jhorus

Follow

Comment history

Opinion: Where is U.S. tipping point on guns?

Dorothy, when I first saw you reply, I made an assumption that we were going to get into an argument. After I finished reading, I thought, "well crap, she has some good points". :)

Maybe it's because when/where I grew up, all those things you mentioned were pretty much taught by a father to his son (and so on and so forth up the genealogical chain) before going out hunting (not to mention Hunters' Safety classes, most boys in my hometown took), but I think there's a lot of people these days who have not had that experience, and just buy a gun to have one. Which I'm OK with, but I agree that training is very very important. It's like driving a car, we don't just throw people into a car who've never driven before and say, "here you go, good luck on the Interstate!"

September 3, 2015 at 10:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun control

Fred writes, "Simple....because the Founding Fathers could not have ever conceived what sort of mayhem and murder could possibly result from a society 200 years later where mental illness is ignored and indeed, encouraged by our so called "entertainment" sources of the present time. Also where there are "citizens" who have absolutely no conscience against killing a school full of school age children and their teachers."

At that time, personal responsibility was very high, family values were very high, and people generally kept their word as gentlemen, and honor was very important.

Guns are not, and have never been the issue. Society is.

August 11, 2015 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun control

Agreed, not to mention that the Founders wanted *limited* government. The well-regulated militia was supposed to be out of the control of the Federal government. As it stands now, the POTUS is ultimately in charge of the military, state or federal

August 11, 2015 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Guns and liquor could be mixing at your local bar

Honestly, I'm not too worried.

I doubt there's any more guns in bars now than before. In other words, those that were gonna carry in bars anyway did that before and probably after as well.

August 11, 2015 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Truckers impose traffic order

Thomas, you missed the part where I said I wait for a slow vehicle to merge. There's *always* a slow vehicle in the line within half-mile of the merge point. Someone is always pulling a trailer, or texting and goes slow enough to create a gap. That's my spot in the zipper. :)

August 2, 2015 at 3:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Truckers impose traffic order

Hmmm, merge into one lane 5 miles back, or drive up (not breaking any laws) to the point at which I need to merge and wait for a slow vehicle to open up a spot? Yes, I'll do the latter, thanks!

You people merging back 5 miles are actually slowing down traffic worse than (like others have said) using the zipper method.

I've had some trucks try to move over into my lane (hogging both lanes), but my V8 zips around them faster than they can to try to out-maneuver my maneuver. Not to mention that straddling a lane while not passing (or merging) violates driving laws.

Oh I'll get the bird thrown at me, and people cuss behind their closed windows, and some people try to be mean and not let me merge, but it's only because they didn't have the foresight to merge like a zipper... like you're supposed to do.

July 31, 2015 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Higher wage lessons

No, I was talking about the so-called "job creators". You can be rich and not be a job-creator, and I don't care about those people. I'm talking about the ones who say they "need" lower taxes because they're "job creators". I was merely pointing out their heaping pile of B.S. Sure, they have capital, property, business expenses, etc, etc, but I'm talking about the B.S. that they're going to create a bunch of jobs "just because". It's a completely line. They will only create jobs *if and only if* it benefits their profit margins. They'll yank jobs away if they can get away with it and keep profits.

But please, keep drinking the Koolaide. Listen, I don't care who is in charge, Republicans or Democrats, (because I know this will probably devolve into that discussion). I'm just calling a spade a spade (and no that phrase isn't racist, it pre-dates the ethnic slur, in case someone wants to throw that card out).

July 24, 2015 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Higher wage lessons

Feel free!

Also, for argument's sake, I just called my dad. He was a "job creator" since he had a business (butcher). Besides his regular hired man, he also had seasonal help during deer season. As small butcher shops gradually closed down, he would sometimes get farmers from an area that he wouldn't normally get, and eventually hired a 2nd full-time person in the later years.

I asked him, "Hey dad, quick question, during deer season, if you hadn't needed the help, would you have hired any of the temp help? Or if you didn't need to hire the other person and were able to keep up with the demand, would you have hired him?

Both questions he thought about and said, "probably not." He admitted that during the busy times, it was harder on his body, so it was nice having the extra help, but if he could have kept up with demand, he probably wouldn't have hired extra help. (of course he also had semi-free help by way of myself and my brother).

The trickle-down economy people would have you believe that "job creators", like my father, can't wait to throw jobs at people, if it wasn't for that rascally Government trying to impose taxes!

July 24, 2015 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Higher wage lessons

Let's do some simple math. Let's say we have 1 really rich person and he has 100 people at minimum wage. Those 10 people would like to go to a movie, but can't afford it. Meanwhile, the rich dude goes to the movie and enjoys it. The movie theater gets money from one person.

Now the law changes so those 100 people now earn an extra dollar an hour. They've earned 40 more dollars that week (minus taxes). The really rich person really hasn't lost much for those 100 employees (I'd wager that he could probably afford to pay them more, but then won't be able to pay the taxes on an 80 foot yacht he's been looking at). So instead he goes to the movies, where 101 people are now seated. The movie theater is now able to hire an extra person as well to support the influx of movie-goers.

July 24, 2015 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous