Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Why America and Britain are Self-Destructing

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Laker said:

I am finding it interesting reading the missives of Mr. Warrior to the joys of engineering.  It may be a cultural thing, but I don't think he has yet to come to terms with the half-life of engineers.  Civil engineers transfer from engineer to project management to manager as a progression.  if they stay in the technical end, it is usually as in a technician role with salary to match.  In many ways it is the same for mech engs.   Software engineering is so dependent on situation and requires so much re-education.  Research engineering is where they learn they are low man on the totem pole to physicists and mathematicians technically.  I wonder whether his career has advanced to the point where soft skills predominate.

If you could point out my said “missives to the joys of engineering” I’d be for ever grateful. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite positive in stating that an engineering degree places you at an intellectual and social advantage to the rest of society.  The advantage may exclude some people, but it doesn't sound like many.  The term missives mean letters in a literal sense, but forum postings would be digital media upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laker said:

You are quite positive in stating that an engineering degree places you at an intellectual and social advantage to the rest of society.  The advantage may exclude some people, but it doesn't sound like many.  The term missives mean letters in a literal sense, but forum postings would be digital media upgrade.

So that’s a no then?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

Nice try, but go back and read your posts.

I think you already know the answer to your Soft Skills speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

And you wonder why your concept of behavioural change and education re guns get laughed at.

It worked for drunk driving.  I don't recall taking all the cars and booze away from people in an attempt to address the huge numbers killed by DUI drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It worked for drunk driving.  I don't recall taking all the cars and booze away from people in an attempt to address the huge numbers killed by DUI drivers.

It didn't work for drunk driving.....

 

Unless you want to discuss the importance of legislative changes in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It worked for drunk driving.  I don't recall taking all the cars and booze away from people in an attempt to address the huge numbers killed by DUI drivers.

They did take booze away from 18-21 year olds dickhead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It didn't work for drunk driving.....

 

Unless you want to discuss the importance of legislative changes in the process.

I would beg to differ - what changed WASN'T a plethora of new laws or restrictions, it was the social push to better enforce those laws rather than to keep looking the other way, because "he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing", together with the social stigma of being caught being irresponsible enough to drive drunk.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal age for purchasing or publicly consuming alcohol in the United States is 21. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed in 1984. Before that, it was state by state and was as low as 18.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

The long title of the law even mentions drunk driving by name:

An Act to encourage a uniform minimum drinking age of 21; to combat drugged driving, improve law enforcement and provide incentives to the states to reduce drunk driving.

image.png.0c0e78722c3c61b7d750d736630e3f6d.png

Trends in alcohol–related and non–alcohol–related traffic fatalities, 1982 through 2002

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/63-78.htm

 

Government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem. -- someone who signed that law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I would beg to differ - what changed WASN'T a plethora of new laws or restrictions, it was the social push to better enforce those laws rather than to keep looking the other way, because "he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing", together with the social stigma of being caught being irresponsible enough to drive drunk.  

 

 

You keep believing that.

Social push. Too funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I would beg to differ - what changed WASN'T a plethora of new laws or restrictions, it was the social push to better enforce those laws rather than to keep looking the other way, because "he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing", together with the social stigma of being caught being irresponsible enough to drive drunk.  

 

 You're not right though; the laws changed, and more importantly, the breathalyzer became reliable and sold to LE agencies by the hundreds of thousands.   The social push was MADD and SADD, which I remember being absolutely omnipresent when I was 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Look at drunk driving rates then and now.

 

I think that we agree in the difference in outcome - Stipulating to O's observation of the federal drinking age, you are suggesting that new restrictions are responsible, while I am suggesting that the MADD campaign, and the stigma and increased enforcement of existing laws were responsible for the changes in attitude and behavior that caused the reduction in DUI rates.    Neither alcohol or cars were outlawed, using them together already was illegal, (well, Louisiana aside) what changed was peoples' attitudes towards DUI - it was no longer seen as a harmless mistake.  That constant reminder has resulted in a 50% reduction in DUIs since 1980.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 I don't recall taking all the cars and booze away from people in an attempt to address the huge numbers killed by DUI drivers.

Every state in the country changed its DUI/DWI laws in the 80s.  You can't remember 'cause your brain has rotted away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

while I am suggesting that the MADD campaign, and the stigma and increased enforcement of existing laws were responsible for the changes in attitude and behavior t

So what effect, in your opinion, did the imposition of new DUI laws in literally every state have on the problem?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

So what effect, in your opinion, did the imposition of new DUI laws in literally every state have on the problem?  

What "new DUI laws" Clean?   IIRC - DUI was already illegal - it was enforcement priority that changed, followed later by lower legal .BAC concentrations in most places.   I am puzzled as to why y'all want to argue against the efficacy of MADD's awareness campaign - 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What "new DUI laws" Clean?   IIRC - DUI was already illegal - it was enforcement priority that changed, 

Are you saying there were no new laws regarding DUI implemented in the 80s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Laker said:

Nice try, but go back and read your posts.

Here you silly fucker,

Here’s the definition of “missive”

Quote

noun [ C ]

UK  /ˈmɪs.ɪv/ US  /ˈmɪs.ɪv/

an official, formal, or long letter:

It is obvious that you don’t understand that definition because you wrote and I quote 

 
I am finding it interesting reading the missives of Mr. Warrior to the joys of engineering

and here’s what is wrong with your statement, what I wrote was neither “official” “formal” or “long” but the  coup de grace is your inability to grasp that I never once extolled  “the joys of engineering”

What I did do is criticize people for stupidly sinking themselves into never ending debt for useless “art and other bullshite degrees” or words to that effect.

 

Now one thing has been made abundantly clear in this thread is that there are an awful lot of stupid fuckers out there with useless degrees not worth the paper they are written on and I suspect that you posses one of them.

 

There are plenty of opportunities to be had in the US but the majority of you are too lazy and too indoctrinated into believing that everybody deserves a participation medal. 

The reality is that if you want a piece of the pie you are going to have to earn it, unless of course you are lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon in your gob or are a civil servant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Are you saying there were no new laws regarding DUI implemented in the 80s?

I'm saying that there were no new prohibitions -  alcohol wasn't outlawed, cars weren't outlawed, DUI was already illegal - investment in improved BAC detection technology that came about ( I'm guessing at this part - will accept being squared away)  largely because of the MADD social campaign changed the narrative and raised awareness of the problem as well - but, from what I remember, the causal factor behind ALL that was the MADD campaign.    It was that focus, the investment in messaging, the national grass-roots pinging of elected officials, the increased enforcement focus that was the biggest factor in the change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What "new DUI laws" Clean?   IIRC - DUI was already illegal - it was enforcement priority that changed, followed later by lower legal .BAC concentrations in most places.   I am puzzled as to why y'all want to argue against the efficacy of MADD's awareness campaign - 

Bluntly wrong. States created new per se DUI laws beginning in the 70s and into the 80s that made prosecution of DUI much easier. The 90s brought about open container laws in vehicles which, again, make prosecutions and enforcement easier.

 

as an aside it’s crazy to me DUI limits used to be .15% in some states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm saying that there were no new prohibitions -  alcohol wasn't outlawed, cars weren't outlawed, DUI was already illegal - investment in improved BAC detection technology that came about ( I'm guessing at this part - will accept being squared away)  largely because of the MADD social campaign changed the narrative and raised awareness of the problem as well - but, from what I remember, the causal factor behind ALL that was the MADD campaign.    It was that focus, the investment in messaging, the national grass-roots pinging of elected officials, the increased enforcement focus that was the biggest factor in the change.  

MADD was formed in 1980 and lobbied Congress to increase the national drinking age to 21 which they did in 1984.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm saying that there were no new prohibitions -  alcohol wasn't outlawed, cars weren't outlawed, DUI was already illegal - investment in improved BAC detection technology that came about ( I'm guessing at this part - will accept being squared away)  largely because of the MADD social campaign changed the narrative and raised awareness of the problem as well - but, from what I remember, the causal factor behind ALL that was the MADD campaign.    It was that focus, the investment in messaging, the national grass-roots pinging of elected officials, the increased enforcement focus that was the biggest factor in the change.  

You're correct that "alcohol wasn't outlawed, cars weren't outlawed, DUI was already illegal" but there were a bunch of new laws passed all the same, mostly at the state level.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

You're correct that "alcohol wasn't outlawed, cars weren't outlawed, DUI was already illegal" but there were a bunch of new laws passed all the same, mostly at the state level.

- DSK

Why?   Did the politicians get busy of their own accord?  Did the people just decide on their own that this was suddenly a good idea?   

No - the critical point is that MADD created a social awareness campaign that sought to adjust individual behaviors, to increase awareness of the problems associated w/DUI, and to push better enforcement of laws already on the books, to improve those laws to increase DUI enforcement.  Their campaign didn't seek to outlaw the consumption of alcohol ( or even outlawing strong spirits while permitting beer/wine), outlaw cars, or make anything illegal that wasn't already.  

Y'all keep saying that there were a "bunch of new laws" - and aside from the federal drinking age law, the improvement and adaptation of breathalyzer ( a new BAC measurement device, not a new prohibition) and the eventual lowering of permissible BAC levels, the real and substantive change, and the change IMHO that enabled the improvement, was the change in public attitude about drinking and driving.  If there were new law beyond the 18-21 drinking age, and tweaks to enforcement of previously existing laws - I don't remember them.  

