gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
647536 Posts in 25905 Topics by 3700 Members - Latest Member: BigRed June 17, 2019, 07:57:40 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 83
101  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The \ on: October 26, 2015, 06:14:20 AM
Conservatism. Core themes include exactly what the word itself says: conserving (what is). Respecting traditions, understanding the complexity of society and hesitating to make drastic changes because of the potential for unintended consequences, a belief in hierarchy and authority, and respect for property rights.

Conservatism is doing what is right -- cuz Conservatives believe people know what is right.  Doesn't mean they always do right.  Half the class usually walks out right there...  But it's true.  A lot of people call themselves Conservatives, but they tend to be Politicians.  But it's about doing what is right.  What else could have guided the founders to arrive at the US Constitution but a desire to do right, just as one example of what I mean.  Nothing about the goals of the founders was to do wrong.

Regarding government-systems -- Conservatives feel the debate was already properly had.  See:  Constitution.  The only thing left is to make sure it is applied to everybody -- consistently, all the time.  And that's the battle.  Consistently and all the time.

Power lies with the people. People will decide (eventually) to do the right thing.  And power trickles up from there.  By the time you get to the top of the pyramid... the Feds should only concern themselves with making sure no one usurps this process.  Defend the nation from enemies foreign and domestic.  And an enemy is anybody who is afraid of the process of letting the people decide.

There are exceptions and they are a common morality.

Liberalism. By the early-mid 1800s, this term meant "a commitment to the individual and the desire to construct a society in which people can satisfy their interests and achieve fulfillment." I think everyone here would agree that Western civilization is overwhelmingly--for centuries now--the product of that sort of "classical" liberalism. It is based on individuals' rights to pursue their own interests without government intervention.

Liberals believe they know what is right and they do not give a damn about the process.  Liberals do not listen, and everyone will just have to shut up or get their mind right.  They are not classical liberals... they're classical Progressives.  And there's no progress on the menu.  Progress is only defined as progressing towards their goals and world-view.  And their goals and world-view always seem to have an element of "purity" in them.  Purity (as defined by them) is the theme you'll find if you look deeply enough at what Liberals (actually Progressives) want to achieve.  Give me a Leftist cause -- and I'll show you its Progressive Goal of Purity.

True liberalism -- as in:  freedom and liberty, live-your-life, do-want-you-want-to-do, or creating communities of shared beliefs (utopias) -- that can only be found within what Conservatives believe.  Power is with the people, that's the process.  States decide over the Fed. Counties, then towns, reign over them.  And finally... family units and the individual reign the most supreme in deciding what is right for them.  There can and should be exceptions, but very few, as mentioned.



None of what I wrote is being taught, by the way.  As is often the case, the opposite is taught:  Conservatives are haters and Liberals are lovers.  That's the meme.  You know it and I know it.  But everything I said is true regardless of that meme.  And nothing will change that.

As for political parties, meh.  Don't waste the ink.
102  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Halloween on: October 23, 2015, 09:05:27 AM
Bean Bag,

Yes, I forgot to mention that pumpkin beer makes for a good Halloween. 

I usually extend a little into November to coincide with the Day of the Dead. 

Simpsons Treehouse of Horror is always a treat.  Did you see the non-Treehouse Halloween episode this past Sunday?  Best Simpsons episode in years IMO. 

I didn't see it yet, but I heard about it!  Hopefully it's still saved on my DVR!
103  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Halloween on: October 22, 2015, 07:03:13 PM
On October 31st... I've got anything that can play a DVD/Blu-ray playing some classic old movie.  And about 15 cases of assorted Pumpkin brews chillin.

I officially extended All Hallow's Eve well into November, to get it all in.  The Simpson, which often ran their Treehouse Of Horror episodes after Halloween, started that trend... so I did the same.  Around Thanksgiving time I transition into Christmas -- the music gets jollier, the brews darker and the sweaters gayer.

So for Halloween Movies -- the older the better!  Silents are the most atmospheric to me.  Phantom of the Opera, Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, etc. Then there's Dracula (1931) and Frankenstein.  Plenty of viewings of Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown, and as many Simpson's Treehouse of Horrors as I can stuff in.






104  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Campaign 2016 on: October 21, 2015, 07:21:21 PM
Honestly, I and virtually everyone I know view Trump as an eccentric joke. Like an American Clive Palmer  LOL

You might wanna ax the Republican Party if Donald Trump is an eccentric joke.  (They're still betting on that by the way).  One might expect the Media/Crats to eventually take The Donald more seriously, but as of now.... they're stuck on the Island.

You didn't hear this from me... but as I was topping off Jeb's pitcher, I saw Bern and Hillary checking in!  Complete with Hawaiian shirts, umbrella drinks.  Last I heard they was talking about how there's gonna be free college (or collage, if you're already a college student) for everyone.

105  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Campaign 2016 on: October 21, 2015, 02:24:50 PM
That Democrat "debate" was like a play. A jolly little skip through the park at club Fantasy Island.  Holding hands and acting like they were all angry for my benefit.  Just a bunch of cluess rich boobs, angry at imaginary shadows -- which included other rich people (besides them) the "climate" and the National Rifle Organization.

It was more entertaining than I was expexting. Don't all lives matter? Only one could answer!  LOL LOL
106  Smiley Smile Stuff / 1970's Beach Boys Albums / Re: L.A. (Light Album) on: October 16, 2015, 01:42:40 PM
Ok, spent a little more time with this one... formulated some deep thoughts...

Thanks to a solid production and a big thanks to Dennis Wilson -- L.A. narrowly avoids being a total disaster.  They at least no longer sound like a band someone found passed out on their couch.  With time, this album can grow on you... and it should, because this is pretty much the last Beach Boys album -- at least with Denny and the band giving, if not their "all" -- certainly giving a lot.  And that's the album's secret.  What I love most about it, is what it suggests to me.  All the missed opportunities.  It's sad in a way... as a result.  But there's actually a lot here when you break it down....

The disco number is still a giant, ill-advised buzz-kill though.  Like a toothache, you can't ignore it.  It's such a mood-killer for an album that has kind of a nice mellow and mature yacht-rock thing going on.  I don't have a problem with the band going in this direction at all.  But it's out of place here and not all that well done.  I wouldn't be surprised if some studio intern assembled it while the group was out going... um ... sailing?  However, it's not that easy to dismiss.  The track has a somewhat optimistic vibe to me.  It's lively and "suggests" that the group is trying.  That there would be more to come.  Anyway, knowing that things would soon end... I welcome the optimism.  



Denny's songs continue to surprise with repeated listens -- proving that Dennis Wilson (if anyone was interested) was the one capable of continuing the group's high-standards of contributing brilliant, ground-breaking and unique musical landscapes to a pop music world desperately in need of such ideas.  They're kind of like little self-contained universes.  They're almost impenetrable.  But they do, or can, reveal themselves over time.

At first glance, they don't sound like much.  They're not "catchy" like Brian's work.  They're darker, more compact.  Like dark-matter.  I'm convinced that Dennis had a lot to offer and would have only grown better over time.  Had he continued his work and his ideas, he would have made some marvelous, amazing music.  He of course did do all of those things -- but I feel like it sizzled under the radar of most people.




Carl's songs (Full Sail, Goin' South) work just fine.  I like Full Sail especially.  It might even be my favorite song on the album.  They never did anything like this before or since -- and this well.  I feel like I'm in a old dark seafood restaurant.  Or floating, dreamily on a sunlit bay -- with not a care in the world.  I like everything about what's going on here.  It makes me want an entire, wistful, Beach Boys sailing album.  Songs of the Sea.  Imagine the deep-wounded cover of Surf's Up, but instead... a ship out at sea.  Toss in an updated version of Sail On, Sailor while we're at it (with Brian singing lead).  Anyway... the syrupy strings are divine.  Carl's voice is heavenly.  "Adventure on the high seas!"  Oh yeah.  I want more of this one... mellow, beautiful.


Goin' South is decent, but suffers from cliché -- mainly the noodling 70s sax solo, brooding off in the distance.  And the lyrics, while they capture the mood, just don't sound all that inspired.  But, again, it's a nice sound for the band.  Lose the sax though.  Add vibes or marimba instead.  Or a steel drum -- or all three.  But just not the sax.  No one should be wearing shades, standing on a corner blowing a city-sax.  It makes a nice "getaway song" sound like a dated Michelob commercial.  Buzz killington.  



