Community > Posts By > TJN

 
TJN's photo
Thu 08/23/12 10:24 AM



If I had 10 million I would be pretty mad if Someone took 2 million. That's a lot of money.



so is the remaining 8 million

its not gonna exactly put me at risk of starving, like twenty might if I only had 100

How do you know the expenses of the one having 10 million? I'm sure they are different than the one with $100.



There is a difference between expenses and needs.

A wealthy person may want something that is expensive but not necessary.

That doesn't answer my question.
People who aren't wealthy may want something expensive but not necessary.

TJN's photo
Thu 08/23/12 08:10 AM
I don't think so. There were wars when people made their own weapons ie swords, spears, bows, catapults.
The world seemed a more violent place in those times.

TJN's photo
Thu 08/23/12 07:13 AM
Must have been a slow news day.
Or anything to keep ours eyes of the current economic situation here.

TJN's photo
Thu 08/23/12 07:11 AM





On his website, U.S. radio personality Neal Boortz says the following about the statistics cited in the OP.

A new study has been released by the Chronicle of Philanthropy on charitable giving in the United States. Based on IRS data from 2008, what it boils down to is this: Conservatives are more charitable people. They voluntarily give away more of their earnings than liberals.


Liberals want to give away other peoples money.


I have to admit,, though in theory it is equal

Id have a hard time parting with 20 dollars if I was down to my last 100

and not as hard parting with 200 if I had 1000

and none at all parting with 2 million if I had 10


how much one is already struggling before they give, probably plays a factor,,,

If I had 10 million I would be pretty mad if Someone took 2 million. That's a lot of money.



so is the remaining 8 million

its not gonna exactly put me at risk of starving, like twenty might if I only had 100

How do you know the expenses of the one having 10 million? I'm sure they are different than the one with $100.

TJN's photo
Wed 08/22/12 04:11 PM
And where does the government get its funds from? Oh yeah those entrepreneurs that pay taxes and the others that pay taxes hey what do you know about that.

TJN's photo
Tue 08/21/12 07:38 PM

Does that cover the 115,000 jobs he outsourced?

What does that have to do with Bidens donations?
Oh that's right rule # 1 when the facts come out on a democrat change the subject.
Look over there a squirrel.

TJN's photo
Tue 08/21/12 06:31 PM
To many dead voters waiting in the dark if it gets close on election night.

TJN's photo
Thu 08/16/12 06:32 AM




Ryans dad died at the age of 55 while Paul was still a teen in high school. He began to receive his fathers SS which he saved and used to pay his way through the Miami University of Ohio. This dude, Ryan started his me me me when he was in high school living off government benefits, now he has has a problem with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and free lunches for school kids. This douchebag has taken advantage of every government program he could and now that he got his its time to keep others form getting theirs.

Isn't that what SS is for? Every year I get a statement from them telling me what my benefits would be and if I would die what my children would get till they are 18. He was 16 when his father passed. And saved the money, shows responsibility to me.
And as for Medicare do some research, stop repeating the lies of the liberals on MSM.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/08/15/Fact-Check-Dems-Lie-about-Ryans-Medicare-Plan.aspx#page1

TJN's photo
Wed 08/15/12 01:04 PM
Quality of time not quantity of time means everything.

TJN's photo
Wed 08/15/12 12:58 PM
Just exactly who are you talking about? Is there an article behind what you are saying?
I would like to know of the who, what, when, where you are talking about.

TJN's photo
Sun 08/12/12 02:13 PM

Soooooo...some soft handed panzie don't like guns.....there is a suprize.

Heads up....lots of us got guns....we got good guns. Don't mean we go and kill people with them.

Guns are a "disease"?....so is "dumb@$$"

Quote another wussy who don't like guns...maybe it will help.

drinker

TJN's photo
Sun 08/12/12 12:30 PM


I'm tired of listening to people's OPINIONS about this.
Do they mention anything about LEGAL gun ownership vs ILLEGAL gun ownership? NO they just lump it all together.
They try to sound all scientific, but left out that blacks make up 12 % of our population, and commit 50% of the nation’s murders. If blacks murdered at the same rate as whites, we would have one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it would be 32% lower that what it currently is

I think it would be more accurate to say we have a black murder problem, and that the majority of those getting murdered are also black.

When you study it more in depth, you will find blacks raised by both parents, have the same murder rate as whites.
So if there is any correlation to a "disease" I'd say it's a lack of FAMILY VALUES and RESPONSIBILITY.



also, be careful with easily manipulated numbers

by the above statement, if fifty percent are done by blacks,, fifty percent are done by NON blacks too, so blacks would already be murdering at the same rate,,,,




No you aren't reading the numbers correctly.
50% are being committed by blacks that leaves 50% for all other races.
So by all accounts blacks are committing a higher % of murders than any other race.
And if you look into the numbers more blacks are raised by a single parent and don't have a "family" atmosphere.

TJN's photo
Sun 08/12/12 12:26 PM


I'm tired of listening to people's OPINIONS about this.
Do they mention anything about LEGAL gun ownership vs ILLEGAL gun ownership? NO they just lump it all together.
They try to sound all scientific, but left out that blacks make up 12 % of our population, and commit 50% of the nation’s murders. If blacks murdered at the same rate as whites, we would have one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it would be 32% lower that what it currently is

I think it would be more accurate to say we have a black murder problem, and that the majority of those getting murdered are also black.