   I feel like I'm being a bit pedantic about this, but I think that the issues surrounding many of the "undesirable behaviors" that contribute to many of the social issues we're faced with today could be similarly and effectively addressed.  My point in hammering home that the change in attitudes was more causal than statutory tweaks: if we keep looking for new laws to change things for us, I don't think we're going to get where I think we all want to go.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

My point in hammering home that the change in attitudes was more causal than statutory tweaks: if we keep looking for new laws to change things for us, I don't think we're going to get where I think we all want to go.  

I think most here will agree that laws without enforcement don't accomplish anything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Here you silly fucker,

Here’s the definition of “missive”

Being a little bit concrete are we?  Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why?   Did the politicians get busy of their own accord?  Did the people just decide on their own that this was suddenly a good idea?   

No - the critical point is that MADD created a social awareness campaign that sought to adjust individual behaviors, to increase awareness of the problems associated w/DUI, and to push better enforcement of laws already on the books, to improve those laws to increase DUI enforcement.  Their campaign didn't seek to outlaw the consumption of alcohol ( or even outlawing strong spirits while permitting beer/wine), outlaw cars, or make anything illegal that wasn't already.  

Y'all keep saying that there were a "bunch of new laws" - and aside from the federal drinking age law, the improvement and adaptation of breathalyzer ( a new BAC measurement device, not a new prohibition) and the eventual lowering of permissible BAC levels, the real and substantive change, and the change IMHO that enabled the improvement, was the change in public attitude about drinking and driving.  If there were new law beyond the 18-21 drinking age, and tweaks to enforcement of previously existing laws - I don't remember them.  

   I feel like I'm being a bit pedantic about this, but I think that the issues surrounding many of the "undesirable behaviors" that contribute to many of the social issues we're faced with today could be similarly and effectively addressed.  My point in hammering home that the change in attitudes was more causal than statutory tweaks: if we keep looking for new laws to change things for us, I don't think we're going to get where I think we all want to go.  

I agree with you about the social awareness, but one advantage MADD has over gungrabbers is that there is pretty much NOBODY pushing drunk driving as a lifestyle, as a fundamental freedom GODDAMMIT!!!, or as even something that many people even admit they do.

If the claim were made that MADD instigated a bunch of top-down changes in law, I'd agree with you that it's bullshit. But, yes there were a lot of fairly substantial changes. Shucks the state of NC used to not care if you rode around with a drink... as long as you didn't have a wreck or blow over 0.12 (IIRC they lowered it to 0.10 and then again to 0.08%). Now they have "open container law" which means you can't even have empties in the back of your pickemup. This was due to pressure from the voting public, so again, credit the change in social awareness and attitudes.

- DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that we agree in the difference in outcome - Stipulating to O's observation of the federal drinking age, you are suggesting that new restrictions are responsible, while I am suggesting that the MADD campaign, and the stigma and increased enforcement of existing laws were responsible for the changes in attitude and behavior that caused the reduction in DUI rates.    Neither alcohol or cars were outlawed, using them together already was illegal, (well, Louisiana aside) what changed was peoples' attitudes towards DUI - it was no longer seen as a harmless mistake.  That constant reminder has resulted in a 50% reduction in DUIs since 1980.  

The change was political. MADD pressured politicians to introduce new laws.

The majority of people do not change their behaviour because they get asked to. Look at guns, smoking and obesity as examples. They change their behaviour because they get forced to.

PS. Can you post a cite to support your claim of a 50% drop in dui"s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I think most here will agree that laws without enforcement don't accomplish anything.

Most of us acknowledge the substantial changes in enforcement that changed attitudes too. DUIs are now a big, expensive, pain in the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Laker said:

Being a little bit concrete are we?  Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad.

 The Dunning Kruger a strong with you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

 The Dunning Kruger a strong with you.

 

 

The grammar, she failing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm saying that there were no new prohibitions -  alcohol wasn't outlawed, cars weren't outlawed, DUI was already illegal - investment in improved BAC detection technology that came about ( I'm guessing at this part - will accept being squared away)  largely because of the MADD social campaign changed the narrative and raised awareness of the problem as well - but, from what I remember, the causal factor behind ALL that was the MADD campaign.    It was that focus, the investment in messaging, the national grass-roots pinging of elected officials, the increased enforcement focus that was the biggest factor in the change.  

A coworker reported that when she moved an entire carload was needed to move the firearms and ammo.   If it takes a carload to move your booze some might suggest counseling.    If it’s just guns, you must be a patriot.   Social change would be most welcome if we want to minimize the mass shootings.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 1:17 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Lords have needs. 