Good Timin' is a minor gem, appearing only to tease us with a glimpse of what we could be getting if Brian Wilson were focused.  Sadly, there's nothing anywhere else on the album that continues in this vein.  So it feels almost like a disappointment as a result.  And Shortenin' Bread is like a "... meanwhile, back at Brian's shack" wake up call, reminding us of exactly why we're not getting anything else like "Good Timin'" from Brian Wilson.  In a strange way, the these two tracks serve as the proper bookends to this strangely complex album.




An honorable mention goes to Lady Lynda.  It's a really nice track -- and it feels like it could have been more.  Even longer perhaps.  I know Al had a lot of outside help, but it feels like an Al song regardless.  It also fits, musically, with the mellow beauty of the album.  I somehow imagine it could be remixed and arranged to be even better.  Maybe slowed down?  If it's gonna fit on my "Sea Album" than I might change some of the lyrics to make it fit better -- a majestic Sea Shanty about me' Lynda.  Left her back on land.  Old salty dog, I am.  I do love the harpsichord ending.  


Sumahama, should follow Lady Lynda.  And like Lady Lynda, could also be re-worked.  Another ode to a sailor's gal from far away.  So we're doing a California Girls thing -- except with girls from all over the world.  I'd make the chorus richer -- give it more impact.  Bring in more strings and voices -- make the melody float, and kill the background rhythm instruments at that moment.  The end, should actually be a longer middle section, with more Japanese instruments at play:  "Suma.  Hama.  Suma.  Hama."  Kind of a "if you're gonna do the whole Japanese thing, then lets do it... and get lost in it."  Then we can reintroduce the melody courtesy of some sad strings to fade it out.
107  Smiley Smile Stuff / Other Solo Albums / Re: Pacific Ocean Blue (Dennis Wilson) on: October 16, 2015, 09:01:27 AM
Playing this album right now... "Thoughts Of You" ...my goodness.  Cry

Nobody associated with The Beach Boys ever did anything this powerful and hauntingly sad.  The one-two punch of "Thoughts Of You" followed by "Time" is classic.  For me, it not only seals the deal as Dennis' solo album being the best of all the band member's (certainly rivaling the best of brother Brian's solo work) -- but it also rivals some of the very best stuff in the entire Beach Boys canon.  It's so original.

To me it just highlights the massive talents of Dennis Wilson and the Wilson brothers three.  It just starts to scratch the surface of what we lost and never really got to see fully blossom.  Brian was "retired" just as he was beginning to really explore his musical ideas and when he came back, he was broken and beat up.  Carl never really could branch out too much given the responsibilities and "trappings" of keeping the band going.  And Dennis was clearly a different shade of genius like Brian, who was able to give us just a glimpse of his true abilities.  Soak it up.
108  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Fall TV on: October 15, 2015, 09:39:43 AM
I still piss myself at everything Krusty says and does.

"If this is anybody other than Steve Allen, you're stealing my bit."  Krusty The Clown.

109  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Fall TV on: October 15, 2015, 09:36:52 AM
It's fat homer for me!!  Flawless.  The entire episode I know by heart.  "They'll be plenty of time for the frozen pudding wagon later!" C. Montgomery Burns.


110  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Fall TV on: October 15, 2015, 08:29:29 AM
I agree Amanda.  I don't know how people could miss the Simpsons head-first dive into "social commentary."  About as obvious as you could get.  I mean, they weren't even trying to hide behind the pretense of entertainment in many cases.  I saw it as a gross and brazen abuse of people's devotion to the program.  I needed a shower after a few of those episodes!   Cheesy

There was nearly an entire season (16 perhaps?) devoted entirely to nothing but "issues" -- political issues, one after another.  One-sided as I've ever seen.  There were some episodes where the comedy writers clearly weren't even present.  With so much of TV/entertainment being used as a platform for social engineering, I'm used to these sort of shenanigans.  But I do expect to be served SOME laughs in the process.

I agree with Mike's Beard too though -- lately, it's been mindless gags.
111  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Fall TV on: October 14, 2015, 09:48:22 AM
I watched the season premieres of two Sunday mainstays on FOX last night - The Simpsons and Family Guy.  

The Simpsons had its moments, but overall, I thought it was pretty weak.  I hate to jump on that ever growing "Simpsons should be cancelled" bandwagon.  But 27 seasons in, it's hard to keep a show fresh and funny after almost 600 episodes.  

Family Guy had one of its better episodes in a while.  I'd heard rumors that this would be the final season so that Seth McFarlane would concentrate on movies, but thus far, have seen no evidence that this is the case.  

