Ted Nugent on Gun Control

I can't believe I missed this the first time around. Do you really beat your dogs?? :doh:

As probably the biggest dog lover on this site, I have no problem saying I do indeed punish my dogs with smacks on the ass that get progressively worse until they learn. It works, and it worked within a very short time frame. Haven't had to discipline them in many years now since they are about 6 years old.
Weren't you the same person that got on me cause I seem to love animals more than humans? So I have to ask why in the world you'd bring this up like this on a site about gun control? Maybe it has something to do with the fatc that you would quote someone just to cause trouble. I would give you negative rep points both for that post, and this one, but what's the point? You would just delete yours and then attack another and take away ALL of his right Matty? (think I forgot that one did you?)
When you make posts personal, what kind of remarks are you expecting? Or should I say..."yes massta, sorry massta"?
SO why not get back to being a decent poster again, and not abusing your position here. You [i]can[i] provide decent feedback, and I look forward to seeing those around here instead of crap posts like this with the sole intent of causing trouble.

As probably the biggest dog lover on this site, I have no problem saying I do indeed punish my dogs with smacks on the ass that get progressively worse until they learn. It works, and it worked within a very short time frame. Haven't had to discipline them in many years now since they are about 6 years old.
Weren't you the same person that got on me cause I seem to love animals more than humans? So I have to ask why in the world you'd bring this up like this on a site about gun control? Maybe it has something to do with the fatc that you would quote someone just to cause trouble. I would give you negative rep points both for that post, and this one, but what's the point? You would just delete yours and then attack another and take away ALL of his right Matty? (think I forgot that one did you?)
When you make posts personal, what kind of remarks are you expecting? Or should I say..."yes massta, sorry massta"?
SO why not get back to being a decent poster again, and not abusing your position here. You [i]can[i] provide decent feedback, and I look forward to seeing those around here instead of crap posts like this with the sole intent of causing trouble.

I brought it up because you mentioned it earlier in this thread. I didn't just pull this dog beating thing out of the air.

Why are your panties all in a bunch?

I don't even know what you are ranting about.

I brought it up because you mentioned it earlier in this thread. I didn't just pull this dog beating thing out of the air.

I'm sure you were deathly concerned about my dogs :doh:

Why are your panties all in a bunch?

They are not, but I won't sit by and allow you to cause trouble 2 times in 2 days and just take it. How about we just get back to decent discussion?

I don't even know what you are ranting about.

K.

I think there's some question about that, though this is certainly a source with an agenda. The bigger pie is calculated by including debt incurred from military spending, including the supplemental support for the war, and trying to more accurately gauge what is being spent on the war on terror that's buried in other outlays. The smaller pie is the one you refer to, I take it.

We could argue the accuracy of this stuff, no doubt, but if you don't think the gov't is downplaying military spending to some degree, I think you should look more closely.

In any event, my point was more general: if you're against gov't intrusion and taxation, what about military spending? Should there be more or less? Why is it acceptable to a libertarian? My guess is that it's because it's for the common good. But that same reasoning can be used to promote gun control and welfare. The main issue is not whether taxation and government programs are allowed, it's a question of what is in the common interest. There is no blanket prohibition against the government acting in this way, which I take it was JoeRedskin's point.

(And I think a pie hijacking might be appropriate now...)

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/pieFY09.gif
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/FY09_deception.gif
The Federal Pie Chart (http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm)
Yes the cost of Iraq does currently drive up defence spending but that will drop off when the war is over. Take WWII and what that must have done to the budget in its years. I'm talking in general we spend more on other programs than defense. The libertarian party does not believe that all fuctions of the fed gov should be done away with they are more against its ever expanding role in our everyday life. They feel that it sould be left up to the states. One example is health ins. If you could buy health ins by picking you coverages you could save a bunch of money. I don't need addiction coverage, mental health cov. (well my wife may say differently) or aids coverage. I could go on and on but the federal goverment mandates that health ins. co provide these coverages in every policy and it drives the cost way up.

I said right away in that thread yesterday I was wrong for quoting schneed.

http://www.redskinswarpath.com/442045-post19.html

What more do you want? Everyone makes mistakes. I guess you want to keep it going.

I had moved on, I just wanted to talk about your dog beating.

As probably the biggest dog lover on this site, I have no problem saying I do indeed punish my dogs with smacks on the ass that get progressively worse until they learn. It works, and it worked within a very short time frame. Haven't had to discipline them in many years now since they are about 6 years old.
Weren't you the same person that got on me cause I seem to love animals more than humans? So I have to ask why in the world you'd bring this up like this on a site about gun control? Maybe it has something to do with the fatc that you would quote someone just to cause trouble. I would give you negative rep points both for that post, and this one, but what's the point? You would just delete yours and then attack another and take away ALL of his right Matty? (think I forgot that one did you?)
When you make posts personal, what kind of remarks are you expecting? Or should I say..."yes massta, sorry massta"?
SO why not get back to being a decent poster again, and not abusing your position here. You [i]can[i] provide decent feedback, and I look forward to seeing those around here instead of crap posts like this with the sole intent of causing trouble.

LOL

HUH?

I said right away in that thread yesterday I was wrong for quoting schneed.

http://www.redskinswarpath.com/442045-post19.html

What more do you want? Everyone makes mistakes. I guess you want to keep it going.

I had moved on, I just wanted to talk about your dog beating.

Well, it wasn't right away, I had to PM you why, but whatever.

You're right, everyone makes mistakes, and maybe I am just still a little erked at you for such a post, then another today that has personal attack undertones. (whether you think they were there or not, I did) So I will let this go and we can move on from here. Like I said, you can provide decent feedback to threads.
So, if I overreacted, I apologize.

LOL

HUH?

Do you really want me to get into the specifics here, or would you prefer PM?

Go ahead shoot, I don't know what you're talking about.

Go ahead shoot, I don't know what you're talking about.

Alrighty.
Back when we were just starting out these rep points, I had quite a few...high 30's if I recall. I gave you a negative rep, and the next thing I knew, all those points were erased from me. I even PMed you about it. You then put some back. You got very upset at me about the rep points, even though you deserved it, and you erased what I gave you and erased what others gave me due to your anger over the rep points I gave you.
You don't recall that?