And some people love to wallow in meritocracy, drugs, alcohol, porn, welfare.................the list goes on and on. 

Remember, Obama had the first 2 years in total control. He and the Dem/s could have fixed the Tax code and more. But they did not, because they know who butters their bread.

hey are all a bunch of liars and thieves.

I wanna be stinking filthy rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

And some people love to wallow in meritocracy, drugs, alcohol, porn, welfare.................the list goes on and on. 

Remember, Obama had the first 2 years in total control. He and the Dem/s could have fixed the Tax code and more. But they did not, because they know who butters their bread.

hey are all a bunch of liars and thieves.

I wanna be stinking filthy rich.

Obama was guilty of seeking compromise, too hesitant to rock the boat.   He’s proof Biden would not change anything and we must be willing to go beyond our comfort zone if we are tired of being suckers.   Hike out and pull the damn sheet in if you want to go against the wind.   If you don’t end up swimming it will be a hell of a ride.    Try and fail, or don’t try, you are sure to be hosed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

And some people love to wallow in meritocracy, drugs, alcohol, porn, welfare.................the list goes on and on. 

Remember, Obama had the first 2 years in total control. He and the Dem/s could have fixed the Tax code and more. But they did not, because they know who butters their bread.

hey are all a bunch of liars and thieves.

I wanna be stinking filthy rich.

Well, hey. If you wanna be filthy stinking rich, and don't mind BEING a liar and a thief, then why would you mind being governed by liars and thieves?

Problem... in the kingdom of thieves, it's the murderers who profit.

You wanna win a race to the bottom, and you're insisting on dragging the rest of us with you

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

Irony 

The sense of humour, she failing two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The sense of humour, she failing two.

I see little to no humor in the stupidity displayed by some of the posters on this site, I do however feel sorrow that they aren’t capable of making it in one of the most opportunistic countries in the world.

But let me hypothesize if I may that had some of you spent more time trying to make it in this world and less time posting on obscure websites on the interwebs then maybe, just maybe you all would have a somewhat different outlook on the viability of this here United States Of America.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid your hypothesis fails on more than one level.

I "made it in this world" years ago. And I didn't do it in that "most opportunistic" of countries. Also, I don't think that word means what you think it does - you can look it up.

There's that irony again.

My opinion on the viability of the USA was formed over many decades and it has taken a lot more than Trump to get me to my current extremely worried opinion about that. Almost four of them since Reagan to be precise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

OK, gotcha. We are not worthy.

Ignore bin.

I didn’t say you lot were not worthy, it’s you lot who said that because if a person born into the US or U.K. has had such luck as to win that passport lottery but still feel that they aren’t able to make it then yes indeed, that person isn’t worthy.

 

But by putting those who point out the blaring bleeding obvious is how you deal with the truth then your destiny has already been etched in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I'm afraid your hypothesis fails on more than one level.

I "made it in this world" years ago.

My opinion on the viability of the USA was formed over many decades and it has taken a lot more than Trump to get me to my current extremely worried opinion about that. Almost four of them since Reagan to be precise.

Let me see, and I’m just guessing here, your boat floated when the Chinese swallowed up all that real estate in VC making many of you accidental millionaires.

 

Is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

But by putting those who point out the blaring bleeding obvious is how you deal with the truth then your destiny has already been etched in stone.

This is Ish's destiny - I'm sure he's quite happy it's etched in stone.

image.png.3284f2f80ea8b47b9c86338157ae55e1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

I didn’t say you lot were not worthy, it’s you lot who said that because if a person born into the US or U.K. has had such luck as to win that passport lottery but still feel that they aren’t able to make it then yes indeed, that person isn’t worthy.

 

But by putting those who point out the blaring bleeding obvious is how you deal with the truth then your destiny has already been etched in stone.

#6 is that you? The UK? What a dumb cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:
6 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

But by putting those who point out the blaring bleeding obvious is how you deal with the truth then your destiny has already been etched in stone.

This is Ish's destiny - I'm sure he's quite happy it's etched in stone.

I don't have a lot of destiny left.

But thanks for quoting that sentence, it's a doozy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

And some people love to wallow in meritocracy, drugs, alcohol, porn, welfare.................the list goes on and on. 

Remember, Obama had the first 2 years in total control. He and the Dem/s could have fixed the Tax code and more. But they did not, because they know who butters their bread.

hey are all a bunch of liars and thieves.

I wanna be stinking filthy rich.

The total control for 2 years claim fails the reality test.

In order to prevent a filibuster you need 60 votes in the Senate.  The Dems had those 60 votes for 4 months, not two years.  As is said, you can look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sea warrior said:

Let me see, and I’m just guessing here, your boat floated when the Chinese swallowed up all that real estate in VC making many of you accidental millionaires.

