America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by HuckFinn. 139 replies replies.
3 Pages<123
Laura Ingraham Getting Axed by the Fake Kids?
RMAN4443 Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
without bullets guns are nothing..........without gunpowder bullets are useless......without fingers triggers don't work........without people there are no fingers......maybe we should ban people?
frankj1 Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
Huck,
We weren't talking about how to make kids safe.
We were discussing the overreaction to Ingraham's criticism of Hogg.
That is entirely political, unless you think people should lose their income just for being critical of a public victim.

It's easy to get sidetracked.
Mmmm. Beer.



I may have read in these very forums that the right to free speech, even unpopular speech, is protected...but the speaker must expect unwanted reprisal...or words to that effect.
frankj1 Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
RMAN4443 wrote:
without bullets guns are nothing..........without gunpowder bullets are useless......without fingers triggers don't work........without people there are no fingers......maybe we should ban people?

fingers, maybe.

and toes, just in case
Cathcam13 Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 01-11-2018
Posts: 1,264
I have a better idea, How about we remove warnings from everything and see who is still alive in 10 years. And the masses will purge themselves.
teedubbya Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Employers have rights too. If they want to can her for saying or doing something they feel is damaging to their brand, or for any other reason they can. Free market, no government involved.
tailgater Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
I may have read in these very forums that the right to free speech, even unpopular speech, is protected...but the speaker must expect unwanted reprisal...or words to that effect.


I asked if the kid was right to attack her income.
Huck said YES. Because he was shot at.

It's not about what Ingraham said. She was stupid to say anything. It's "too soon".
It's not about the kids RIGHT to lash out at her for her mild criticism of him. We know he has the "right".
I'm questioning if he should have done it.
And when will time allow us to be openly critical of him.


We're not even talking about this if her sponsors pulled out on their own.

The kid is a whiny punk.
Not because he commented on college acceptances.
Because he is intolerant of mild criticism and thinks it's worthy of destroying a person's income.

But we continue to learn one thing:
Intolerance is not only endured, but embraced by the left when it fits their cause.

And Hogg now has a get-out-of-jail card.
For life.




frankj1 Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
I asked if the kid was right to attack her income.
Huck said YES. Because he was shot at.

It's not about what Ingraham said. She was stupid to say anything. It's "too soon".
It's not about the kids RIGHT to lash out at her for her mild criticism of him. We know he has the "right".
I'm questioning if he should have done it.
And when will time allow us to be openly critical of him.


We're not even talking about this if her sponsors pulled out on their own.

The kid is a whiny punk.
Not because he commented on college acceptances.
Because he is intolerant of mild criticism and thinks it's worthy of destroying a person's income.

But we continue to learn one thing:
Intolerance is not only endured, but embraced by the left when it fits their cause.

And Hogg now has a get-out-of-jail card.
For life.





lot of extras in there.
she had the right, exercised it, and there was back lash. The adjectives and political leanings cloud the ABC's.
teedubbya Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
My take on her comments have nothing to do with timing. She attacked an individual, not their ideas or what they are saying. She went after him personally.

I don’t like the kid and two wrongs blah blah blah.

She was using her audience to denigrate him as an individual. He responded by saying tell her sponsors how you feel about this. This being the personal attack about his college admittance etc.

Personally I’d be ok with pro gun stance and the argument. Many of her sponsors may be too. Attacking a kid who survived a school shooting’s college admittance or lack of is the issue to men I don’t care if she gets canned for it. It was low brow and slimy. So is trying to say he wasn’t there.

I completely disagree with his ideas and will argue agains them. When did we get so comfortable with attacking the individual?

Cathcam13 Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 01-11-2018
Posts: 1,264
Adjectives always cloud things.
teedubbya Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The left the left the left. Personal responsibility. She effed up, and is facing some consequences.
Cathcam13 Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 01-11-2018
Posts: 1,264
Consequences are for those who speak without thinking things through.
RMAN4443 Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Cathcam13 wrote:
Adjectives always cloud things.