The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park all go back to the 1990s (I know The Simpsons premiered in December 1989, but that was a Xmas special.  It began as a series in January 1990), and while they can still be funny and better than most TV comedy IMO, I think the creators might want to consider moving on.  

The Simpsons has been weak for years now. Don't get me wrong, there are isolated moments of hilarity in every episode but storyline wise the well ran dry a good decade ago. And yet Futurama gets canned again!

Last weeks episode of South Park was one of the funniest things I've seen in ages.

The Simpsons isn't what it used to be.  Over the past decade, it's been good enough to keep my attention.  But, nothing like it was in the past.  

I do like the new season of South Park so far.  

Writing.  All any show needs is good writers.  But... there's a lot of "hangers on" in anything that's successful.  That is, if you create something successful, like the Simpsons, they'll come out of the wood-work and take it over.  Overtime, it'll be used as a vehicle to proselytize an agenda.

I think the reason South Park continues to be awesome is it's a one-man show.  Or two-man show.  They bring in folks to help flesh out ideas etc.  But it's a truly creative endeavor.  It's a truth about creativity, that it's likely a dictatorship.  Most creative people work best alone -- and if they're interested, they'll create forever.

I agree with Bean Bag. I'd add to it that, as something becomes uber-successful, the corporate influence becomes inescapable. (I mean this more broadly than the Simpsons; I mean it in genera.) "The suits" care, because they know where their bread is buttered. There is pressure to add Character X to appeal to Demographic Z. There is pressure to change this or that line because it could offend Sponsor A. No show on television is free of that kind of influence: whatever artistic merits some have, TV shows exist so advertisers can speak to viewers, and the programming is an intermittently dangled carrot. But the more successful, in some cases the worse off the artistic side is. Conversely, a strong creator of a popular show also may have the muscle to push back. So it's not an every-case kind of thing.

You should have stopped with "I agree with Bean Bag."  It has a nice ring to it!   Razz

There's no question that advertisers are having to themselves get creative with how they reach eyeballs -- but I'm not sure to what degree corporate interests affect the quality of content all that much.  Then again... I don't watch much TV.  I know, for example, I can't watch anything with a lot of commercials.  So, you could be right.

I was referring more to "social engineering" disguised as entertainment.  A thinly veiled morality play, to create a perception of public of opinion.  Nothing new.  Anything that reaches eyeballs will attract these types -- who cannot otherwise interest people.  But their inflated ambitions eventually tip the ratio away from entertainment and more towards "preachy."  In the case of the Simpsons, it destroyed it.  Eventually, talent realizes it doesn't need to be there.  TV, films -- you name it.  The NFL is next.
112  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: The Weirdest Photos Of Mike Love You Can Find on: October 13, 2015, 07:30:13 PM


I'm bustin' off beats, unda'neath the sheets!
Stamos:  Yeah... go Mike.

Mike:  Uh.  Uh. 
113  Smiley Smile Stuff / 1980's Beach Boys Albums / Re: The Beach Boys on: October 13, 2015, 10:58:12 AM


Been playing this album a lot, courtesy of the new Hi-Res download.  So many conflicting emotions/opinions for me.  On one hand, its a DREADFULLY engineered/recorded album.  Digital HORROR.  The background vocals especially, sound trapped in a low 8-bit prison.  It's scary.  Really scary to me.  The enhanced resolution SCARES me.

On the other hand, it's well put together.  The arrangements and all the rest sound well constructed.  It sounds like the most competent album they've put out since, geesh -- Pet Sounds and Sunflower?  By competent, I mean thought out and coherent.  But with that "competence" you get a lot of ...um (what's the opposite of "interesting?")


I gotta say, the new hi-res Download DESTROYS the 2000 CD.  And again with conflicting results.  The better mastering and higher resolution reveals all the ghoulish technology of the recording.  Yet, it also allows the sound to breathe (as if synthetic machines can actually breathe).  I am hearing this album in a whole new way -- and it's a bizarre trip.  It's spooky to me.  Like Michael Jackson Thriller spooky.



As for the tracks -- yet again, I find myself all over the map.  Loving a song one time, the next time finding it odd.  The songs I consistently love are Getcha Back, Maybe I Don't Know, I'm So Lonely and Male Ego.  Those are classic Beach Boy/Brian Wilson tracks that would fill out any favorites collection for me.