 

Is that correct?

I'll keep it simple for you - No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I'll keep it simple for you - No

My mistake, Inheritance it is then.

 

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

The change was political. MADD pressured politicians to introduce new laws.

The majority of people do not change their behaviour because they get asked to. Look at guns, smoking and obesity as examples. They change their behaviour because they get forced to.

PS. Can you post a cite to support your claim of a 50% drop in dui"s?

Yes, I can support that - do.you want. MADD stats, NHTSA, responsibility.org or some other group's measurements?   The under 21 changes account for 10% of that, according to statistics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

A coworker reported that when she moved an entire carload was needed to move the firearms and ammo.   If it takes a carload to move your booze some might suggest counseling.    If it’s just guns, you must be a patriot.   Social change would be most welcome if we want to minimize the mass shootings.   

I agree, but think we differ in regards to what that change might entail.  I'd like to be wrong on this point, so why dont ya tell me what change you'd like to see? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

This is Ish's destiny - I'm sure he's quite happy it's etched in stone.

image.png.3284f2f80ea8b47b9c86338157ae55e1.png

 That’s nice.

when I’m an old codger I’ll probably end up in some backwater like that also but for now I’ll continue on living my life to the fullest taking full advantage of the the multitudes of fruits ripe for picking in the orchard that is the good old US of A. Whilst you lot complain about your inadequacies.

 

Ta Ta...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

 

I don't have a lot of destiny left.

But thanks for quoting that sentence, it's a doozy.

Wait a minute, don’t tell me you’re an old geezer especially when you act like a child by putting those with whom you disagree with on ignore, say it isn’t so.

 

Used to be that people grew up by the time they grew old, ahh the good old days.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

How does one “wallow in meritocracy”?

You drink Bud Light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

You drink Bud Light American beer.

FTFY

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I agree, but think we differ in regards to what that change might entail.  I'd like to be wrong on this point, so why dont ya tell me what change you'd like to see? 

  1. Eliminate the culture of fear pushed by internet and other cowards who would tell us we are all about to be victims
    1. man up.   Sissies with guns are still sissies.
  2. Regulate rate of fire, so we are not all helpless in the next mass shooting and the one to follow.
    1. if you really need rapid fire to hunt the overpopulated deer, I suggest a car.
    2. if shots per minute matters in home defense, your Swiss cheese home no longer needs defending.
  3. if you are not part of a militia regulated by Congress, as described in the Constitution, your weapons are a privilege, not a right,
    1. crazy people need not apply
    2. The modern military considers rifles a short range weapon, when it’s too late for a drone strike.     
    3. Militia weapons like antiaircraft missiles, antitank weapons and IEDs are already illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
11 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

How does one “wallow in meritocracy”?

You drink Bud Light.

Q: Why is American beer like making love in a canoe?

 

 

A: They’re both fucking close to water

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

FTFY

FKT

Great Lakes isn’t bad.   Others not owned by the world’s big three probably are drinkable as well.    Don’t generalize.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lark said:
  1. Eliminate the culture of fear pushed by internet and other cowards who would tell us we are all about to be victims
    1. man up.   Sissies with guns are still sissies.
  2. Regulate rate of fire, so we are not all helpless in the next mass shooting and the one to follow.
    1. if you really need rapid fire to hunt the overpopulated deer, I suggest a car.
    2. if shots per minute matters in home defense, your Swiss cheese home no longer needs defending.
  3. if you are not part of a militia regulated by Congress, as described in the Constitution, your weapons are a privilege, not a right,
    1. crazy people need not apply
    2. The modern military considers rifles a short range weapon, when it’s too late for a drone strike.     
    3. Militia weapons like antiaircraft missiles, antitank weapons and IEDs are already illegal.

Yup - we think differently.  

Research assignment for ya: you tell.me.how many deaths/injuries the things you describe are responsible for relative to the whole of the problem, and then let's talk about efficacy of effort

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lark said:

Great Lakes isn’t bad.   Others not owned by the world’s big three probably are drinkable as well.    Don’t generalize.

Fair enough, some of the craft beers I drank in Tucson were fine. Our mass produced beer is pretty ordinary as well. That's why we export it to the USA, because the worst Aussie beers are still better than nearly all of yours.

OK 4X isn't but - Queensland. And Southwick Bitter was pretty bad, hopefully it's not still in production. That was the only beer left aboard on one work voyage ending in Fremantle, nobody could stand it.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

FTFY

FKT

In 2019 I'd pit US micro beer against any beer in the world. Certainly against Aussie crap. There’s great beer in the us - of pretty much every style. Nerd beer culture is annoying, but results in great beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - we think differently.  

