Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About gunrutz

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As I have been sitting here and reading through this travesty of a forum thread I have come to realize just what an incredibly pooorly run and pathetic excuse for a forum this is. Of course that was already clear, when idiots like this and a few others are given the freedom to say any idiotic fucking thing that pops into their small minds, lowering the discussion to the lowest on every occasion. The moderators and owners of this site should be absolutely ashamed that posts like the above have been allowed to remain for any amount of time, this person is off his nut, and you are just as bad f
  2. http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-116272-1-.htm#116272 This is the kind of prejuduice that gun onwers face in this country, it used to be that I could walk down the road with a rifle to a hunting spot when I was a kid, doing that now is likely to get you arrested, nothing illegal about it, but those who fear the thing while knowing nothing about them always know best. Of course some here probably don't care that their bigotry and ignorance leads to a society where a legal gun owner gets taken down in fornt of his child by police to placate the concerns of an idiot neighbor.
  3. We can't even keep people institutionalized for more than a couple of years after they have killed, decapitated and eaten parts of their victim, just how on earth are we going to honestly deal with and help those who haven't done anything wrong yet? I agree that the people should be the focus, but it seems that we go out of our way to allow known unstable people second and who knows how many chances at life, some of whom reoffend, and we do it to be nice, to be caring, or something. Those don't seem like policies put into place by conservatives, so allow bad people back on the street, but bl
  4. Agree, the pitching is weak, they wont be able to maintian this and will fall back to the pack.
  5. Yea, i bet there are a lot of people from histroy that would disagree with that, and no, im not suggesting no restrictions on firearms, and it works in Canada...says who exactly? There are no roberies in Canada? No violence in Canada? No unsolved cases in Canada? Seriously.
  6. Maybe you don't understand it because your projecting your own failings upon them and in reality that isn't why they do those things, but carry on.
  7. I think it is in part because men care more for the health of thier wives/families than they do for themselves, most of us are still trained, rightly or wrongly to be the protector, i think we end up neglecting issues that effect us as a result, though that is changing.
  8. You are without doubt the most boring and repetitive poster i have read on this forum.
  9. So appearently line loss isn't a real thing, or if it is we just have to live within the solar or wind farm that while it can only produce power part time, and is of course more expensive, and for which no technology allows for storage of unused power, which again demands traditional sources when the wind doesn't blow, forcing a traditional redundancy of 100% capacity, in effect making the green sources pointless, except as a feel good, we are saving a tiny bit of fossil fuels today, at incredible cost to the end user, which hurts our economy while other places that couldn't care less about so
  10. It can't be accepted, because wind and solar are not viable alternatives, and your, blame/we are better than the americans comment in many of your posts are just ridiculous.
  11. You can strike the word prosecutor if you like, but the process, even if you are found innocent, is in and of itself a punishment, that's just reality, and none of the unfortunate possibilities you mention change the hard fact that it is unfeasible to expect the provider of a legal intoxicant to completely monitor and manage the intake of that substance for all of it's patrons, all of the time. Because, for a variety of reasons, it is impossible to ensure that no one ever drives drunk after leaving a bar or restaurant, and then harms someone, it is ridiculous to expect this task of them, and
  12. What you call reasonable i call allowing the descretion of a prosecutor or a judge to determine the guilt or innocence of a bar owner for serving his legal drink to someone who maybe shouldn't be served, a verdict that could go either way simply because the law is too grey and cannot possibly 100% complied with.
  13. Yes it is ridiculous to expect bars to prevent drunk driving, so long as alcohol is legal, and i dont care what idiot judge thinks otherwise, it is impressive though that some people believe things must be a certain way because a judge said so, as if they aren't people, and are never wrong. In any case there have to be dozens of different scenarios in which a bar owner or servers could not possibly be expected to control someones drinking, or driving, it is completely and utterly ridiculous to imagine they could. I have 5 drinks before arriving at a bar, im legally drunk, but appear to be re
  14. A properly trained or improperly trained dog of any breed can be dangerous, if you ban pitbulls people will just move on to something else. I owned a wonderful lab/shepard cross that weighed in at a trim 160lbs, who was the worlds biggest baby and never hurt anyone, trained to be mean? A killer, easily, where do we stop blaiming the dogs, what breeds do we allow?
  • Create New...