EvilMonkey

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) You two love the hyperbole blanket statements but I guess that's what the buster is for. Just wondering if one action is an 'endorsement' of things, why isn't the other?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 12:40 PM) Doing business with the state of Indiana is now a statement in favor of discrimination. So, doing business with Indiana means you hate gays, but baking a cake for a gay wedding means nothing? Just as you are implying guilt by association, so are the bakers etc. who don't want to do business with gay weddings and be guilty of supporting it by association.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 04:03 AM) Are you suggesting our environment isn't worth watching over? Industry did so well policing itself before strong laws were passed in the 1960s. What kind of drugs are you on to make some of the leaps that you do? Why don't you share? I am suggesting that almost every socially liberal thing people want to nowadays costs money. And lots of it. Everyone sees papa government as an open wallet and goes for their piece. Green energy? yeah, how many failed startups have there been in the last few years alone, with ties to politicians, big money donors or relatives that stiffed the fed for money? Solyndra? There are others. http://dailysignal.com/2012/10/18/presiden...nergy-failures/ While Jenks is right, you can enact things that cost little or no money, that won't last for long. It will never be good enough, people will want more done, and more costs money.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 03:08 PM) I literally just gave you two examples that cost next to nothing. You can be pro-environment without also demanding the government pay for a bunch of crap. Not to mention, being a fiscal conservative doesn't mean you don't want to spend ANY money on social issues. You just don't want to spend as much. And you sure as hell don't want to raise taxes to do it. See that big, bold word there? While you are right, you CAN be, it just doesn't happen. Everyone has a hand out for something. If you are pro environment, then the government will fund focus groups, start a committee, fund a boatload of studies, create a new agency with a huge budget to watch over the environment, and make sure that the budget never shrinks.

Success! People don't trust us already. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/ri...t-leak-to-iran/

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) So this will be helpful: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/New...75#.VRQatpPF-zZ Wow. Just wow... If President Pissypants's foreign policy objectives are to show the world that our allies can't trust us, then he is doing a good job.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 03:30 PM) Is this true? We have to rely on your geographical expertise. ISIS draws crowds whenever they throw gay people off of rooftops. There are videos online if you care to seek them out.

So the story says he tried to pull away from the officer (resisted) and when tried escaping they tackled him, causing him to hit his face/head on the ground. If that is what happened, not sure I see the big deal. of course, not sure what facts are facts since of course the first thing brought up is race. Not that he was breaking the law, not that he tried to resist the police and tried to escape, but race. Now if there are more facts, or at least pictures of the cops doing some 'extra curricular' stuff, then we revisit this.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 14, 2015 -> 11:48 AM) Actually I remember very well outrage at Bush's picture as well. Back then it was further proof about the media bias against conservatives. I meant to complaints from liberals when it was done to Bush. WhIle I can believe the 'horns' part can be a complete accident, given the logo, there have been many other times they have manipulated photos to appear one way or another. Darkening McCain with shadows to appear evil-like, making sure that the lights around Obama's head look like a halo, etc.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 14, 2015 -> 08:30 AM) Loved the subtlety of making her look like the devil with the placement beneath the M. Yeah, no complaints when they did it to Bush, etc. Time released a statement showing where that effect happened to over 20 different people. http://news.yahoo.com/time-magazine-respon...-162415175.html This list includes former U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, several popes, actor John Travolta, former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and “Star Wars” villain Darth Vader.

I do them on xbox 360. They are OK, like Tony said, if you got a good crew, they are kinda fun.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 9, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) As the report laid out, race clearly has played a role. Many of you are talking about targeting out of towners. Imagine if it was your own police dept targeting you? What if instead of just an expensive ticket, often situations escalated to jailing. Do you think that would happen in your community? The out of towners I mentioned was just for that one town. it was maybe 8 square blocks or something just as tiny. In my neighboring Shorewood, the cops get sneaky. Set up cars on corners that appear to be broken down and have a cop hidden behind them. They aggressively pursuit even the slightest speed infraction (wife got one for 5 MPH over, kid got one for supposedly not stopping completely). It is not always out of towners. I never said race didnt' play a role, but if that town needed revenue that bad, do you think they would have NOT done it because they were white instead?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2015 -> 12:17 PM) I'm almost a little bit impressed that you managed to write this entire post without noting the fact that "Taxes are bad! The finger thing means the taxes!!!!!!!!" kinda plays a role in why this happens. I understand the necessity of taxes, but you can only tax people so much. At some point, you have to stop spending.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2015 -> 09:32 AM) Ferguson Police Routinely Violate Rights of Blacks, Justice Dept. Finds I will say that the even bigger picture is being missed here. it isn't JUST race, it is a government run amok, using law enforcement as a stealth tax system. It isn't about catching robbers and killers as it is shaking down peeps for tinted windows and making sure beauticians have the 'proper' licenses. There are towns all across the country that are infamous for shaking down motorists for the slightest of things, often just making them up, to provide revenue. I remember a story of a town that had only 250 residents but had a police force of 20, and had more tickets than most of their state combined. This is tyranny, and it doesn't matter the race. People rightly should be upset at the systematical targeting of citizens by police simply to feed their coffers.