Research assignment for ya: you tell.me.how many deaths/injuries the things you describe are responsible for relative to the whole of the problem, and then let's talk about efficacy of effort

 

Please restate your question.   Meanwhile, my goals are simple.   I want the next wacko to shoot slowly enough a person not in the initial field of fire has a chance to defend himself.    The initial targets are statistics.   If bullets are being sprayed Vegas style, the whole field are statistics.   If fire is slowed to Civil War levels the third and fourth person have some responsibility for their own destiny,     I don’t want to eliminate guns, they are sometimes useful.   I’m frustrated a friend, a factory worker of normal strength, is scared to change a flat without a weapon for comfort.    I’m scared that I might stop to offer help and be shot just because he’s scared and I’m wearing a hoodie.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lark said:

Please restate your question.   Meanwhile, my goals are simple.   I want the next wacko to shoot slowly enough a person not in the initial field of fire has a chance to defend himself.    The initial targets are statistics.   If bullets are being sprayed Vegas style, the whole field are statistics.   If fire is slowed to Civil War levels the third and fourth person have some responsibility for their own destiny,     I don’t want to eliminate guns, they are sometimes useful.   I’m frustrated a friend, a factory worker of normal strength, is scared to change a flat without a weapon for comfort.    I’m scared that I might stop to offer help and be shot just because he’s scared and I’m wearing a hoodie.    

Ok, and before I do, thanks for asking and stating your position civilly.  We want the same thing - I think the best way to get there is different than you do.  To help you understand where I'm coming from, I'm asking you to quantify the # of incidents that arise from the circumstances you wish to curtail against the reported whole

I suggest that the most efficacious response to any situation is to address the greatest causal factors, rather than the most emotional.  

I also suggest that responses such as yours are based on an emotional response to the real and rational horror that one person could i.flict so.much pain, in opposition to the understanding that those instances are less impactful than the problem considered in its whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea warrior said:

I see little to no humor in the stupidity displayed by some of the posters on this site, I do however feel sorrow that they aren’t capable of making it in one of the most opportunistic countries in the world.

But let me hypothesize if I may that had some of you spent more time trying to make it in this world and less time posting on obscure websites on the interwebs then maybe, just maybe you all would have a somewhat different outlook on the viability of this here United States Of America.

 

"most opportunistic countries "  :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

Good thing you're such a highly successful highly educated engineer.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 10:36 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

BFS!!  
 

Nobody held them down and forced donuts and cream pies down their cake hole. They made the choice to eat that shit. Despite literally decades of govt funded PSAs talking about the merits of healthy eating, stop smoking, lose weight, etc. at some point the fatties have to take responsibility for themselves. 

Sometimes your posts expose you as a totally ignorant buffoon whose ignorance and selfishness is boundless.

I really do not care what motivates you to avoid caring about others but your pride about your selfishness is difficult to observe without commenting.

I did not suggest you either caused those people to eat ignorantly and foolishly or had any obligation to attempt to stop them.

The simple truth is, it takes some knowledge and effort for a person to maintain a healthy body.  My guess is the people in the photos lack not just that necessary knowledge but, because they do not fully comprehend the potential results for failing to properly maintain their bodies, lack the motivation to attempt to do so. 
 

in fact, somehow, we have allowed otherwise caring decent people to Be intimidated about trying to help overweight flabby food addicts  because somehow some way we have decided such help is “fat shaming.”

Fat shaming, smokers shaming, non-hand wash shaming, non-seatbelt wearing shaming, no sunscreen shaming, and similar suggestions the masochist is killing a body should be ENCOURAGED!!

restaurants ought to refuse service to overweight fat slobs.

yeah Jeff... they are doing it to themselves. But the least you could do is tell that fat broad in front of you at the checkout that she ought to go out those potato chips back on the shelf. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

I see little to no humor in the stupidity displayed by some of the posters on this site, I do however feel sorrow that they aren’t capable of making it in one of the most opportunistic countries in the world.

But let me hypothesize if I may that had some of you spent more time trying to make it in this world and less time posting on obscure websites on the interwebs then maybe, just maybe you all would have a somewhat different outlook on the viability of this here United States Of America.

 

 

You, Mr Warrior, are quite humourous.

Are you sure you're an engineer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

My mistake, Inheritance it is then.

image.png.63afd18736206fe9f6239b8fcd918c24.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Wait a minute, don’t tell me you’re an old geezer especially when you act like a child by putting those with whom you disagree with on ignore, say it isn’t so.

 

Used to be that people grew up by the time they grew old, ahh the good old days.....

