Opinions/Speak Out
A place to have your say about anything, from politics to potholes. Flag as Inappropriate
Posts awaiting your approval 0
True Freedom May 7, 2013 at 04:17 pm
@Elias: RE: carrying purchases in your hand...
like Chris Rock in "I'm Gonna Get You…Read More Sucka"... "F** the cup, pour it in my hand!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNQRqAoT-2c
classic
Diana Swartz (Editor) May 7, 2013 at 04:17 pm
Thank you for your contributions to this conversation. Comments are now closed. If you'd like to…Read More continue sharing your opinions, please contact your local Patch editor about starting a blog.
rubberband May 7, 2013 at 04:12 pm
@Lisa:
cool.
Think of me as a Kung Fu type, wandering the earth playing my flute, visiting cities…Read More and hanging out...but w/o the moral lessons or grasshopper stuff. I laugh a lot.
p.s. bacon
p.s.s the dog pic is cute.
Greg Coppes May 9, 2013 at 11:58 pm
In our first meeting here I told you that I believed that any discussion or argument here was not…Read More done to change the minds of those involved, rather it was to influence those who are reading them; third parties.
You have been very helpful in that regard. Anyone reading our exchanges can see you for what you are.
I tried to have a discussion with you and could not even agree on the definition of words with out hours of argument
You have an agenda and you will not allow anything to get in the way of it. That agenda includes trying to circumvent and weaken the 2nd amendment and redefine it's intent.
Mark Paxson May 9, 2013 at 11:51 pm
Once again you misdirect. You made a specific statement about one California piece of legislation…Read More you claimed did very specific things and, therefore, was unconstitutional. I'm not arguing the constitutionality. I'm arguing that the factual basis, the things that legislation does, is wrong. We can't even begin to discuss the constitutionality if the facts are wrong. I have provided the evidence that your facts are wrong. You have yet to counter that evidence. And now you change the conversation to "the constitutional intricacies within hundreds of pages of proposed state & federal firearms legislation written in legalese." You made very specific factual claims about one specific piece of California legislation. I've provided the bill number as well as the analysis. And all you can do is now quibble over whether eristical is a word that I should have looked up.
I will never understand why you and the rest of the right-wingers are so incapable of understanding that if they post "facts" in the context of their arguments that are proven to be false, they believe the problem is with the person who proves them wrong. Seriously, Jeff ... if the factual basis for your claim of unconstitutional provisions is wrong, how can you keep arguing the legislation is unconstitutional? Why is it so hard for you to back up those "facts?" You're proving yourself to be no better than the rest.
Mark Paxson May 9, 2013 at 11:41 pm
You imply far too much, sir. But your further response implies other things. First, that I have…Read More ever questioned your interest in defending the Constitution. I have not. Second, that somehow those who haven't served in the military would somehow have less of a desire in preserving and defending the Constitution.
It's interesting, everybody I know who has served in the military who has expressed an opinion on the issue has stated that above all, they believe in the right of others to express their opinions, that what they were defending when they served was the beauty of the divergent views and opinions that exist in this country. Sadly, most of what you've done on Patch is contrary to that concept. As you have done everything you can to squelch any legitimate conversation about these important issues.
No, sir, I have not served in the military. A fact that I am not ashamed of. And a fact that is irrelevant as to whether or not I have a strong desire to preserve and defend the Constitution. Nothing I have suggested is an attack on the Constitution.
Pamela Smyth May 10, 2013 at 08:57 pm
We thank our teachers from elementary school through graduate school by remembering that spelling…Read More and literacy in the language of one's culture and community matters, that reading newspapers matters, that what we publish online represents their efforts to teach us how to articulate our thoughts and ideas, and how to read with care and consideration the opinions of others with that same thoughtful consideration. We thank our teachers by taking the work they do and the hours and hours of unpaid and free or volunteer work "behind the scenes" and the money they spend out of their pockets to improve the learning environment for their students seriously. Most of all, we thank them by growing up to be civil and to work hard at whatever jobs or tasks we are given in life to the best of our abilities; and if some of that work began with the encouragement and recognition given by a teacher, then that is a joyful word of thanks to all of us who were students and are indeed, today, teachers.