When you study it more in depth, you will find blacks raised by both parents, have the same murder rate as whites.
So if there is any correlation to a "disease" I'd say it's a lack of FAMILY VALUES and RESPONSIBILITY.


we can start another thread on family values and responsibility, and how they correlate with opportunity and social birth place

but for now,,, thats a distraction from the issue of people with guns going into places that would be assumed to be safe (like a movie or a workplace or a church) and shooting up dozens of people with minimum effort or chance for them to escape

and the majority of those crimes, would not change, regardless of black people who rarely commit them,,,,

What is the percentage of "those crimes" compared to the overall murder rate?
And being in a family or being raised by a single parent has everything to do with the OP.
It is being called a SOCIAL DISEASE.
And if you look at the numbers those raised by a single parent are far mor likely to commit these types of crimes.
So family values have everything to do with the OP.

TJN's photo
Sun 08/12/12 07:56 AM
I'm tired of listening to people's OPINIONS about this.
Do they mention anything about LEGAL gun ownership vs ILLEGAL gun ownership? NO they just lump it all together.
They try to sound all scientific, but left out that blacks make up 12 % of our population, and commit 50% of the nation’s murders. If blacks murdered at the same rate as whites, we would have one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it would be 32% lower that what it currently is

I think it would be more accurate to say we have a black murder problem, and that the majority of those getting murdered are also black.

When you study it more in depth, you will find blacks raised by both parents, have the same murder rate as whites.
So if there is any correlation to a "disease" I'd say it's a lack of FAMILY VALUES and RESPONSIBILITY.

TJN's photo
Sat 08/11/12 01:07 PM
Maybe Obama should practice what he preaches.

"Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits…

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act."

TJN's photo
Thu 08/09/12 12:14 PM
Edited by TJN on Thu 08/09/12 12:17 PM




If you were right than weapon innovation would never have been needed at all.



really. soooo, profit had nothing to do with it?


weapon innovation has happened primarily for MILITARY purposes, where combat is more than a one on one proposal,,,,

where you have groups of men advancing towards GROUPS of men, yes, the need for a massively destructive gun becomes practical

when you have a nutcase advancing towards an unarmed person or populace,, massively destructive weapons only gives HIM an advantage,,,,
All tactical situations start with a single shooter. Even in the military. Right now more than ever tactics have evolved to urban environments, so again . . . no you are wrong. Also, no supply ever existed without a demand. In a deadly encounter no demand ever existed without a need.

I imagine the weapon innovations you are talking about right now in light of these shooting is larger capacity magazines? Yes? no?

Being vague never helped anyone understand anything.





Im gonna be 'vague' because I dont know the NAMES of weapons

but I am being specific enough in describing the TYPES of weapons, their capability and the practicality of a non military CITIZEN owning them,,,,
No your not being specific enough, and you didn't answer my question.

You said and I quote:
there is just no LOGICAL LEGAL purpose for any weapon that can do that type of mass damage in a matter of seconds,,,,,
In context of this shooting that means you think a semi automatic pistol with between 7 - 19 rounds has no logical legal purpose. (I dont know the exact model he used thus the range)

Please explain to me this opinion. Please help me understand at what round count it goes from being a logical legal purpose to no logical legal purpose and WHY?

He had a Springfield 9mm XD
16 round clip
An experienced shooter will hit a target at 50 yards that's at a range and no projectiles coming at you.
It's a total different story when someone is shooting at you. When your heart rate is up and adrenaline is beyond high levels your accuracy is greatly decreased. Most often you will miss with your first round. If your fortunate enough to be able to squeeze off several rounds while advancing towards the enemy I want all 16 rounds if not more. And yes I do have experience in a situation where I've been shot at.

TJN's photo
Wed 08/08/12 11:50 AM

It is impossable to villify villains such as the numerous white supremists groups. The Black Panthers did not lynch, castrate, nor burned alive thousands of African Americans through state sanctioned terrorism. Therefore, common sence would suggest that the kkk, and their offshoots who have replaced silly sheets with fatigues can not be villified. They have done a consistant job at earning their "villian" status. Im American, they are enemys of truth, justice and equallity. And yes, I am consumed, for TRUTH.

Look at the statistics of what areas and who is killing with guns.
The biggest percentage is black on black in poor neighborhoods gang related by those who have ILLEGAL guns!
The problem isn't legal gun owners and what type of guns they own.
It's a problem of society.
You can't honestly with a straight face tell me that if guns are banned that the statistics will change. The gangs and criminals will still get guns ILLEGALLY!

TJN's photo
Wed 08/08/12 11:29 AM
Edited by TJN on Wed 08/08/12 11:31 AM
law abiding citizens can own guns, they dont need to own semi automatics and the like


there is a weapon to 'defend' and then there are weapons that completely anihilate

there is no LEGAL reason to own the latter, for those who have them ANYWAY, it makes their criminal status all the easier to determine,,,,

That's your opinion on what types of guns people should and can own.
Do you know the difference between the types of guns you are talking about?
So we should only be able to own guns that we have to reload after every shot?


The second amendment read it understand it!

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

TJN's photo
Wed 08/08/12 11:17 AM
Edited by TJN on Wed 08/08/12 11:19 AM

and ilinois is much bigger than chicago,, I would be interested in knowing the murder rate for the STATE

but I will research it myself

State of Illinois population is 12,869,257
Chicagoland area population is 9,729,825
I really wouldn't call that much bigger.
Therefor I would venture to guess that the states murder rate isn't much higher than Chicago's

TJN's photo
Wed 08/08/12 10:24 AM


Muslims, the Panthers and other extremists would love to see us unable to defend ourselves



Im sure there are those who want people 'defenseless'

there are also those who just dont want people to be capable of taking out dozens of people in ten seconds,,,,,


there is a lot of area between those two options,,,

Those people are the same.
The NUTJOBS who go on these murdering sprees will obtain a weapon illegally if they want.
Keeping law abiding citizens from owning will not lower crime in our country.
Look at Illinois. They are the only state without some form of conceal carry law.
Murder is up over 26% in Chicago. Yep not having guns is really working out well for them.