Are you VWAP's latest sock by any chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yes, I can support that - do.you want. MADD stats, NHTSA, responsibility.org or some other group's measurements?   The under 21 changes account for 10% of that, according to statistics. 

I was wondering how dui charges match up to deaths. Because deaths have been corrupted by changing safety standards and equipment in cars.

I'm happy to take your word on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

You, Mr Warrior, are quite humourous.

Are you sure you're an engineer?

Of the Sanitary persuasion possibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ok, and before I do, thanks for asking and stating your position civilly.  We want the same thing - I think the best way to get there is different than you do.  To help you understand where I'm coming from, I'm asking you to quantify the # of incidents that arise from the circumstances you wish to curtail against the reported whole

I suggest that the most efficacious response to any situation is to address the greatest causal factors, rather than the most emotional.  

I also suggest that responses such as yours are based on an emotional response to the real and rational horror that one person could i.flict so.much pain, in opposition to the understanding that those instances are less impactful than the problem considered in its whole. 

Ever seen one of these?5x4%20risk%20matrix.jpg?width=1000&name=

The probability may be low, but the consequences are severe.

Pretty basic risk management.....

 

I'm ok with 1000  people shooting their toe off, but a school shooting is beyond the pale.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

I didn’t say you lot were not worthy, it’s you lot who said that because if a person born into the US or U.K. has had such luck as to win that passport lottery but still feel that they aren’t able to make it then yes indeed, that person isn’t worthy.

 

But by putting those who point out the blaring bleeding obvious is how you deal with the truth then your destiny has already been etched in stone.

Does someone have a secret decoder ring for this? I’ll give the puddle wrestler the benefit of the doubt, as English is clearly not their first language... but I don’t understand Who, or What, they were trying to condemn, if that was even the intent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ok, and before I do, thanks for asking and stating your position civilly.  We want the same thing - I think the best way to get there is different than you do.  To help you understand where I'm coming from, I'm asking you to quantify the # of incidents that arise from the circumstances you wish to curtail against the reported whole

I suggest that the most efficacious response to any situation is to address the greatest causal factors, rather than the most emotional.  

I also suggest that responses such as yours are based on an emotional response to the real and rational horror that one person could i.flict so.much pain, in opposition to the understanding that those instances are less impactful than the problem considered in its whole. 

Less impactful? Look, you’re usually a Pollyanna, wishing for kumbahya and all that bullshit, but this is beyond the pale. I visited my kids middle school for a concert last week. Do you know what’s new? They enclosed the campus in a cage. Rightly so by the way. So kids all across America get lessor educational outcomes as we have to put them in cages during the day in the hope that it keeps out the(well fucking armed) bag guy. In case level 1 security, denial, doesn’t work, we have auto-locks on all the doors and run regular active-shooter drills.

and there is no impact? You are one Pollyanna’ish dumb MFer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Every state in the country changed its DUI/DWI laws in the 80s.  You can't remember 'cause your brain has rotted away

Were cars and booze outlawed in the 80s?  Yes or no?  I never once said there were not changes to the laws and better enforcement of existing ones.

I think you need to look in the mirror to see the rotted brain.  RIF-MF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You're correct that "alcohol wasn't outlawed, cars weren't outlawed, DUI was already illegal" but there were a bunch of new laws passed all the same, mostly at the state level.

Who the fuck is arguing otherwise???  The point was that DUI was not reduced via prohibition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I agree with you about the social awareness, but one advantage MADD has over gungrabbers is that there is pretty much NOBODY pushing drunk driving as a lifestyle, as a fundamental freedom GODDAMMIT!!!, or as even something that many people even admit they do.

Similarly there is pretty much NOBODY pushing killing people with guns as a lifestyle, as a fundamental freedom GODDAMMIT!!!, or as even something that many people even admit they do.  

As with responsible drinking, we are saying that people can and should be able to responsibly own and use firearms for legal and safe purposes. 

And we further have zero fucking issue with better enforcement of existing laws that says thou shalt not kill the motherfucker with a gun.   And tweaks of those laws that make enforcement better (just like with DUI) without taking away the ability for responsible folks to own and enjoy gunz are perfectly fine.  What we gun nutterz object to is the mindset that prohibition is the only answer.  Had prohibition been used against booze in the 70s and 80s, you would have had hundreds of millions of people up in arms over that and blatantly violating the law in response.  It's a shame we don't have an historical example of something like that ever happening.  Or do we?

You DO get that, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

The change was political. MADD pressured politicians to introduce new laws.

The majority of people do not change their behaviour because they get asked to. Look at guns, smoking and obesity as examples. They change their behaviour because they get forced to.

Who here is disputing that???  

But aside from the enforcement of the DUI laws, one of the largest drivers of the change in attitudes was the social stigma.  Social attitudes towards DUI changed as well as stricter laws. 