Here's my keys, could you go get my car for me? Oh, sorry....it's the red and green one near the front door....
adjectives made that task not quite as cloudy as it could beAnxious
Cathcam13 Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 01-11-2018
Posts: 1,264
Lmao now try to diagram that sentence. Cloudy as .....
Phil222 Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
Who's at fault? The kid? Ingraham? People who complained to the sponsors? Sponsors for pulling out? Fox News for having no backbone? There is no correct answer, but I find it interesting that some would choose the kid when there is plenty of fault to go around...
Speyside Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
LMAO! Does anyone here actually think school shootings are a leftist conspiracy?
teedubbya Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Personally Emma Gonzalez is the one that I take most issue with. She is so aggressive and in your face .... almost militant. Even so if I was a public figure and denigrated her college admission or lack of I’d be wrong and deserve the consequences.

I’m sure Laura Ingraham agrees given the number of times she has preached personal responsibility.
victor809 Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Personal responsibility for ones words and actions only applies to groups I disagree with and will say inflammatory things about!
Abrignac Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Live by the sword die by the sword.


Ingram or whatever her name has made a comfortable career of being polarizing. Kinda like Farrakhan and the other extremists. Same as living in a straw mansion. One strong wind and everything gets blown away.
HuckFinn Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Abrignac wrote:
What is your plan then to stop school shootings?

School shootings seem like a the-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its- parts kind of phenomenon. 

Some parts & solutions as I see it:


Digital age bullying is like a curse for kids. After being mocked ad nauseum on Twitter, Facebook or Youtube some kids crack. They kill themselves or other students. Their ill, adolescent minds figure life is over anyway, so..
Maybe the above mentioned media companies can help?


News/Media attention: socially isolated kids idolize guys like Harris and Klebold from Columbine. They're martyrs to these mentally ill kids. 

I'd restrict coverage of shootings, don't let it become a circus with the hope that it takes some of the glory out of it. Publicity passes for esteem to sick minds.


Psychological intervention: school shrinks have to more proactive. Its a known thing that people with serious mental issues really relish an opportunity to sit across from a socially accepted authority figure, especially a shrink.

 Teachers need to get mental health training. We always hear that there were signs, but only after the fact, that a kid was becoming homicidal: poems, posts, drawings, statements to friends etc. Low achievement, chronic absence, disruptive behavior, social isolation, sleeping in class, and rapid weight gain or loss are symptoms students, teachers, and guidance counselors should be on the lookout for. Wearing long sleeved shirts and sweaters in warmer weather may also be meant to hide self mutilation or rapid weight loss.

Tighter oversight and followup needs exploring. Weapon training for teachers might be a good idea, not sure. 


There are a chit ton of reasons for school shootings. We can't be in some kid's home to see that some dad is a prick and abuses his family. 

Some shootings were gang related. What  approach would need to be taken there? Some had to do with love triangles. 



Lot of members here make the valid point that when "we" were growing up these things didn't happen. There were guns. There were bullies etc.


 So what's changed? A lot. 


We've, as a society, become blatantly enamored with violence.

It's entertainment. 

It's only natural that our kids inherited that. And took it to the next level.


Short question, very long answer.
HuckFinn Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
tailgater wrote:
I asked if the kid was right to attack her income.
Huck said YES. Because he was shot at.






Huh? I never said that! You've connected two separate statements! Fake news dude!

He had the right to go after her just as she had the right to go after him!

You got a banana in your ear?
RMAN4443 Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
HuckFinn wrote:
School shootings seem like a the-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its- parts kind of phenomenon. 

Some parts & solutions as I see it:


Digital age bullying is like a curse for kids. After being mocked ad nauseum on Twitter, Facebook or Youtube some kids crack. They kill themselves or other students. Their ill, adolescent minds figure life is over anyway, so..



Media attention: socially isolated kids idolize guys like Harris and Klebold from the Columbine. They're martyrs to these mentally ill kids. 

I'd restrict coverage of shootings, don't let it become a circus with the hope that it takes some of the glory out of it. Publicity passes for esteem to sick minds.


Psychological intervention: school shrinks have to more proactive. Its a known thing that people with serious mental issues really relish an opportunity to sit across from a socially accepted authority figure, especially a shrink.

 Teachers need to get mental health training. We always hear that there were signs, but only after the fact, that a kid was becoming homicidal: poems, posts, drawings, statements to friends etc. Low achievement, chronic absence, disruptive behavior, social isolation, sleeping in class, and rapid weight gain or loss are symptoms students, teachers, and guidance counselors should be on the lookout for. Wearing long sleeved shirts and sweaters in warmer weather may also be meant to hide self mutilation or rapid weight loss.

Tighter oversight and followup needs exploring. Weapon training for teachers might be a good idea, not sure. 


There are a chit ton of reasons for school shootings. We can't be in some kid's home to see that some dad is a prick and abuses his family. 

Some shootings were gang related. What  approach would need to be taken there? Some had to do with love triangles. 



Lot of members here make the valid point that when "we" were growing up these things didn't happen. There were guns. There were bullies etc.


 So what's changed? A lot. 


We've, as a society, become blatantly enamored with violence.

It's entertainment. 

It's only natural that our kids inherited that. And took it to the next level.


Short question, very long answer. 



I agree with the media coverage and the school psychology aspects, but shouldn't the rest of this be attended to by the parent/parents.......part of it as I see it is the pampered children syndrome....
When (I)we were kids, not everyone got a ribbon for participating.....you wanted a trophy or a ribbon, you worked harder and earned one......you didn't get one for just showing up
When (I)we were kids and we did wrong,or were bad, our parents let us know about it.....or at least my dad did....and I don't feel a smack on the azz is child abuse, I personally appreciate the fact that I was taught right from wrong....most kids now suffer no repurcussions for their wrong doings......I see it in my grandkids too.....they get reprimanded and told they are being punished, but it's forgotten in ten minutes
Kids today are spoiled, they get what they want, when thay want it, and watch out if they don't......think back to your childhoods.....how many of your parents would have paaid for a cellphone for you and your siblings, or bought $40 jeans because they were cool, when the $10 jeans on the shelf right next to them worked perfectly?
How many of you had to mow the lawn or rake the leafs, or take out the trash for your allowance? Most kids today don't even have to earn an allowance. They want an $800 I-Phone they get it, they want a $400 game system they get it, they want a $50 video game they get it, they want a tv in their bedroom they get it.
I think before we start stripping away Constitutional rights from citizens that maybe parents should start parenting their kids
Or maybe once children reach breeding age they should be given Psychological tests to see if they are capable of raising healthy productive children in our society and if not sterilize them to keep them from breeding?........makes as much sense as banning guns(this is meant to be sarcasm)Think
frankj1 Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
HuckFinn wrote:
Huh?

You got a banana in your ear?

he's just happy to see you
RMAN4443 Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
frankj1 wrote:
he's just happy to see you

Laugh
frankj1 Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
aural sex?
HuckFinn Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
RMANN
I don't think it's parents screwing up the way you do. When we were growing up our dads worked and mom was at home. For most of us anyway. A lot changed when both parents had to work.
Did we baby our kids? I didn't. My son doesn't with his. But I agree, lots of kids are spoiled and underappreviative and overly protected etc.
But these aren't the shooters. Shooters are lone wolves the way I see it, with zero supervision. They're not your typical whiney brat.

These average kids, these slightly damaged goods will probably grow up and rebel against how they were brought up. And be strict parents. Isn't that how it usually works?
I sometimes think people at core, don't change from generation to generation. The world changes, technology evolves, things change so fast and so much that people's character are changed in the process.
Reading the last sentence back it hardly makes sense to me...

I mean we adapt to our environment and that forms our overt character, but doesn't change our basic "humanness"

What are we talking about again?
HuckFinn Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
It's that old joke. Guy looking at his friend with a banana in his ear:

Dude, you have a banana in your ear.

Huh?

I said, dude! You have a banana in your ear?

WHAT?

DUDE! YOU HAVE A BANANA IN YOUR EAR!!

Sorry, I can't hear you. I have a banana in my ear.
Abrignac Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
HuckFinn wrote:
School shootings seem like a the-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its- parts kind of phenomenon. 

Some parts & solutions as I see it:


Digital age bullying is like a curse for kids. After being mocked ad nauseum on Twitter, Facebook or Youtube some kids crack. They kill themselves or other students. Their ill, adolescent minds figure life is over anyway, so..
Maybe the above mentioned media companies can help?


News/Media attention: socially isolated kids idolize guys like Harris and Klebold from Columbine. They're martyrs to these mentally ill kids. 

I'd restrict coverage of shootings, don't let it become a circus with the hope that it takes some of the glory out of it. Publicity passes for esteem to sick minds.


Psychological intervention: school shrinks have to more proactive. Its a known thing that people with serious mental issues really relish an opportunity to sit across from a socially accepted authority figure, especially a shrink.

