blacktalon606

Bud Light Ice is my favorite. It's 5% alcohol and the cleanest beer I have ever seen. Yum.

Guy at side of road stomping toddler to death. Several motorists stop and call 911. But NO-ON DOES A FUCKING THING TILL THE COPS GET THERE MINUTES LATER! The child ends up dying at hospital after cops shoot the guy.

Because people are taught from a young age to avoid confrontations.

Because men have been imasculated to the point that, when it's time to act, they don't know what to do.

Because people are afraid if they do something, even something justified they may get sued.

Simply put... people are fucking pussys. With the current crop we have, we would have died out in the great depresion, we would have lost WWI and WWII and probably would have even let Russia win the cold war.

The worst part is... it's going to get worse.

I own all 3 and Tokyo Drift sucked! They want to ignore that one and continue with 1,2 and now this new one. Kind of like they did with the HULK.

Amen to that sir!

I remember the night F&F1 opened. There were hundreds of 16 year old fags in mommy's car trying to drag race when that movie let out. I wouldn't wanna be on a bike that night... but that's just me. The movie will be exactly the same a week later once the hype has died down.

I understood and appreciated the intent. Truly non-biased sources are tough, but the AP, Reuters, UK news, NPR usually do a pretty good job. CNN doesn't do too bad either. I just can't, in good conscience, put too much clout in media that is wholly owned by conservative or liberal foundations, and especially that link you sent which had BillO's name all over it. That guy is the ultimate of all political hacks.

Using the term, "Non bias" and "CNN and AP" in the same sentence is laughable, and truly shows your ignorance. I'm a conservitive... but I can TELL Fox is biased to the right. Why can't you stand back far enough from your liberal leanings to see the blatant leftism shown daily on those news sources? I don't put much coult in any one media source because 3 things in life are certain: Death, Taxes and The media will get it wrong. If you want any kind of a realistic view of the world, you must sift through them all and synthesize a conclusion for yourself rather than just believing what they tell you to. Fortunatly for them... people are lazy and it's much easier to just believe what your told to.

I'll give you the first point. However, I never said that McCain tried to ruin Joe the Plumber, nor was that implied (at least I had no intention of making that implication). I said that his campaign prolonged Joe's 15min. of fame; which is true. Fact: Joe asked a very insightful question about how Obama's proposed tax plan would affect/penalize him if he carries out his plan to purchase his plumbing business.

McCain & Co. compared Joe to the "Average Joe": A hard-working American trying to progress and make a good life for himself and his family; and lauded him to the public as a potential victim of Obama's tax plan, and mentioned him countlessly throughout the campaign trail.

I wasn't saying that McCain tried to ruin him. I'm saying that he helped prolong Joe's presence in the spotlight. My assertion is that it was this time in the spotlight which spawned the scrutiny from the other side (as well as the media).

Almost makes me wonder: What would have happened if Joe asked his question, Obama responded, and that was it? Would he have just remained Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher?

Ok, I misunderstood you. But, I disagree about McCain's keeping him in the spotlight drawing the fire. As I remember it, it was the fact that they tried to burry him that got people talking about him. I know the first time I heard about him on the radio was in response to their use of state resources against him (which is illegal) and if membory serves correctly, they did this almost immediatly after he had the gaul to ask Obama a question he didn't want to hear, while Obama stood on his front law. lol.

Had Obama answered the question, and just kept rolling it would have never been an issue and Joe would still be a plumber rather than running for a rep seat.

I took Economics. It sucked ass

No shit! That and stats were the worst.

I've already proven that welfare is cheaper than prison, can we agree on that? If you REALLY want me to dig up the old thread, I'll find it. But, I think it's logical that we can agree that the costs of supervising people > costs of people supervising themselves and spending money in society (albeit not their own money).

So, that boils it down to whether it's cheaper for welfare or cleaning up dead bodies. That might take some digging (ha, see what I did there?), but you realize there are tons of intangible costs and opportunity costs to cleaning up dead bodies - not to mention health/hygiene issues, which will undoubtedly drive the costs up. And since it's illegal to kill people, we can't setup gas chambers or something much more efficient - we have to let people starve or off themselves (via crime, suicide, etc) on their own. I could keep going, but suffice to say there's a HOST of more corollary issues that all cost money because SOMEONE has to do them to maintain a productive society.

I could probably keep stacking costs until I meet the welfare threshold if that's really what you want. Though it'd be just as easy to ask you to prove that welfare ISN'T the cheapest option? If you can, you should pitch it to the gov't - they don't spend money just because, I'm sure they'll be completely interesting in any cost-savings ideas you have because that means more money for tanks and bombs and A10s.

As much as we hate on policies, the majority of them aren't enacted without SOME thought (at least at the Federal level), usually by people much better versed on the topic than any of us. We can question them, we can suggest modifications once they because outdated to the society, but I don't think welfare falls into that yet.

You sir, have never proven shit. You give us platitudes and feelings, but facts are something you always lack. You ask for citations but give only shit yourself. You should really take an economics class.

While I could easily stand behind this train of thought, practicality and economics dictate that this couldn't happen. Sorry, but economics will trump almost everything; including personal responsibility.

@ V4junkie.

Citation needed... (that's not your wikipedia article)

Economics have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Let them starve - we'll have to pay people to pickup the bodies

Sterilize them - we'll have to pay people to perform the operation

Put them on welfare - we pay for that

Those that don't want to starve, it'll be survival of the fittest, they'll steal for it - we'll pay for that (prison and insurance)

Shoot them dead for stealing - See #1

I've went ahead and bolded the cheapest option for you.