I can't prove it, but I do not think stricter laws alone would have brought about the change if the social attitudes towards DUI hadn't also changed.  There is a massive difference between someone grudgingly following the law because they have to when someone is watching, to actively self-policing and looking down on and shaming friends and family into not driving drunk.  There was a massive education campaign and awareness that was not solely gov't driven.  Beer companies were running ads during the superbowl to "drink responsibly".  And so on.  There was a fundamental shift in attitudes that DUI was NOT OK.  Compare that with 1920s era prohibition were no one bought into it.  It was a purely enforcement driven concept.  Keep doing that with toolz and you'll get the same result as they did in the 20s.  

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Sometimes your posts expose you as a totally ignorant buffoon whose ignorance and selfishness is boundless.

I really do not care what motivates you to avoid caring about others but your pride about your selfishness is difficult to observe without commenting.

I did not suggest you either caused those people to eat ignorantly and foolishly or had any obligation to attempt to stop them.

The simple truth is, it takes some knowledge and effort for a person to maintain a healthy body.  My guess is the people in the photos lack not just that necessary knowledge but, because they do not fully comprehend the potential results for failing to properly maintain their bodies, lack the motivation to attempt to do so. 
 

in fact, somehow, we have allowed otherwise caring decent people to Be intimidated about trying to help overweight flabby food addicts  because somehow some way we have decided such help is “fat shaming.”

Fat shaming, smokers shaming, non-hand wash shaming, non-seatbelt wearing shaming, no sunscreen shaming, and similar suggestions the masochist is killing a body should be ENCOURAGED!!

restaurants ought to refuse service to overweight fat slobs.

yeah Jeff... they are doing it to themselves. But the least you could do is tell that fat broad in front of you at the checkout that she ought to go out those potato chips back on the shelf. 
 

Gouv, I don't disagree with you that these fat fucks have an eating problem.  But the discussion was about "the poor are going hungry".  No they are not.  They are not eating healthy, mostly by their own choice, but they are not starving.  Quite the contrary.  

That's it, that's all I was trying to say.  The poor, by and large, are NOT starving in the US.  However, given the obesity rates in the US - there is a pretty good % of the poor and well-to-do alike that could do with a little starvation.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Less impactful? Look, you’re usually a Pollyanna, wishing for kumbahya and all that bullshit, but this is beyond the pale. I visited my kids middle school for a concert last week. Do you know what’s new? They enclosed the campus in a cage. Rightly so by the way. So kids all across America get lessor educational outcomes as we have to put them in cages during the day in the hope that it keeps out the(well fucking armed) bag guy. In case level 1 security, denial, doesn’t work, we have auto-locks on all the doors and run regular active-shooter drills.

and there is no impact? You are one Pollyanna’ish dumb MFer.

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else - but weren't you the one calling for hardening schools right after Newtown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lark said:

A coworker reported that when she moved an entire carload was needed to move the firearms and ammo.   If it takes a carload to move your booze some might suggest counseling.    If it’s just guns, you must be a patriot.   Social change would be most welcome if we want to minimize the mass shootings.   

I've known people who are serious about their wine and would need more than one car. None were drunks. Similarly, people with lots of guns I've known are the most knowledgeable and safety-conscious owners.

As perhaps the only person here who actually examines "all these mass shootings" my observation is that social change would indeed be welcome. Specifically, ending the stupid drug war could curb the endless stream of drive-by's that constitute the bulk of mass shootings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:
  1. Eliminate the culture of fear pushed by internet and other cowards who would tell us we are all about to be victims
    1. man up.   Sissies with guns are still sissies.
  2. Regulate rate of fire, so we are not all helpless in the next mass shooting and the one to follow.
    1. if you really need rapid fire to hunt the overpopulated deer, I suggest a car.
    2. if shots per minute matters in home defense, your Swiss cheese home no longer needs defending.
  3. if you are not part of a militia regulated by Congress, as described in the Constitution, your weapons are a privilege, not a right,
    1. crazy people need not apply
    2. The modern military considers rifles a short range weapon, when it’s too late for a drone strike.     
    3. Militia weapons like antiaircraft missiles, antitank weapons and IEDs are already illegal.

I agree on point 1. Even our cops, who go looking for trouble, mostly retire without having to shoot at anyone. I think the chances I'll ever have to shoot at anyone are remote. It's true that lots of gun nutters carry all the time, even when bathing, to minimize that already remote risk. I think they're nutz.

On 2, ending the stupid drug war would curb the mass shootings that frighten you so.

On 3, "the people" means "the people" which is why the Supreme Court has repeatedly heard the 2nd amendment cases involving "the people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites