You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Piers Morgan losing it again
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Actually, the private sector has record piles of cash sitting idle, and to the public sector the world's money is pouring in to the extent that they are paying us to borrow their money. Throw in productive capacity sitting idle, and unemployment, and it's hard to imagine a time when we've had more resources at our disposal.Quote from Maverick74:
It's not a matter of trying. It's where you put your resources. Kind of like Bush spending all our money and resources in Iraq vs going after Bin Laden eh? Not sure if you realize this Brass, but contrary to what your friends on the left tell you, we have very limited funds and resources in this country. LOL.
Quote from Brass:
Sure, the cause is always a great place to focus, but not at the expense of the effect. It need not be either/or. Cutbacks in fundiing of mental health facilties don't help to root out the "cause" part. As for these outlier events, notice how they always seem to involve automatic-type weaponry? I wonder if there might be a connection between the the speed at which these firearms can be discharged and the amount of carnage that ensues, resulting in such an outlier-type event...
Nah, they could just as easily use explosives. Timothy McVeigh didn't use one. Neither did Ted Kaczynski.
Quote from bigarrow:
It's not an either / or problem. Just like taxing and spending. The right seems to try and simplify everything into black and white arguments. Our problems are more complicated than that. And making guns harder to get for people like Holmes is more gun control.
The problem is not you are not making it harder for him, you are making it harder for US!!!!! If he REALLY wants to get one, he will. I'm not willing to jump through 100 hoops to get one.
Right. So don't bother locking your car. If someone wants to steal it, they're going to do it anyway. In fact, why not just streamline the whole mundane process by leaving your keys inside?Quote from Maverick74:
Nah, they could just as easily use explosives. Timothy McVeigh didn't use one. Neither did Ted Kaczynski.
Quote from Ricter:
Actually, the private sector has record piles of cash sitting idle, and to the public sector the world's money is pouring in to the extent that they are paying us to borrow their money. Throw in productive capacity sitting idle, and unemployment, and it's hard to imagine a time when we've had more resources at our disposal.
It's called debt Ricter. LOL. You do know we have to pay that back right? LOL.
Quote from Brass:
Right. So don't bother locking your car. If someone wants to steal it, they're going to do it anyway. In fact, why not just streamline the whole mundane process by leaving your keys inside?
Actually the authors of the book Freakonomics point out that locking your house door and locking your car door does not reduce the odds of someone breaking in your home or your car. Thieves steal the cars they WANT, not the cars with the doors unlocked. Same with houses.
Well, then, I'm convinced. You know what to do. Leave the car unlocked and the keys inside. And if they're going to do it anyway, why bother with ineffectual legislation as well? It's all about streamlining the process so that people can then get on with their day.Quote from Maverick74:
Actually the authors of the book Freakonomics point out that locking your house door and locking your car door does not reduce the odds of someone breaking in your home or your car. Thieves steal the cars they WANT, not the cars with the doors unlocked. Same with houses.