I don't find myself hating anything.  Much of the album, initially made me winch, yes -- hell yes.  But now, after all these years (and in much better hi-res sound) I'm enjoying everything from the clumsy California Calling, the Culture Club ambiguity of Passing Friend, to the Stevie Wonder blind-siding of I Do Love You.  I don't hate any of them.  They're extremely well executed and beautifully sung.  Carl Wilson, I'm looking at you!!

There's also the drenched-in-the-mid-80s-slime of It's Getting Late.  The odd and increasingly addictive Crack Of Your Love, I mean Crack AT Your Love.  And the fan-favorite and quite moving Where I Belong (which I like, but don't quite understand the gushing love for by some).  There's also the sappy/nightmarish 80's slow-dance-ballad She Believes In Love Again (which I would never play for anybody I wanted to impress!) and the decent doo-wop It's Just A Matter Of Time that is nice and easily forgettable.  All finely odd and oddly good.



Let's be real.  This is an album only a mother could love.  Or an insane fan (like myself -- and even many of us will want to vomit).  Save for Getcha Back -- which is a minor classic -- this is a stone-cold, awkward album for the Beach Boys.  Which is why I sort of LOVE it.  I do think I'm So Lonely is the gem though.  That's the diamond in the rough.  Listen to the background vocals, as the song fades.  Doo-doo.  Do-Dooooooo.  Gives me chills.



Dooon't knoooow whyyyy weeee love to chase those tasty ladies!!
114  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Fall TV on: October 13, 2015, 09:53:14 AM
I watched the season premieres of two Sunday mainstays on FOX last night - The Simpsons and Family Guy. 

The Simpsons had its moments, but overall, I thought it was pretty weak.  I hate to jump on that ever growing "Simpsons should be cancelled" bandwagon.  But 27 seasons in, it's hard to keep a show fresh and funny after almost 600 episodes. 

Family Guy had one of its better episodes in a while.  I'd heard rumors that this would be the final season so that Seth McFarlane would concentrate on movies, but thus far, have seen no evidence that this is the case. 

The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park all go back to the 1990s (I know The Simpsons premiered in December 1989, but that was a Xmas special.  It began as a series in January 1990), and while they can still be funny and better than most TV comedy IMO, I think the creators might want to consider moving on. 

The Simpsons has been weak for years now. Don't get me wrong, there are isolated moments of hilarity in every episode but storyline wise the well ran dry a good decade ago. And yet Futurama gets canned again!

Last weeks episode of South Park was one of the funniest things I've seen in ages.

The Simpsons isn't what it used to be.  Over the past decade, it's been good enough to keep my attention.  But, nothing like it was in the past. 

I do like the new season of South Park so far. 

Writing.  All any show needs is good writers.  But... there's a lot of "hangers on" in anything that's successful.  That is, if you create something successful, like the Simpsons, they'll come out of the wood-work and take it over.  Overtime, it'll be used as a vehicle to proselytize an agenda.

I think the reason South Park continues to be awesome is it's a one-man show.  Or two-man show.  They bring in folks to help flesh out ideas etc.  But it's a truly creative endeavor.  It's a truth about creativity, that it's likely a dictatorship.  Most creative people work best alone -- and if they're interested, they'll create forever.
115  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Beach Boys Wooden Spoons on: October 12, 2015, 10:02:35 AM
 LOL
116  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Thoughts on Ricci Martin's Beached? on: October 12, 2015, 10:00:03 AM
Been debating whether or not to get this.  There's a few great-sounding tracks up on YouTube, if anyone's on the fence.

I agree -- Ricci's voice isn't all that memorable.  It's not bad by any means, but it's just not Carl Wilson.  Or Denny.  Really wish it had been the Beach Boys doing the bulk of the vocals, with Ricci "taking lead" here and there.  It's a nice album.  But more Beach Boys would have made it a lost masterpiece.  The songs are nice... and the production is really good -- tight, well mixed, original.  There's definitely that POB swagger to the sound of it.

My Old Radio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpZ9UeNqsyM)
117  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: So it's come to this? on: October 08, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag
118  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: So it's come to this? on: October 08, 2015, 10:32:31 AM
If it were 1930 and the woman (who refused to serve alcohol in the article, based on a religious thing) became a flight attendant, where refusing to serve alcohol wouldn't have been an issue, since it was illegal in 1930 -- only to have a radical, mentally-challenged Supreme Court grant itself the authority to wield a magic wand and legislate from the bench (oh be nice!) then the woman should be granted some sympathy, right?  In my scenario, the poor woman would have had her job redefined by a bunch loons, prancing around in robes, thinking themselves magical wizards from a far away land.

But, in this case, the ding-dong took the job knowing what the job was -- a flying bartender.  So she's a nut.  And in a sane society this nut should be laughed at.  But these days... who knows.  The inmates run the asylum.  And if her case were to ever get to the "geniuses" at SCOTUS -- anything can happen.  They may even make her Speaker Of The House.   LOL
119  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread on: October 06, 2015, 03:06:21 PM
My ideology is better than yours... I'm smarter than you Bean Bag.

In this case, he's right, this president Obama. Because his "ideology" is based on reason, while yours is based on "Baw, dad, I can have guns, Ma's constitution says so!"

 Cheesy my reason is not even debatable!  Those pesky rights!
120  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread on: October 06, 2015, 08:36:38 AM
as the shitweasels and fuckwits of the NRA invariably do when their entirely imaginary "right to bear arms" is even vaguely threatened, bleating "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment" like a flock of lobotomised sheep

Oh, I get it -- you've been under the impression that 2nd Amendment is "imaginary."  Somehow I don't think correcting you is going to fix your opinion!   Cheesy

If people don't believe in the second amendment, they might be better off finding somewhere else to live.  Self defense, and the defense others empower the citizens to fight back, in the event of war, where the "militia" requires eyes, ears and bodies to maintain the freedoms of the country.  Our banking systems, aircraft, and computer systems have all been hacked.  Mass injuries have occurred in the name of revolution.  It is a comfort to know if I want to go and take firearms training to defend myself and others in my family and my home, I can.  The options are there.  

This is not a gender-based argument.  It is an individual rights argument.  The police and law enforcement can't be everywhere. JMHO

Well said.  There's the ultimate respect given to the People -- or With the People -- behind this Amendment.  Understanding our life is our own responsibility.  That's such a fundamental concept behind the notion of this Nation.  (hee-hee, notion of this nation...)  Eh-hmm, I digress...

And while we've be led to give up so many of our rights and responsibilities (usually) at the courtesy of the Democrat Party happy to relieve us of them -- this one is pretty clear.  Written down.  Black n' white.

And, what is so offensive about those bashing us over its existence, is that -- those who realize this concept are somehow the "lobotomized" ones, as Andrew succinctly put it.  The reality is exactly the opposite.
121  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread on: October 06, 2015, 07:05:06 AM

Done!  If we want to "better protect people" -- the solution is easy.  Protect them.  Put a tank at every school.  Or whatever.  Done.  I'd sleep better, wouldn't you?


This idea is something we do hear proposed from time to time (ok, not usually with tanks  Grin ). But let's think about the cost--tax dollars, mind you--of that scenario. I very hasty Internet search--https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84--shows that a few years ago, there were about 135,000+ total schools in the USA (including public, private, and post-secondary institutions). I know of small towns that have no police force whatsoever because they haven't got the money, and I'm sure this is replicated in rural areas around the nation. So even hiring one full-time security guard--forget about any robust security program or force--would be prohibitively expensive. Of course, larger districts would require far bigger security forces. The poorest (urban) schools have the least ability to pay for such forces, and a big chunk of public school funding as I understand it usually comes from local property taxes. So the resulting funding would be inverse of the most likely need, with wealthy suburban districts well prepared for the very occasional school shooter, while the urban schools would be underfunded for the rampant gang violence (not to mention the very occasional school shooter). Rural districts would be similarly underfunded, if statistically less likely to have the problem (there being less kids and fewer gangs).

That's one challenge I have on that: who pays? It seems that the conservatives most typically behind a lack of gun controlling legislation are also low-tax types, and this would be expensive.

There's also the question of further arming the state to act against its citizens. Libertarian types would typically be wary of giving yet another opportunity for the state to use deadly force on the population. Of course, after successful acts of terrorism, nobody would question the actions the state would have taken. But here, we'd be talking about a wholly different situation, a situation where almost by definition the state's violence happens before the citizen's violence is carried out. The questions we see around the nation already about police violence would be worse.