 Teachers need to get mental health training. We always hear that there were signs, but only after the fact, that a kid was becoming homicidal: poems, posts, drawings, statements to friends etc. Low achievement, chronic absence, disruptive behavior, social isolation, sleeping in class, and rapid weight gain or loss are symptoms students, teachers, and guidance counselors should be on the lookout for. Wearing long sleeved shirts and sweaters in warmer weather may also be meant to hide self mutilation or rapid weight loss.

Tighter oversight and followup needs exploring. Weapon training for teachers might be a good idea, not sure. 


There are a chit ton of reasons for school shootings. We can't be in some kid's home to see that some dad is a prick and abuses his family. 

Some shootings were gang related. What  approach would need to be taken there? Some had to do with love triangles. 



Lot of members here make the valid point that when "we" were growing up these things didn't happen. There were guns. There were bullies etc.


 So what's changed? A lot. 


We've, as a society, become blatantly enamored with violence.

It's entertainment. 

It's only natural that our kids inherited that. And took it to the next level


Short question, very long answer.


In other posts you have made no secret that you support banning certain weapons and accessories, yet that is conspicuously missing from this post. Wonder why?
HuckFinn Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
RMAN4443 wrote:
Here's my keys, could you go get my car for me? Oh, sorry....it's the red and green one near the front door....
adjectives made that task not quite as cloudy as it could beAnxious

You have a freaking red and green car????

*shivers*
HuckFinn Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Abrignac wrote:
In other posts you have made no secret that you support banning certain weapons and accessories, yet that is conspicuously missing from this post. Wonder why?

4 reasons
1. You already knew that

2. The post was getting stupid long.

3. I forgot, because I'm old

4. I forgot, because I'm old.


For the record there are more causes and solutions i didn't go in to.
Honestly felt I'd overstayed my welcome.

Pretty ungrateful btw.
tailgater Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HuckFinn wrote:
Huh? I never said that! You've connected two separate statements! Fake news dude!

He had the right to go after her just as she had the right to go after him!

You got a banana in your ear?


You're right. I did connect two statements, although they're not at all separate.

What you DID say was that it will never be OK to criticize the kid.
Because he was shot at.

Here.
You said it better:

"How long do we wait TG before we can be critical of a soldier with PTSD.
Freakin' kid was shot at!"


Too soon.
It's my kryptonite in the boudoir.
And Laura Ingraham's only crime.

Because it's difficult to disagree with WHAT she said.
Only when.



tailgater Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HuckFinn wrote:
You have a freaking red and green car????

*shivers*


Huh.
He told me it was green and red.


HuckFinn Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
tailgater wrote:
You're right. I did connect two statements, although they're not at all separate.

What you DID say was that it will never be OK to criticize the kid.
Because he was shot at.

Here.
You said it better:
Freakin' kid was shot at!"


Too soon.
It's my kryptonite in the boudoir.
And Laura Ingraham's only crime.

Because it's difficult to disagree with WHAT she said.
Only when.





"How long before we can be critical of a soldier with PTSD." Is an actual measure of time.
Lacking empathy, I wouldn't expect you to know that.
There are authentic counterfeit fine watches with that written on them. In dark red.
I think it's 2:30, 1 year later.

Oh. Right. She's an idiot. Too soon?

teedubbya Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Why is it difficult to disagree with what she said? His college status is petty and irrelevant. I disagree with what she said. Too soon = ever.
HuckFinn Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
I did mention guns.
Abrignac Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
HuckFinn wrote:
I did mention guns.


So what guns do you want to see banned and why?
tailgater Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
Why is it difficult to disagree with what she said? His college status is petty and irrelevant. I disagree with what she said. Too soon = ever.


It is indeed irrelevant.
But that doesn't make it any less factual.

HuckFinn Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Abrignac wrote:
So what guns do you want to see banned and why?

Feel like it's my turn to ask questions.
Do guns have nothing to do with the shootings?
Is easy access to guns a non-issue?
tailgater Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HuckFinn wrote:
Feel like it's my turn to ask questions.
Do guns have nothing to do with the shootings?
Is easy access to guns a non-issue?


I'm glad to see that it's not only my questions that you answer with a question.

You'd be good at Jeopardy.








HuckFinn Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
tailgater wrote:
I'm glad to see that it's not only my questions that you answer with a question.

You'd be good at Jeopardy.









What is thank you?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123