Paul S April 24, 2013 at 11:25 pm
always has been about sex or the promise of perfection or happiness- it's never changed- Robert…Read More Downy Jr's father - Robert D Sr did a movie in the 60's - "Putney Swope" - a good send up of the ad game- I worked as a copywriter in the late 60's and couldn't wait to get out- never disliked a business more than the ad one- yet- some ads are pure genius- many Bud ads definitely- those Honda blowfish ads are incredible - I love a good ad- they are rare
Jeffrey Sabatini April 24, 2013 at 07:22 pm
In the mid 80s & 90s it was "SEX SELLS". The late 90s into 2005 brought us funny ads…Read More that centered around dumb stunts, usually ending up with some poor guy getting hit in the 'boys'. Between then and now, the "heart tug" or "real men cry" ads like the Budweiser "Clydesdale friends forever" ad. Which of course was the perfect follower to Bud's "Mascot dog trains horse Rocky style" and "Donkey gets a shot" ads. All ad hall of fame'rs in my humble opinion.
Sadly, it looks like the ad world has taken two giant steps backwards with the bevy of male & female eye candy flashed over disclaimers of side effects such as : Nausea, vomiting, uncontrollable flatulence, sudden weight gain, sudden weight loss, skin rash, welts & boils, hair loss, blindness, heart arrhythmia, swollen glands, muscle atrophy, Turrets, short term memory loss and how the product should not be used by or in proximity to pregnant women or nursing mothers.
However, I would like to say "feek'n about time" for all the "thank you and honor our military and first responder" theme ads.
But if I could change ONE THING in regard to this discussion... It would be to finally apply "Truth In Advertising Laws" to political ads!
What say you?
Jeffrey Sabatini April 24, 2013 at 06:37 pm
Advertising is an art in itself. The ad spoof movie Crazy People showed how important the right tag…Read More line can be with "Metamucil, use it or you will die!". Or like the motto of my former firearms dealership... "If our guns can't kill it, it's immortal!". Good times, good times.
Nicole Mooradian April 22, 2013 at 01:43 am
We've closed comments on this post; thank you for your contributions.
Carl Petersen III April 21, 2013 at 11:34 pm
Robert Livesay
8 minutes ago
"Herr Carl Petrersen III I have some concerns about your…Read More postings."
.
.
Sounds like someone is a little bit upset over getting proven wrong about his allegations about the cause of our economic crash.
Carl Petersen III April 21, 2013 at 10:03 pm
Carl Petersen III
5 hours ago
Robert Livesay
2 minutes ago
'ou folks that voted for Liberals need…Read More some lessons in economics.'
.
.
Is lesson one how the Conservative economic policy of the Bush administration crashed the economy?
Andrew M Halmay May 6, 2013 at 06:53 pm
More polarizing conversation that results in nothing. I am a liberal, and do not hate guns. I hate…Read More mentally deficient and deranged people with guns. I hate laws passed upon laws that do not address the real causes and effects of gun violence. Lots of knee-jerking on the left and right, and very little thought. That's what I hate.
beaumontdave April 20, 2013 at 06:59 pm
"Steve, like all liberal mind numbed Obama-bots, you go right to insults..." Too funny!
Jeffrey Sabatini April 20, 2013 at 04:02 pm
Hi LBV and yes, the bill authors & cosigners are punishing lawful gun owners. Several took…Read More Obama's lead, but others like DeLeon have a long anti-gun history. And I was thinking of that exact blog, but it would need to get fairly deep into constitutional law, and I'm not sure how to keep it from reading like the Infield Fly Rule or 1040 instructions. But how's this; Some of the problems Toomey had:
1. No list protections. Any crook could file an FOIA and get the full database.
2. No provisions to keep only flagged backgrounds and dump the database say every 30 days to prevent it from ever being used for confiscation.
3. No provisions to license "background agents" who could travel to gun shows to perform instant checks. Or, provisions requiring gun show promoters to provide a free kiosk with internet access & power for background agents to set up.
Toomey was a great try, but it failed to address the little things that history has well shown can turn an innocent snowball into an avalanche. When you STUDY history and the Constitution, you come to understand why the first ten Amendments were placed in their order. The 1st being the whole reason for all the blood spilled, and the 2nd to protect the rest of the document & insure no tyrant foreign or domestic could compromise or negate it. I often ask anti-gun folks to tell me what rights the 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments insure in daily life. They rarely can, which is why they don't understand what losing the 2nd really means.
Adoptable Pets at the Pasadena Humane Society
0 Recommend Zahra Nealy