Both of these points are made for purposes of discussion, not ideology.

Sure -- there's a cost associated with protecting the schools.  This is the ONE job the government should be doing at all costs:  "protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic."  A good President would set his personal beliefs (ideology) aside and do his job.  Get'er done.

Imagine his approval if he did that.  

Secondly, as a truly wise man said (me  Smiley) -- "the illusion of security is 96.8% of security."  Begs the question -- what illusion does this sign create:  "GUN FREE ZONE."  Maybe Andrew can answer that -- being he's the expert on what is "imaginary."

Lastly -- why are we even debating this?!!  Wall  Please -- can anyone answer that?  After Sandy Hook... It's not a fkcing debate, is it?  Basic responsibility.  It makes me want to PUKE MY BRAINS out, to think we have a US President willing to use little kids as pawns in his war against the US Constitution.



Now, now... that's not true.  My ideology is better than yours... I'm smarter than you Bean Bag.  People's kids may have to get shot, so I can get this 2nd Amendment reversed... it's too important, my beliefs are.  Protecting the schools is not an option. (yeah it is) It's not.  Costs money.  I spent a trillion on nothing, with the stimulus... I can't spend money on this too.  I want to use these incidents to move my agenda... it's effective.  I'm gonna use this.  I. I. I. I.  Me. me. me. me!

It's not You. You. You. You.  I can't be you. you. you you. all the time Beenie baby.  I mean those days are over.  We tried it your way... (no we didn't) it didn't work.  It's me time.  Me. me. me.  I. I. I. I.  Besides, I have to act swiftly without Congress, before people get numb and I can't use this.  People are starting to get numb to this (no they're not!)  And if they get numb to this, how can I use it, understand?  That's my fear, that people get numb to this.  Gotta move.  The time is now.
122  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread on: October 06, 2015, 06:38:30 AM
as the shitweasels and fuckwits of the NRA invariably do when their entirely imaginary "right to bear arms" is even vaguely threatened, bleating "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment" like a flock of lobotomised sheep

Oh, I get it -- you've been under the impression that 2nd Amendment is "imaginary."  Somehow I don't think correcting you is going to fix your opinion!   Cheesy
123  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Lady Lynda: A Masterpiece on: October 06, 2015, 06:15:04 AM
Another vote for the live version. Which reminds me of how well Disney Girls translated to a live setting. And by live, I require it to be outdoors. A song must be able to project out into the sky and stars for it to be truly live.  Grin  Seeing Brian perform Hereos and Villians and Surf's Up live and outdoors was a sublime experience.

The Knebworth 1980 disc, with Lady Linda is great. And the song really shines here. At this point the Beach Boys were a much better live band than they were a studio band. Even if a live recording required a few post production touch-ups in the vocal department, so be it. Live, they sound like they are in full-command of the cohesive missing ingredient absent from their over-produced studio efforts.

Minus the self-consciously strained, stiff and polished studio-sound, songs like Lady Linda take on a new life.  A pretty song, performed with an edge of rawness is interesting. And the expanded bouquet of vocal parts, pounding drums, guitars and bass and cheering fans of this live version, make this a great later-day Beach Boys masterpiece.

Al. Jar. Deeeeeeeeen!
124  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread on: October 05, 2015, 09:29:26 AM
It's a people problem first and foremost. You don't hear of Canadians going off on killing sprees all that often, do you?

You got it.  When somebody gets stabbed, you don't hear anyone trying to ban knives. 

They will eventually.  There's really only two natural human reactions to this -- ban it or beef up security.  Get rid of the problem or fight it.  But we're being denied one.  The quickest and easiest one.  Security.

Shouldn't that alert everyone, to just who you're getting into league with -- when you start entertaining and fantasizing their wholly unreasonable desire to "control it better."  At some point, shouldn't people begin to feel like they're being used?  Yes... probably to move the ball in the direction of banning.  But... isn't that's creepy?  Because that means they're fine with you getting killed (if need be) to move the ball in their direction.

Just me I suppose.  But I wouldn't feel good about myself by passing another law and watching politicians pat themselves on the back.  I don't get the whole acting, posturing and performing in play thing.  Not when we're supposed to be addressing reality.  That's NBC TV fantasy.
125  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread on: October 05, 2015, 08:59:39 AM
I think it would be more interesting to know how many NON-gun owners joined the militia.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 83
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.271 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!