Don't live there, don't care, but someone needs to ask Chuy just how he plans to pay for ANY of the stuff he keeps promising.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 5, 2015 -> 01:36 PM) Boy, that'd sure be nice if I was saving money from this. Instead, my insurance premiums have gone up considerably and my deductible rose 300%. You must be an outlier!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2015 -> 03:54 PM) Changing from 8% growth per year to 2% growth per year = saving a ridiculous, insane, unbelievable, enormous, ungodly amount of money. In Government speak, sure. Hey we only raised you taxes 6% this year instead of 8%, so we cut your taxes by 2%!!!!! They touted this whole program as a cost cutting move. Not a rate increase cutting move.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2015 -> 01:45 PM) On average, year-over-year premium increases have slowed since the law was passed. The talk was about "bending the cost curve," not pointing it in the other direction. Using some hypothetical numbers to illustrate, before Obamcare policies rose 10% every year, now they rise 7%. So they're lower than they otherwise would have been. That is such bulls***. ALL the talk was about how it would save people money, not slow down the rate increases.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2015 -> 01:08 PM) Oral arguments in King v Burwell, the case that could potentially eliminate subsidies for millions of Americans based on a hyper-literal reading of one clause, were held today. Transcript. Notably, Kennedy raised several federalism concerns that indicate how he might rule against the petitioners. By hyper-liberal you mean 'correct'. If you mean it, you put it in the law. Maybe if they would have actually, you know, READ the damn bill first, had a lengthy debate on it and stuff instead of ramming down our throats, they might have caught this little 'oversight'. Kennedy's federalism complaints were over what he feared the Feds would try and do to the states to make them set up exchanges if the subsidies are struck down.

Smart guns do not work. So far the only variant was a .22 cal which is almost useless. Anything stronger jars the electronics after a few shots to the point of breaking. You need to be wearing a huge, ugly wrist band in order for it to work, with a range of about 6 inches. So if you grab the gun with the wrong hand, 'click', no boom, you could be dead. The NRA doesn't hate them they just resist them being mandated. Give them to police if they are so good. let them be the experiment.

Roast beef lunchmeat from Jewel on a pretzel roll, fritos and a diet pepsi. 2 Pink Lady apples for desert/snack. Not lost a single pound for the year. Thanks, Miller Lite...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 10:38 PM) Or it simply means the next time arson is claimed/insinuated it has to be the correct call. You obviously don't understand probability and statistics because each events probability is independent of the prior events outcome. You probably bet red on roulette when you see there has been 3 black in a row, too, because it is 'due'.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) Link. I should have taken you up on those odds. You snooze you lose.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 15, 2015 -> 03:13 PM) 1) He hasn't targeted any Christians before in the neighborhood, even though they comprise roughly 90% of the North Carolina population. 2) He's never said anything specifically anti-Christian, although any of his FB comments can be considered to be anti-Muslim by their context. 3) Dawkins, his role model, has been outspoken against Islam specifically 4) Interjecting the arson comparisons have zero relevance to this particular situation. Let's put it this way...if our own children were Muslim and they were executed in this fashion by this particular lunatic, I think it would be hard to convince us that religion wasn't at least a POSSIBLE factor. In the last couple of days, there was ALSO a fire in Alabama with McCants' $1.5 million home. Does that mean all NFL football players set their homes ablaze to collect the insurance money? I'd say there's better odds in those cases (when the player is having financial problems) than the fire being deliberately set to provoke anti-American sentiment within the Muslim-American community. Or do we want to say 50% of the time a crime is committed, that a white victim is likely to blame a minority for doing it to cover themselves? On #1, he has had altercations with everyone in the neighborhood. On #2 'can be considered' is a lot different than 'I hate those God Damned Muslimns'. On #3, if you are going to guilt by association, don't forget the SPLC which he also liked, who has been anti CHristian, anti Tea Party and anti Republican. On #4, that was on a tangent relating to the post about the fire. I didn't interject it first, someone else did. I offered my comment on it, and then Tex blended them in one response.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 15, 2015 -> 12:20 PM) The key difference you are missing is on one hand we have a specific individual involved who has made anti religious statements, and you believe that does not mean anything. On the other hand you point out other people not involved in this case to prove that a totally different group may have torched their own place. How can you ignore statements by the person involved but cite as evidence in a different case people not even involved? Your evidence that they may have torched their own building is other Muslims have done it. Other killers have murdered Muslims over religion. If I post a list of people who have killed Muslims because of religion would that change your mind about the shooting? or another way Shooting case? Zero evidence he shot them over religion. He said it was about a parking space and that's good enough. You ignore the shooters own statements. Arson case? Those Muslims are always making this stuff up. 50-50 they did it themselves. Be consistent. Zero evidence, so far, he shot them SPECIFICALLY because they were Muslim. I know you can read. And the shooter has offered statements against all religions, and religion in general. He hasn't just singled out one for his scorn. And I didn't present evidence that they DID make it up. YOU said not likely. I showed you cases where it did happen and offered my OPINION that I thought it was even money they did it themselves. And I have told you both of these at least twice now. So once again, zero evidence that he shot them because he specifically hated Islam. Hating all religions and shooting someone because of that is different that 'Islamophobia'. But don't let that detract from the narrative that Muslims are always the victims because of their religion.