Picking up the body- $15 an hour to pay some dude to pick up the body, once.

Sterilizing them- $2500, once.

Thieves- Shoot them with your .45. $0.50 + $15 an hour = $15.50

Putting them on welfare- $17k per year X 40 years X 8 kids + $5500 per year per kid medical = $7,880,000 per family... but these people multiply exponentially. Yeah... that's a lot cheaper...

While I could easily stand behind this train of thought, practicality and economics dictate that this couldn't happen. Sorry, but economics will trump almost everything; including personal responsibility.

@ V4junkie.

But if the irresponsible people all refust to work, and we LET THEM STARVE TO DEATH... there won't be anymore irresponsible people. Then, the money they used to get, could be rolled back into programs with a positive return... which would help economics!!

Close' date=' but I'd rather see no more welfare for welfare recipients. Also, while they are drug testing I'd like to see the females implanted with an IUD. I know that may sound heartless to most people but if you can't afford to feed yourself what makes you think you can feed, clothe, and care for a child?[/quote']

Sir, I love you. Lol.

I agree, but at least it's the first step in the right direction for a bass akwards system. In my opinion, there is no person in this country who deseves a FREE ride. Everyone can do something. Why can't a mother with 19 kids answer calls from a remote terminal or file papers at home? The government pays people to do that stuff... but they are already paying these ass hats and getting nothing for it.

i got it......its from the election trail.

here's your citation....

no, but really.....Try This.

Excellent link. I was going to mention that lady as well, but I couldn't remember her name. You rock.

If you have a job, your subject to random drug tests.... but if you sit on your ass and collect a check you can smoke all the crack you want. It's about time someone did something about that!

"Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse." We will have a rash of stoners starving to death. Now that would be funny right there...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/states_welfare_with_strings

States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said. They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

Could be my own naivite, but I'm having a hard time seeing how a government official inquiring about a person's tax records is an illegal procedure (less of course, there was some sort of foul play, bribery, strongarming, etc. afoot).

As far as it coming out that he didn't have a license, that came out by interviewing a leader of the plumber's union.

If I were running for office, and my opponent was able to successfully turn an ordinary individual into an instrumental component in his debates against me, I'd probably want to know everything that I could about that individual as well.

In my honest opinion, it wasn't Obama that tried to kill his business... I wouldn't even say that it was McCain (even though it was his campaign that prolonged Joe's 15min. of fame)... At the end of the day, the media was paramount in making Joe a household name, and poor Joe didn't have his house in order.

However, the initial thread was about Pres. Obama staring down a reporter, prior to giving his response (which was heavily lauded as cold and unfriendly)... The man has publicly made a few mistakes recently, however I'm not quite ready to assemble an impeachment committe;)

Actually, it's illegal for any person who doesn't have specific business with your taxes to look them up. A couple years ago, an IRS agent was fired and then arrested for simply LOOKING at the tax numbers of the celebrities without authorization. Prez may be commander and chief, but he is not above the law, and he has no business looking at my taxes. Ever.

You can know anything you want about your opponent, that is legally obtainable. Tax info isn't unless they release it.

Hahaha... you think McCain tried to ruin Joe the Plumber? HAHAHAHAHAHA that's rich. Well, a member of Obama's election campain was arrested for it... but I guess it was actually a McCain supporter in descise embedded within the enemy camp. Nice conspiricy theory. I like it! It makes me smile.

Nope, no impeachment is necessary yet. It's all in good fun.

Citations necessary all around.

When you start using citations, I'll consider using citations. Until that point, blow your citations out your ass.

Oh, and PS: Wikipedia doesn't count for a citation. Ever.

Derka Derka Allah.

I don't think that anyone tried to "kill" his business. If I remember correctly, it came out that he didn't have a license, and didn't pay his taxes... That is unless I got my information messed up somehow.

Which they found out by ILLEGALLY using State resources. (What ever happened to that criminal case?) An Election campain attacked a private citizen and did their best to destroy him.

Got'cha. It's towards him for asking that question.

Joe the plumber asked Obama a question he didn't like, and they tried to "kill" his business. Just imagine what will happen now that he has been elected and controls the goons in black masks.

The title is soooo harsh, and has nothing to do with the info inside it. What'chu talking about Willis?

The title has great relevence to that reporter.

Ed Henry of CNN asked the President why he didn't spew outrage as soon as he learned about the AIG bonuses. Why, Mr. Henry asked, did the president wait several days before speaking out? The president, with an icy stare, responded that he "likes to know what he's talking about" before he speaks. It was a pretty testy exchange that brought about nervous laughter from the other reporters and snarky responses from Twitterers. Boom! Next question.

You don't ask Obama questions he doesn't want to hear dumb ass! Hope it was worth it...

ya I guess it would be a lot cheaper to just get my stupid permit again and try to get into a class

I'm sure in a few tries I can make it in .... showing up at 6pm on Friday nights is pretty sucky tho

Why take a freaking class? Just practice. Find yourself a large parking lot and practice doing U turns within the lines of two parking spaces. Get good at that and you will be fine.

A computer backpack of course.

why would anyone do this? http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/460946/

Lol. That is only taking into acount Right Wing Conservitive nutjobs. What about the muslims? What about the ELF and ALF weirdos who kill people to save the animals? Come on... there are lots more terrorists out there than that... lets be fair.