focused on IMO. Fire will cause ammonia nitrate to go boom. Whether they had a 1,000lbs or 100,000lbs it still would have exploded

              1. You care enough to recommend me to her work: "Go read the work of Ann Rand."

                I've read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Only two, but they are biggies. That's 1,920 mind numbing pages combined.

                Did I mention that I dallied with the Objectivist Club at my alma mater for a short time?

                I assure you that my distaste for her and her view is not due to lack of familiarity.

    3. More on this – and I still expect much more.

      Let’s recap: The Bush administration’s own cabinet secretaries come up with a plan to regulate these chemical plants. It’s stymied by Phil Perry once. The Bush administration sides with the chemical industry when it’s brought before Congress. And then, basically in a backroom maneuver, Perry does the chemical industry’s bidding by moving the oversight of this from the EPA, which the chemical industry hates, to DHS, which the chemical industry thinks they can more easily manipulate.

      Now, fast-forward six years. The West Fertilizer company is storing more than 13-hundred times the amount of ammonium nitrate that would normally trigger safety oversight by DHS. And it does appear now, that not only did DHS literally have no idea that the West Fertilizer company was storing ammonium nitrate. But according to Congressman Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, DHS did not even know the plant existed until it blew up.

      1. I filled out the DHS packet for the company I work for. Sorry no where in the packet does it ask for quanties, only security measures. They use your security measures to determine what Tier you are in.

    1. All true except maybe the 4th one. It often MAKES the government a religion, not bringing religion into government. Citizens are expected to "worship" the government, which would follow with the second point of extreme patriotism.

    1. I see more sexual profiling than racial profiling in that video. Granted there is some racial profiling, but it is exaggerated by the differences in dialog. I notice they go out of their way to point out that the two boys are dressed similar, but they ignore the differences in the way the two answer the questions they are posed with.

      White guy:
      Passerby "Is that your bike?"
      Guy "Well, technically no." In a shy why with a shrug of his shoulders.

      Black guy:
      Passerby "Is that your bike?"
      Guy "Well, technically no, but it's gonna be!" With an attitude and a smirk to show that he's getting away with something.

      So yes, there was some profiling, but it was confirmed by the body language and attitude of the actors. If the white gut had said "It's gonna be" with a threatening tone, do you still think the passersby would have still ignored him?

  3. On how Conservatives and Liberals have fundamentally different ways of thinking and perceiving the world…

    For the experiment, they asked George W. Bush and Barack Obama supporters to write an essay supporting the president whom they had already said they opposed. It was a test, as the study's instructions instructions put it, of "the ability to craft logical arguments arguing positions you may not personally endorse."

    ….some conservatives sounded rather miffed after taking the study, leaving comments like: "Not for all the tea in China would I write that." In contrast, note the study authors, some liberals seemed to revel in the assignment. "This was fun!" as one put it.

    As one who has spent a lot of time getting to know my political opposites, I do not find these findings surprising.

    1. I also don't find them surprising; most adults outgrow fairy tales, so writing an essay trying to relate them to real life is a waste of time and seems like "make work," akin to digging a hole just to fill it back in.

      Plus, the study is flawed by only using students. Right or wrong, the younger conservative students I know are reluctant to state their political beliefs out of fear of having their politics negatively affect their grades.

    2. I don't find this surprising either, knowing both sides of the political swing. From my experience the majority of liberals are bandwagoneers, looking for a cause to parrot so they can say they are a part of some movement. Often having little or no idea what the movement is really about. So, flipping to the other side is a natural course of events for them as the causes change and flip. Whereas the majority of conservatives stand on principles, right or wrong, that they believe in whole heartedly, and would find it difficult if not impossible to see the merits in the opposite view.

      Both methods and ideologies are flawed, and unfortunately represent the majority of the population. I have rarely seen anyone truly capable of critical thinking that would ally themselves exclusively with either side of the political spectrum, as both sides have merits on different issues. I ally myself with the Libertarians, I vote most often with the Libertarians, but I've never claimed to support ALL of the Libertarian platforms, critical thinking and mob thought are opposing concepts and can never go hand in hand.

      1. Yep, it is surprising how much alike we think. NOT everything but a whole lot. My very Republican wife got pissed off at me for voting Libertarian during the last election. But, I don't care for either platform, the same old, same olds. I will vote for what I think is best for our country. One day everyone else might just figure out that what we have been doing , ain't workin'.

  4. Beware!

    The new watchword of the day, on FOX NEWS, is "creeping paganism".

    "Some would add that such disregard is deeply rooted in the extraordinary creeping paganism that makes a mockery of the so-called separation between between church and state, not to mention the president's very oath of office."

    -Liz Trotta. I can't abide the toxic bile that churns in the pit of my stomach in reaction to this supremely demented harpy.

    1. LOL, I wandered when they would get back to attacking other religions. I guess they have finally come to the conclusion that the anti-gay rights movement is lost to them so they are trying to move on to the next group of people that are making there way out of the shadows and try to beat them back down. And taken in context of her rant, "creeping paganism" doesn't even really make since. It's like she just threw those words in there so they were heard on the air, even if they had nothing to do with the op/ed.

      Now, granted I don't like Obamacare at all, but I still haven't seen, read, or heard any mandate in the plan that would require anyone of religious faith to USE any form of contraceptive. So, they are suing to try to keep other people that don't share in their beliefs from having coverage for contraception. Appalling!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.